Well, no one knows the exact mechanism of Clinical Depression (what I understand you're talking about). But clearly brain neurotransmitter levels play a significant role. However, my guess is you're not referring to the "philosophical perspectives" on serotonin levels. OTOH, essentially everyone has experience with intense sadness and grief (as opposed to the 8-9% who battle Clinical Depression), which are a direct response to life experiences. Philosophy seems to have more to say about these universal entities.

Yes, but the diagnosis of depression gets its sense form a set of grounding psychological hyptheses, and one can then delve into the philosophical underpinnings of the psychological theory

True. Though psychological theory is not limited to the specific diagnosis of depression, which the OP clearly wants to focus upon. Hence my comment addressing depression (not psychological theory).

Not an expert but my understanding is that sympathy is feeling sorry for someone else's pain intellectually, whereas empathy is feeling someone else's pain emotionally.

Two things: first the diagnosis of depression is separate from the emotion of sadness and therefore the OP is akin to asking about the philosophical perspectives on diabetes.

Previously, folks commonly described themselves as "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative".

Probably the largest of the numerous issues with the OP is the reference to "philosophy", as if it is a single entity. Obviously there are numerous schools of philosophical thought that propose radically differing optimal behavior characteristics. Most folks I know who consider philosophy cherry pick various strong points of numerous Philosophies, while glossing over the weak bits to "justify" their behavior. Essentially we all have custom made personal codes of conduct shaped by a balance of what we aspire to be and what drives us, psychologically.

How do I unite everyone to achieve the objectives together

You can't. That's the job for someone with global influence. Keep your goals within your capacity to complete them. Be proud of what you've done. If 10% of folks tried what you've done, the world would be a better place.

Huh? Sounds like you're achieving your goals... at a scale appropriate for your level of influence. Kudos to you. Job well done.

No worries. Think of trying for the best as Offense and avoiding the worst as Defense. It's just a question of knowing when to defend (typically when you're nervous or uncertain) and when to go for the win (typically when you are on familiar territory and are confident).

Naturally one's appreciation of "confidence" can be skewed by a bipolar condition, so adjust for that.

I struggle to make choices. I constantly second-guess myself. I often wish I had made different choices than the ones I made. What is the best way to make choices?

I hear ya bro. Most folks try to make the "best" choice, but those who have a significant fear of the "worst" outcome from making choices (typically manifested by second guessing) are best served by making choices that eliminate the worst outcome, even if it also makes the best outcome unlikely, settling for a likely "pretty good" outcome. Obviously you know yourself best, so you're in the position to determine what is driving you to second guess, but this is a very common situation.

Good luck.

I don't disagree. But in my experience, sympathy is essentially an intellectual response generated when one determines that someone is in distress. This response can be embellished or diminished or even withheld etc depending on specific circumstances and unrelated goals. Whereas empathy starts as an emotional response with a significant personal aspect. Naturally one can intervene intellectually and modulate one's response, but in the Real World, I find that uncommonly practiced.

An excellent topic, one that I have spent a moderately significant amount of time addressing historically. I agree with your summary of the standard distiction between the two, but in my experience the practical difference between them is less about what the speaker says and more easily demonstrated by how the communication impacts the recipient of the communication. Namely, sympathy is felt as an acknowledgement of one's plight (commonly from an acquaintance) and thus is a positive, though a minor one. Whereas empathy is typically from a close friend or family member and is "a shoulder to cry on" and is appreciated as a significant positive.

Of course this doesn't mean that we can't make use of rules at all in our explanations, only that we be willing to revise them

Well, in my experience the issue in (real or concocted) Philosophically problematic situations aren't violations of pre-set rules directly, rather situations where rule #1 plays against rule #2 (classically a conflict of legitimate interests). Thus the "philosopher" must choose which of his rules should be violated. Viola, the pre-set rules are not universally applicable.

I too dislike "analytic and synthetic". I also agree that attempting to find a static set of rules that will apply correctly in all Real World situations is a fool's errand. To my eye the binary approach that I observe in the threads is between theoretical and practical. Myself being a follower of the latter.

Google "how out of date are dictionaries?"

Well, what was said in reference to post surgical trans women, was: "A man with his penis removed does not have a vagina".

Interesting. So noting you have little understanding of a surgical procedure is now an "insult". Okay, I guess I apologize for "insulting" you. While you're right that few trans folks get surgery, that doesn't address my opinion on the status of those who do.

Well yes and mostly no. True a minority of trans women have "bottom surgery", but of those who do, which was the subject matter being discussed, almost noone has their penis removed without the creation of a vagina. Which was the claim I was addressing.

A man with his penis removed does not have a vagina. A woman with a beard and a deep voice is still a woman.

There will be no gender inspection at the entrance to toilets etc so if a man passes for a woman because they have had extensive work then no one will be any the wiser. Most trans women look like men. If a trans man wishes to use the men’s facilities no man will object. If they wish to use the women’s facilities they have every right to do as they are a woman

We are in complete agreement on your bolded statement. In fact that's my point. Your declaration of what "most" trans women look like inspires no confidence considering creation of a neo vagina is standard transition surgery so you're clearly out of your depth.

