Dogmatism and humility are the polarities in question.

Dogmatism denies the mysterious, positing certainty or knowledge. Humility accepts the mysterious.

Dogmatism and egoism (non-humility) go hand in hand.

Being noticeable isn't a property of physical things though? — Terrapin Station

It's not a property of atoms, molecules, particles. The basis of the physicalist view.

It's not a property of atoms, molecules, particles. — ZzzoneiroCosm

How are they not noticeable? Note that we're not saying that we can't perceive them with our senses, because that's not what you're saying about thoughts, either.

A table is noticeable. An atom isn't.

An atom is just as mysterious as a thought.

I don't know what a thought is made of. And I don't know what an atom is made of.
I don't know what a thought is made of. And I don't know what a particle is made of.

Disavowing dogmatism - dogmatically...

When in your life have you noticed an atom?

Disavowing dogmatism - dogmatically... — Banno

Nah. It's possible Terrapin is right and thoughts are physical. It's a mystery to me.

Well, we can't have @Terrapin Station being right now, can we.

It's much more far-fetched to just say that you don't know what it is, exactly, but it is. — Terrapin Station

That doesn't seem right - isn't it wise to admit sometimes that there is stuff you don't know?

A table is noticeable. An atom isn't. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Again, note that we're NOT talking about perception in the sense of receiving data via your senses here (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch). Because you weren't saying that thought is perceived via your senses. You said you just "notice" it. If you don't notice atoms in the same way, how do you even have any idea about them?

That doesn't;t seem right - isn't it wise to admit sometimes that there is stuff you don't know? — Banno

The context is one of explaining things. You don't explain something better by saying, "This is some mysterious who knows what"

Again, note that we're NOT talking about perception in the sense of receiving data via your senses here (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch). Because you weren't saying that thought is perceived via your senses. You said you just "notice" it. If you don't notice atoms in the same way, how do you even have any idea about them? — Terrapin Station

When in your life have you noticed an atom? — ZzzoneiroCosm

The context is one of explaining things. — Terrapin Station

Even in the context of explaining things...

...isn't it wise to admit sometimes that there is stuff you don't know? — Banno

You don't explain something better by saying, "This is some mysterious who knows what" — Terrapin Station

If you don't know, then yes, you do explain what you know better by admitting that you don't know...

Much better than making stuff up (we can leave that to out theological infestation).

There's a lot about transgender sues that I don't get. I've outed the issues I see in a few threads over the last year or so. they are mostly to do with distinguishing private from public knowledge; knowing one is a woman, for example, despite being male.

But that's fine. There will be a way to set out the these issues so that they make sense - I just haven't worked it out yet.

I don't know.

In the mean time, I'll still try to refer to some folk as "they" rather than "he" or "she", because although I do not get it, it makes sense to them.

When in your life have you noticed an atom — ZzzoneiroCosm

Again, how do you have any idea about atoms if you don't notice them in the same way that you notice a thought?

If you don't know, then yes, you do explain what you know better by admitting that you don't know... — Banno

What does "explain" refer to here then?

Again, how do you have any idea about atoms if you don't notice them in the same way that you notice a thought? — Terrapin Station

Please explain in what way you've noticed an atom.

Please explain in what way you've noticed an atom. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's the same way that you've noticed a thought.

Atoms are present to mind--when you think about them, for example, right?

It's the same way that you've noticed a thought.

Atoms are present to mind--when you think about them, for example, right? — Terrapin Station

That's pretty weak.

Thought-atoms, like thought-trees, are noticeable.

1) I don't think you believe physical objects are made of thought-atoms.
2) If thought-atoms are the same as atoms, thought-trees are the same as trees.

That's pretty weak. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's weak to say that a property of nonphysicals, akin to a property like location for molecules, is that you "notice" them (at least when they're thoughts that you happen to have).

What does "explain" refer to here then? — Terrapin Station

Nothing; it's a verb, not a noun.

Seeking definitions is a very old philosophical game; you can see where it leads by reading Plato. Mapping out use would be a more interesting task.

Further, you already know what an explanation is, and how to explain things, and can sort good explanations form bad. So don't bother asking.

Not pretending to having an explanation when you don't, is a mark of intellectual honesty. That's a good thing, isn't it?

Nothing; it's a verb, not a noun. — Banno

Verbs do not refer to anything in your view?

(What did I say earlier about this being like interacting with children who are trying to find creative ways to be difficult?)

Very few words refer.

What would you say a verb refers too? Let's consider "run".

And yes, i am trying to be difficult. it's called analysis. If you don;t like it, don't play.

Please explain in what way you've noticed an atom. — ZzzoneiroCosm

One way is through models and enlarged photos. I can also read about atoms and notice their existence. Does that answer that? If not, please explain how you "notice" thoughts and we can re-word in a way that fits.

