Wonderful reflection. Thank you for sharing. Responsibility, action, loyalty, aggression, providing protection to the vulnerable, and sexual attraction to women are perfect explications of a masculinity. — Moliere

Thank you. I don't see those as "perfect explications of a masculinity." I see them as an explication of how I experience of the fact that I am a man. I don't expect other men to experience it the way I do and I don't generally judge, or even pay much attention to, the masculinity of other men.

Thank you.

Ask Science Fiction. — unenlightened

More recent books I would recommend are the "Ancillary Sword" trilogy by Anne Leckie and the Murderbot books by Martha Wells. I wouldn't call them feminist, but they're pretty powerful.

I wrote this for you. — Hanover

Thank you....Hey...Wait a minute!

The question is, is TClark related to these earlier Clarks? — universeness

Unlikely. There are a lot of Clarks around. I did like to wear paisley shirts in the 1960s. By the way, if you want to tag me, you have to write it @t clark, with a space between the T and the C. It doesn't show up as a drop down choice, but it will work.

radges like Clarky — Jamal

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Ask a reductionist question and you get a reductionist answer. Masculinity gets defined as being the kind of matter which possess a certain collection of properties or essences. — apokrisis

I found myself laughing at your post. I value your opinions and ideas when it comes to science, but in this particular situation, your opinion doesn't mean anything. I was describing my own personal experience of being a man - what being a man means to me. Maybe that doesn't fit in with what you think I ought to think and feel, but that's your issue, not mine.

As a holist, I would ask what does masculinity seek to oppose itself to? What does it dichotomously "other"...Of course, that would be the feminine. — apokrisis

For me, it's not. I'm not a man in opposition to anything. A man is what I am. I can't say I treat women exactly the way I treat men, but I apply the same standards - fairness, friendliness, respect. I admit I feel more protective of women in general than I do of men. I can sometimes be a pretty intimidating person for people who don't know me. I'm high energy and aggressive verbally. Women tend to be more intimidated by me than men do, so I have to be more careful.

At the same time, women tend to like me and trust me once they know me better. I treat them with respect they can sense is sincere. I'm pretty transparent. People can see I'm trustworthy and not a threat.

How men treat women, how people treat other people, is not a political question, no matter how much political ideologues try to make it one.

There are certain characteristics I have that I am confident about - that are part of how I think about myself, my identity. These include that I am my three children's father, I am intelligent, I write well, I am a Clark, I think like an engineer, I see the world in ways that not many other people do, I am loyal, and I am a man. My maleness manifests as intellectual aggressiveness; an ability to deal with conflict in an honorable way; competitiveness; a strong drive to make and take responsibility for decisions that affect my life sometimes without waiting for other's agreement; a desire to protect my family, friends, and people who are more vulnerable than I am; and a desire for emotional and sexual intimacy with women. That's what being a man means to me.

Oh yes, and I have a penis.

I'm comfortably cis, but if I shudder at the thought of going into a public mens' room, I'm sure a lot of people who were born with what looked like a tiny penis and female sensibilities would, too. — Vera Mont

Yay. A new argument. It's not right to send trans women, any woman, into men's bathrooms because men are disgusting.

Here's a scientific take. — wonderer1

I'll take a look. Thanks.

the main argument for which is the transphobic, sexist, and patriarchal (thank you, unenlightened) lie that trans women are a threat to cis women in women's bathrooms, — Baden

Just because it's the only argument you're willing to consider doesn't mean it's the only argument or the main one.

How do you propose that we can make "fairness" a principle in any competitive sport, which by its very nature is immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

As you note, competition is not immoral. It has benefits and I think it's a fundamental part of human nature. It doesn't have to be taught. Little kids playing non-competitive soccer argue fiercely over who won.

What is rigid about it? Asking for evidence of a threat? Defining transphobia the way I have? You're putting forward a list of criticisms without specifying what you're talking about or engaging substantively. I am able to defend my position, so if you could please quote where my reasoning is faulty in your view, — Baden

The post below describes the difference between your position and mine. As I've said in several posts, forcing acceptance of transgender people's demands down the throats of the other 99.5% of us is not an effective way of keeping trans people safe.

