This in no way is a reply to what I wrote. It's a confusing mess actually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037.amp

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/31/1001936433/who-the-uyghurs-are-and-why-china-is-targeting-them?t=1625078923562

https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/ook-in-nederland-worden-oeigoeren-onderdrukt-door-de-chinese-overheid~bef14078/

Then the problem is Judeo-Christian morality, but good luck convincing America of that. What is the replacement value system here, by the way? Do we know of an alternative framework we should be shifting to here? — BitconnectCarlos

I know plenty of Christians that go to mixed spa's. So it's not just religion. But in any case, I think expectation management goes a long way and think it's perfectly fine to decide one way or another. I think it's both reasonable to say that you should change in the locker room coinciding with your primary genitalia (penises or vaginas), so sex based, or based on gender identity. I think it shouldn't be an issue either way as long as the rules are clear. Or have cubicles, or have everything mixed from the get go etc. There's plenty of pragmatic solutions possible.

I don't agree in this case. Those who deny gender as something separate do so for specific reasons. The distinction clearly matters and makes all the difference between those considering gender separate from sex a delusion and those accepting it as a natural occurring phenomena and the latter is only possible if they are indeed different things.

^A real life situation where a black woman along with other women encounter a transwoman with a penis in a spa changing room and start complaining to management.

I feel really bad for that receptionist because you know it's not her who makes the rules here. In any case, the moment you pull the "we're protecting little girls" line it's no longer an argument, it's an order. Can anyone honestly watch that video and tell me that they'd do any better than the white man who tries to confront the anti-trans black woman? The message is clear: Some portion of women want trans women out of their intimate spaces, and we need to balance acceptance for trans folk against concerns like the one made in the video.

I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman.

Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls." — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure this is an issue. If the spa had been clear (or maybe even was clear?) on how it deals with transgenders then it's just whatever the house rules are.

And if little girls and boys can get traumatised from just seeing genitalia maybe people need to reconsider what they are teaching kids about sex in the first place. Especially in a spa, which tend to be mixed in the Netherlands anyways, nakedness isn't sexual. I suppose if you're an upstuck Jesus freak this sort of thing will scar you for life but we can squarely blame the parents for that.

Not at all. I am not living in Xinjiang. Of course, I don't a lot about Xinjiang. Especially for made up events. I am living in the US. Hence I know a lot about the US. — ltlee1

So, you're denying that Uighurs are being sent off to concentration camps, oh sorry "vocational training camps", in a concerted effort to commit cultural genocide? Or that the Chinese government is harassing Uighurs abroad because they are trying to tell the world about it when they managed to escape that atrocity?

I'm more concerned with the issue if a patent that can contribute to greater efficiency in the economy or as you say, a social and environmental benefit, is bought out by a firm to prevent losses to their company, and if that were true then should the government intervene?

What do you think? — Shawn

Well, should in my book yes, but then I think we should dispense with patents and copyright all together. So I'm the wrong guy to ask. There are grounds of course but be prepared for lengthy court cases:

Compulsory licensing of a patent is provided for under Article 5 of the Paris Convention to prevent patent abuse.[7] Article 5, section A(2) provides that ‘[e]ach country of the Union shall have the right to take legislative measures providing for the grant of compulsory licenses to prevent the abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent, for example, failure to work.’ Section 4 provides that the compulsory licence may not be applied until after ‘the expiration of a period of four years from the date of filing of the patent application or three years from the date of the grant of the patent, whichever period expires last.’ The patentee can avoid the compulsory licence if he ‘justifies his inaction by legitimate reasons.’ The licence is non-exclusive and non-transferable. — International bar association

That's a confusing statement. Gender dysphoria means that your internal gender identification is opposite from your physical gender anatomical/biological sex. You're saying that has little to do with biological sex, but I can't see how we can subtract out the biological sex element from the gender dysphoria equation, considering having a mental state inconsistent with biological sex defines dysphoria. — Hanover

What you say makes sense, I'm just repeating what she said. One way that could work is if gender identity is independent from biological sex. If that's how it works then it's only after that identity is established/expressed that dysphoria may arise but not necessarily.

I think we can recognise that if there's gender identity on the one hand and biological sex on the other then transsexualism relates to changing biological sex and transgenderism is about changing gender identity of which changing biological sex can be a part but not necessarily so.

Democracy is first and foremost about the freedom to make and repeal laws or to elect representatives to do that for you. But even "representatives" can be suppressed for "improper behaviour" and their voting power in the assembly taken away.

Even more so, for such a process to even start to become remotely feasible you need to be able to:

1. assemble in groups
2. access to information
3. freedom of speech

None of these are available.

