So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols. — NOS4A2

Taking a step back for a moment, and re-addressing this, do you at least accept that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight, and so that the above comment of yours is completely misguided?

Venus flytraps, yes, but machines no. — NOS4A2

Are you saying that the fly walking inside a Venus flytrap does not cause the Venus flytrap's jaw to close?

Machines are designed, built, and operated by human beings. — NOS4A2

So?

They cannot change their own batteries or plug themselves in. — NOS4A2

They can if we build them that way. But also: so?

I never said it was an application of agency. I used “agency” to distinguish between the human being and your analogies. But the fact remains that the heart beat and digestion is caused by this same agent. So it is with the operation and maintenance with everything else occurring in the body. — NOS4A2

But the heart beat is not an application of agent-causal libertarian free will. And neither is the sense organ's response to stimuli. So there is no good reason to claim that the behaviour of the sense organs in response to stimulation is any less determined than the behaviour of a radio receiver in response to stimulation. You can't simply hand-wave this away by saying that in other circumstances the organism does have agency.

If not the agent, then what causes the heart beat and digestion? Is the Sinoatrial node a foreign parasite or something? Like I said, abstract nonsense. — NOS4A2

You're equivocating. It is true that the human organism is responsible for its heart beat and digestion but it is not prima facie true that its heart beat and digestion is an example of agent-causal libertarian free will, comparable to the supposedly could-have-done-otherwise decision to either have Chinese or Indian for dinner.

The point I was making is that even if humans – but not plants and machines – are agents, our agency does not prima facie apply to everything our body does.

You need to do more than simply assert that humans are agents to defend the claim that the behaviour of the sense organs is not a causal reaction to stimuli.

It just means autonomy: the energy and force required to move is provided by that which is moving, generated by itself, and wholly determined by the biology, not by external forces. — NOS4A2

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology). Yet their internal behaviour is still causally influenced by some stimulus and its source. So this reasoning is a non sequitur.

I’m not a dualist. The behavior of the sense organs, the brain, the nervous system etc. is the behavior of the whole. I reiterate this because pretending one and then the other are discreet units outside of the scope and control of the whole is abstract nonsense. — NOS4A2

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology). Yet their internal behaviour is still causally influenced by some stimulus and its source. So this reasoning is a non sequitur.

In the case of human sensing, the transduction of one form of energy to another, as in the conversion of outside stimulus to internal chemical and electrical signals, is performed by the human organism. No external system involved in the event of listening performs such an action. And when I look at what changes the force of a soundwave can possibly cause inside the human body the effects are exactly the ones I said the were and no more. Past the transduction, that force is simply no longer present and therefor neither is its “influence”. There is no soundwave or words banging around in there like billiard balls.

All subsequent movements occur due to the potential energy stored in the system itself, in this case the body, as determined by the internal process by which your body expends energy and burns calories. The energy and ability to move, or do the work involved in listening, or speaking, or any activity, is converted, stored, and used by the body and no other system. It determines any and all activity involved, and in fact is physically identical to that activity. — NOS4A2

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology). Yet their internal behaviour is still causally influenced by some stimulus and its source. So this reasoning is a non sequitur.

I consider the body to be one holistic system. It is only this system in its entirety that decides, or can decide. — NOS4A2

You can’t simply assert that because the human organism as a whole can “choose to do otherwise” then the behaviour of its sense organs is not causally influenced by a stimulus and its source.

Even the interactionist dualist accepts that some of the body’s behaviour is not “agent-caused”, e.g our heartbeats and digestive systems.

I’m inclined towards sourcehood arguments and agent-causation of libertarian free will. — NOS4A2

And how do you maintain this whilst endorsing eliminative materialism? Agents are physical systems and agency is a physical process and like every other physical system and physical process in the universe its behaviour can be and is causally influenced by physical systems and physical processes external to itself, whether that be deterministic causation or probabilistic causation (e.g quantum indeterminacy).

Physical systems vary in properties and behavior. Why would that be irrelevant? — NOS4A2

Because these differences do not allow it to escape being causally influenced by things external to itself. Organic compounds still react to the environment in deterministic ways. So saying that the internal behaviour of the TV can be causally influenced by an external stimulus because it is a metal machine but that the internal behaviour of a human cannot because it is a living organism is a non sequitur.