The focus of this debate should be how to protect trans people from discrimination, bigotry, and violence concerning their use of bathrooms and definitely not on falsely stigmatising one of our most vulnerable minority groups as a "danger" or "threat".
— Baden

No. The focus of the debate should be on figuring out how to help transgender men and women become valued members of our communities without having to pretend they're something they're not. — T Clark

I know a few black people who had never heard of the holiday until it became national. Largely celebrated in Texas. — TiredThinker

By the time President Biden declared Juneteenth a federal holiday, almost all states had voted independently to commemorate Juneteenth as a day of observance. — USA Today

Joe Hill's birthday — BC

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you or me.

What I said is compatible with helping them become valued member of our communities. — Baden

I not sure that's true, but even if it is, I don't think your approach will be effective.

nuanced and charitable manner. — Baden

I would not characterize you position, as expressed here, as nuanced and charitable. I see it as rigid and uncompromising and I think approaching the problem that way makes things worse.

Don't try to do social engineering with your political views. That's just going to create tension that makes the topic harder to talk about. — frank

I think this is the heart of the matter. People don't seem to want to solve the problem, they want to change society. The way to change society is to solve all the problems, one by one, until it doesn't matter anymore.

So sport is a very complex psychology and not something one can just wade into. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think your post is a good summary of the issue. I'm not someone who cares much about sports, but I do care about fairness. From what I've read, biological males who compete as women in mixed martial arts consistently beat the crap out of biological females, sometimes causing serious injury. That's not fair.

The focus of this debate should be how to protect trans people from discrimination, bigotry, and violence concerning their use of bathrooms and definitely not on falsely stigmatising one of our most vulnerable minority groups as a "danger" or "threat". — Baden

No. The focus of the debate should be on figuring out how to help transgender men and women become valued members of our communities without having to pretend they're something they're not. Sounds like that may already have happened in Thailand. We have to find a way to do it here. I don't think what you suggest will do that.

You haven't demonstrated any danger. I have no evidence to suggest trans women are a "danger" in women's bathrooms. — Baden

It doesn't seem like you understood what I wrote. I don't see any value in trying to explain more clearly. We can leave it at that.

IMO, the most equitable solution would be to provide three public, multi-occupant, wheelchair-accessible restrooms designated for Men, Women & Unisex. Someone has probably already pointed out that considerations of 'chromosomal biology' or 'gender self-identification' are too reductive for pragmatically providing disambiguated public accomodations. — 180 Proof

Pragmatic - solves the problem - but it's not very philosophical, sociological, or political. I don't think this whole question is about people's comfort and safety, it's about stuffing it down the throats of people who disagree with us.

Doesn't it make more sense to have a holiday for the passing of the 13th amendment when it became illegal to have slavery everywhere in the United States? Why a holiday because Texas was slow to get the message? And shouldn't a holiday be based on our greatest triumphs, and not a reminder of our worst failings? — TiredThinker

It's a holiday because this is a day that's important to black people and it's been that way for a 150 years. What you have to say isn't what's important.

It's interesting that no one ever raises the issue of female to trans-male. No one seems to care — Tom Storm

I don't think people care nearly as much. I doubt anyone cares if trans males want to compete on a men's sports team. I read an article in the past couple of years about a trans man who competed on the Harvard swim team with no problem. The rest of the team accepted him.

Safety first, yes. Should violence occur, I would blame the actor, to a much less extent someone specifically inciting it, to no extent someone who just has a different point of view, even if they hold it passionately. — Hanover

I would say that anyone on either side of the issue not willing to make reasonable compromises to minimize the danger of violence shares in the responsibility.

providing gender neutral accommodations--toilets, locker rooms, and so on is not a trivial expense, — BC

That's certainly not true to the extent that it is for the disabled. For almost all conditions they do not require special physical accommodation. The only things I can think of off the top of my head are bathrooms and barracks/dormitories. You don't really need a lot of special facilities. As I noted, simply including a few unisex bathrooms along with the regular men's and women's could suffice. Can you think of anything else? Gay people don't require special accommodation. Except as noted why should trans people?

[Edit] Should have included issues with sports teams.

