Is “qualitative experience” (i.e., qualia) different to you than observing, identifying, and acting (or are they the same)? — Bob Ross

They are slightly different. Qualitative experience is the subjective act of observing and identifying. You can act as well, its just not required to subjectively be conscious. Think about someone in a coma that was unresponsive, but later comes out of it and is able to repeat conversations they heard while unresponsive. They were conscious, just unable to act.

Observing identifying and acting are objective measures of consciousness that can be known from monitoring a thing. Put a puzzle in front of a person, and they'll observe, attempt to identify, and make an action based on that identity.

Is “awareness” different than “qualitative experience”? Is it the same as observing, identifying, and acting? — Bob Ross

Awareness is a combination of two main factors: Observation and identification. — Philosophim

Qualitative experience would be the experience of observing and identifying from the subject observing and identifying.

Am I correct in saying that, under your view, “objective” and “subjective” consciousness are both referring to qualitative experience? Awareness? Both? — Bob Ross

No, only subjective consciousness refers to qualitative experience. Its not that objective experience denies that subjective consciousness exist, it just knows that it cannot be known and as such cannot be determined by an objective evaluation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are saying that we can objectively know that other beings have qualitative experience and that there is something to be like that subject but we cannot know what it is like to be that subject: is that correct? — Bob Ross

No, we cannot actually know whether other beings qualitatively experience, we can only assume or make an induction that they do. As there is no way to objectively measure or comprehend what another's qualitative experience would be like, its outside of our ability to know. Its like this: Both of our eyes see the wavelength for the color green, but I can never know if what you subjectively experience as green is the same as what I subjectively experience as green.

They can have robotic consciousness.

Are you saying that there is something to be like a robot as a subject (but we just can’t know what that is like) and it has qualitative experience? — Bob Ross

We can assume that there is, but we cannot know that there is. Whether a robot has qualitative experience and what its like is outside of the realm of knowledge.

I don’t hold that a camera + a computerized interpreter (of the images) equates to a conscious being but I do agree that the camera is aware (as an observer) to some limited degree (in order to take in a photo of the environment). I just don’t hold consciousness and observation as the same thing, so can you elaborate on what you mean? — Bob Ross

Something aware can both observe and identify. A camera that receives light through the lens and then prints it onto a photo is a simple observer. It does not identify anything in the picture itself, it just observes and records. An identifier is something which can look at that picture and think, "That part of the picture is a cloud". Consciousness requires both observation and the ability to identify. Observation or the ability to identify alone do not make consciousness.

Is that not the qualitative experience?

No, I do not hold that there is something to be like a camera + computerized interpreter (of those images or what have you). I do not hold that the camera has qualitative experience: all that is occurring is quantitative measurements through-and-through. — Bob Ross

And you can't know that it has qualitative experience, anymore than you can know any other objectively conscious being has qualitative experience. Bob, can you prove that I have qualitative experience? Can you know it for certain? It is just as difficult to prove I have qualitative experience as it is to prove a dog has qualitative experience. Since we cannot, when talking about what we can know objectively, qualitative experience of beings or things other than ourselves is unnecessary.

e.g., the subjectively experienced redness of the truck can’t be accurately quantified, whereas the camera is capturing quantitatively what it thinks is there and displaying it quantitatively via pixels (in hex encoded colors or what have you), of which you qualitatively experience when you look at the image via the camera screen (after taking a picture). There’s nothing qualitative happening in terms of the internal processes of the camera nor is the camera subjectively experiencing anything (I would say). — Bob Ross

I'll refer back to seeing the wavelength green vs experiencing the qualitative color of what green is to you. Its not that there isn't anything qualitatively happening to other people. Its that its outside of our knowledge. Because we cannot prove it, it is unimportant for us what exact color we see when we see the wavelength green. Same with the qualitative experience of an ai observing and identifying objects in a picture. We can note it sees the wavelength of green, but we cannot know what that experience is for it. Since we cannot know if it does or does not have qualitative experience, its subjective consciousness is not considered in objective consciousness evaluation.

Objective consciousness is the observation and confirmation that there is consciousness apart from the subjective experience itself.

I don’t see how you can come to understand a thing as conscious but yet say you haven’t thereby posited it as subjectively experiencing: could you elaborate? — Bob Ross

Certainly. Consciousness is described as anything which can observe and identify. The only way we can objectively know if something is consciousness is by observing its actions. There are only certain actions one can take which determine consciousness. If I put iodine in a person's blood, it will show signs of hormones for your thyroid. What is the qualitative experience of having iodine in your blood? If someone put it into our blood stream, we would not observe it by feeling in our blood, nor be able to identify it. Therefore we are not conscious of it.

However, stick a needle in someone's skin to insert the iodine, and a person can identify the feel and sight of the needle, and identify that it is a needle, or at least something that causes pain. Thus the person is conscious of the needle. Do we know what they feel? No. That is the subjective consciousness of the person. Does it matter subjectively what they feel when evaluating objectively whether they are conscious or not? No.

By my lights, the whole point of saying something is conscious is to grant that it has subjective experience, and the outer, objective analysis of that looks like the an aware, organic entity. It sounds like, under your view, there could be a being which is conscious but doesn’t have any subjective experience but, to me, that’s like saying that we can determine something thinks while holding it may not have a thinker. — Bob Ross

I am going a step further. I'm saying its impossible to know if something else besides yourself has qualitative experience because its purely subjective. Can you prove it otherwise? Can you demonstrate with full knowledge that I have subjective qualitative experience?

Great points Bob, glad to see you thinking about it!

My entire argument is the entire argument. Please read it.
— Philosophim

I did and then you decided this all only applies to the limited context of "places divided by sex". I was trying to clarify your context. You said in public it doesn't matter at all. Seems Ad-hoc. — Cheshire

Its not ad-hoc at all. There are places that society divides people by sex. In public we do not divide people by sex, at least in America.

The whole discussion started with my objection to your claim that 'sex' is objective. If your claim now is that 'sex' is 'what we divide by' and we pick and choose the features for the division, then I guess it is a tacit acknowledgment that it is not. — Jabberwock

I have never said that we pick and choose the features of what counts as male and female. XY and XX for the norm. This is objective and unchanging. What I noted is that there are places we divide by sex and not gender. Point out exactly where I start to say sex itself is subjective and please answer the point I made in the quote.

We don't divide the sexes by brains, period. If you think we should, then please give a reason why. — Philosophim

Try to avoid accusing others of taccit denial of their own claims without very clearly pointing out the exact wording and the logical contradiction. It comes across as dishonest and is often done by those who are no longer able to answer the points of the argument. Combined with the fact you did not answer my request, its looking like you are unable to do so, and are now attacking straw men. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt though! I could be wrong, it just needs to be clearly shown.

If it was subjective and arbitrary, why do transgender people want to be the other sex so much? If it was subjective and arbitrary, they wouldn't care. It is objective and not arbitrary by this alone.
— Philosophim

Because the society strongly acts and sometimes enforces that division. It does not really give you an option not to belong to any group, even though some of your features might not 'belong'. — Jabberwock

Societies expectations of how you should act as a man or woman are subjective and arbitrary. That's gender. Your sex is not subjective or arbitrary. This is why gender should not be considered in sex division. Even if your features do not match someone's gendered opinion of how a man should act, you're still objectively a man.

