My point was it isn't reasonable when group statistics are used on individuals. — LuckyR

But it is reasonable. If group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z, then—all things being equal—someone belonging to group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z on average. Progressives have a difficult time recognizing the simple fact that there are rationally sound inferences which move from group data to individual data.

But it is reasonable. If group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z, then—all things being equal—someone belonging to group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z on average. Progressives have a difficult time recognizing the simple fact that there are rationally sound inferences which move from group data to individual data. — Leontiskos

That there are reasons to do something doesn't mean it ought be done. The "ought" question is a judgment call that is based upon which objectives you wish to promote.

If I increase auto insurance premiums based upon age, I fulfill my objective of assuring profitability while still insuring the less safe driver pool. I also don't offend social sensibilities because we accept that young people should bear a higher cost due to their inexperience.

However, if I find that Native Americans pose higher risks due to perhaps their reduced driving experience as well, I don't increase their rates using their genetic heritage as the basis even if that acts as a good risk marker.

I don't do that because it offends other social objectives of not discriminating for racial reasons. What everyone has to understand is that economic reasons are not the only reasons for decision making, but the reasons chosen are a matter of democratic consensus.

That it might increase profits to be racist doesn't force a conclusion that one should be racist.

That there are reasons to do something doesn't mean it ought be done. — Hanover

Sure, but we are discussing whether it is reasonable, not whether it ought to be done.

That it might increase profits to be racist doesn't force a conclusion that one should be racist. — Hanover

The lurking question here is, "Is racism irrational?" Or also, "What is racism?"

For Aquinas that which is immoral is always also irrational. For us something can be immoral and rational. This is a problem beyond the instrumentalization of reason, and goes to the fact that many of our taboos do not have rational grounds. It is that something can even be moral and irrational. For example, our colloquial definition of racism would seem to be, "Discriminating on the basis of race without having any good reason to discriminate on the basis of race," and this verges on psychological impossibility. Or closer to this thread, sexism would be, "Discriminating on the basis of sex without having any good reason to discriminate on the basis of sex." This looks like liberal-egalitarian dogma. "Don't do it even if you think you have a good reason to do it."

So now just making up an example, suppose I am in a combat situation in the military, and our liberal-democratic dogmas have prescribed that women must be admitted to the military on equal footing with men. I am paired with a woman in combat; I go down; she is not strong enough to carry me out; I die. Why did I die? Because the liberal-egalitarian legislation irrationally created a suboptimal situation on the basis of the falsehood that women are equal to men in strength. Irrational failure to discriminate can have real consequences.

To the extent though anyone actually argues that cis and trans folks can't be meaningfully distinguished, that is stupid. I don't think people really do that, but the definition games often get played in a way that it pretends there is some confusion there. — Hanover

But of course people do this, and the reason is transparent. Discrimination (or "distinction") leads to unequal treatment, therefore it cannot be allowed. For example, should I be able to filter trans folks out of my eHarmony search? Many would say 'no'.

Every time I engage in an act of discrimination I do so in order to act on that discrimination, either in thought or in outward action. So if I discriminate the white from the black chess pieces, I do so in order to determine which pieces to move. Discrimination is logically necessary, discrimination always results in unequal treatment, and sometimes unequal treatment is illegitimate. So the question is always whether to err on the side of free discrimination or to err on the side of opposing unequal treatment.

But it is reasonable. If group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z, then—all things being equal—someone belonging to group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z on average. Progressives have a difficult time recognizing the simple fact that there are rationally sound inferences which move from group data to individual data.

Huh? Philosophy degrees need a statistics requirement. If I tell you that the Atlanta Braves team batting average in 2024 is .244 (the median in MLB), what does that tell someone about Marcell Ozuna's batting average in 2024? Nothing. He's got the 5th highest average in baseball.

unless you have genetic testing kits at every bathroom, saying some bathrooms are for xx instead of women is completely unactionable. Are you trying to make a meaningful suggestion or are you doing something else with this xx idea?

