Well put.

So we need to ask the question of why would men create games to be played by men, for the purpose of displaying their manliness. Or is it the case that women created these sports so that men could show off their abilities, and the women could use this to judge them. Understanding the intent behind this type of sports is crucial to understanding this proposed inequality between men and women. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think it's crucial to understanding "this proposed inequality", but it can probably shed some light on the issue.

I remember reading somewhere that the novelty of competetive sports evolved as a nonlethal alternative to lethal combat. And, its cultural prevalence can be correlated to the advances in war technology, as the distance between combatants increased, so did the interest in and necessity of competetive sports.

If this scenario is the case, then i can conjecture: competitive sports are merely a way that men sort out their rank amongst their peers without having to risk death. Now, why would a man want to achieve glory, and stand out from his peers? As it turns out, men who are successful in competetive sports are likely to command special attention from a wider selection of ladies, and all without the risk of death. A possible reason. It is hard to deny that women have encouraged competetive sports amongst men (wittingly or not), so men have continued doing it because it gave them all the glory, all without the risk of death.

So, given all this conjecture, if men originally endeavored in competetive sports for honor and pussy, can we contrast it with the original reason women began to endeavor in competetive sports? I can't think of a reason women first endeavored in competetive sports. My instinct tells me it was imposed on them by the patriarchy - to demonstrate woman's inherent subordination to men by manipulating them into immitating man's activity. I could be wrong.

Consider, that if men created these sports for the purpose of demonstrating to women that they cannot compete with men, and that they are therefore unequal to men, then this is nothing more than systematic sexism. Furthermore, if this is the case, then the men would not even actually be competing, they'd be cooperating in this system, by participating in these sports. Then, that this is competition is really what is an illusion, because the design of the game is not based in competition, it is based in the difference between men and women. So the players would be nothing but actors in a sexist form of entertainment. — Metaphysician Undercover

A bit far fetched, I'd say.

Oh! Well -- I'm interested then. Care to say more? — Moliere

I have.
I rather think we're in more danger from puffed-up politicians, preachers, entrepreneurs, movie moguls, sport and screen stars, future SCOTUS frat boys, commanding officers and shift foremen, not to mention incels and their older counterparts in state legislatures, than a few - so few they're not worth the expense of better partitions - men in skirts need of relief.

Can't you see the smoke-screen? Creating yet another pretend bogey-man and making a big fuss, while they're dismantling civil rights?
Seems I accidentally hit the wrong key and lost all my links to Trump, Weinberg, Cosby et al.
Pity!

Peers as a selection process for a roster are perfectly fine when sports are non-competitive and pointless. — Merkwurdichliebe

I did posit a sane society in which everyone can participate in in recreational sports in a league of their own weight-class and skill level. I forgot to add: with non-bigoted coaches.

I did posit a sane society in which everyone can participate in in recreational sports in a league of their own weight-class and skill level. I forgot to add: with non-bigoted coaches. — Vera Mont

Sane society in the present day? Nonexistent.

I reside in the insane USA, and here anyone can participate in recreational sports, with both bigoted and nonbigoted coaches. But recreational games are a non-issue. When it comes to competitive sports, gender differences in skill and physical attributes are undeniable and reaffirmed in every actual example that has taken place in reality.

There are few issues with recreational sports that seek equity through equality:

How would you determine each participant's skill level? And what about those who could not find equals in skill and/or physical attribute, will they be left out completely?

Hypothetically, if we actually could assemble a large enough group of players that were unequivocally determined to be equal in skill and physiological attributes, wouldn't that set the stage for every match to be a draw?

Then I supposed we can abolish scorekeeping since every match ends in a draw. But...that begs the question of why we are measuring skill and physiological attributes to play games that always amount to the same thing in every case. Why not just include everybody, regardless of skill and attributes? After all, it is only play, and none of it matters in the end.

But then some would dominate others, inevitably introducing a heirachical stratification in what is intended to be equal in all aspects...that is the reason all included must be equal. Yet, this brings us back to the first problem that excludes those so-called "perpetually unequal folk" that can't fit in.



With coaches, how would we determine which coaches are genuinely bigoted, and which are genuinely trying to win at all costs? And if a player in a recreational athletic league did not like the coach, they could simply change teams without issue since it is recreational and does not matter.