It seems that you decide that the person is 'the norm of their sex' based on several arbitrarily selected attributes. When I point out that there might be different attributes to be taken into consideration, you just dismiss them, based on 'what society thinks'. Not very objective, I would say. — Jabberwock

No, I've said clearly what the norm of sex is. XX and XY are female and male respectively with expected secondary sex characteristics. That is not arbitrary. If so, show me how please. I have not dismissed your attributes in any way. I have noted them as being either deviations from sexual norms, such as a XXY, or gender which is subjective. Please give a specific example of what I am ignoring or misaligning to the definitions I've given.

If 'being a woman entails' some behaviors, then they are ulitimately biologically conditioned. But your definition of 'gender' claims they are not. And as I wrote, sex of the brain does not depend on a single or some features - why would it? — Jabberwock

And what behaviors biologically entail you to be a woman? Wearing a dress? Beyond the biological differences that the brain would need to interface with to birth or procreate, what is objective behavior that solely belongs to a man or a woman? My point is that being a woman does not entail you to behaving or dressing a particular way. That's society stereotyping, not an objective assessment.

Again, is another question I've asked you here that you have not answered.

I have not seen a compelling reason for a transgender person who is the norm of their sex suddenly being allowed into a place divided by sex because they want to act or dress in a stererotypical belief of how a sex should behave or dress. Feel free to give one, and we can keep discussing this point. — Philosophim

As well, please do not just accuse an argument of contradicting itself or being arbitrary without evidence. Please copy the lines in question you think I contradicted myself at, then point out where the contradiction is. Its easy to get into your own head and definitions and see a contradiction where the OP has not because they are not agreeing to your definitions. Further, if you don't show me directly, I'm going to correctly conclude that you misunderstood, so its important for both of us. Its fine if you don't agree to my definitions, and some of the questions I've asked you are giving you a chance to challenge them, but we need to be on the same page so we're not talking past one another.

1. That is exactly my point. Your claim is that transgenderism is NOT a result of biological expression of sex difference - how can you be sure? — Jabberwock

Everything is biological. You are your brain, and it is biological. The point I'm making is that if we could actually identify sex differences in the brain, its irrelevant to why we divide the sexes to begin with. We don't divide the sexes by brains, period. If you think we should, then please give a reason why.

That is precisely because 'sex' is a subjective collective term for many features that typically are bundled together, but not always, so the division will always be arbitrary. — Jabberwock

If it was subjective and arbitrary, why do transgender people want to be the other sex so much? If it was subjective and arbitrary, they wouldn't care. It is objective and not arbitrary by this alone.

And again, and if we start repeating ourselves its probably time to agree to disagree, I've noted that exceptions do not change the rules that concern the norms. We make exceptions for those people. I have not seen a compelling reason for a transgender person who is the norm of their sex suddenly being allowed into a place divided by sex because they want to act or dress in a stererotypical belief of how a sex should behave or dress. Feel free to give one, and we can keep discussing this point. But without answering this question, there is no more to explore here.

Finally, the label of sex is settled by science around the world. Give a scientist a genome of any human being and they will identify XY as male and XX as female. This is not subjective.

That is precisely because 'sex' is a subjective collective term for many features that typically are bundled together, but not always — Jabberwock

To this point again, exceptions are not the norm. Exceptions do not change the rules for the norm unless a valid reason is given. An exception to one's chromosomes do not change the objective definition that an XY is a man while an XX is a woman.

Wanting to wear a dress doesn't make you feminine, but being feminine might make you want to wear a dress. — Jabberwock

They're actually the same statement. "Feminine" is a gender term. It implies that being a woman entails certain cultural expressions and behaviors that can be different across cultures. My sister does not wear dresses, does not paint her nails, and dissects dead bodies for a living. These would largely be considered masculine actions in some cultures. Does that mean my sister should suddenly be playing sports on a male team? That people should now call her a man? Of course not.

The second argument I think you need to make is why being masculine or feminine as expressed subjectively by cultures should logically lead to someone being identified as a male or female sex by law. I'm very open to hearing it!

Very glad to see you Bob! The reason I bowed out from your thread is I felt my points would deviate too much from your original intent. I felt that your thread was addressing those who were somewhat familiar with your topic, and agreed and understood basic points. My questions and critiques seemed too far out of place for your OP, and I did not want to derail your thread from others.

the former seemed to be the latter with just the redaction of “what it is to be like a subjective experiencing” or, as you put it, “the viewpoint of consciousness itself”. — Bob Ross

I think you have the right of it. Its really a separate evaluation. Objective and subjective consciousness are two aspects of "consciousness". My point was to take the original concept and divide it into clearer and more distinct notions to avoid potential problems when they are blended together.

If that is correct, then I don’t see how “They are entirely separate realms of discussion and analysis”: when one analyzes how an organism has conscious experience of something, that is still “tied” to the same “consciousness” as that organism that is subjectively experiencing. I fear that this distinction implies that there could possibly be a being which has consciousness but doesn’t subjectively experience, but the consciousness we are studying objectively (from the side of behavior) is the same thing as the qualitative experience that the subject itself is having: we just don’t have direct, private access to it like that subject does. — Bob Ross

My point is that it is irrelevant when studying objective consciousness that we have an objective evaluation of the subjective consciousness. This is mostly because subjective consciousness of other beings is outside of knowledge. It is something we simply cannot know. No human knows what its like to be subjectively conscious as a dog. But objectively, does a dog have consciousness? Yes, by its ability to observe, identify, and act.

A being can be “aware” in the sense of being capable (to some degree) of observing its environment and identifying different aspects of its observation without having qualitative experience: for example, even basic AIs today can observe their environment and identify things (such as cups, tables, chairs, etc.) and they do not have conscious, qualitative experience: — Bob Ross

My argument is that they do. Do they have human qualitative consciousness? No. They can have robotic consciousness. What is it like to experience from within the system the ability to observe, identify, then make an action? Its impossible to know. As such, its irrelevant in objective evaluation.

The problem is we're constantly trying to attribute subjective consciousness to situations that are impossible to do so. Objectively, consciousness does not require you to be human, can we both agree on that? Is a dog conscious? A bat? A crab? They all have brains, though much more primitive than human brains. Therefore their consciousness, in what they are able to observe, identify, and act on, is much more limited. Will we ever know what its like to have the qualitative experience of a dog? No. That still doesn't mean we can't work with what we have.

An allegory is quantum physics or even odds. Both of these evaluative fields work within the limitations they know. Qauntum physics has a limit where you cannot both know a particles velocity and location at the same time. So we construct a system around which one we decide to measure. A deck of 52 playing cards has an unknown order, but we know what all the cards are. Therefore we can construct odds. Objective consciousness is simply removing that which cannot be possibly known, the actual subjective experience.

are you talking about qualitative experience or just the ability to take in input and interpret the environment?--these are two very different things — Bob Ross

Are they? When a simple camera takes a picture, it simply processes the light. It cannot identify anything within that light. Only a consciousness can take in light, then form some identity out of it like a cloud, a sun, and grass. To observe, then identify, doesn't some "thing" have to observe, then match it to an identity? Is that not the qualitative experience? Some "thing" must maintain both the observation, and actively match an identity. We don't have to know what that's like for different observers and identifiers, but we can say the state of observing and identifying is consciousness at the most basic level.

If we attach a program to a camera that can identify things like clouds, a sun, and grass in the picture, then that is what it is conscious of. But that is ALL it is conscious of. It does not have feelings, or the ability to have the four other senses human's do. But there is something that retains an observation long enough to process through several identities, then match them.