Huh? Philosophy degrees need a statistics requirement. If I tell you that the Atlanta Braves team batting average in 2024 is .244 (the median in MLB), what does that tell someone about Marcell Ozuna's batting average in 2024? Nothing. He's got the 5th highest average in baseball. — LuckyR

If I may. I think he's suggesting the fact that Marcell Ozuna happens to have an exceptionally higher batting average than the rest of his teammates is a rarity. Out of all the Atlanta Braves team members, any given one would likely be much lesser and closer to .244 than to be in the 5th highest average. In other words, if you picked the Atlanta Braves (batting average of .244) and were to make a bet that a player, selected at random, assuming you don't know the identity or batting averages of any of the players, would be in the top 5 highest averages, over say, the team with the highest batting average, that would be considered foolish as it is much more likely for a randomly-selected player from a team with a much higher batting average to have a higher batting average than one from a team with a much lower batting average.

I realize this is a sub-discussion that happens to be about racial tendencies, which I find iffy, but context-aside, for the sake of the larger, more general discussion not about race from which this one is derived from, that is the bare bones logic as I see it.

they're talking about group statistics being used to judge individuals of that group. One of them is saying it's justified, the other one is saying it's not.

But I say, it entirely depends on the context and what information is available to you. Are you judging two candidates for a job? Well if you are, then you probably have a whole lot more relevant information than their race to determine if they're fit for the job. Job candidates don't just tell you their race and that's all you get to know about them before you hire them, you can see their CV, their work and education history, you can speak with them - you can get a whole lot of information about them that's way more relevant to the question then just their race.

Maybe there are other circumstances where you don't have a lot more information than their race to go on, so that might change the dynamics a bit, but neither of those guys is talking about specific circumstances because they're taking too broad of a position. Imo

unless you have genetic testing kits at every bathroom, saying some bathrooms are for xx instead of women is completely unactionable. Are you trying to make a meaningful suggestion or are you doing something else with this xx idea? — flannel jesus

From a small business owner's perspective, the idea of having to have a third bathroom on top of the two required many can barely afford as-is would be a nightmare.

29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(i) states:

"Except as otherwise indicated in this paragraph (c)(1)(i), toilet facilities, in toilet rooms separate for each sex, shall be provided in all places of employment in accordance with table J-1 of this section. The number of facilities to be provided for each sex shall be based on the number of employees of that sex for whom the facilities are furnished. Where toilet rooms will be occupied by no more than one person at a time, can be locked from the inside, and contain at least one water closet, separate toilet rooms for each sex need not be provided."

--

So basically, if my business or establishment "requires" or has the level of activity that demands or otherwise makes the use of a single-occupancy restroom unfeasible, I would be required to completely overhaul basically the entire fundamental structure of the building, which mind you is already occupied to make maximum use of the space provided (no structure of business or public use just has "free unused space" lying around that can be used because "oh there's nothing going on here", every space of the structure is either currently in use or is already well designated for future use). Imagine the permits, planning, closures for renovations, and the financial costs as well as time. It would change the maximum occupancy of the building in accordance to fire code, which in turn would change basically everything about how the business operates, down to the scheduling, inventory, staff, etc. The pipework, which might require a complete excavation job to allow more water, or something of that nature. All for maybe a percent of the population to use, once for 2 minutes, if they happen to have to pee whilst patronizing my establishment. That's crazy. And often times a technical impossibility, depending on the structure, infrastructure, space, etc.

The fact remains an XY (biological male) is significantly, incredibly, indisputably more likely to have an urge and act on said urge to unwantedly, violently sexually assault (rape) an XX (biological woman) who is vulnerable with her pants down in an enclosed, private area than the other way around. That's indisputable. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either not being serious or is dangerously out of touch with reality to the point they need to be institutionalized for their own safety and that of others.

The idea that having to use a bathroom that isn't "made" for your gender, is some sort of rights violation or identity-crisis-forming scenario is ridiculous. If I have to take a whizz, and go on a tree, or something, I do it because it's what's available. I won't suddenly start having an identity crisis wondering if I'm a fox or a bear and not who I identify as after doing so. Anyone who feels otherwise clearly has something else going on irrespective of gender identity. It's simply not related.

So, for the protection of women, (XY) uses facility A and (XX) uses facility B. There's no prejudice or discrimination involved whatsoever.

Interesting fact: there are more toilets in the United States than there are people. I'm sure there's a pun there but in all seriousness the economic cost alone (not including the feasibility and flat out impossibility to add a third restroom to every two sets of standard restrooms, however many that would be) would be astronomical. Nothing short of mind-boggling.