I remember reading somewhere that the novelty of competetive sports evolved as a nonlethal alternative to lethal combat. — Merkwurdichliebe

It could be that these sports developed as training exercises for soldiers. But this brings up another issue, historically only men wage war. So we might consider whether only men are inclined toward such battles, as a product of hormones etc., or whether women were excluded due to a lack of strength or some other reason. I think it would be some other reason, like they were being protected as valuable. The possibilities are endless, but if the former scenario is the case, then we might consider that the competitive attitude which leads to war and such sports, is itself a masculine trait.

So, given all this conjecture, if men originally endeavored in competetive sports for honor and pussy, can we contrast it with the original reason women began to endeavor in competetive sports? I can't think of a reason women first endeavored in competetive sports. My instinct tells me it was imposed on them by the patriarchy - to demonstrate woman's inherent subordination to men by manipulating them into immitating man's activity. I could be wrong. — Merkwurdichliebe

According to the speculations above, it would be the case, that women simply do not have the same competitive attitude which men do. If we can blame their inequality in sports on a lack of testosterone, and perhaps other innate physiology, then we ought to look at how these factors might affect their overall mental attitude as well.

And here we have an issue. If morality is associated with cooperation, as described earlier, and this competitive attitude is opposed to cooperation, then men are inherently lacking in morality. But again, it might be a mistake to associate cooperation with morality, at the exclusion of competition. Classically, morality is associated with the good, and the good is what is desired, as the end. War, and competition in general, are the manifestations of conflict in what is desired, ('I win vs you win'). So reconfiguring morality to exclude this intention, the good, might not be the proper thing to do.

However, I've laid out the parameters for a distinction between the kind of thing which men desire (the good for men) and the kind of thing which women desire (the good for women). If it is possible to make such a categorization, it might shed light on the question of whether men are truly more competitive than women.

Sane society in the present day? Nonexistent. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'm aware. And professional-level sports bore me rigid, so I don't care how you select for them.

Do you think we would reduce the female concern about competing against transwomen at say running, if we took all the gold medal fastest males at running, like Usain Bolt, and made them all race against a cheetah or even a fairly old household pussy cat? I also have no interest in competitive sports.

I think that a trans Olympics would be good fun and may solve the sports issue.
It would probably have quite small national teams but it could perhaps become as popular as the Eurovision song contest and be an event that speaks for world peace and unity in a similar way that that competition tends to.

I think that a trans Olympics would be good fun and may solve the sports issue. — universeness

The Rainbow Olympics? Oooo, I'd watch that! I can think of some new events to introduce. And, it wouldn't need the local population to pony up vast sums of money for their government to waste on building new sports facilities.
Of course, some countries - also some states and provinces - would be ineligible to host it.

that fear isn't based in facts.
— Moliere

My contention is: it isn't a fear at all; it's a pretense and part of the mask behind which systemic misogyny lurks. — Vera Mont

My feeling is that it is a species of homo-erotic fear. If a man dresses as a woman, a 'hetero' man might 'accidentally' be attracted to him. Best beat them up to make them ugly, and disprove any slur of homosexual feelings.

And misogyny.

I can think of some new events to introduce — Vera Mont

Yeah, I was thinking on that as well :rofl: The 100m mince! :rofl: I hope I haven't caused any offense, but I can't help it, if I find that imagery funny. I hope trans/gay folks do to.

My feeling is that it is a species of homo-erotic fear. — unenlightened

I see where that may be part of the mix. The far right seems to have collected just about every irrational fear, loathing and phobia in its deplorable basket of grievances.

Thanks for your considered reply.

"Fairness" based rules for competition are derived from equality norms, rather than cooperation norms. And equality norms are fundamentally different from cooperation norms because there is no requirement for the intent to cooperate for there to be a desire for equality. That is to say, that when people compete, and there are rules established to ensure fairness of competition, that is the only required end, fair competition. And fairness is based in equality. — Metaphysician Undercover

I will argue the contrary, that fairness and equality moral norms are norms for solving cooperation problems.

“Do to others as you would have them do to you” and “Do not steal or kill” are all moral norms which are heuristics (usually reliable but fallible, rules of thumb) that initiate indirect reciprocity. (An example of indirect reciprocity is you help someone else in your group with the expectation that someone in the group will help you when you need help, and that the group will punish people who refuse to help others.)