Is “subjective” consciousness the qualitative experience and “objective” consciousness the mere awareness of the environment (plus the interpretation of it)? — Bob Ross

No, subjective consciousness is merely what it is like to be the thing which is conscious. Objective consciousness is the observation and confirmation that there is consciousness apart from the subjective experience itself. Thus if we can observe an entity that can observe, identify, and act, we can conclude it is conscious at least within what it can observe, identify, and act upon.

And yet you just did.
— Philosophim
You can't observe that you're not thinking a particular thought.

Not sure I understand the op either. It doesn't seem like you're discussing two kinds of consciousness. It seems like you're looking for a way to objectively identify another consciousness. — Patterner

You can't observe that you're not thinking a particular thought. — Patterner

Look, I don't care. Its irrelevant so believe what you want. The point is not that I'm trying to identify another consciousness, its that consciousness can be divided into subjective and objective parts. If there's something you don't understand about that, feel free to ask.

If I am making a reductio absurdum argument against materialism, it does not mean I believe in materialism. — RogueAI

Then please make such an argument. Refer back to my original points to you where I formed a logical argument, then asked you to clarify and explain your own.

We are talking about places that are divided by sex. My claim is that gender does not override sex division, because gender and sex are different.
— Philosophim

So, your entire argument is regarding the caveat moments such as dressing rooms and bathrooms? — Cheshire

My entire argument is the entire argument. Please read it.

Not if attraction to women is just one biological feature that aligns with features typically attributed to men and her other psychological features align with those of women. Again, psychology is also part of genetic expression and it might also be sexual, as there are biologically caused psychological differences typically attributed to sex. Thus it should be considered by you as 'secondary sex expression'. — Jabberwock

1. We do not know enough about the brain to determine this.
2. Separations by sex have NEVER involved brain differences. As such, a brain difference should not suddenly become a deciding factor. You think that a six foot 10 230 pound male should compete in women's sports because he has more grey matter in his brain than average?
3. What would be more feminine or masculine in the brain that isn't gender? Wanting to wear a dress doesn't make you feminine. There is nothing biological about being a woman that naturally compels one to wear a dress. Can you give some examples on your end?

I'm an idealist. I've identified as such here for quite awhile. I was meeting you halfway for sake of argument earlier. Don't accuse me of trolling, please.

We're at first principles now. I want to know why, at the starting gate, I should adopt your materialistic view of reality because in actuality, I don't. — RogueAI

You aren't responding to my earlier points and now you want to change to a debate over materialism? I'm not playing this game. If you're not answering my points and just asking more questions, then you're not discussing. The subject was about the brain and consciousness. I've already put in effort to make some points and ask you to justify yourself. If you want to engage with me, first justify yourself. Explain to me why you don't believe brains are material reality instead of asking me. The onus is on you to respond and make an actual point before continuing on with your questioning. If you cannot do so, then lets end the conversation.

Then you are inconsistent in your definitions – you treat physical sex expression in genitals differently than physical sex expression in a brain. — Jabberwock

No, I'm not. I'm saying that expected behavior is gender. If your brain now determines your sex, that means a lesbian could be considered a man because their brain is attracted to a woman. Do we want to go down that path? No, we don't. Sex is simply chromosonal and secondary sex expression.

To a point I made earlier, we don't divide the sexes by their brains. Bathroom division is based on physical privacy and vulnerability. Sports are divided based on the fact that testosterone and male hormones create physically superior people per weight class. Women's shelter's are to protect sexually traumatized women from being around the sex that traumatized them. Your brain is irrelevant.

And you cannot be aware that you are not thinking a particular thought. That would be thinking, "I'm not thinking about crayons right now." — Patterner

And yet you just did. Honestly, this is an incredibly unimportant part of the OP. What about the subjective vs objective consciousness?

And how are you aware of yourself? Don't you need to observe something, then say, "I identify this as myself?"
— Philosophim
Do you have to observe anything to know that you exist, that you are awake? — Alkis Piskas

Yes. The state of wakefulness feels different from the state of sleeping. I'm pretty sure we're having a miscommunication on what "observation" is. The word is not important. My point is there are things that we encounter, and then we identify them. Simple as that.

Do you have to feel or think anything to know that you exist? That you are a person? That you are reading this message? — Alkis Piskas

Yes! I can't read a message without observing the message and identifying that they are words.

Knowing that "something". What is this something?
— Philosophim
Anything. Whatever. No some thing in particular. It could be e.g. just sitting on a chair. — Alkis Piskas

That's an observation combined with identification. Anything is observation. Identification is noting that anything is me sitting in a chair.

The feeling of the chair on your bottom does not determine the fact that you are sitting. — Alkis Piskas

The feeling is an observation. The identification is what determines whether I'm sitting.

You do not watch your legs and whole body move fast to be aware that you are running. You just know that you are running. — Alkis Piskas

Observe does not mean watch. Observation is feelings, thoughts, etc. Identification is noting that the combination of what you're observing can be identified as running.

But you can also be aware of the absence of thoughts! — Alkis Piskas

Yes, an observation that you're not thinking a particular thought can be identified as not having thoughts. You're taking observation to mean that we are ascertaining the existence of something. Observation is just your subjective experience without identity. Identity creates differences within that subjective experience.

That's a contradiction to what I've defined. I need to observe something and then identify that as a "thought". I need to observe something and identify it as a "body". The combination of the two is awareness.
— Philosophim
Yes I know that. Repeating it does not prove that I'm wrong! — Alkis Piskas

Pointing out its a contradiction does. Show that it is not a contradiction and you may have something.

Also, I wonder why do you chose to ignore all that I have said and shown in multiple ways about observation not being necessary for awareness to exist ... — Alkis Piskas

I'm not ignoring. I'm the OP who provided the definition and I'm trying to point out that you didn't understand what observation meant. Which is fine, no problem. But when responding you should attempt to understand the OP first right? We don't want straw man arguments.

Suppose that a person has a male body with male genitals, but due to some developmental occurrence this person's brain acquires features typically associated with women, therefore causing that person's strong identification with women. Would that person be transsexual or not? — Jabberwock

No, that person would be transgender according to the definitions I've provided. Gender is how we expect a sex to act or dress. That's what the brain controls. We could also call that subjective stereotyping, or sexism. I think its very important as a society that is trying to avoid discrimination that we don't go back to the old idea that women and men's gender should define who they are.

Do you run around tearing wigs off of bald people? Do you refuse to acknowledge that they appear to have hair? — Cheshire

No because I'm not in a situation where people are separated by having hair and not having hair. We are not talking about the general public. Your gender or sex is really no one else's business in public. We are talking about places that are divided by sex. My claim is that gender does not override sex division, because gender and sex are different.

Insisting someone is literally a different sex when it's intuitively a contradiction to a lot of the public has just made things worse. I more or less adopted the opinion of a surgeon that performs the procedures. In his words, the result is a feminized man or the inverse. — Cheshire

I think we agree. Gender presentation does not change your sex.

The alteration seems to help but no one thinks they have become a different sex. — Cheshire

Then they should have no problems with not being allowed into places based on sex division when they are not that sex.

Implicit in what you said is an assumption that there exist physical objects like brains. Why should I agree with your materialist/physicalist assumption? — RogueAI

RogueAI, I'll answer your questions if you're serious about replying to mine. First, you already agreed when we started discussing brains.