1. Free assembly? Not allowed; see HK, Tibet, Uighurs, only one political party. A state-mandated union (eg. a union dress-up). State owned media. etc. etc.
2. Access to information. State-controlled.
3. ...

Is it true that Pareto optimal outcomes in economics lead to greater efficiency for all consumers and producers alike? — Shawn

This is almost 30 years ago for me. Pareto optimalisation is about multi-objective optimisation and results from the calculation of two optimum points (or more) of different objectives. These points do not coincide and the pareto optimal outcome is any point on the line between the two optimal points of these differing objectives. If consumer and producer efficiency are not aligned then the optimal point of one objective is not optimal for the other. So from the perspective of a consumer a certain point on that line can be less efficient than another and the same is true for the producer. Holistically, when taking both objectives into account Pareto optimal outcomes are presumably the most efficient points possible.

I specify this by stating that if a good, like a patent or intellectual property, achieves pareto optimality, then does this mean that it increases efficiency in the economy by making supply meet demand at a point where a firm or company wouldn't have to invest more money to meet rising demand? — Shawn

I would say that this depends on which multiobjective issues you're trying to resolve.

Yet, as normal patents are made with perfect knowledge for producers to invest in, pareto optimality often doesn't occur, as firms with more money to invest in patents will find and simply buy out the patent that either increases or harms their profits. — Shawn

I don't understand what you mean with "perfect knowledge" here.

What should one do about such a tendency in the patent realm? If gas company buys out my patent that normally entering the economy would produce an increase in efficiency for X Kwh of energy rather than Y Kwh from gas or oil, then shouldn't there be a law prohibiting such anticompetitive measures against a net increase in overall GDP from a more efficient use of a patent? Hence, shouldn't these pareto optimal outcomes be propped or even protected by the government to increase the net GDP and efficiency of a economy? — Shawn

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are worried that a patent that will have a social and environmental benefit is potentially suppressed if it is bought by a certain company. If this is about your own patents, the solution is obvious: don't sell.

There are rules surrounding compulsory licenses and statutory licenses that can force a patent holder to provide a license at a specific rate (statutory) or a negotiated rate (compulsory). See for instance: http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/8509F913B768D063C1258382004FC677/$File/compulsory_licensing_in_europe_en.pdf

I don't think pareto optimization is a consideration for such types of licenses from a statutory perspective but it could be part of argumentation in specific court cases but I'm not active in this field to know for certain.

The reason nobody reacts to the idiocy of describing the Chinese system as democratic is precisely because it's so obviously false it doesn't require a counter argument.

Claiming China is democratic when it so obviously isn't, is laughable. — Banno

Let's repeat that again.

China is a tyranny and it ought to be boycotted for its human rights abuses against Tibet and Uighurs, the treatment of democratic leaders in HK, the silencing of critical media, sham court proceedings, disappearances of citizens and threats to the sovereign nations of India and Taiwan etc. I can go on but the crimes are numerous.

No, I double checked and what I wrote is what I meant. I only learned this last week when I contacted a leading Dutch researcher on this.

Transsexualism isn't really used anymore, because the feeling of gender dysphoria has little to do with (biological) sex according to her. Even though transsexualism was the term we were using 20 years ago.

You can be pro-transsexual in every way possible and still be against transition surgeries. — Hanover

Strictly speaking within the current professional vocabulary (as part of psychology and in the Netherlands at least) you can be pro-transgender and against transitioning. Pro-transsexuality is specifically about changing sex.

Cool. And here I was still thinking about European examples and this is just further circumstantial proof that transgenderism is not only sociological or political. Of course, social and political situation have a lot of effect on if and how it can be expressed and I think that's why we're seeing such an "increase" today. Transgenders are starting to feel safe to admit to their feelings and thoughts and express them. This can only be a good thing.

oh dear. I need to not talk about math any more. :lol: Points on a line it is. I only remembered "points" for some reason and got confused.

Yes, I think the primary concept of a hole is that of a gap, an absence in the middle of something. As such, we can very well think of holes in 2D or 1D. When we think of real, three-dimensional things, like a pair of pants or a fence for example, we can conceptualize them geometrically as surfaces or lines, wherein a hole will also assume an idealized 2D or 1D form in our mind. — SophistiCat

How can you express a hole in 1D? I would think a hole appears as part of a relationship with other things so 2D is the lowest you can go?

Gender isn't just a grammatical term and the difference between biological and psychological sexuality has been around for over 60 years. It was first a term of art in psychology, it has made it's way into mainstream vocabulary.

This happens all the time. Take the word "relativity" which has taken on quite a different meaning since Einstein and it took almost 50 years before it became a word laymen would use.