You might as well try to argue that because a plant is not a machine then its behaviour cannot be causally influenced by the sun.

I don’t need to believe in non-physical substances to believe objects can move on their own accord. — NOS4A2

What does it mean to “move on their own accord”? Does the Venus flytrap closing its jaws “move on its own accord”? Does the robot left to its own devices to navigate a maze “move on its own accord”?

You keep throwing around these vague phrases as if they somehow avoid determinism. As it stands I don’t see how this is incompatible with compatibilism.

It didn’t grow organically and learn to deal with the environment and others through years of experience and learning — NOS4A2

Why is that relevant? Matter is matter. All physical systems operate according to the same physical laws.

You are engaging in special pleading when you assert that “the entity takes over” applies to human organisms but not machines (and not plants?).

It cannot choose to do otherwise should it desire to do so. — NOS4A2

Okay, so now we might be getting somewhere.

Firstly, are you arguing against determinism and in favour of libertarian free will? If so, how do you maintain this whilst also endorsing eliminative materialism?

There are in general two types of free will libertarians. One type argues for interactionist dualism and the second type argues.that our “choices” are really just the random outcomes of quantum indeterminacy, which to me doesn’t seem much like libertarian free will at all.

Which are you endorsing? If the latter then we’re still dealing with causal influence, albeit probabilistic causation.

Secondly, where does decision-making occur? In the inner ear? Or later in the “higher-level” brain activity? If the latter then you must at least accept that the causal power of stimuli extends beyond the immediate interaction with the sense organs, being causally responsible for the signals sent to the brain and the behaviour of “lower-level” neurons.

You can say that if you want, but that has no bearing on our conversation — Harry Hindu

Then “our conversation” has only ever been your monologue as I’ve never said anything to the contrary.

You don’t mention that it is the body that does the listening. In fact, the body does all the work: produces all the components required, converts all the energy, guides the impulses to their destination, directs each and every subsequent bodily movement long after the sound wave has had any impression. Sound waves do none of that stuff. — NOS4A2

The same is true of the machine with a radio receiver, but it’s still the case that if I send it a radio signal then I can causally influence its behaviour.

The fact that the human body and sense organs are organic matter does not entail that they don’t follow the same principles of cause and effect.

Then I have no idea what you're saying, as usual. — Harry Hindu

I am saying that NOS4A2's claim that speech has no causal power beyond the immediate transfer of kinetic energy in the inner ear is a complete misunderstanding of causation.

Okay.

How is that relevant to anything I'm saying?

So what about my argument are you objecting to? You seem to think I'm saying something I'm not.

You not taking this understanding that there is a difference in our brains and applying it to the issue, is the issue. — Harry Hindu

I am.

Address the other points I made in the post you cherry-picked. — Harry Hindu

What points? Your question asking me who deserves a medal? I don’t know why you’re asking me that as it has nothing to do with anything I’m arguing.

Our brains do not have the same information. — Harry Hindu

What does that mean?

Brains are just a bunch of interconnected neurons sending electrical and chemical signals to one another. There’s nothing above-and-beyond this.

How the brain responds to its environment (e.g signals sent from the sense organs) is determined by the nature of these connections.

Different brains have different connections, and so respond differently to the same stimulus.

If that were the case, we would all be responding the same way — Harry Hindu

No we wouldn’t because our brains are not identical.

How is saying some words and getting no reaction the same as pressing the "A" key and getting a reaction? — Harry Hindu

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed.

Is a person that hears some inciting words and is not inciting to a riot malfunctioning? — Harry Hindu

No.

——————

It’s really not clear what your issue is. Do you just object to physicalism? Do you think that human behaviour is explained by interactionist dualism?

Carrying on from this, I can't know what it feels like to give birth but I know that there is such a feeling, I know the public occasions that elicit such a feeling, and I know that the phrase "what it feels like to give birth" refers to that feeling.

The private language argument against private sensations has got to be one of the most unconvincing arguments I've encountered.

The difference lies in the reason why we observe a difference in behaviors when multiple people hear the same speech. For determinism to be true, which I believe it is, you have to provide a theory to explain what we observe in that multiple people react differently to the same speech. What is your theory? How do you explain what we observe? — Harry Hindu

I already explained it with the analogy of the computers. How each computer responds to someone pressing the "A" key is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by someone pressing the "A" key.