What you think is neural causation is neural correlation. It's the old, correlation is not causation. — Philosophim

You already agree there are neurons, and you claimed they correlated with mind, and didn't cause it. At this point retreating and saying, "Well maybe brains don't exist" is borderline trolling. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you just made a mistake.

Also, please answer the rest of the points I made. Its going to need to take you more than a few sentences to reply adequately. Please take it seriously. If that is not what you are interested in, then again, no harm in bowing out of a conversation.

X amount of indefinite harm will occur for a future person who is not born yet. Some have argued that one is not "preventing harm" for anyone, as they don't exist yet. Is this just rhetorical hedging in order to hold a certain ethical belief, or do they have some ontological validity in the idea that the potential person is not actual and therefore nothing is being prevented to any actual thing. — schopenhauer1

I still don't understand what you mean in relation to conditionals. Get rid of all the fancy vocabulary. Don't worry about what "some" other people are saying. I want to hear what you think. Don't use X or X2. Remove all abstracts. Use an example like I did with the pregnant woman tempted by alcohol.

You seem so nervous to say what you want to say! Do not worry about being wrong so much that you lose your ability to be right! Worrying about being smart is one of the traps that inhibits true discussion. I've seen many "dumb" examples cut through to the heart of an issue faster than any abstract could. As it currently stands, I'm unable to clearly understand what you're trying to discuss.

At what point does a future person come into ethical consideration? Some have argued that because a person does not exist yet, that "that person" is an invalid category because it is en potential and not actual. — schopenhauer1

I don't understand. I just gave an example of a human that is about to be born. Give me an example of what you're thinking and your opinion on it. Don't worry about what others think.

Just looking at their body is not enough, if the person's brain or even some of its areas might express as woman's. I am not saying that it is always the case for transgender people, but there is some research that indicates that in some cases their brains might indeed be different. — Jabberwock

True. For example women in general have more grey matter in their brains than men do. But if a man has more grey matter than a few women, does that make him a woman? Of course not. Sex separations in society are also not based on brain differences. No one cares about your brain composition in sports, bathrooms, or women's shelters.

In such cases maybe it would be more productive to limit the divisions not to sex (as we agree that the expression might not be clear cut in some persons), but to particular features. — Jabberwock

Lets look at it this way. We make laws based on norms, then make exceptions for cases that do not fit the norm.

So we have 95% of the population or more is a clear cut man or woman. Someone comes along and genetically does not fit. In that case we as a society can decide if their physical features are more important. Likely such a person would want to be in places where their expressed features more closely mirror the secondary affects of a particular sex, so society should probably accept that. I doubt anyone here has a problem with it.

Lets say though that a genetic woman has had some type of disruption in their development that they have the secondary sex characteristics of a man. Despite this, they choose to use the woman's restroom because they are in fact, a woman. I don't think anyone would have a problem with this either.

Now does that mean we suddenly change the rules for the norm? No. If you're a genotypical and phenotypical woman and you disguise yourself as a man, you don't suddenly get a right to walk into the men's restroom or play in men's sports. It doesn't matter that the exception can, they have something they can't change themselves.

Again, all of this is really talk of transexuals, which is not really an issue. Does a genotypical and phenotypical male get to dress up and talk like a stereotypical woman and suddenly get access to places restricted by sex? No, that doesn't make any sense at all.

If something does not exist in the future, but could exist in the future on certain known conditions, does that future state of affairs have any ethical worth to consider? Let us say a human exists in future point Y, but does not exist now in actual point X. Does future point Y have any ethical consideration since they don't exist yet in future point Y? — schopenhauer1

I think we're still a little abstract. I like to give a concrete example of any abstract I use so its clear to others.

Lets say I'm pregnant and I want to get drunk. There's a high probability or certainty it will cause fetal alcohol syndrome, impairing my child's brain in the future. I can choose to drink and enjoy myself, or emotionally suffer until the desire blows over so that my child doesn't receive brain damage.

I think its pretty clear that this is an ethical consideration. Schopoenhauer1, it sounds like you're trying to say something without saying something. Give your idea fully. What are you looking for here? Its a lot easier to get to the point instead of holding out on it until some abstracts have been established.

At the basis of all of them, is being aware of yourself. — Alkis Piskas

And how are you aware of yourself? Don't you need to observe something, then say, "I identify this as myself?"

Neither does being aware of your emotions, thinkng, etc. — Alkis Piskas

If you have no observation of emotions, thinking, etc, do you have a self? What are you if you have no emotions, thoughts, etc?

Awareness actually means knowing that something exists or is happening. — Alkis Piskas

Knowing that "something". What is this something? Isn't that something I observe? Notice that I pointed out that thoughts are part of observation. I'm not using perception or senses, I'm just noticing we need some type of "thing" to "assess".

Leaving concepts, descriptions, etc. aside, just sit back and experience that you are aware of your thoughts, your body, your movements. Do not observe anything. — Alkis Piskas

That's a contradiction to what I've defined. I need to observe something and then identify that as a "thought". I need to observe something and identify it as a "body". The combination of the two is awareness.

I have intervened at this point of your discussion because I think it has taken a wrong path — Alkis Piskas

Not a worry! Intervene wherever you think its incorrect.

It seems your main problem is with my definition of "observation". What I'm trying to get at is you need a "thing" that "you" experience. So perhaps it would be better if I used the words "experience and identity"?

Even if they don't ontologically exist, are they in some sense real in a different way, or simply how we use language? — schopenhauer1

Sounds like its how we use language. An intuition I've always followed is, "If language doesn't match up to what you know about reality, the problem is likely with language".

Language does not dictate reality. Language is a tool we use that when effective, matches reality. There is no guarantee that we are using language effectively, but reality is always guaranteed to override our ineffective language.

Here's a few snippets of vocabulary that could help:

Probability: We know several outcomes could occur with some initial premises. Its a 50% probability that the coin lands heads or tails (We're using generalities here, yes it could land on its side.)

Possibility: There is an outcome we have known at least one time, therefore we believe it could happen again. Someone has flipped a coin and it landed heads up. So its possible for a coin to land heads up.

Plausibility: There is an outcome that we believe could occur within the bounds of current knowledge, but has not been actually observed to occur. Its plausible that when I flip a coin, the laws of physics suddenly change and it never lands.

All of these definitions are observations about reality. They are not reality itself. All of these are inductions about the future based on our current deductions, and nothing more.

The tree is in X position now, but could be in X1 position or X2 position in the future, depending on conditions (conditional state of affairs I guess). What is X1 or X2 without defining it tautologically (that they are conditionals, or just explaining that in a longer definition). — schopenhauer1

X1 and X2 without definitions or context mean nothing. I could very simply say the conditional that if the tree and ground do not move or affected by outside forces, they'll stay in X spot.

Or I could say if the three is dug up, and moved, it will be in X2 in 1 hour. Variables always represent some value, Conditionals are a set of known rules that always generate an outcome. Are you asking what the probability of each conditional happening is? Are you asking if its possible for X and X2 to happen?

Nice definitions. But are these possible worlds in some way real? X is X. X could be X1 or X2. Is X1 or X2 a thing? What are these possibilities? Also, X could be X1 or X2, or even X3, but then they have likelihoods of being one or the other. But also there is a sense of necessity involved here. It is necessarily true perhaps, that X could not be Y in any possibility. — schopenhauer1

I think a lot of confusion arises because we don't use distinct vocabulary between conditionals, probabilities, possibilities, and plausabilities. Could you clarify what you mean by X is X but it could also be X2? Its a little too abstract for me to understand why X could be X or X2.