--

In short, it's a discussion. The OP is trying to have a discussion. It's as meaningful as those who participate in it wish it to be.

My take is: I don't believe something as insignificant as the lettering on a placard that designates what room you take a dump in (of all things) amounts to any real, measurable form of discrimination or any sort of realistic identity-crisis-causing factor. If so, the problem clearly lies elsewhere, not in one's gender identity. I just don't see it as realistic or feasible to legislate mandatory third-gender/transgender/"female" identifying XY restrooms for the reasons explained.

Not to make light of the issue, but it is a known fact or "running gag" non-female-identifying males jokingly identify as "women" when "caught" messing around (whether "innocently" as in "just taking a peek" for purposes of non-physical, non-violent sexual gratification or maliciously ie. considering actually performing a violent criminal act) in or near women's restrooms. To me, legally and morally speaking, this is a clear-cut risk for women everywhere. That risk being, there is no legal distinction, no form of discernment, between a transgender female who honestly identifies as a female who has undergone surgery and everything else, and a standard biological male who got caught and claims "no I just now realized I identify as a female, five minutes ago". Absolutely none whatsoever. That is a clear and present danger to women. I don't see how any argument contrary to that is even remotely defensible. I'd honestly welcome and challenge anyone to dispute that.

From a small business owner's perspective, the idea of having to have a third bathroom on top of the two required many can barely afford as-is would be a nightmare. — Outlander

You're going to have to spell out for me why you're talking about a third bathroom. I didn't see anything in the law you quoted saying you have to have a third bathroom. I also don't believe I said anything about a third bathroom. I can't see the relevance of what you're saying about third bathrooms given the words you quoted from me

Sorry, 90% of the reply was to the OP due to the only compromise that respects women's desire (however prevalent it may or may not be) to restrict XX persons to women's restrooms (considering there remains no legal distinction between a legitimate female-identifying person and one who makes a false statement to that affect on a whim), along with the desire of legitimate female-identifying persons to use the restroom aligned to their gender, would be a third "gender-neutral" restroom, which is in fact a thing. A widely-discussed and popular thing, at that. Highly relevant to the topic at hand (see first sentence of the OP: "Let's talk about women's bathrooms.")

This portion was you for:

In short, it's a discussion. The OP is trying to have a discussion. It's as meaningful as those who participate in it wish it to be. — Outlander

It's late. There's not much activity this hour. Just a simple reply, nothing more. :up:

the portion for me was right in the middle of that gigantic post that started with a quote of me? I didn't stand a chance.

now just making up an example, suppose I am in a combat situation in the military, and our liberal-democratic dogmas have prescribed that women must be admitted to the military on equal footing with men. I am paired with a woman in combat; I go down; she is not strong enough to carry me out; I die. Why did I die? Because the liberal-egalitarian legislation irrationally created a suboptimal situation on the basis of the falsehood that women are equal to men in strength. Irrational failure to discriminate can have real consequences. — Leontiskos

If the objective in your example is to equalize the treatment of men and women at the cost of additional death, then the egalitarian dictate makes sense. What you're simply pointing out is that decisions are made without thinking through the consequences and not properly prioritizing objectives.

If we both prioritize creating the most capable military, then it is irrational to do things that don't do that. The proof of the best decision can be empirically shown. If not having women in combat roles wins more wars, then they shouldn't be there if you see the military's entire role as winning wars as opposed to also creating a more equal society.

If, at the end of the day, the left's military results in some military losses and greater deaths but greater domestic equality among the sexes, then the final question as to whether that result is better than more military wins and less gender equality, that can be answered by the democratic vote. I'm voting for the more military wins, but I don't know that makes me more rational. It just makes me someone who prioritizes safety over domestic equality. Obviously if the left's military is so weakened by their desire to create gender equality that it cannot protect itself from foreign invaders, then it would be irrational, but as long as the plan is to give more people the opportunity for military advancement without overly weakening the military, then it could be rational. From my perspective, sacrificing people for an objective of equality is a stupid idea because I do not consider equality a social virtue.

unless you have genetic testing kits at every bathroom, saying some bathrooms are for xx instead of women is completely unactionable. Are you trying to make a meaningful suggestion or are you doing something else with this xx idea? — flannel jesus

Your objection is that of enforcement, not that the OPs suggestion is incorrect. That is, you're not objecting to the suggestion that XY gender identifying women should be denied access to XX bathrooms. You're just saying that without a genetic testing kit, we won't be able to enforce the rule that XXs and XYs not enter one another's bathrooms.