Following the Golden Rule, you would treat others fairly because you would like to be treated fairly.

Following “do not steal”, you would respect others’ equal rights to their property with the expectation that others will respect your right to your property and that society will punish those who violate that right. Following “do not kill”, you would respect others’ equal rights to their lives for the same kind of reasons.

Equality norms are equal rights norms, not norms that would incoherently somehow claim equal capability. Equal rights norms are reciprocity norms that solve the cooperation/exploitation dilemma.

The rules we impose on competitions are cooperation norms.

That is, we must cooperate to establish these limiting rules on competition.

So, what is the one feature distinguishing moral competition from moral cooperation?

Consider two groups. Each cooperatively makes and tries to sell widgets to the same outsiders. As part of this competition, one group figures out how to make better widgets cheaper than their competitor’s widget. The group that makes the worse, more expensive widget loses all their investments and are now unemployed. The losing competitor has been harmed.

Has the winning group necessarily acted immorally in causing that harm? No, so long as they acted fairly in the competition and limited the harm they did to the generally agreed on limits to that harm.

In a foot race, that accepted limit to harm might be that one person would have the disappointment of losing and perhaps loss of scholarships and other rewards.

In business, that accepted limit to harm might be loss of investments and unemployment.

Moral competition requires treating competitors fairly (as defined by general agreement in a society) and limiting harm to what is generally agreed to in a society.

The feature that distinguishes moral competition from moral cooperation is that harm is moral if it is within the general agreement limits for harm between competitors in that society.

The following books explain fairness as the keystone of morality:
Justice as Fairness by John Rawls
The Fairness Instinct: The Robin Hood Mentality and Our Biological Nature by L. Sun
THE ORIGINS OF FAIRNESS How Evolution Explains Our Moral Nature by Nicolas Baumard

My feeling is that it is a species of homo-erotic fear. If — unenlightened

Isn't the basis for having separate gym lockers right now in part hetero-erotic fear?

Isn't the basis for having separate gym lockers right now in part hetero-erotic fear? — Hanover

You'd have to spell that out before i could assent to it. I don't know what you mean by hetero-erotic fear.

I am familiar with people being called faggot and beaten up as if gays are a huge threat. Does this happen to straights where you live? I haven't seen any signs of fear of being or being thought to heterosexual.

I am familiar with people being called faggot and beaten up as if gays are a huge threat. — unenlightened

I'm familiar with the same phenomenon regarding Jews, Sikhs, Catholics, Muslims, Black people, kitchen maids, women, children, dogs and horses. Sex doesn't necessarily figure in the fear of non-submission. Insecure egos do not wield power well.

You'd have to spell that out before i could assent to it. I don't know what you mean by hetero-erotic fear.

I am familiar with people being called faggot and beaten up as if gays are a huge threat. Does this happen to straights where you live? I haven't seen any signs of fear of being or being thought to heterosexual. — unenlightened

No, not at all what I was getting at.

You said you thought maybe closeted homosexuals didn't want transsexuals in the locker room because it would be too erotic for them to bear.

I wasn't disagreeing with that necessarily, but I was just remarking that part of the reason they don't let women squeeze into the men's showers along side men isn't just because the women might fear assualt, but it might also be that the heterosexuals would find that too arousing.

I don't know if I'd find it arousing to shower next to an attractive woman who I was not otherwise involved with. It would be very uncomfortable though. Like very. Especially if it was like a neighbor or something, or like the neighbor's 19 year old daughter. In fact, I feel like I need to go wash my hands after typing this.

I don't know if I'd find it arousing to shower next to an attractive woman who I was not otherwise involved with. It would be very uncomfortable though. Like very. Especially if it was like a neighbor or something, or like the neighbor's 19 year old daughter. In fact, I feel like I need to go wash my hands after typing this. — Hanover

Sounds terrifying.

You're saying that the reason we have separate changing rooms is because men are frightened they might get aroused? Really? Bizarre.

I don't know if I'd find it arousing to shower next to an attractive woman who I was not otherwise involved with. It would be very uncomfortable though. Like very. Especially if it was like a neighbor or something, or like the neighbor's 19 year old daughter. In fact, I feel like I need to go wash my hands after typing this. — Hanover

Prescribing therapy: https://www.tripstodiscover.com/top-nude-beaches-in-the-united-states/

Like so many things we fear, it's just a question of acculturation.