Your personal anecdote that you've been living under a rock and wasn't aware of this meaning until apparently very recently (and apparently didn't pay attention during psychology classes when this definitely came up) is not proof of what gender means.

Transgenderism has historically existed before modern times as well. Just because we didn't have a term before it at that time, doesn't mean it didn't exist. If you studied French, you know what it means when something can be defined a certain way avant la lettre. Which is how I can accurately state my great-grandmother was a feminist.

So it is that parents bring forward 3 and 4 year olds who have decided they want to be girls instating of the boys they are, or visa versa, and demanding treatment. Delusion. — Bitter Crank

The delusion is in trying to establish that at that age. It's too early to tell, doesn't mean the parents are wrong in recognising what their children want to be. My son is 3 and he's very boyish in a lot of respects but sometimes he makes me wonder when he gets angry when we applaud him with "well done, big boy!" and he yells "NO, BIG GIRL!". He probably just wants to be like his big sister for now. But I don't "identify" my kids, that's not my role. I do need to create a safe space where they can freely identify as they wish when they are ready. I don't care whether that's transgender, straight or gay/lesbian. So I purposefully don't (and won't) argue his insistence of being a girl because of it.

What I do object to is argument that persons can change their sex. They cannot. No matter how any hormones and surgical procedures are employed, one remains XX or XY -- like it or not. — Bitter Crank

I agree. Nevertheless, gender affirming plastic surgery, which colloquially is know as a "sex change operation", is an option for people to further fulfil and support their transition to another gender. As I've stated before, transsexuality is not a requirement for transgenderism, it's optional.

In fact, I just remembered (it was over 20 years ago) I had a roommate for half a year that was an exchange student who was transgender. He was sexually a woman and had no inclination to change his sex and I think I'd describe his gender expression as unisex (what you see on the outside). He had a boyfriend. A lot of people make a big deal out of it and people who are transgender have a hard time admitting to their feelings and ideas as a result. I've always been "meh". I really dont care. You want me to call you a "she"? Fine. Or "xe"? No problem. It's a small effort to make someone comfortable and that holds true irrespective of the etyology of gender dysphoria.

What people do to their bodies when they grow up? None of my business and that's irrespective of the etyology of gender dysphoria. Or we need to start rethinking women's right to breast reductions and enlargements, or people's rights to liposuction, lengthening operations for hypochondriaplasia or anochondroplasia etc.

Why would it be delusional if I thought I was a cat but not if I thought I was a woman? — Andrew4Handel

This again comes down to you not understanding the difference between sex and gender. There's examples abound in nature of animals mimicking other animals. Ducks acting like cats, wanting to be treated like cats. Cats barking like dogs. etc. It's not about physical appearance.

Gender dysphoria is not about people thinking they are women or men while having the opposed sex; it's about identifying with the opposite gender than their sex. And this can cause all sorts of mental problems. It would indeed be delusional to think your sex is male when in fact you have a vagina and breasts but that's not what's going on here.

Trans "women" exhibit male patterned criminal behaviour. — Andrew4Handel

This again. As I already pointed out:

I also note that the Swedish study you referenced showed female likelihood of sexual violence if proper psychological care was provided to trans women. So the converse argument is possible too, that given the fact certain groups of trans women have female levels of violence those are really women then. Or maybe it's just not a very good indicator. — me

You're equating sex with gender and that results in a lot of confusion for you apparently.

Oh right, so when you use the word "delusional" it doesn't have a psychological meaning even when you're trying to prove it by referring to psychological research. That makes no sense whatsoever, especially when admitting the etyology of gender dysphoria isn't established (but with strong indications its accompanied by physical changes in the brain).

So when people are diagnosed with gender dysphoria you nevertheless maintain both the psychologist and the patient have a false belief based on what? False information? No proof offered so far. The status of research at this point is the best information we have to go on. Dogma? No proof of that either and the fact it exists across time and across cultures definitely suggests otherwise. Illusion? About what exactly?

I said that I know 4 trans people and someone who refused to read most of my posts asked me if I knew any trans people.

Just get an eye test and read and respond to my actual posts or continue to be a burden on humanity. — Andrew4Handel

I don't give a shit about anecdotal evidence. I've had several trans colleagues over the years. They're perfectly happy with their choices. Maybe the fact you're surrounded by people with issues have to do with a) your personal interests or b) the type of person you are yourself and the people you therefore attract or c) a combination of both. Not interesting that you know them and not interesting why either.

You haven't provided evidence. You've asserted that certain people suffer from a delusion without the evidence necessary to make such a claim. That makes you unqualified as a psychologist. That you don't understand why psychologists ought to refrain from diagnosing mental illness without actually doing either the research or having treated people, is worrisome.