I still don't see why any of this philosophy/sociology/psychology/anthropology/politics makes any difference. Is it reasonable for women to object to sharing bathrooms and locker rooms with trans women. I say yes. What's the solution? Make reasonable accommodation, e.g. a separate unisex bathroom and locker room. Asking for more before the community has come to terms with the troublesome moral/religious/social/political issues involved is unreasonable. It will also obviously also lead to more conflict and more violence.

If it turns out to be the case that forcing trans women into men's toilets results in more violence overall against the innocent (whoever they may be) then it would seem the most humane policy would be not to do that. — Baden

I have a couple of problems with this. First, if you're saying that it's ok to put more women in danger as long as the overall level of danger is lower, I doubt that will sell very well. It certainly doesn't convince me. Second, putting biological men in women's bathrooms is very clearly going to increase the danger of violence for them because it's going to make people angry. If you want trans people to be accepted, it doesn't make any sense to make a big deal about an issue like this.

Which brings us back to the fact that 99.5% of people are not transgendered. My high school had about 1,000 students. That means about five of them would be trans. Even if it's significantly more than that, does it make sense to disrupt all the other students lives and make the community furious for the benefit of so few? The obvious solution is to provide a separate a smaller unisex bathroom and locker room for anyone who wants to to use it. It could have private dressing rooms and showers.

In 10 years, maybe it won't matter anymore. In the meantime, the trans community is going to have to be accommodating to public sentiment.

Evidence that trans women are a threat in women's bathrooms, please. — Baden

That's a good question. Do trans women actually have to be a threat before it is reasonable to exclude them from women's bathrooms... I'll think about that.

I don't have any statistics, but if you look on the web you'll see instances of people who call themselves transgender women raping other women. How many do there have to be before it is too many? The vast majority of men would not rape women if they shared bathrooms with them.

I guess it comes down to that for me - if it's not reasonable to exclude trans women from women's bathrooms, then it's not reasonable to exclude men either. Perhaps @Tom Storm's idea of only unisex bathrooms is the way to go.

I think bathrooms should be unisex, — Tom Storm

My concerns about bathrooms would primarily be a) Trans women being forced to use the men's bathroom and being harassed or assaulted there on being identified as trans. — Baden

Having unisex bathrooms might be fine if each one held just one person, but larger locations tend to have communal bathrooms. As I see it, it's reasonable for a biological female to be uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a biological male, no matter how that biological male identifies. It is not unreasonable to restrict certain bathrooms for use by biological females. It is not necessarily bigotry for a biological women to be unwilling to share a bathroom with a transgender women.

For me, it comes down to the fact that transgender people make up less than 0.5 percent of the adult population. A fair and humane society will find a place for them as members of the community. That doesn't mean that social institutions that have been in place for a very long time have to be discarded immediately for their convenience.

the unexplainable effects of biogenesis — simplyG

Unexplained ≠ unexplainable.

I'm not going to touch that one. :wink: — Tom Storm

There are rich capitalist countries I can think of that seem close to failed states. — Tom Storm

Can you give us an example? If you say the USA, I'll stick my tongue out at you.

Sometimes economic success comes through working smarter, not harder, sometimes it's built on population size, sometimes it's provided by abundant natural resources, sometimes war plays a role. Or all of the above. — Tom Storm

Have your read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." It makes the case that geology can also be determinative historically.

Hmm, not in the same sense, morality polices thoughts and intentions as well, and it is used as the logic of groups. Any form of social control will be coercive in some sense, but it's mostly just policing actions, it's not quite the same. I also think that they're much less controversial because, unlike many moral views, social ideas such as the social contract, manners and rules of conduct aren't beneficial to any particular group, they're benign. Most people should be able to agree on them, and some moral ideas are like that too, but not always. — Judaka

I'm not sure I agree with this, e.g. sex roles and racial prejudice. I don't think these are not generally, or at least not always, expressed in a moral framework. I think they have to do more with psychological comfort, the need for standardization, and some sort of feeling for the smooth operation of society.

Well, I used it as an example, AI is a complicated issue that I won't get into here. I'm just saying we can't know whether they care or not because the environment is coercive, and that the incentives to find AI moral or immoral are playing a significant role in the debate. — Judaka

AI is just one example - climate change, nuclear weapons, opposition to non-fossil fuels...