I will argue the contrary, that fairness and equality moral norms are norms for solving cooperation problems. — Mark S

You don't seem to be grasping the incompatibility between "cooperation" and "competition". We cooperate, help each other, as the means to an end. So cooperation requires an agreeable end, such that people will work together to achieve that goal. Without the agreeable goal, people can be nice to each other, and behave respectfully, but this cannot be called "cooperation", because they are simply being respectful of each other without cooperating (working together). On the other hand, competition between you and I means that we are both striving for the same goal, but the goal can only be achieved by one of us, exclusively. This rules out the possibility of cooperation.

Now, when people cooperate there is no need for any fairness or equality norms. If we are cooperating, like a man and a women raising a family for example, we are each contributing what we can, toward the common goal, and whether we do this in a fair and equal way is completely irrelevant. Since we each contribute something completely different, toward the common goal, how could one even begin to judge whether the contributions were fair or equal? Fairness and equality are concepts which cannot even be properly applied to cooperation, which is derived from the will to help out.

Therefore fairness and equality norms cannot solve cooperation problems. Cooperation problems are the result of a lack of a common goal, or a failure of agreement on the goal, which kills the will to cooperate. No amount of fairness or equality rules can restore the will to cooperate, only the initiation of an agreeable end, and the will to help obtain it can.

“Do to others as you would have them do to you” and “Do not steal or kill” are all moral norms which are heuristics (usually reliable but fallible, rules of thumb) that initiate indirect reciprocity. (An example of indirect reciprocity is you help someone else in your group with the expectation that someone in the group will help you when you need help, and that the group will punish people who refuse to help others.)

Following the Golden Rule, you would treat others fairly because you would like to be treated fairly. — Mark S

I think you are misrepresenting the golden rule here. When it says "as you would have them do to you", this is spoken as an example of how you should treat others. In no way does the golden rule imply that you expect an equal, or fair return on the goodness which you give. This is the meaning of Christian/Platonic love, to do good without the expectation of reciprocation. Therefore it is a significant misunderstanding, to represent the golden rule as principle of equality in this way, that one only ought to do good in expectation of reciprocation.

If the moral will of human beings, to do good, is dependent on having others do good, then everyone would be looking for bad behaviour from someone else, as an excuse to do something bad, and all of humanity would slip into evil at a very rapid rate, as one bad deed would incite many more.

Equality norms are equal rights norms, not norms that would incoherently somehow claim equal capability. Equal rights norms are reciprocity norms that solve the cooperation/exploitation dilemma. — Mark S

That you can point to a "cooperation/exploitation" dilemma ought to be an indication to you, that this is the manifestation of the cooperation/competition incompatibility. Money is one of those goals which we compete for. If there is a fixed amount of money on the table, and everyone in the room wants as much of it as they can get, then there is an inclination to compete rather than cooperate. Therefore equal rights norms solve the "cooperation/exploitation" by addressing exploitation as a competition induced problem. They do not address cooperation at all, they address a breakdown in cooperation which has emerged from competitive urges. The competitive urges are the manifestation of goals which are personal, and cannot be shared with others. Cooperation, as explained above requires a shared goal. If my goal cannot be shared with you, then there is no cooperation, and my desire to be competitive will lead me to exploit.

Consider two groups. Each cooperatively makes and tries to sell widgets to the same outsiders. As part of this competition, one group figures out how to make better widgets cheaper than their competitor’s widget. The group that makes the worse, more expensive widget loses all their investments and are now unemployed. The losing competitor has been harmed.

Has the winning group necessarily acted immorally in causing that harm? No, so long as they acted fairly in the competition and limited the harm they did to the generally agreed on limits to that harm. — Mark S

Remember Mark S, I did not say that competition is inherently bad. I only said that it is inconsistent with cooperation. That's why I said that cooperation does not suffice as a first moral principle, because it cannot account for the good of competition. And I further explained this above, cooperation requires an agreeable end. So the agreeable end is logically prior to cooperation.

In your example here, you show competition between the two groups, and the competition results in a better, cheaper product, which we can say is good. But you do not show any cooperation between these two groups, which brings about this good. And, since it wasn't cooperation, but competition which brought about this good, there was a bad side-effect, the one group lost their jobs. This sort of bad side-effect seems to be a feature of life in general.