This objection at best is a pragmatic one, but it's really not one that creates a meaningful enforcement problem. In over 99% of the cases it's abundantly clear whether the person is XX or XY by a variety of markers that don't require additional genetic testing. Those markers don't need to itemized because we all know exactly what identifies for us who is male and who is female.

But, to the extent there will be some wedding crashers (so to speak) that go entirely undetected, that isn't a basis for allowing those without proper invitation to attend. If you're not supposed to go in the bathroom, you shouldn't go, but, sure, someone is going to get away with it from time to time.

But, to the extent there will be some wedding crashers (so to speak) that go entirely undetected, — Hanover

You've thought about false negatives but neglected false positives. What about the women who are going to be harassed, or worse, because they're ugly or tall or have a hormone condition that means they have a little bit of beard, or look a little too much like Justin Bieber?

What about the women who are going to be harassed, or worse, because they're ugly or tall or have a hormone condition that means they have a little bit of beard? — flannel jesus

Since we're talking pragmatics here, hypotheticals have to be subject to this same pragmatic analysis. That is, has there really been a case where an ugly woman was thrown out of a women's restroom because someone thought them to be a man? Is this really happening?

Actual sexual ambiguity is very limited and it's not something that has caused a problem in determining which restroom would be appropriate in the past that I am aware of. That is, in the decades that preceded transsexual protections, we didn't have issues where sexually ambiguous people were being denied access to their rightful bathrooms. But, should that occur, I guess those people could offer additional evidence to substantiate their sexuality, first relying perhaps on government documents, but eventually if there really were profound confusion, they could conduct a test. I suspect that would occur close to never, which is about as good as any rule is ever going to be.

If you're going to make the argument that an XX/XY rule is hopelessly uneforceable, you're going to have to offer empirical evidence that truly is going to occur in a meaningful way. If a handful of people are denied proper bathroom access over many decades (and we don't even have data suggesting that would happen), then we have a pretty solid rule. Enforcement at 99%+ is a higher level of enforcement than we have for most of our rules.

Since we're talking pragmatics here, hypotheticals have to be subject to this same pragmatic analysis. That is, has there really been a case where an ugly woman was thrown out of a women's restroom because someone thought them to be a man? Is this really happening? — Hanover

Yes, there have been masculine-looking women harassed for going into womens toilets.

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11690234/women-bathrooms-harassment

It's not a hypothetical, it's already happening. And a reasonable person would expect that to happen - androgynous-looking women are not that uncommon. If the only criteria you have to go on to decide if you want to harass someone for going into the wrong bathroom is how they look, a reasonable person with knowledge about the world should expect that people will get it wrong sometimes.

Huh? Philosophy degrees need a statistics requirement. — LuckyR

Yes indeed!

If I tell you that the Atlanta Braves team batting average in 2024 is .244 (the median in MLB), what does that tell someone about Marcell Ozuna's batting average in 2024? Nothing. He's got the 5th highest average in baseball. — LuckyR

You don't think the team batting average of the Braves tells us anything about the batting averages of Braves players? Pray tell, where do you think "team batting average of the Braves" comes from? It comes from the individual members of the team! It tells us, for example, that any player on the Braves will probably have a higher batting average than any player on a team with a lower team batting average. Your counterexample fails because the logic does not tell us exact data about each player on the Braves. "Ozuna's batting average is not .244, therefore the team batting average tells us nothing about individual players' averages," is a fallacious argument. The group statistic informs us of probabilities, and we are constantly using probabilities to make decisions.

If the objective in your example is to equalize the treatment of men and women at the cost of additional death, then the egalitarian dictate makes sense. What you're simply pointing out is that decisions are made without thinking through the consequences and not properly prioritizing objectives. — Hanover

Yes, this is a large part of it.

If, at the end of the day, the left's military results in some military losses and greater deaths but greater domestic equality among the sexes, then the final question as to whether that result is better than more military wins and less gender equality, that can be answered by the democratic vote. — Hanover

This is precisely where I take you to be mistaken, here and in previous posts. The democratic vote does not determine whether gender equality is better than less military deaths. Perhaps simply pointing it out is sufficient for you to see that? If Plato is right then the democratic vote will tell us much the opposite.