You also don't know what an ad hom is. Read the ad hominem, schlominem thread. Zero points.

I can't tell on both counts.

You do realise not every member of a reddit has to be trans right, despite its name? Just how you're not a philosopher but you're still here?

You have a degree in psychology, haven't submitted anything but two studies that don't support the point that gender dysphoria is a delusion and yet insists calling gender dysphoria a "delusion" even when confronted with a study that suggest it's not? I maintain that that's inappropriate especially for a psychologist. The best you can say is that the etiology is unclear (which the researchers would confirm because they only say it "suggests" something or other).

If Unicorns have horns, where are they? — Moliere

On the top of their head. Here's a picture:

So Biden suggests the extra money is to make community policing possible and does think police should reform. Some things he mentioned was having health care workers to be first responders together with police. They could go hand in hand with an increase... I take it you don't trust it will happen. I'm... skeptical too but one can hope, I guess.

Dude, you admitted to the analytical truth when you had to turn to 2 dimensional representations of donuts, which aren't donuts, to pretend a donut without a hole exists . So you have not demonstrated it is false at all, you've merely said "the two dimensional representation is a donut doesn't have a hole". Well duh, but that wasn't the claim now was it?

The simple fact remains that, like the definition and understanding of bachelor, a donut always has a hole - a hole is a necessary condition for something to be a donut. You like to pretend it's my definition but like the bachelor definition, I didn't make it up, it's a definition I learned and which is the agreed mathematical meaning. It's not that I'm forcing a boundary on meaning here, I'm insisting you use words with their proper meaning instead of making shit up because it's convenient for your argument. You want to reject donuts have holes but there are no definitions of donuts without holes because it's a necessary topological feature for a shape to be a donut.

And since you're the one invoking a logical fallacy, it's on you to demonstrate where I commit a fallacy. All you have is "I don't like the definition of donut because it results in conclusions I don't want to commit to". Well tough fucking luck really.

The hole in Kimberley is 0.17 km2
Kimberley is 164.3 km2

Both denoted entities have different predicates, so they are distinct from one another. And the hole has true predicates, so we are justified in inferring that the hole exists. — Moliere

No you can't. Unicorns have horns is true but I can't infer they exist from that fact.

Interestingly enough, the criticisms is western democracies are the only thing accurate about that article.

Yeah, that's not how logic works.

Yeah, nice cop out. I'll leave you with an opportunity to learn something about logic.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

https://www.logicalfallacies.info/begging-the-question-2/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/jun/25/derek-chauvin-sentencing-biden-harris-trump-us-politics-live

22.5 years. Will it be a turning point in the USA? No more Rodney Kings and Breonna Taylor? Or when they happen that they won't get away with it?

It's not a convincing example because you apparently don't understand how the fallacy of begging the question works. Denial of analytical truths leads to logical contradictions, which is basically what you're doing. By analogy, you're insisting on the existence of "unmarried bachelors" when insisting on "donuts without holes". Both are obviously incoherent.

It's not begging the question :

If all donuts have holes
And this shape doesn't have a hole
Then it cannot be a donut

If all donuts have holes
And this shape has a hole
Then it could be a donut

We'll note the premise does not assume the truth of the conclusion so no begging of questions here. We'll also note that "a 2-dimensional representation of a donut" is not a "donut" for rather obvious reasons.

Correction. I don't believe it was impossible, I know it's impossible much like a "married bachelor" is impossible.

I would consider objects to exist "on their own" otherwise they wouldn't exist. Aside from idealism I'm not well-versed in alternatives. So interested in reading up on it and in the meantime interested in why you take issue with "on their own".

Hi, could either of you expound? Or provide a link to an appropriate SEP article? I don't think I'm familiar with this yet.

Who argued that? Probably a misrepresentation. She did sign this letter in 1948. https://archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.December41948

I'm saying girls with gender dysphoria are physically different enough from other girls that it's measurable. So the idea it's a delusion seems misplaced. Your study shows that if you change procedure and stimuli, differences between boys and girls disappear. That is in no way contradictory with the study I cited. Girls with gender dysphoria already perform the same as boys without adjusting procedure and stimuli.

In the past you couldn't be transgender in the modern sense because you could not have your breasts removed or penis inverted or go on hormones, all you could do is cross dress and perform roles attributed to the opposite sex.

This is conflating gender non conformity with transsexuality. A woman is not someone who wears dresses or works as a nurse, she has ovaries, a womb, periods, menopause etc none of these things are available to the opposite sex. — Andrew4Handel

You're confusing transgender with transsexuality. They are not the same thing. You can be transgender without changes in sex.