The following books explain fairness as the keystone of morality: — Mark S

If fairness is the keystone of morality, then cooperation is not, that's plain and simple. This is because cooperation is based on having a common goal, as explained above, and fairness is not at all required for cooperation.

Well I think the point was that there's a difference between a biological woman and a trans woman. If a community decides to use that distinction for whatever they will, it's certainly not a logical problem, however might assess the motive behind it.

Once we plug our brains back in, that's obvious. :up:

I will argue the contrary, that fairness and equality moral norms are norms for solving cooperation problems.
— Mark S

You don't seem to be grasping the incompatibility between "cooperation" and "competition". We cooperate, help each other, as the means to an end. So cooperation requires an agreeable end, such that people will work together to achieve that goal. Without the agreeable goal, people can be nice to each other, and behave respectfully, but this cannot be called "cooperation", because they are simply being respectful of each other without cooperating (working together). On the other hand, competition between you and I means that we are both striving for the same goal, but the goal can only be achieved by one of us, exclusively. This rules out the possibility of cooperation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Following the Golden Rule includes “being nice to each other”. The Golden Rule advocates initiating indirect reciprocity, it is a powerful cooperation strategy. “Being nice to each other” is cooperation. Will you argue the Golden Rule is not a moral norm, indirect reciprocity is not a cooperation strategy, or that the Golden Rule does not advocate being nice to each other?

Competition can provide net benefits to society. To sustainably obtain those benefits, all advanced countries cooperatively advocate morally limited competition, which is largely beneficial.

Sure, competition without moral rules can result in exploitation and even extinction of subgroups which is the opposite of morality’s function and, therefore, immoral. But we can compete morally by cooperatively agreeing on rules (as part of cultural moralities) that limit that harm to agreed-on kinds and that prohibit other kinds of harm. For example, the agreed-on permissible harm (as part of a moral system) of economic competition might be limited to loss of investment or employment.

Following the Golden Rule, you would treat others fairly because you would like to be treated fairly.
— Mark S

I think you are misrepresenting the golden rule here. When it says "as you would have them do to you", this is spoken as an example of how you should treat others. In no way does the golden rule imply that you expect an equal, or fair return on the goodness which you give. This is the meaning of Christian/Platonic love, to do good without the expectation of reciprocation. Therefore it is a significant misunderstanding, to represent the golden rule as principle of equality in this way, that one only ought to do good in expectation of reciprocation. — Metaphysician Undercover

You and I are describing two perspectives on the same phenomenon. Your perspective “to do good without the expectation of reciprocation” is a standard perspective for people in a well-functioning society.

I describe the same phenomena of moral behavior but point out these unselfish behaviors exist because they provide net benefits. When societies fail and the rewards for acting morally in the larger society stop and become losses, I assure you that people will stop acting morally in the larger society because they no longer benefit from those moral acts. (In failed societies, moral behavior does not stop. It is refocused on a smaller group – such as family – where the benefits of that morality are more reliable. See Peter Singer’s The Expanding Circle)

It is an important insight that “Properly understood, morality is not a burden, it is a means of accessing many benefits.” But I take your point that this insight can be confusing for people who hold the standard perspective you describe for people in well-functioning societies.

I'll also quote the earliest known version of the Golden Rule from Ancient Egypt's Wise Peasant:

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do."

This version explicitly calls out why we should follow the Golden Rule. I am a bit dubious about the translation since the translator made it rhyme, but I expect he got it mostly right. Several sources suggest this implied understanding of morality as cooperation strategies was a common view at the time. We just got confused about morality for a few thousand years.

If the moral will of human beings, to do good, is dependent on having others do good, then everyone would be looking for bad behaviour from someone else, as an excuse to do something bad, and all of humanity would slip into evil at a very rapid rate, as one bad deed would incite many more. — Metaphysician Undercover

The fact is that everyone is always “looking for bad behavior from someone else”. But this vigilance (innate to our moral sense) is not primarily “an excuse to do something bad”, but a reason to do something good – punish the moral norm’s violator. Punishment of moral norms violators is necessary to sustain the related cooperation strategy.

One punishment for moral norm violators is a refusal to cooperate with them in the future. In dysfunctional societies, this can lead to refusal to cooperate with (to act morally toward) anyone who is not a member of your most reliable ingroup – usually your family.