In a democracy we determine whether to implement that form of gender equality by a democratic vote or process. Such is the reason for the decision, not the measure of the decision. Presumably you will now want to argue that democratic procedure produces optimal decisions.

I'm voting for the more military wins, but I don't know that makes me more rational. It just makes me someone who prioritizes safety over domestic equality. Obviously if the left's military is so weakened by their desire to create gender equality that it cannot protect itself from foreign invaders, then it would be irrational, but as long as the plan is to give more people the opportunity for military advancement without overly weakening the military, then it could be rational. From my perspective, sacrificing people for an objective of equality is a stupid idea because I do not consider equality a social virtue. — Hanover

I agree very much, but my point was that, "This is a problem beyond the instrumentalization of reason, and goes to the fact that many of our taboos do not have rational grounds. It is that something can even be moral and irrational."

For someone like (and very many otherwise rational progressives), being moral means that I cannot admit the mathematical fact that group data provides statistical information about individuals in that group. They will deny the legitimacy of "profiling" even to the degree of denying mathematical facts. This is more an individual issue, but it creeps into law and policy as well. Now you might say that it is not necessarily irrational to prefer death to inequality (in the military), but is it irrational to deny mathematical facts?

If I may. I think he's suggesting the fact that Marcell Ozuna happens to have an exceptionally higher batting average than the rest of his teammates is a rarity. Out of all the Atlanta Braves team members, any given one would likely be much lesser and closer to .244 than to be in the 5th highest average. In other words, if you picked the Atlanta Braves (batting average of .244) and were to make a bet that a player, selected at random, assuming you don't know the identity or batting averages of any of the players, would be in the top 5 highest averages, over say, the team with the highest batting average, that would be considered foolish as it is much more likely for a randomly-selected player from a team with a much higher batting average to have a higher batting average than one from a team with a much lower batting average.

I realize this is a sub-discussion that happens to be about racial tendencies, which I find iffy, but context-aside, for the sake of the larger, more general discussion not about race from which this one is derived from, that is the bare bones logic as I see it.

Oh I know that's what he's trying to say, problem is that because the difference between groups is smaller than the differences within groups, examples like this are, in fact NOT rare, they're common. Hence the inability to reliably predict individual variable stats from group averages.

Though the erroneous belief that they are is the "rationale" behind stereotyping.

The group statistic informs us of probabilities, and we are constantly using probabilities to make decisions.

Your commentary would make logical sense in cases where individual data doesn't exist (all you have to go on is group data). However, no thinking person would use group "probabilities" preferencially over individual data. If another team is going to trade for a specific Brave, no one is going to conclude, "well, since the Braves average batting average is low, we'll get to offer a low salary" for a specific player. They'll base their offer on the specific stats of the player, the Braves team averages don't enter into the calculation.

Of course, you know all of this already, hence my surprise why I'm forced to to review the obvious.

Your commentary would make logical sense in cases where individual data doesn't exist (all you have to go on is group data). — LuckyR

It is valid to make inferences from group data to individuals regardless of whether we have the individual data that produced the group data. Whenever we aggregate the data of individuals into group data we are doing so in order to use the group data, and that group data can provide us with information that was not available at the individual level. Hence the whole point of sampling.

However, no thinking person would use group "probabilities" preferencially over individual data. — LuckyR

No one said they would.

Of course, you know all of this already, hence my surprise why I'm forced to to review the obvious. — LuckyR

I think the reason you are forced to offer strawmen is because you won't admit that you are wrong. You are wrong in claiming that it is always invalid to make inferences about individuals based on their statistical group data. Your point was false, "My point was it isn't reasonable when group statistics are used on individuals" (). The inability to admit that it is not necessarily unreasonable to make inferences about individuals on the basis of group statistics is a form of irrationality that accompanies progressivism.