I am writing a lot today. :) Valid conditionals are based off of known facts. For example, if I heat up ice past a certain temperature, it will melt. So I take an ice cube out of the freezer, put it back and say, "If I had left this cube outside of the freezer, it would have melted."

All of this relies on knowledge of unchanging laws. If tomorrow ice did not melt at room temperature, then of course our conditionals would change. But what is required for valid conditionals, repeatable known rules and consistent outcomes, does not change.

Sometimes conditionals are also confused for possibilities. In the case of T Clark's example, we say its possible that the coin could have landed at either heads or tails. But the reality is it landed on tails, so that was always going to be the outcome of that flip. If we say, "If I flipped it in X way, then it would land on heads", we have a conditional.

Conditionals rely on known laws and outcomes. When the law happens, the outcome happens everytime. Possibilities rely on known outcomes, but do not know which outcome could come out based on the information we have in front of us. We could flip a coin, but since we don't know all of the forces involved, its possible it lands on either heads or tails.

Exceptions are important in demarcating the differences, if sex is supposed to be objective. — Jabberwock

Absolutely. But do the exceptions deny what a man and a woman are by DNA? No. A man is still an XY, and a woman is still an XX by default.

Let compare it to a tree. Lets say a tree grows is short like a bush. In fact, from a layperson's observation, it looks like a bush in its physical expression. According to biology is it a bush? No, its a tree, though an exception to the general definition of tree. Does this exception change the general definition of tree? No. Same here.

1. Sex is only determined genetically. That means that on the first day after the conception it can be identified and whatever happens phenotypically is irrelevant. By that account, people with androgen insensitivity syndrome are males, even though they have vaginas, everyone treats them as females and they themselves identify as females. — Jabberwock

Yes, if sex is determined genetically, then we have the definitions of male and female. But what if a person has an XXY chromosome? Well they are neither a man nor a woman in that case. Its not that the objectivity of sex has changed, its that we objectively have something that isn't a man or woman in the general definition, its an exception. It may be an exception enough that we invent a new term for it, or we simply say its "a woman that physically resembles a man". This would be more to your second argument.

The differences of secondary sex characteristics do not change the objective sex. In general, men are stronger than women. But a woman could appear that ends up being far stronger than most men. That doesn't change the fact that she's a woman by genetics. What we're really discussing is what we do with such individuals when we have situations in society that are divided by sex, but the overall secondary sex expression does not match the norm. Where do we fit a man that physically expresses as a woman? We would re-examine why we have the sex divide, and see if the physical sex expression is different enough that such a person could enter in both areas, or it would be better for everyone else if they entered only one.

In my view, these are transexuals. In matters of transsex, discussions of sex division ARE relevant. How and why we divide people who do not fit in the norms are relevant. Personally, I see no issue with a trans sexed individual who physically matches the secondary sex characteristics of the other genome from using either sexed bathroom. But to be clear, being transsex is not the same as being transgendered. A transgendered individual is someone who identifies with a subjective view point of the way a sex is supposed to dress or act. So a fully chromosonal and secondary sex expressed man who wears a dress is transgendered. Their gender expression should have no sway in discussions about sex division. Things like bathrooms and sports are not divided by gender, but are divided by sex. Thus why transgendered individuals should not be able to cross into places divided by sex.

Fantastic points! You are definitely welcome here and thanks for engaging with the discussion!

I must disagree. While indeed most androgen insensitivy syndromes are genetically based, it does not mean that their genotype itself is not male or female: they have 46, XY karyotype, so geneticists would identify their genomes as male. — Jabberwock

Again, there is no problem in handling an exception. While they have an XY set of genetics, either there is some flaw within them, or an accident happened during birth that would change the phenotype. In this case again, the exception is the physical and objective difference, not a gendered difference. The difference is not subjective. In this case we can decide as a society how to best divide such a person based on these phenotypical differences outside of the person's control. But again, we are judging based on physical sex expression, not gender.

This is a far cry from a normal person. Societies sex division is based on the norm, not exceptions. And exceptions apply to exceptions. Exceptions do not override the norm. What you are talking about are transexuals. You can be a transgendered transexual, but being a transexual is not a matter of gender.

I think a start is to look at the costs to society for an individual with the disease. Autism at a lower spectrum could honestly just be considered a personality difference. But one can be autistic to the point of needing a constant care giver for basic needs. That's an immense cost to society where it takes two individuals to have the contribution of one.

Being born without basic functioning physical attributes creates unnecessary stress and cost to society. If one could prevent a child from being born blind, why not? A blind person is a higher cost which holds the full potential of an individual back.

Any time there is a defect of some sort, society bears the cost. Of course those with defects do their best to fit in and not be a burden on society, but its still a burden. It could be argued that people with these burden's can contribute to society in a unique way. Would Steven Hawking have been the brilliant man that he is without his impairment? Maybe, maybe not. All I know is there are lots of brilliant people walking around normally who didn't have to suffer like he did.

Sorry OP, sounds like you're going through a rough patch in life. And maybe that patch has so far been all of your life! :) I'm not smiling out of cruelty or mockery, but because I've felt that before. I had terrible acne most of my early life no matter what I did. Dermatologists could not fix it. You get cut off from society. Its a horror show of watching your face slowly rot away from infection and scarring. Not to mention I find I'm completely unable to feel anything from touching other people. Hugs, even from my own parents, don't affect me. Physical intimacy is possible, but no more emotionally satisfying to me then a trip to the bathroom.

I'm saying all of this purely so you know: You're not alone. There are lots of people in this world who undergo suffering and inescapable problems and agony. Some have it worse, some have it better. Did anything pick you out particularly and say, "You should have it worse?" No. That's just life. We are born who we are with the parents and circumstances we have. Some things are inescapable and inevitable.

Of course, does that help you? No. Its about what you do with what you have. I may not be an attractive person, but I still decide to put my foot out in the world and make friends. I have a few very close friends because of it. I don't decide to let suffering make me bitter and angry, but use it to empathize with others and help them suffer a little less as well. I decided to pursue the education that I wanted, and pursued philosophy and computer science. After years of work and struggle, I now live a very good life.

Will I always be scarred? Yes. Will I always receive looks of terror and disgust from people I first meet? Of course. But I've learned that after 15 minutes, no one really cares too much anymore. I do good things not because I expect to get rewarded for it, but because I want to ease suffering in the world. We are not owed anything in life, neither boons or banes. Look for the good where you can, be good where you can to help others not suffer like yourself, and find the joys and successes where you can without bitterness or jealousy that others have it better than yourself.

Oh, and one last thing. You'll find that those who have not truly suffered in life will not understand what you are going through. The temptation to hate them can be monumental. Do not do so. They are just ignorant, and if you had not greatly suffered, you would be just like them. Learn to be happy for them. They are not there in life with an obligation to understand you or give sympathy.

Hello Jabberwock! Welcome to the forums. Please, write your thoughts and feelings freely.

I would disagree with the OP claim that sex is objective. What is objective are biological features or properties. 'Sex' is a subjective term that is used to categorize beings based on those features, but it depends on the accepted definition, i.e. which features do we consider as essential for that category. — Jabberwock

For a first time post, this is a very good point to bring up. Yes, I am aware of genetic abnormalities that result in a lack of clear distinction between the sexes. But these are exceptions. Further, it doesn't change the definition of what a man or a woman is. In this case, these people fit neither fully into the category of man or woman.