Competition is not the opposite of cooperation. The opposite of cooperation is creating cooperation problems rather than solving them.

Cooperation to limit the harm of competition and increase its benefits is what makes our societies work as well as they do. We can cooperate or compete to achieve the same goals. They are not opposites, but alternates. The difference is that people who agree to compete are agreeing to the potential for harm (limited harm if the competition is to be moral).

Being nice to each other” is cooperation. — Mark S

It seems we have two very distinct ideas of what constitutes cooperation. I know of no other definition of cooperation other than to work together. And so it follows that people can be friendly toward each other without necessarily cooperating.

I describe the same phenomena of moral behavior but point out these unselfish behaviors exist because they provide net benefits. — Mark S

You are proposing an unjustified cause/effect relationship which is inconsistent with my interpretation of the golden rule. You are saying that the benefits of working together, cooperating, cause people to be friendly and unselfish. However, I am saying that the golden rule says that we ought to be friendly and unselfish without any view toward benefits. Therefore according to the golden rule, benefits cannot be perceived as the motivating force, or cause of people being unselfish and friendly.

This is why your description is not objective. It contains a cause/effect assumption which you have not justified, and this assumed cause/effect relation is inconsistent with the moral principle we know as the golden rule. Therefore this proposed description is not a sound observation.

When societies fail and the rewards for acting morally in the larger society stop and become losses, I assure you that people will stop acting morally in the larger society because they no longer benefit from those moral acts. — Mark S

This is pure conjecture, so it does not adequately justify your unsound observation.

This version explicitly calls out why we should follow the Golden Rule. I am a bit dubious about the translation since the translator made it rhyme, but I expect he got it mostly right. Several sources suggest this implied understanding of morality as cooperation strategies was a common view at the time. We just got confused about morality for a few thousand years. — Mark S

It's good to be dubious about the translation, because I think this material was written in hieroglyphics so the translation of verb tenses and causal relations would be rather subjective.

To support your position I think you would be better off to look at something like "Karma". This concept expresses a clear causal relation. The way you behave will have consequences toward what happens to you in the future.

The problem though, is that this still does not support the causal relation which you assume. You are claiming that actual benefits which have occurred in the past, benefits which have actually materialized, are the cause of unselfish behaviour now. But Karma works with a temporal relation which is inverted to this, by asserting that unselfish behaviour now will cause benefits in the future.

So you haven't presented the means for your inversion. You say "unselfish behaviors exist because they provide net benefits", implying that benefits have caused the existence of unselfish behaviour. However, Karma says that unselfish behaviour will cause benefits. You propose an inverted form of Karma which you have not justified.

Several sources suggest this implied understanding of morality as cooperation strategies was a common view at the time. We just got confused about morality for a few thousand years. — Mark S

Since you have a backward, inverted perspective on morality, you think that human beings are digressing instead of progressing in their morality. You think that the Christian Golden Rule which states that we ought to do good without any expectation of benefit or return, is a case of being "confused about morality" in relation to Karma, which encourages us to do good at the expectation of return. Then you yourself digress even further from the true nature of morality, to suggest that the benefits, or return, are what actually cause us to do good.

The fact is that everyone is always “looking for bad behavior from someone else”. But this vigilance (innate to our moral sense) is not primarily “an excuse to do something bad”, but a reason to do something good – punish the moral norm’s violator. Punishment of moral norms violators is necessary to sustain the related cooperation strategy.

One punishment for moral norm violators is a refusal to cooperate with them in the future. In dysfunctional societies, this can lead to refusal to cooperate with (to act morally toward) anyone who is not a member of your most reliable ingroup – usually your family. — Mark S

This is the type of confusion which results from your backward way of looking at morality. You portray inflicting "punishment" as doing good. But the inclination to punish is nothing but vengefulness, which is not good at all, and inconsistent with Christian principles of confession and forgiveness. But of course you look at Christian morality as a step backward, so it makes sense that you would look at punishment as a good.

Competition is not the opposite of cooperation. The opposite of cooperation is creating cooperation problems rather than solving them.