I know what you mean, but such thinking is perhaps lacking in subtlety. Society has little choice but to hold people responsible for their actions, so there is pragmatic, even if not purely rational, warrant for that. To hold people responsible is not necessarily to blame them, though, but would necessarily entail restraining them by whatever means required, in order to stop them committing further crimes, or in the case of lesser infractions, shunning them or shaming them, in the hope of discouraging them and others from committing undesirable acts. The point there of restraint and even punishment, if necessary, would be to act as an example to others, hopefully persuading them not to commit similar socially unacceptable acts. Whatever works. — Janus

As I said previously, I know that people are affected by things that happened in their past, how they were socialized, and what they've learned. I think it makes sense to keep those things in mind when holding people responsible for the consequences of their behavior. I read that one state, I think it was Texas, doesn't allow evidence of childhood neglect or abuse to be presented during murder trials, but they do allow it to be used during the penalty phase when appropriate punishment is determined.

All that being said, I think that's a whole different thing than what I typically call determinism. I don't doubt that the upcoming events can be predicted with a certain level of accuracy. We can predict weather more or less accurately up to about a week ahead. On the other hand, you will hear squawking in my house when it rains when weather reports say it is supposed to be sunny. Even the best predictions tend to be probabilistic rather than definitive.

Anyway, what I'm referring to can be found on this page starting with my post which is about the tenth one down on that page. — wonderer1

I looked at all your posts on that page and all I saw was you trying to piss off another poster. Is that what you mean by determinism, the ability to predict what will make people angry. That's a pretty weak branch to build your tree house on.

This was a short discussion of the flips and flops off idealism and realism, which is really basic, but is a starting point for anyone interested in philosophy. — introbert

For what it's worth, I thought your post was clear and easy to understand.

As for idealism vs. realism, you didn't make a distinction between matters of fact and matters of values or morals. I think many people apply different approaches to different situations, e.g. realism for facts and idealism for values.

As for flip flopping, I think it's important to know that metaphysical approaches like idealism and realism don't prevent you from having any particular understanding or think any particular thoughts about how the world works, so there's not necessarily any reason for people with different attitudes to misunderstand or disagree with each other. On the other hand, different metaphysical visions might make you more likely to be drawn to particular interpretations of fact. I have read that mathematicians tend to be idealists and physicists tend to be realists. I don't know if that's true.

I'm not against formal morality, I'm just pointing out the obvious, that morality is coercive and unrealistic. — Judaka

Isn't all social control coercive and unrealistic in that same sense? Society wants people to behave in a way that promotes the effective operation of society.

It shouldn't be that controversial to say that morality is coercive and that it's a very specific way of thinking that excludes various categories of ideas. — Judaka

Yes. I agree.

Well, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I do despise the way people view morality, and how romanticised the concept is. If my way of phrasing things pissed some people off who wanted to argue against some of the basic features of morality with me, then I was here for it. — Judaka

I think I just misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Do the people developing the AI even give two shits about that? It's hard to say - because morality is coercive and we can assume that they wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of admitting that they don't care. — Judaka

I don't it's that they don't care about creating something that may have very negative consequences. It's that there is enough uncertainty to allow them to justify acts they want to do for all the other reasons you listed. And then, if they need to to continue as they want to, they can deny the potential consequences.

Anyway, I dunno why I wrote so much when my OP says the same thing as my comment here, but now that I've written it I may as well post, hope it helps. — Judaka

I guess I didn't get it the first time around.

At the same time, I am not convinced that there is one true theory to rule them all at the bottom of creation. Which in turn makes it meaningless to ask whether the world is really deterministic or indeterministic. — SophistiCat

Agreed.

Did you happen to observe my recent demonstration, here on the forums, of how predictable people can be? — wonderer1

No. I'll take a look if you provide a link. I'm skeptical that the level of prediction you are talking about is as rigorous as what would be required to claim strict determinism. I don't doubt that events in the past have effects in the present and future. That's different.

A bathrobe and the dynamic of cultural evolution will help bring that technology into a better light. — Paine