Your argument makes no sense. Who is likely to disrupt a women's exclusive place more, a person with breasts and a vagina who happens to be XY or a short person with a beard and a deep voice who happens to be XX?

Well in my experience, outside of online pontificating, everyone I know uses external genital appearance as the final practical arbiter of an individual's gender, thus fully transitioned trans folks pass that test. Perhaps your experience is different. I'm not speaking of athletic competition, rather the "exclusive places" argument.

I don't disagree. I guess I took your comment on: "There is the social aspect of competing in leagues with darts snooker etc. access to facilities etc that mean it makes sense to have female only pursuits. Darts is a very social and male dominated pursuit. If women want to pursue it then a women’s only league seems reasonable", as side stepping my addressing the physical unfairness of M2F transexuals competing as women.

So you agree there isn't much of a physical advantage in transwomen competing in darts?

If so then we're reverting to the "exclusive spaces" argument (which I've addressed, and you've not commented on in reply).

So you're unfamiliar with the height and muscle development advantage in sports that male-to-female transexuals possess? Okay, then let me introduce the issue to you (even though it was a hotly debated concept within this very thread).

I was responding to the physical prowess argument, so your reply misses my point. Though as I said before, on the "exclusive space" topic, IMO if someone has had the surgery, they deserve to enter the exclusive space.

Not in sport and not in society when it comes to social norms around women’s right to certain exclusive places.
What about social, emotional and mental sex are different? I just see these as outmoded sexist tropes. Men tend toward traditional masculine pursuits but those that don’t are still men. Women who tend toward masculine pursuits are still women. There still needs to be a distinction for sport and changing/toilet/shelters. For fairness, for safety and for dignity. I don’t see this as controversial

I don't disagree in strength and speed sports. Billiards, darts and poker, not so much. As to exclusive places, if someone has had surgery, IMO they're entitled.

I don't disagree with the idea that genetic, genital, hormonal and gonadal sex are 1) almost always in agreement and 2) have definite medical importance. However, social, emotional and mental sex can differ from the above which also has it's importance.

No, I've never personally delivered a case of ambiguous genetalia. I had a close call once, but it ended up being a clerical error (of some importance). Long story...

To illustrate how times have changed, in med school we were advised that if we delivered a baby with ambiguous genitalia, to announce to the parents that they had a girl because 1) it's easier for the peds surgeons to create female organs than male and 2) if we hesitated in declaring a gender, that would intefere with parental bonding. Of course in Modern medicine it is recommended to state that the baby seems perfectly healthy but that further testing will be required to determine the gender.

Good for you. Retired Ob/GYN here.

Do they? :lol:

Uummm... yes we do. What do you think happens at delivery? "congratulations you had a baby, we'll get back to you when the labs get back on whether it's a girl or a boy."

You seem to be (overly?) focusing on the <1% issue of genetic anomalies, which you're free to do, but it has essentially nothing to do with my point that frank's selection of karyotype to determine biologic sex as opposed to genital inspection is less popular (and much less practical).

Not personal. Medical personnel need to know what your sex was at birth. That's not ambiguous, unless it is

Yup, it's personal. That is your insistance on using karyotype to determine biological sex. As it happens medical personnel (unlike your personal definition) don't use karyotype to determine biologic sex at birth, they inspect the baby's genitalia.

Under your definition biologic sex was unable to be determined before 1956.

What I meant by not uncommon, but far from universal is that most folks define "biological sex" on genital appearance, not karyotype (as frank apparantly does).

The fact that "good" is subjective is well addressed. "Good" for whom? is an even larger question that demands an answer before "ought" can be brought to bear.

Trying to equate legality with morality is a fool's errand. Even a superficial observation of the capriciousness of the legal world will reveal the difference between the two. However an argument can be made to try to equate legality with ethics, depending on the definition of terms.

Basically in your personal lexicon "biological sex" is identical to karyotypic sex. That's not uncommon and perfectly fine, yet is not universal, far from it.

The Hotel Manager refutation hinges on gods being omnipotent. But there is no evidence that if there are gods, that they are necessarily omnipotent. In fact there are several logical problems with the concept of omnipotent gods, only one of which is the presence of evil. But even if one concludes that omnipotent gods are illogical, that does nothing to lower the possibility of nonomnipotent gods, thus does not further the cause of atheism.

The idea that a particular human activity (in this case speech) would be devoid of "consequence", is somewhere between absurd and naive in the extreme.

Let's give him a traumatic brain injury that reduces his intellect to that of a pig. Can we eat him now? If we end up making him identical to a pig, down to the DNA, is it now ok to eat him?

"ok"? That's just a reference to a social convention, not an inherent attribute of babies (or pigs). Thus being subjective the answer is variable depending on the observer.

While I know what you're referring to, and they are, in fact Conservative, in my opinion their conservatism isn't the reason for their whining. Rather its just another example of the observation that no one complains more than those used to an advantage, perceiving the loss of that advantage.

Yes, I understand an individual (myself, for example) choosing not to engage with a racist or even a "racialist" in mixed company (because "something bad might happen"), especially since I'm not a professional broadcaster or journalist or influencer. Yet at the same time having a robust, but private discussion with the same "racialist", since I'm certain nothing bad will happen. However, are the "rules" different for a professional journalist, whose reason for existance is the dissemination of information?