Cooperation to limit the harm of competition and increase its benefits is what makes our societies work as well as they do. We can cooperate or compete to achieve the same goals. They are not opposites, but alternates. The difference is that people who agree to compete are agreeing to the potential for harm (limited harm if the competition is to be moral). — Mark S

Well, I think that if you are not prepared to inquire into the true nature of competition, and simply represent it as a form of cooperation, this discussion has no place on this thread. The whole point of me bringing this up was to expose the reality of competition, and how it relates to the subject of the op, "what is a 'woman'".

When we "agree to compete", we have an artificial form of competition. The ensuing engagement will be restricted and greatly limited by rules and regulations. If we want to understand the real nature of competition we need to look at it independently from such artificial restrictions.

What I said already, is that equality norms, and fairness norms, are produced as required for such artificial restrictions to competition. To understand competition in its natural form we need to see it as based in inequality. Inequality is what is essential to, and what enables, or capacitates, the real and natural existence of competition.

Being nice to each other” is cooperation.
— Mark S

It seems we have two very distinct ideas of what constitutes cooperation. I know of no other definition of cooperation other than to work together. And so it follows that people can be friendly toward each other without necessarily cooperating. — Metaphysician Undercover

My understanding of cooperation is based in game theory. That game theory explains why the Golden Rule is such a powerful moral norm and why we often take the trouble to be friendly to people we have just met. Being “friendly” to people we have just met is a marker strategy for being a good cooperator. Being a marker strategy makes being friendly part of a cooperation strategy - part of cooperation.

What evidence do you have that your perspective on cooperation that does not include being friendly is useful?

And seriously, do you think that the Golden Rule is either not a cooperation strategy or does not advocate being friendly to other people? I see no justification for your assertion that cooperation does not include friendliness.

Being “friendly” to people we have just met is a marker strategy for being a good cooperator. — Mark S

That's a very unreliable principle. If I meet someone on the street who is unusually friendly toward me, I am very wary that the person is trying to take advantage of me in some way or another, because that is how the con works.

What evidence do you have that your perspective on cooperation that does not include being friendly is useful? — Mark S

It's very useful to distinguish differences between concepts, in analysis, to better understand those concepts, and to apply deductive logic. Cooperation involves working together toward a goal, and you may say that being friendly is a necessary condition for cooperation. I would not argue against that.

However, being friendly is not the same thing as cooperating. Being friendly is the wider concept, so cooperation is not necessary for being friendly. This means that being friendly is logically prior to cooperation, as a necessary requirement for cooperation, but being friendly does not necessarily result in cooperation.

As an analogy, consider that being human is necessary for being a women, just like being friendly is necessary for cooperating. But being human doesn't mean that you are a woman, just like being friendly doesn't mean that you are cooperating. This implies that people with very different goals or ends, may be friendly to each other, but because their goals are quite distinct, we cannot say that they are cooperating. This is the principle which allows that competitors, who are obviously not cooperating because they have opposing goals, can still be friendly to each other.

So it is not the case that my perspective on cooperating doesn't include being friendly, it's just that being friendly does not necessarily mean cooperating. And I think that this perspective is useful to help us understand what it means to cooperate, and what it means to be friendly. Further, it allows us to properly relate these concepts to competition, which is where we came from in this discussion.

And seriously, do you think that the Golden Rule is either not a cooperation strategy or does not advocate being friendly to other people? — Mark S

I explained already why the Golden Rule is very clearly not a cooperation strategy. Cooperation requires a common end. The Golden Rule as commonly stated has no implications of any end. You simply misinterpret it to claim that it states that one should treat others in a particular way, with the end, or goal of getting treated that way back. And I already explained why that particular goal, which is inserted by you in your interpretation, is clearly not a part of the Golden Rule.

Furthermore, because the Golden Rule stipulates that we ought to behave in this friendly way, irrespective of what our goals are, it encourages you to act this way toward people regardless of whether the person is cooperating with you or competing with you.

I wasn't disagreeing with that necessarily, but I was just remarking that part of the reason they don't let women squeeze into the men's showers along side men isn't just because the women might fear assualt, but it might also be that the heterosexuals would find that too arousing. — Hanover

You're saying that the reason we have separate changing rooms is because men are frightened they might get aroused? Really? Bizarre. — unenlightened

I'm with Hanover on this one, even though unenlightened finds it bizarre. However, I think it's more of a young man's, or even boyish, problem, and the separation is imposed to help those boys develop in a healthy way. Being aroused in a public place, like having a bulge in your pants, would produce serious embarrassment for many boys, (exceptions like Robert Plant), quite conducive to fear. In my old age, I would never have such a fear, but still great discomfort as Hanover describes. Part of that discomfort might be a holdover from the days of that boyish fear.