In these cases, an abnormality or handicap asks us different questions. How does someone who is genetically not a man or a woman fit into sexually divided spaces? I think that should be considered based on the difference. But not we're not talking about gendered behavior, we're talking about placing someone with an objectively separate sex from a normal man and woman.

A subjective idea is an opinion. For example, lets say in one society men are not expected to wear dresses. In another society, they are. This is a societal expectation of how a sex should dress, but it is not an objective measure of how a sex should act. Objective measures of sex would be solid sex organ differences or clear genetic traits. It really doesn't matter what someone's opinion on the matter is, sex is a clearly defined term that has been studied and is known across all cultures and outlooks.

The subject is then focused on the norm, not the exceptions. While exceptions can be great to examine to make sure we aren't mistaken on the norm, I don't think that is the case here. No one is subjectively determining the sexual genetic normal for men and women. But I argue that gender, or the expectation of how men and women by sex should act, is a subjective stereotype, and does not override one's sex.

Great post again Jabberwock, and I hope you enjoy yourself here!

Are you talking about an origin of causality, all of the unknown steps that would lead to what we know today,
— Philosophim
Yes, my idea of an hypothesis that could be plausible is that we would be able to relate it to the current laws of nature and everything would fall in place like the pieces of a puzzle. — Skalidris

Lets go by your own definitions. You noted that what could be known is what can be observed. Can we observe that any one hypothesis is implausible? No, we can only test it to see if it matches reality. Lets examine what odds mean as well.

If I have a deck of 52 cards, the likelihood of a jack being pulled is 4/52, or 1/13. These odds only apply because we don't know which card will end up being pulled. Lets say we have a machine shuffle the deck and pull the top card. Since there is nothing in our knowledge which makes it more likely that any one card would be on top over another, we can safely claim those odds.

However, the shuffle is a real action. If we were to watch it, we would know with certainty which card was on top. Odds only work if you don't know certain aspects of reality and you want to make a reasonably inductive guess. Odds also only work if its reasonable to assume all situations have an equal chance of being.

In the case of hypothesis, you really don't have an underlying reason to state that any one hypothesis is plausible or less plausible than another. First of all, humanity can only know of a finite number of hypothesis, meaning the number of possible hypothesis is not infinite. Second, we need a method for demonstrating whether a hypothesis is true. Do we have any facts that demonstrate that any hypothesis we create has any greater chance of being true than another? No. Its not a chance that a hypothesis is true, its a chance that the hypothesis we pick can match correctly to reality.

In other words there are only a limited number of hypothesis which could be true. To simplify, lets say its one. So in a finite deck of cards, 1 out of that finite deck is true. Are we pulling hypothesis at random however? No. We can use reason and logic to rule out many potentials. When we do, do we know how many viable hypothesis are left? No, but its a finite number. So every hypothesis we test lowers the denominator by an unknown number as we discover more knowledge. Is the hypothesis we pick to explore next the right one? Now that's a clear 1/x chance. Meaning while the next hypothesis we pick to explore is most likely not going to be the one that matches reality, it definitely has a real chance to.

By this logic resulting from the premises you've put forth, we cannot conclude that any one hypothesis is more plausible or implausible than another merely looking at what has been left over after knowledge has eliminated the invalid ones. All we can do is pick the next hypothesis, explore it, and use that knowledge to further lower the denominator of possible hypotheses that humanity can create.

Was I close in the ball park of your flaw, or did you have another in mind?

This seems a bit harsh T Clark. I think he's just having a little fun. He's noted its flawed, no need to pull out AI! :)

Those subjective outlooks however question to what extent this biological fact is supposed to rule divide them in the first place. Notice how you haven't actually explained why sex (as chromosomes alone) is the only criterion used to make these distinctions. You've said it is, not why it is. — substantivalism

Sex is not a subjective outlook. We're starting to repeat, so I'm going to note this has already been stated.

Notice how you haven't actually explained why sex (as chromosomes alone) is the only criterion used to make these distinctions. You've said it is, not why it is. — substantivalism

I've said several times why it is. You even quoted me right here:

Dressing or acting in a particular way does not change that. Its not a party place. Its not a place to express fashion. Its to go to the bathroom. And since you have to undress or put yourself in a vulnerable position to expel certain bodily fluids, we keep the sexes separate. — Philosophim

Except when it comes to biologically transitioned individuals and intersex people who still, besides their possibly 'discordant' sex organs, can use either bathroom just as easily. — substantivalism

Absolutely. We're not talking about exceptions. I noted that a long time back. If you're neither a man nor a woman, then yes, you can use either bathroom. Its a non-issue in this conversation. We are talking about biological men and biological women.

So a person is a trans-female who passes. . . are they seen as a sexual predator or not? — substantivalism

I am starting to feel like you are not actually reading my replies. I have said several times that trans people are not sexual predators. Stop implying that they are. Stop implying that I've said they are. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

If you're saying that acting like something you are not, or identifying as something you are not, makes you that something, that's false.
— Philosophim
Unless what that thing is, is nothing above the act itself. Being feminine/masculine (NOT TALKING ABOUT SEX) is heavily enforced by and cemented socially in a variety of acts that do not have to involve you taking your clothes off or revealing your chromosomes. — substantivalism

This is called gender. This is the entire focus on the conversation. Nothing new has been stated. Please re-read my definition of gender and sex again.

Society then has what right to tell us who we are internally? None. — substantivalism

I clearly said you can identify yourself however you want. But if I identify myself as the president, then start telling society I'm the president and try to get into the White House, they're going to kick me out because I'm not the president. You can identify however you want, but society is under no obligation to accept it. In the case of sex, biology is a world wide agreed upon standard which we follow. It has nothing to do with gender.

The sex differences between men and women are chromosomes or what primary/secondary sexual organs you possess. Sex is not the 'potential to rape' or 'probably going to rape'. That is something that ISN'T SEX. — substantivalism

I've said this several times. I feel like you're just rambling now. Go re-read our back and forth.

. . and it's there because. . . why? Why should it be there? — substantivalism

Again, re-read the last few replies. I'm not retyping the same thing I've already typed three times.

. . and these divisions by chromosomal status are there because. . .? Why should it be there? — substantivalism

Again, reread.

I was enjoying the conversation but you are at your end. Either you've lost what I've been saying in the conversation, or you know exactly what I'm saying, you can't counter what I'm saying, and you're grasping at straws. Please do better on your next response or I will know this discussion is finished.

Ha ha! I'm flattered! Thanks for the fun post. I'll give it a shot.

Points 1 and 2 seem good premises to start with.
Point 3: I agree. An infinite amount of theories is impossible for any limited species to make.
Point 4: So you're claiming knowledge requires observation, no problem there.
Point 5: Could life extend past the elements we currently know? Or because we have not observed it yet, we cannot know? I'll go with the later to keep consistent with point 4.

Ok, first set of questions.
Point 6: What does plausible mean in your OP? What do you mean by "explains all that we know now"? Are you talking about an origin of causality, all of the unknown steps that would lead to what we know today, or something else?
Point 7: We can create a large number of hypothesis, but they aren't infinite. Sounds good.
Points 8 and 9: I'll need the definition of plausible before I can judge these.

Great start!