The inability to admit that it is not necessarily unreasonable to make inferences about individuals on the basis of group statistics is a form of irrationality that accompanies progressivism. — Leontiskos

If I may. Again. I think he's asserting the fact that current circumstance is a poor indicator of future circumstance and resulting potential ie. reality. Sure, a person fresh out of high school is not wise nor likely to be very skilled. I suppose you could say close to 100% of persons who fall in this category are neither wise nor skilled. However it would be foolish and irrational to assume that because of this state of factual circumstance, a person has poor chances to become wise or skilled. That I believe is the disconnect between the opposing views present in this exchange. Something surely the three of us could jollily agree on and make a toast to! :grin:

That I believe is the disconnect between the opposing views present in this exchange. — Outlander

No, I see no evidence of that. Here is the statement that Lucky has attempted to disagree with:

But it is reasonable. If group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z, then—all things being equal—someone belonging to group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z on average. Progressives have a difficult time recognizing the simple fact that there are rationally sound inferences which move from group data to individual data. — Leontiskos

Note that this has nothing to do with a present/future distinction.

No, I see no evidence of that. — Leontiskos

You will note I said views not the current argument brought about by said views.

someone belonging to group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z on average. — Leontiskos

This is the point of contention: "on average." As it stands, your statement of fact is correct. However one is best to bear in mind that that is all that it is: a statement. One that stands alone, isolated from factors that contribute to best discernment of actionable reality and best course of action. Not past or future, simply present. A snapshot. Akin to renting a room based on a single photograph of the interior from the most convenient, readily-available angle. Sure, you'll likely get what you expect. Unless you don't. :smile:

Not a particularly great example but sufficient for the moment. Perhaps this prospective room has a magnificent view overlooking the sea (representing the increasing opportunity for positive and lasting change for group X) that is not present in said snapshot (your sampling data of group X). Or, of course, perhaps there is a rather unpleasant occupancy of bed bugs (representing the ingrained habitual patterns and, yes your "likelihood" of regression and perpetuation of said undesirable outcomes) also not present in said snapshot. As you can see, this "snapshot" or "current sampling of available data" is a fickle indicator, whether it be positive or negative, for what the future truly beholds and as a result the best choice of action to take.

You will note I said views not the current argument brought about by said views. — Outlander

And again, I see no evidence of that.

This is the point of contention: "on average." As it stands, your statement of fact is correct. However one is best to bear in mind that that is all that it is: a statement. — Outlander

No, you just contradicted yourself. It is not just a statement, it is a correct statement. It is a true statement. There is quite a large difference.

Not a particularly great example but sufficient for the moment. Perhaps this prospective room has a magnificent view overlooking the sea (representing the increasing opportunity for positive and lasting change for group X) that is not present in said snapshot (your sampling data of group X). Or, of course, perhaps there is a rather unpleasant occupancy of bed bugs (representing the ingrained habitual patterns and, yes your "likelihood" of regression and perpetuation of said undesirable outcomes) also not present in said snapshot. As you can see, this "snapshot" or "current sampling of available data" is a fickle indicator, whether it be positive or negative, for what the future truly beholds and as a result the best choice of action to take. — Outlander

Whether a truth can be incorporated into your hotel will of course depend on how amenable your hotel is to truth. Maybe your hotel can't handle the truth, and maybe the truth is not welcome. Maybe you have to lock and bar the doors lest certain kinds of truths come 'round, looking for lodging. I suspect you will need a healthy helping of discrimination in deciding which kinds of truths are acceptable and which are not. :wink:

As I've said, progressives lock and bar their doors against certain truths of the mathematical variety, and it looks like you are up to the same thing with the aid of some flowery rhetoric. This is more or less the definition of ideology: sacrificing truth to one's agenda. Brainwashing out the truths that do not suit the agenda. Such is always a house of cards and a matter of time.

And again, I see no evidence of that. — Leontiskos

Are you some sort of arbiter of truth? If not, that's fine and respectable. But of no relation to any sort of absolute value or meaning. Unless you do believe there is no further or greater state of understanding, knowing, or being that could possibly be achieved other than that which you now "possess" (or as I attest, possesses or rather, restricts you).

discrimination — Leontiskos

This is the word that begs further inquisition. Why not discernment? Discernment is active, alive. While discrimination is passive, dead, if you will. Completely unresponsive to new information. What makes a man an intellectual corpse, little more than a ghost whose actions, thoughts and very life become little more than but a haunting in the arena of true philosophic discourse. Sure, it's natural, wise even to believe the repeated actions of one will indicate the future action and inevitable fate of those who act on them. But seeing beyond what can be seen, beyond the arbitrary faux limits of what men think can be, is what separates the philosopher, the rightful ruler, whose proclamations or "truths" that are not based on so-called rationale propped up by inorganic states of detestable action, a dynamic of perpetual hypocrisy to simply maintain but a foothold in the mind of man instead of a persistent truth intrinsic to men rich and poor and even in infancy can recognize, the True Sovereign, from the commoner. Being alive, or open, knowing "statistically" (based on the view of the majority or "what is apparently, if not glaringly, seemingly-evident") is but a transient state of affairs that can be turned on its head in a moment's notice.