How the human body (including the brain) responds to some given stimulus is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by the stimulus.

The inverted spectrum problem is still alive and well. No brain scans or neural activity measurements will ever convince me that your experience of red is the same as mine. — RogueAI

Strictly speaking the inverted spectrum problem doesn’t even require qualia. Even if colour experiences are reducible to particular neural activity it is possible that the same wavelength of light triggers different neural activity in different people such that the neural activity that I describe as “seeing blue” is the same as the neural activity that you describe as “seeing red”.

So what they actually did was measure the neural correlates of colour experience.

Human beings are organic, living, beings that have the capacity to move, think, and act, among many other activities. Radio receivers cannot do any of the above and have no such capacities. Humans use their environment to sense while radio receivers cannot. — NOS4A2

I'm not asking you to compare radio receivers to humans; I'm asking you to compare radio receivers to sense organs. Why is it that I can be said to cause a radio receiver to send an electrical signal to the catalyst but I can't be said to cause a sense organ to send an electrical signal to the brain?

But if you want to compare humans to something then let's compare them to robots or Venus flytraps. Why is it that I can be said to causally influence the behaviour of robots and Venus flytraps but not humans? They move and act, and in the case of Venus flytraps are living, organic beings. Or will you say that I can't causally influence the behaviour of robots and Venus flytraps?

As for your reference to thinking, recall here where you said "when considering the human body, its activities, and what it expresses, nothing called a 'thought' can be found there." Are you now abandoning eliminative materialism in favour of folk psychology?

An agent is a general term in philosophy of mind denoting “a being with the capacity to act and influence the environment”. — NOS4A2

Everything has the capacity to act and influence the environment. Unless you mean something specific by "act" that applies only to humans and not also to insects, plants, bacteria, and volcanos? Then what is this specific sense of "act"?

Your link mentions "intentionality of action in terms of causation by the agent’s mental states and events", but once again such terms like "intentionality" and "mental states" are things that you have previously rejected. Are you now endorsing something like interactionist dualism?

All you can do is use agency in your analogies, then remove it when it comes to your physics, or when it’s otherwise convenient. — NOS4A2

You are the one who introduced the term "agency". I have only ever been addressing the physics. I can cause someone to turn around, the fly can cause the Venus flytrap to close its jaws, and the drought can cause a famine.

I said we are different, and that is the difference. — Harry Hindu

Different in what relevant way? A plant is different to a computer, but that would be an insufficient justification to simply assert that the behaviour of plants is not causally influenced by external stimuli. You need to actually flesh out what human organisms have that other things don’t that allows us to (uniquely?) defy determinism.

You're not answering the question.

What's the relevant difference between a radio receiver and a sense organ such that I can be said to be the cause of what happens after the radio receiver converts radio waves into electrical signals but cannot be said to be the cause of what happens after a sense organ converts sound waves into electrical signals?

You can't just assert that they're different without explaining what that difference is and why that difference makes a difference to the topic at hand (e.g. it's not enough to just say that the ear is organic and the radio receiver isn't).

You bring up the term “agent”, but what does that mean? If I say that the drought caused the famine am I putting the drought in the role of “agent”?

Your language reeks of folk psychology, which I thought you were against? We should only be addressing the physics of the matter, so commit to it. And when addressing the physics of the matter there is no good reason to believe that the human body’s response to sound waves is any different in principle to a bomb’s response to radio waves.

And on the example of the drought causing the famine, this once again shows that causal influence ought not be understood so reductively as only the immediate transfer of kinetic energy, as you try to do when misinterpreting what it means for speech to influence behaviour.

You should just accept that this approach you're taking to defend free speech is entirely misguided. You'd be better served arguing in favour of interactionist dualism and libertarian free will, or if that is a step too far then just that the causal influence speech has does not warrant legal restrictions.

I’ve stated this before but each one of your analogies invariably put the human being in the subject position as the agent of causation. — NOS4A2

It doesn't have to be a human. It could be that a rock fell onto the switch, in which case the rock caused the bomb to explode.