Nothing; it's a verb, not a noun. — Banno

I think all @Terrapin Station is saying is that saying "I don't know" is less of an explanation than saying the part you do know. "I don't know" is NOT an explanation. But I agree (and I think Terrapin would too) that it is sometimes worthwhile to admit ignorance.

This has nothing to do with natural selection. We're presuming the existence of humans of both sexes. So, I'll try again. To start off: Society, at whatever level, is involved in forming the identity of individual humans? Yes or no? — Baden

I wouldn't say it like that.

Society, at whatever level, is involved in forming assumptions and expectations about the identities of individual humans.

You seem to be saying that our biology already provides the identity of being a male or female, and then society comes along and creates assumptions, or expectations of those biological identities. Those assumptions and expectations are usually wrong which makes them sexist.

This is what I've been saying all along - that you and others are confusing the shared expectation of a particular sex as the actual identity of being that sex.

No, the core part would have been the same-to "be a woman." The difference lies in different cultures having different established social rules on what women should do. — HereToDisscuss

Exactly. Societies have different established social rules on what women should do, not what makes one a woman. Those rules are sexist because they put women in boxes that limit them. Why can't a woman wear pants and have short hair and join the military and still be a woman?

What makes a person a man or woman? Natural selection.

What makes a person a man or woman? Natural selection. — Harry Hindu

Do you even care if anything you write is true? I mean, if you're going to appeal to biology, at least know something about it. Why any particular baby has a natal sex (all else held equal) is due to essentially random union of gametes. On the individual level this has nothing to do with natural selection.

Sexual reproduction is evolutionarily old, need not have just 2 sexes, need not have one sex per organism. And you wanna reduce all of the question of "what makes a person a man or a woman?" down to evolutionary adaptations that occurred prior to the evolution of humans. What in the fuck are you even talking about.

If you press these guys enough, you'll find that it's never about the language issue, it's about something more fundamental. This is a major part of why people are campaigning for more inclusive language might actually be effective to some extent; if it becomes hard to articulate prejudice (misgendering is punishable), proponents of bigotry and ignorance have to speak in terms of their underlying (badly researched or wilfully ignorant) ideas about reality.

And they'll keep going, really, because it's never about the fact of the matter (if it were, they wouldn't behave like douchenozzles trying to refute you on all points and being internally inconsistent in the process), it's about a personal feeling of discomfort with norms shifting underneath them.

Do you even care if anything you write is true? I mean, if you're going to appeal to biology, at least know something about it. Why any particular baby has a natal sex (all else held equal) is due to essentially random union of gametes. On the individual level this has nothing to do with natural selection. — fdrake

Of course I care if it's true. I answer your questions because I seek out criticism of my ideas in order to fine tune them. You're not returning the favor and it's not just me that notices.

I've already done the research on evolution and natural selection as it is what changed me from being a theist to being an atheist. What I see is the same thing happening in politics - that many atheists have simply swapped one big brother for another. They make the same logical errors that the theists do and don't even question their beliefs, or what they are told, like when a man claims to be a woman.

How do you think two different gametes came about?

The first mathematical model to explain the evolution of anisogamy via individual level selection, and one that became widely accepted was the theory of gamete or sperm competition. Here, selection happens at the individual level: those individuals that produce more (but smaller) gametes also gain a larger proportion of fertilizations simply because they produce a larger number of gametes that 'seek out' those of the larger type. However, because zygotes formed from larger gametes have better survival prospects, this process can again lead to the divergence of gametes sizes into large and small (female and male) gametes. The end result is one where it seems that the numerous, small gametes compete for the large gametes that are tasked with providing maximal resources for the offspring. — Wikipedia

Sexual reproduction is evolutionarily old, need not have just 2 sexes, need not have one sex per organism. And you wanna reduce all of the question of "what makes a person a man or a woman?" down to evolutionary adaptations that occurred prior to the evolution of humans. What in the fuck are you even talking about. — fdrake

In order to procreate as a human you need two different sex systems - a vagina/ovaries and a penis/testicles. Each system includes the storage for the gametes and their delivery method. It seems to me that you need both to have a functional system. Those that are born with both don't have both as fully functioning - it's either one or the other or none at all. We usually say that they are intersex, which reflects their condition of being between the two sexes, but typically they lean one way or the other because of which system is more fully functional.

Many taxonomic groups of animals (mostly invertebrates) do not have separate sexes. In these groups, hermaphroditism is a normal condition, enabling a form of sexual reproduction in which either partner can act as the "female" or "male." For example, the great majority of tunicates, pulmonate snails, opisthobranch snails, earthworms, and slugs are hermaphrodites. Hermaphroditism is also found in some fish species and to a lesser degree in other vertebrates. Most plants are also hermaphrodites. — Wikipedia

Hermaphroditism is old. Sex isn't. You are the one that doesn't know what they are talking about.

Humans are still born with tails from time to time. We still carry genes from our distant ancestral species that get activated by some mutation in the copying of genes when a person is being conceived.