This is precisely where I take you to be mistaken, here and in previous posts. The democratic vote does not determine whether gender equality is better than less military deaths. Perhaps simply pointing it out is sufficient for you to see that? If Plato is right then the democratic vote will tell us much the opposite.

In a democracy we determine whether to implement that form of gender equality by a democratic vote or process. Such is the reason for the decision, not the measure of the decision. Presumably you will now want to argue that democratic procedure produces optimal decisions. — Leontiskos

In a democracy we allow the variety of viewpoints to determine which policy we want to implement. I don't think that a democracy always gets it right. We have plenty of examples of the creation of bad policy. You seem to be suggesting some sort of moralitocracy (a word I just made up), that is akin to a theocracy in that it posits that the ultimate goal of a society is to be as moral as possible.

What would then follow is that since morality is objective and absolute, we should be bound to maximize military survival over gender equality because the life of a solider is more important than whatever societal harmony results from gender equality. The use of the democracy I guess in this system is to figure out what the dictates of morality are and then to enforce that as law.

I apologize if I've over-extrapolated your position from what you've said, but this analysis follows from the suggestion that the democracy must set it's objectives due to some some higher good that stands above the democracy dictating what is good. That is, why can't Society A decide gender equality is its highest good and then set policy from there without having to contend with objections from a small minority who believe that military might is the highest good? The measure of Society A's policy would not be whether it effectively promoted military might (as that is not it's goal), but whether it effectively promoted gender equality.

To erase the ideosycratic desires of a society in exchange for some type of objective ideal that must be obtained seems problematic to me. . It would suggest that if the democratic belief were 99% in favor of allowing its citizens to choose their gender and then to compete athletically with members of their chosen gender it couldn't do that because the minorities' viewpoint, even though microscopic in terms of acceptance, is correct, so, as a matter of inalienable right, the minority viewpoint would need to be imposed upon society.

And this isn't to suggest there aren't rights and that minorities don't receive protection from majority rule, but it also doesn't take the polar opposite extreme to suggest everything is a matter of right.

My view is that female identifying XYs shouldn't compete athletically with XXs because I don't believe that equality is a virtue worth pursuing. I don't think society is better off if we think men and women the same. I do think XXs should be provided their own bathrooms and their own playing fields, free from the athletically superior XYs. I see no value in blurring the male and female distinctions.

I also don't think I have the right to be king of Hanoveria and dictate that my vote prevails because it's right. I'm just one guy with one vote with all sorts of reasons I hold dear, and so I cast my ballot and watch things unfold. But, again, that's not to say that there are no rights at all. They just don't extend all the way down the line to where an XX has the god given right to compete only against XXs. Let the nuts in San Fran do as they will and let the right thinking folks in my neck of the woods do as they do.

Supposedly you can let things take their course and the results will speak for themselves. If we screw up, society will become diseased. If we get it right, happiness will ring from the mountaintops and whatnot.

However, no thinking person would use group "probabilities" preferencially over individual data.
— LuckyR

No one said they would.

You seem to agree that individuals being judged on their own merits (individual data) is superior to judging individuals based on their being a member of a group (group data). That's my main point (which I predicted above that "you knew already").

Arguing whether inferior data is of no benefit, marginal benefit or minimal benefit is a perfect example of a distinction without a (practical) difference.

- I don't neglect certain truths for the sake of my own personal agenda. I try not to be ideological. That we should not neglect the facts of statistics does not mean that statistical prediction should play a disproportionate role in our thinking - that would be the opposite error of what the progressive falls into. Your posts are filled with rhetoric and a lack of balance. You are trying to paint statistics and discrimination as evil. Well, good luck with that sort of propaganda.