But you are not answering the question. You are the one who made these claims:

As an example, the hairs in the ear tranduce the mechanical stimulus of a sound wave of speech into a nerve impulse, as it does all sounds. The words do not transduce themselves. But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin.

...

Any and all responses of the body to outside stimulus are self-caused. You are causally responsible for transducing soundwaves into electrical signals, for example. Nothing can cause transduction but the biology. Nothing can send those signals to the brain but the biology. Nothing can cause you to understand the signals but the biology.

It's simply special pleading to claim that my biology "governs, controls, and thereby determines" transduction but that a bomb's machinery doesn't. Flesh, blood, and bone is in principle no different to metal.

So, once again, I can cause a bomb to explode by flicking a switch and I can cause someone to turn their head by shouting their name. All your talk about transduction and the kinetic energy of speech is utterly irrelevant. Whether man or machine, I can and do causally influence another entity's behaviour, as can other men and machines causally influence mine.

Bombs do not have the capacity to govern, control, and thereby determine their behavior. That’s why it is a false analogy. — NOS4A2

Sounds like folk psychology to me.

What's the relevant difference between a radio receiver and a sense organ such that I can be said to be the cause of what happens after the radio receiver converts radio waves into electrical signals but cannot be said to be the cause of what happens after a sense organ converts sound waves into electrical signals?

Remember, you are the one who made these claims:

As an example, the hairs in the ear tranduce the mechanical stimulus of a sound wave of speech into a nerve impulse, as it does all sounds. The words do not transduce themselves. But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin.

...

Any and all responses of the body to outside stimulus are self-caused. You are causally responsible for transducing soundwaves into electrical signals, for example. Nothing can cause transduction but the biology. Nothing can send those signals to the brain but the biology. Nothing can cause you to understand the signals but the biology.

It's simply special pleading to claim that my biology "governs, controls, and thereby determines" transduction but that a bomb's machinery doesn't.

You are simply incapable of being intellectually honest. — Harry Hindu

I am being honest. Determinism applies to human organisms just as it applies to every other physical object and system in the universe. We're not special in any relevant way.

You don’t believe a sensory receptor causes the transduction of the mechanical energy of a soundwave into electrical impulses? — NOS4A2

I do.

Just as I believe that the bomb's radio receiver causes the transduction of radio waves into electrical signals that trigger the catalyst.

But it's still the case that I caused the bomb to explode by flicking the switch. So, once again, you are engaging in non sequiturs.

So you think that the internal workings of a bomb are equivalent to the internal workings of the human brain? — Harry Hindu

In the sense that they both follow the same natural laws of cause and effect; yes. The human brain is just more complicated. It's not as if it contains some immaterial soul that is able to put a stop to one causal chain and then begin a completely independent one.

I'm tired of going in circles with you. — Harry Hindu

And I'm tired of you refusing to answer the question.

You claim that one's sex parts dictate which bathroom one should use. So how does your rule account for those who have had genital surgery?

Should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom?

This only requires a single word response: either "yes" or "no". Why is it so difficult for you?

Well, you set the bomb, put it in a place that would kill people, wired the whole thing up, flicked the switch, and so on. You didn’t just flick a switch. The way it is framed is misleading, as these false analogies often are. — NOS4A2

I did just flick the switch. Someone else planted the bomb. Not that it would matter either way. The point still stands that I caused the bomb to explode even though the bomb "operat[ed] its own movements and utiliz[ed] its own energy" and even though my bodily movement lacks the kinetic energy required to cause an explosion in isolation.

Which is precisely why all your talk about the kinetic energy of speech and the listener's body being responsible for transduction is a complete non sequitur.

The only thing that can explain the variation in behavior, why one person might be “incited” by a word and another will not, is the person himself. This necessarily includes his biology, but also his history, his education, and so on. For example, he must have first acquired language. He must understand what he is hearing. It’s the person, not the word, that fully determines, governs, and causes the response. — NOS4A2

And the bomb only explodes if it was built a certain way and contains the necessary catalyst, and so on. It's still the case that I caused it to explode by flicking the switch.

Unless you want to argue that human organisms are special in some way that allows them to defy the natural laws of cause and effect that govern every other physical object and system in the universe you're still engaging in non sequiturs.