Philosophim I'll pass. — RogueAI

Then so shall I. Lets have a better conversation another time.

↪Philosophim Would a functional mechanical equivalent of a working brain be conscious? Would a simulation of a working brain be conscious? If yes to either of those, how would you verify the consciousness of the simulation and/or the mechanical brain? — RogueAI

Answer my original reply and I'll address this question. I'm not interested in a one-sided discussion where you get to ignore my statements back to you.

I'm using the word women/men to regard the social/cultural categories and all assumed stereotypes or behaviors coincident with those terms colloquially. — substantivalism

I am not, nor was it presented as such in this discussion. Men and women are based on sex differences. Gender is a subjective belief in how a man or woman should act. Male human = man, Female human = woman.

You must first have a human male or female to then ascribe gender. Because gender is the expectation of an individual or culture in how a human male or female should dress or act in particular situations that do not involve the physical aspect of their sex. If you need to express it in terms that fit with the accepted definitions of the OP, you can use the term cis and transgendered.

No, that's incomplete. Do men dressed in clown suits get rejected from the men's restroom? No. Its not appearance, its based on sex.
— Philosophim
Except that isn't what you implied before. . . — substantivalism

I think you may have misunderstood me or I was not clear enough. This is exactly what I am implying. My examples of noting that someone can disguise themselves are irrelevant to the separation of bathrooms by sex. It doesn't matter if you go into a bathroom and no one realizes you're not of the same sex, its still not supposed to happen.

If I break into a person's home, steal nothing, then leave, did I still break the law? Yes. Doesn't matter if I didn't do any harm. Doesn't matter if most people who break in won't do harm. My home is a safe place that I let my friends into. If you disguised yourself as my friend and I didn't notice, its still wrong.

Can you attempt to disguise your sex? Yes. Does that change your sex? No. Does that mean that because we can disguise our sex that suddenly it makes it ok? No. Appearance is not your sex. Being able to "pass" does not change your sex.
— Philosophim
It does change the point or significance of using it or its utility in a true general sense. — substantivalism

No it doesn't. Bathrooms are for personal hygene and getting rid of waste bodily fluids. The sexes have different ways of getting rid of those. Dressing or acting in a particular way does not change that. Its not a party place. Its not a place to express fashion. Its to go to the bathroom. And since you have to undress or put yourself in a vulnerable position to expel certain bodily fluids, we keep the sexes separate.

Being seen as a likely perpetrator or as a statistical risk based off of your 'grouping' is also not based directly on your sex. — substantivalism

Yes it is. It has nothing to do with your gender expression. I want to make it VERY clear. Transgender people are not sexual predators. Sexual predators are sexual predators. We keep the sexes clear for sexual privacy, not gendered privacy.

You know, you are right. So let us agree for the moment with Butler that gender is to be seen as a performance. You aren't pretending to be a man dressed as women. You are you. Identity isn't XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes. . . it's who you 'are' or what you consider your 'self'. — substantivalism

The definition of a performance is an act. So yes, you are pretending to be a man dressed as a woman or vice versa. That's basic a basic set of definitions and a logical conclusion. If you're saying that acting like something you are not, or identifying as something you are not, makes you that something, that's false.

Now, if you want to internally identify yourself as whatever you want, feel free. Invent your own language as you see fit. But when you go into society which has accepted definitions and language, you do not get to tell society to accept yours. You can ask, but it is not obligated in any way to agree with you. If you identify as a woman in society, but you are not a woman by sex, you are simply wrong in your identity.

The question is why it should be a dividing line at all WITH a lawful set of consequences that negate some moral intuitions we have on it. — substantivalism

Your set of sentences after this were too abstract and didn't really answer the question I gave. Please clarify with examples.

Turns out, such stereotyping is seemingly motivating the decision to punish someone who's only action was using the restroom. The motivation being one's 'uncomfortability' which is garnered by societal expectations of how one who is MALE is to be judged on sight or even under a 'disguise'. — substantivalism

No, I've said several times that its based on the very real sex differences between men and women. Its not about the likelihood, its about the potential. This is not a gender issue.

Again, you seem to want to agree with me on gender and yet if a person doesn't conform to gendered expectations of their sex then they are still said to be 'doing it wrong'. — substantivalism

I've never said someone not conforming to their gender is "doing it wrong". I've been claiming this entire time that gender is subjective stereotyping. Your gender has nothing to do with your sex.

Female people don't own facial expressions and externalized forms of certain behavior nor do males as if some one doing something similar is 'stealing' it or some 'cheap copy'. As that assumes, contrary to our assumptions, that gender is in fact strapped to your chromosomal status. — substantivalism

Gender is the expectation of behavior for a sex, so of course it is tied to a sex. If you say you have the gender of a man, you're taking someone's belief of how a biological man should act or dress in culture. Now does that gender differ from someone else's? Sure. But if they say you have a male gender, the implication is you are acting the way a biological male is expected to act.

Why is the solution to pretend a stereotype means you now belong in a place of another sex, despite you not being that other sex?
— Philosophim
First, sex is not the reason they feel the need to be with the same sex. . . its SIMILARITY. Do I need to quote you again. . . — substantivalism

We're not talking about being around the same sex. Anyone can make friends or hang out with people of any sex or gender. But there are particular places and events that are divided based on sex. The way you act or dress does not suddenly make this sex divide go away.

Nothing. That's the entire point. Gender is a subjective stereotype of a group or individuals. If it doesn't have to do with physical characteristics, its not sex.
— Philosophim
However, the motivation and reason why this choice is made can be heavily influenced by gender. — substantivalism

People can make decisions based off of gender, which would be the stereotype of some individual or culture. But you have not made a case for why certain situations divided by sex: bathrooms, sports, and shelters for example, should suddenly be changed because of gender. A subjective outlook that can differ from individual to individual has no basis overriding biological fact that stands despite subjective outlooks.

First of all, gender is not necessarily about ought - As a woman, I have learned not to make decisions based on societal expectations of how I ought to behave. — Possibility

Gender is a stereotype of "ought". If you don't behave in accordance with certain stereotypes, does that change your sex? Of course not. My sister does not wear dresses and dissects dead bodies for a living. Does that mean she's not a woman by sex? Of course not.

I feel I should point out that, as women, there are many occasions in our lives where we have our pants around our ankles in the presence of strange men — Possibility

These are not strange men. These are medical professionals who have been vetted to ensure a particular level of trust. Men and women janitors can enter into cross bathrooms because we also know they're vetted. There is a level of professional trust. We're not pulling some guy off the street to give you an exam right?

So, let me be clear - the mere physical ability for a man to penetrate a woman is NOT the source of fear or discomfort felt by women. — Possibility

Some women, yes. But I am interested in groups, not individuals. Let me ask you this then, should there be a division of men and woman at all by bathrooms? Ignore the idea of trans entirely. Should we remove the men and woman bathroom division entirely? Would that cause any problems? If you say yes, then you are one person who does not believe men and women should be divided by sex in bathroom situations. If so, I have no disagreement, as you've erased a sex division, not a gender division.

If you do think there's a separation needed, then you need to explain to me why a separation based on sex suddenly gets overruled by a man wearing a dress. Why don't they still go over to their own bathroom? Why do they need or be allowed to come over to yours?

This was rather long, so I understand if you're unable to address or quote everything here. I might repeat myself a bit but I did not have time this morning to remove some possible repetition of points.