Part of that discomfort might be a holdover from the days of that boyish fear. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's hyperpeckererecterphobia. It's a youthful affliction. It's followed later in life by hypopeckererecterphobia, it's evil opposite.

Tender loving care is the cure for either though.

Speaking of male/female differences, any chance a female would ever be having this conversation?

The reason i find it bizarre is because it is quite clear to me that nakedness becomes sexualised by being made taboo, not the other way round. As any naturist can attest. Your complacent ignorance is a bit shocking to me frankly, considering the amount of philosophical exposition undertaken in the matter.

A personal account: https://kriswilliams.medium.com/de-sexualizing-nudity-2e5673d7ae25

The reason i find it bizarre is because it is quite clear to me that nakedness becomes sexualised by being made taboo, not the other way round. — unenlightened

I don't think so, I've seen other animals get erections. Notice how the "de-sexualizing" described in your referred article requires effort, so it is not what is natural. Maybe the embarrassment, shame, discomfort, and fear, come from the taboo aspect, but not the sexuality. Still there is a certain natural discomfort associated with an erection, which inclines the male toward further action, and this natural feature cannot be neglected either.

I don't think so, — Metaphysician Undercover

Well change your mind, because you are wrong.

Foremost in interest to psychologists is the basis of the body taboo. Is it a fundamental human trait, as many have maintained—inherited, or at least an inevitable consequence of man's social life? There is, for example, the curious relation of the nausea response to nystagmus and vertigo—an apparently native or early acquired association between remotely connected phenomena. Is the shame response to one's own nudity, or the shock response to the sight of nudity, a primitive response-pattern of this sort?

No one who has been through an experience of social nudity in favorable and proper circumstances will hesitate to answer this in the negative. In some cases the taboo and its customary responses slough off at once. On questioning the men stopping at Klingberg I found that for some the maladjustment lasted only a few minutes, for others it persisted during the first day—after that social nudity seemed perfectly natural and the power of the taboo was entirely broken.

https://www.all-about-psychology.com/social-nudism.html (1933 article)

There remains to consider the effect of social nudity on intersex attitudes and relations. The American writers already cited are agreed that nakedness, properly pursued, is no stimulant to eroticism and has no deleterious effects on sex morality. Miss Gay mentions the case of a young man and woman, obviously in love, who kept constant company during the daytime in the park without flirting and without his ever so much as touching her body—while in the evening, when they were clothed, he would often fondle her (2, p. 56). The Merrills' description of the behavior of young men and women in the Koch School gymnasium at Hamburg points to the same conclusion (3, pp. 135—143). (The subject is treated more fully in a recent work, L. C. Royer, Let's go naked (Trans, fr. French), New York, Brentano's, 1932, pp. 192. This volume, which appeared since the present article was sent to press, describes the author's experiences in several nudist resorts in Germany).

ibid.

I don't see how this psychology has provided any evidence to support your claim.

I believe that the facts are quite obvious. There are two primary factors involved in male arousal, imagination and sensation. Imagination is the primary, yet sensation plays a role which is also very natural. Any sense may be involved, including the visual sense of sight. Clothing serves as a filter between the sensing subject and the body being sensed. It is very effective to the sense of touch, but also quite effective to the sense of sight. As a filter it affects the way that the sensation influences the primary cause of arousal, the imagination. So clothing can have either a positive affect on the imagination which causes arousal, if perceived as provocative, or it can have a negative affect if perceived as plain covering. Since it is a filter between the person sensing and the body being sensed it cannot have a zero effect.

It seems to me like you are not properly apprehending the ground, or base. The grounding point is that sensing another body provides the potential for sexual arousal. We can do things to that body, like put clothes on it, to either raise or lower the level of potential, but we cannot remove that potential in any absolute way. It appears to me like you want to start from the assumption that there is no such basic potential for arousal involved with sensing another body. You want to say that the potential for arousal is a product of the taboo. But this is an unnatural starting point, and simply false because sensation has a real and natural influence over the imagination.