No one is saying that isn't the case. — Harry Hindu

NOS4A2 absolutely is. He says such nonsense as:

Physically speaking, speech doesn't possess enough kinetic energy required to affect the world that the superstitious often claims it does. Speech, for instance, doesn't possess any more kinetic energy than any other articulated guttural sound. Writing doesn't possess any more energy than any other scratches or ink blots on paper. And so on. So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.

And:

If you want to employ causal chains to explain it then the causal chain occurring in one environment is taken over, used and controlled by another system, operating its own movements and providing its own conditions, and utilizing its own energy to do so.

Which is exactly like arguing that I do not cause the bomb to explode because my finger lacks the necessary kinetic energy; that the bomb caused itself to explode by operating its own movements and utilizing its own energy.

It's beyond absurd.

Whether this is a will, whim, or some deep longing and extreme existential desire that we are horrible people for preventing, he has yet to answer. — Outlander

I addressed that earlier:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

It is widely agreed that core gender identity is firmly formed by age 3. At this point, children can make firm statements about their gender and tend to choose activities and toys which are considered appropriate for their gender (such as dolls and painting for girls, and tools and rough-housing for boys), although they do not yet fully understand the implications of gender. After age three, it is extremely difficult to change gender identity.

Martin and Ruble conceptualize this process of development as three stages: (1) as toddlers and pre-schoolers, children learn about defined characteristics, which are socialized aspects of gender; (2) around the ages of five to seven years, identity is consolidated and becomes rigid; (3) after this "peak of rigidity", fluidity returns and socially defined gender roles relax somewhat. Barbara Newmann breaks it down into four parts: (1) understanding the concept of gender, (2) learning gender role standards and stereotypes, (3) identifying with parents, and (4) forming gender preference.

...

Although the formation of gender identity is not completely understood, many factors have been suggested as influencing its development. In particular, the extent to which gender identity is determined by nurture (social environmental factors) versus biological factors (which may include non-social environmental factors) is at the core of the ongoing debate in psychology known as "nature versus nurture". There is increasing evidence that the brain is affected by the organizational role of hormones in utero, circulating sex hormones and the expression of certain genes.

Social factors which may influence gender identity include ideas regarding gender roles conveyed by family, authority figures, mass media, and other influential people in a child's life. The social learning theory posits that children furthermore develop their gender identity through observing and imitating gender-linked behaviors, and then being rewarded or punished for behaving that way, thus being shaped by the people surrounding them through trying to imitate and follow them.

Large-scale twin studies suggest that the development of both transgender and cisgender gender identities is due to genetic factors, with a small potential influence of unique environmental factors.

...

Some studies have investigated whether there is a link between biological variables and transgender or transsexual identity. Several studies have shown that sexually dimorphic brain structures in transsexuals are shifted away from what is associated with their birth sex and towards what is associated with their preferred sex. The volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of a stria terminalis or BSTc (a constituent of the basal ganglia of the brain which is affected by prenatal androgens) of transsexual women has been suggested to be similar to women's and unlike men's, but the relationship between BSTc volume and gender identity is still unclear. Similar brain structure differences have been noted between gay and heterosexual men, and between lesbian and heterosexual women. Transsexuality has a genetic component.

Research suggests that the same hormones that promote the differentiation of sex organs in utero also elicit puberty and influence the development of gender identity. Different amounts of these male or female sex hormones can result in behavior and external genitalia that do not match the norm of their sex assigned at birth, and in acting and looking like their identified gender.

We went over this in our characteristics of sex. Artificial parts do not qualify as actual sex parts, just as a dildo does not qualify as a penis. A hole between one's legs that has be kept open with medical grade stents is not a vagina. — Harry Hindu

So you are saying that a transgender man who has had genital surgery should continue to the use the women's bathroom?

That's what I've been asking. Does having genital, or a double mastectomy change your sex, or your gender? Yes, or no? — Harry Hindu

You tell me. You're the one demanding that bathrooms be separated by sex. Is the transgender man who has had genital surgery a biological woman? Should he continue to use the women's bathroom?

If the social construct states that bathrooms are generally divided by sex, then you use the bathroom that corresponds with your sex. — Harry Hindu

So you are saying that a transgender man who has had genital surgery should continue to use the women's bathroom because his sex is female? Even though he has a surgically-constructed phallus?