We don't generally let men or women in the other bathrooms.
— Philosophim
Based on appearance, yes. — substantivalism

No, that's incomplete. Do men dressed in clown suits get rejected from the men's restroom? No. Its not appearance, its based on sex. Appearance is how we readily judge another's sex. Can you attempt to disguise your sex? Yes. Does that change your sex? No. Does that mean that because we can disguise our sex that suddenly it makes it ok? No. Appearance is not your sex. Being able to "pass" does not change your sex.

Your dress and behavior do not negate your sex or make you special.
— Philosophim
Yes to the former. The latter however ignores societal classes, social roles, and stereotypes themselves. — substantivalism

Yes, it does ignore classes, roles and stereotypes. That's gender. The idea that a woman is inferior to a man is gender. The idea that only men can be fire fighters is gender. The idea that men cannot raise children is gender. All of those are subjective stereotypes and quite frankly, discrimination. Gender is not a good or positive thing substantivalism. Its a primitive emotional approach to judging members of the opposite sex on things that have nothing to do with one's actual physical sex.

Instead of digging into stereotypes by saying that trans people "belong to a certain social club" we should be changing our attitudes about gender stereotyping. Men should be able to wear tasteful dresses in public and we should all be able to treat that man with respect, equal rights, and not derision. A person shouldn't feel like they need to lie that they're the other sex to avoid stereotypes. A short man or tall man shouldn't be bullied.

To help me with our discussion, tell me why someone should cross sex divided places because of gender, over instead simply working on getting people to accept that men and women don't have to conform to gender stereotypes to be men and women? Specific examples please, not general abstracts.

cting like what some people think the opposite sex should act like does not make you the opposite sex.
— Philosophim
It could make you similar in every manner that is relevant to most people as to what it means to be culturally/socially a man/woman while not having the right chromosomes still. — substantivalism

Again, this is wrong. It is not culturally what it means to be a man or a woman, that's poor grammar. A man or a woman is by sex. Cultural expectations of how a man or a woman should behave, dress, and act apart from the physical sex differences is gender. Saying because I act like a certain expectation that one sex has makes me that sex, is discriminatory behavior.

The point I want to emphasize at this stage is how we've treated the bathroom situation. As a couple of the feminist articles i've seen on the issue have showcased and you admitted its about perceived safety among those of similar supposed standing. Its thinking, because we have the same external biology/behavior/chromosomes that we then feel comfortable around you in that vulnerable state. The question then is how much of the first two are needed until suddenly they, as you said before, 'don't feel uncomfortable'? Is there a 'male/female brain' or sense of biological essentialism that dooms any person who tries to avoid those masculine/feminine stereotypes? — substantivalism

It has nothing to do with a male or female brain. A man can enter a bathroom with painted nails, act flighty and emotional, and they're still a man. They are in a place they belong based on their sex. A muscular woman with a deeper voice who likes war games and monster trucks can enter a bathroom as well. The ultimate reason why we have bathroom division is based on sex. Not just the physical sex, but the act as well. Bathrooms are places of physical vulnerability, and generally attempt to have privacy from the rest of the world. Its not a place you go in and flex in the mirror or twirl your new dress around to strangers. You know this.

In places of physical vulnerability we try to minimize discomfort. We don't want to hear a man and a woman having sex in the stall next to us. When a woman has a period accident, she doesn't want to have men seeing her in that position as she takes a bloody tampon to a trashcan. Men don't want you looking over at their urinal. You get it.

Now, do we have exceptions like gay individuals? Of course. But its an extremely rare portion of the population. Further, the secondary sex characteristics do not have as much of a power difference, so any assault is less deadly and easier to fight off.

When you argue that trans people should be able to cross bathrooms, you make the mistake of ignoring sex. If you consider sex, what you should be saying is that all men and women should have no bathroom division at all. If its only a cultural idea, then we say the whole thing is a mistake.

So, argue that there should be no division of bathrooms based on sex if you want. Once you can show that, then we can say trans people can use the other restroom, as well as non-trans people. If you think there should be a division of bathrooms by sex, then trans people don't get to use the other bathroom, because gender is not the same as sex.

You can never be the opposite sex. Its impossible.
— Philosophim
If you are talking about chromosomes. . . then yes. If you are talking about societal classes to identify under or be a part of. . . well. . . we are on a philosophy forum. — substantivalism

Societal classes are subjective expectations of behavior, culture, and dress based on those chromosomes. An expected societal class has nothing to do with your sex, its about the expectations others have about your sex. That's gender. Gender and sex are different. So this does not counter my point that changing your sex is impossible. You can disguise yourself to change people perceptions about you and their expecations of you. That does not change your sex.

Why can't a trans person use the bathroom of their own sex?
— Philosophim
Uhhh. . . reasons. — substantivalism

Ok, then why don't we work on harsher punishment for violations like this, or work on the culture so that members of their own sex will not act negatively towards other based on stereotypes? Why is the solution to pretend a stereotype means you now belong in a place of another sex, despite you not being that other sex? Isn't the former much more logical and cause the least amount of issues in society?

Gender isn't sex. It's fluid and people who have a particular set of chromosomes might just behave contrary to expectations of this biological fact. So, they may desire to be accepted into that grouping irrespective of being held down by their mere chromosome status...This new desire being so great that it motivates them to completely change many aspects of themselves to achieve this goal. — substantivalism

And to that I say, "Tough luck". I'm short and I can't be a basketball player. It has nothing to do with my desire to be a basketball player. It has to do with my physical difference. Me putting on stilts and telling everyone I'm a tall person, or acting like the stereotypes of a tall person doesn't change this. My denial from the NBA isn't because of my behavior or societal discrimination. Its based on my failure to measure up physically for what is needed to be an effective member of a competitive sport.

I have no problem with a man dressing as a woman, or a woman dressing up like a man.
— Philosophim
If gender is separate from or to be mostly dissolved away from sex then it's just dress, stereotype, and. . . lots of varied behaviors. — substantivalism

Yes, that's exactly it.

The question here is. . . what makes a woman/man that isn't their chromosomes? What behaviors/mannerisms/mental states are 'owned' by women/men? — substantivalism

Nothing. That's the entire point. Gender is a subjective stereotype of a group or individuals. If it doesn't have to do with physical characteristics, its not sex.

My argument is very simple: brain consciousness leads to machine consciousness and machine consciousness is an absurdity — RogueAI

That's not an argument, that's a string of statements without any connective logic and an unproven conclusion.

Lets work backwards.

1. Brain consciousness is an absurdity.

Why?

2. Brain consciousness leads to machine consciousness

No, brain consciousness leads us to realize that matter and energy if organized correctly can be conscious. This appears across living species with different types of brains. We realize that brains are clumps of neurons which have a system of communication, reaction, and planning. Therefore it seems possible that if we duplicate matter in such a way that it can communicate, react, and plan, it would be conscious.

3.

What you think is neural causation is neural correlation. It's the old, correlation is not causation. — RogueAI

No, we have ample conclusion of causation. I'll start with a relatable example before getting deeper. Ever been drunk before? Been on anesthesia? We know that if we introduce these chemicals into the blood, they affect the brain. And when the brain is affected, your consciousness becomes inhibited or suppressed entirely. This is not happenstance correlation. This is repeatably testable, and falsifiable causation which has been upheld in both active life and science for decades. With modern day neuroscience, we can actually get live scans of the brain to show the physical impacts and when consciousness is lost.

Address these points, and we'll have a discussion.