The question was answered. — Harry Hindu

No it hasn't.

I want a "yes" or a "no", not a deflection.

Should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom?

And I said that to identify as a social construct is sexist. — Harry Hindu

No it's not. It's just a psychological reality.

Isn't this what I said before in equating trans-genderism to a delusion. Both trans-genderism and Christianity are forms of mass-delusion. So nice of you to finally get the point. — Harry Hindu

You're being too cavalier with your use of the term "delusion". Those who believe in Christianity do not suffer from a psychosis.

And you appear to have missed the point. I am not saying that gender is a belief-system like Christianity. I am providing an example of what it means to identify as belonging to a social construct because you seem to have so much difficulty understanding this.

I already did but you've been cherry-picking.

According to your definition of gender as a social construct, gender would be the agreement among members of a society that females use the women's bathroom and males use the men's bathroom. In other words, gender is an expectation, or an agreement, that the sexes, not gender, behave in a certain way. Gender would be the agreement - the social construct, and sex - the biological construct. So, I'm not sure that you really understand what a social construction is. To conflate the social construct with the biological construct would be sexism.

Which bathroom should a woman that had a double-mastectomy from cancer use? Did her sex change because she had a double mastectomy? Does having a double mastectomy change one's gender (society's expectation about which bathroom she uses)? No, so she uses the women's bathroom, but she can use the men's bathroom in certain situations, like when there is a long line at the women's bathroom or to assist her elderly father. — Harry Hindu

Should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom?

Instead of going round in a loop of disagreement I think it would be useful to get your understanding of why you think society and (most) women object to trans women in female spaces. — Malcolm Parry

I'm sure there are many reasons, just as I'm sure there are many reasons why most men in the UK object to trans men using the men's bathroom.

A better question to ask is; are there any good reasons to object to trans men using men's spaces and trans women using women's spaces? When it comes to something like sports, I think there are. But when it comes to something like toilets? I've already addressed the fact that if safety is our main concern then it's better to let trans men use the men's bathroom and trans women using the women's bathroom.

Also, what constitutes being a woman? — Malcolm Parry

Either having a female sex or having a female gender.

Having a female sex refers to having been born with some combination of an XX karyotype, ova-producing ovaries, a womb, breasts, and a vagina (admitting of the existence of intersex people that sometimes make such a classification tricky).

Having a female gender refers to identifying as belonging to the social and cultural group that is typically occupied by those with a female sex, and often feeling most comfortable in expressing oneself in a manner mostly consistent with this social and cultural group.

Is it incumbent on everyone else to fall into line with someone’s view of who they are? — Malcolm Parry

If you want to be a decent person, then yes. Otherwise you're just an ass.

All of this history and growth has much more to do with the response to a word than the shape of a sound wave. — NOS4A2

I agree. But you are making the absurd claim that a word's causal influence "ends" at the ear, and that is simply not how physics works.

You appear to understand this when we consider the bomb. I cause people to die by flicking a switch. It would be ridiculous to respond to this by claiming that I didn't cause people to die because the kinetic energy of my finger movement is insufficient to rip people's limbs apart, and that "my finger hitting the switch is the sole interaction it has with my body, and is therefore the only movement determined by it. That's the only 'causal influence' it can have. The rest is all produced, structured, controlled, directed, moved, by the detonator and the bomb."

And yet this is the nonsense reasoning that you resort to when considering speech and the human body.

Unless you want to argue that human organisms are special in some way such that they defy the natural laws of cause and effect that apply to every other physical object and system in the universe – e.g. by abandoning eliminative materialism and endorsing something like interactionist dualism – then you're simply talking rubbish.

By all means argue that any causal influence that words have is insufficient to entail moral responsibility – as I'm pretty sure I suggested you do many posts ago – but you need to let go of this attempt to argue that words have no causal influence at all on other people's behaviour.

I also said that women have used the men's bathroom and men have used the women's bathroom, but you keep cherry-picking. So generally speaking, bathrooms are divided by sex and using one bathroom or the other does not affirm one's gender. It doesn't even affirm one's sex. Social constructions do not affirm anything other than that you live in a particular culture.

Using one bathroom or another is a social construction. A social construction based on one's sex, not gender. The way you speak of gender as a social construction means that gender would be a society's expectations of the sexes - that they use the appropriate bathroom based on their sex. So the social construction states that males use the men's bathroom and females use the women's bathroom. The rules are only enforced when someone enters the other bathroom for reasons other than to simply piss or shit. — Harry Hindu

So should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom because his sex is female?

Or should the transgender man who has had genital surgery use the men's bathroom because he has a surgically-constructed phallus?

Will you ever just answer the question?

What are they not conforming to if not the social construction? It is their feeling, or psychology that is not conforming to the social construction, and it is the social construction that you are defining as gender, not their personal feeling that is the anti-thesis of the what is accepted socially. — Harry Hindu

This isn't difficult Harry.

Gender identity is to gender as being a Christian is to Christianity.

And just as nobody gets to dictate which religion you belong to (even though they may try), nobody gets to dictate which gender you belong to.

Yes, because bathrooms are divided by sex and not gender. — Harry Hindu

Why?

I asked you this before and you said "because it's where we uncover our sex parts".

So how do you account for those who have had genital surgery? Should transgender men who have had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom – because their sex is female – or should they use the men's bathroom – because their sex parts, even though artificial, are like those of biological men?

It's a red herring. — Harry Hindu

No, it's not. That's why we have such terms as "gender non-conforming". This obviously doesn't mean "sex non-conforming" because what does it mean to be sex non-conforming? Does it mean to act as if one has an XX karyotype (even though one doesn't)? Does it mean to act as if one has ovaries (even though one doesn't)?

Gender exists, and it is distinct from sex, and people identify as belonging to a gender that is atypical of their sex. This is the reality that you need to accept.

Talk about hypocrisy. I'm not deflecting. You are as well as cherry-picking. If gender is a social construction them having genital surgery has nothing to do with gender. You keep conflating the two. Using one particular bathroom or the other does not affirm one's gender, so I don' know why you keep bringing up genital surgery in a thread about gender as a social, sexist construct. — Harry Hindu

I'm bringing it up because you object to transgender men using the men's bathroom and transgender women using the women's bathroom.

I'm bringing it up because you claimed that one's sex parts determine which bathroom one should use.

So just answer the question.

Should transgender men who have had genital surgery use the men's bathroom or the women's bathroom?

Your continued unwillingness to provide an answer is incredibly telling.

How do they identify with one gender or another when gender is a social construction? — Harry Hindu

This is like asking how can we learn a language when language is a social construction. It's just something the human brain and mind does. The specifics of how and why the human brain and mind does what it does is a very complicated question that neuroscientists and psychologists are still trying to answer.

The reality is – despite your objections (and your conspiratorial accusation that this is some left-wing political fabrication?) – is that a) gender exists, that b) gender is distinct from sex, that c) people can and do identify as belonging to a gender that is atypical of their sex, and that d) this gender identity is an integral aspect of one's psyche that developed and became fixed at a very young age.

The point is that they think that they are a type of man. I have been asking you what type of man do they think they are? You might say trans-man, but what does that mean? How is a trans-man different than a biological one - specifically. We keep going in circles because you fail to provide a specific example of what it means to be a sociological-man or psychological-man (even though psychology is rooted in biology), as opposed to a biological man. — Harry Hindu

A transgender man believes that his sex is female and his gender is male.
A transgender woman believes that her sex is male and her gender is female.

Quoting from WHO:

Sex "refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs."

Gender "refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

Sure, children can form a concept that gender is based solely on what one wears and the pronouns that are used to refer to others, but then they would only be getting part of the story. This would be like a child hearing a curse word and then using it without a full understanding of how and when it should be used. — Harry Hindu

And children identify as belonging to one gender or another at this very young age, most often before they have any understanding of biological sex. Once this gender identity is established it is mostly irreversible.

You're the one denying something from entering a bathroom based on whether that something is artificial or not. — Harry Hindu

No I'm not.

You are the one who claimed that one's sex parts determine which bathroom one should be allowed to use.

I don't know why you continue to avoid answering the question.

Should transgender men who have had genital surgery use the men's bathroom or the women's bathroom?

You have two very simple answers to choose from, so just choose. Stop with the tiresome deflection.