What would be the most important thing than humans should try to achieve in priority in your opinion ?

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

So what you are saying then, that there is not point in making any changes because the "greater good" (pleasing all people all of the time) cannot be achieved? 

I wonder, other than on the battlefield (with a genuine hero) or on the Enterprise, how often one would advocate for the greater good when ones own self is in peril?

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

So advancements in medicine should not continue because as a result you may save the life of a dictator who then might go on to kill more innocent people? 

That's a fallacious argument, which ironically highlights the thrust of my argument; we can't always tell if that medical advancement, will kill more than it heals (less likely now than 50 years ago, admittedly) and we certainly can't know what a patient will go on to do after treatment.

[Moontanman]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So you have no problem with a male teacher identifying as a female being present in a girls changing area? 

I don't but I do have a problem with people who mischaracterize the issue by subtilty suggesting that all a person would have to is wake up one morning and identify as female so they can ogle young girls in the changing room.   

[TheVat]

 

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think the aim should be to attempt to improve the wellbeing of all society members as the umbrella goal but the harsh reality is that all is most likely unachievable.  

If optimal outcomes for all is unachievable (agree with that) then the next best thing might be justice for all.   That's a need that's apparently hardwired into humans - studies of children as young as eighteen months find them getting deeply upset at any perceived injustice directed toward others or themselves.  This is where Rawlsian ethics comes into play: his "veil of ignorance" idea is that a person would prefer a society where it did not matter which family they were born into.  No matter your parents ethnicity or creed or socioeconomic status, you would be born into a place where you received equal justice and opportunity.  I don't know if that's going to happen here, but it seems like a good omega point to aim at. 

[iNow]

Can't put my finger on why, but I keep thinking of the old adage that we shouldn't sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect

[Genady]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

No matter your parents ethnicity or creed or socioeconomic status, you would be born into a place where you received equal justice and opportunity.

No inheritance of property or genes? Otherwise, it seems that opportunity is not equal from the start.

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

If optimal outcomes for all is unachievable (agree with that) then the next best thing might be justice for all.   That's a need that's apparently hardwired into humans - studies of children as young as eighteen months find them getting deeply upset at any perceived injustice directed toward others or themselves.  This is where Rawlsian ethics comes into play: his "veil of ignorance" idea is that a person would prefer a society where it did not matter which family they were born into.  No matter your parents ethnicity or creed or socioeconomic status, you would be born into a place where you received equal justice and opportunity.  I don't know if that's going to happen here, but it seems like a good omega point to aim at. 

Justice is at the heart of social reforms and there were good articles highlighting the connections between equity, equality and justice, though I cannot recall where I read them. With regard to children studies, I think most studies were aimed at fairness, rather than justice. The latter is more connected to a system that results in fair (or equitable) outcomes. I.e. if the system is set up to remove barriers that can lead to inequitable outcome. It does not mean the best (or optimal) outcome for everyone. It basically just means that a) there are no specific barriers to interact with a given system and b) that following those interactions, there are no differential outcomes based on factors outside of the control of the individual.

Measures providing equity are stopgags to address inequality in the system. Justice means to remove the factors causing those inequalities in the first place and is much harder to achieve.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

No inheritance of property or genes? Otherwise, it seems that opportunity is not equal from the start.

I agree.  In Rawls ethics, it means opportunity in the sense of equal access to social amenities that allow one to educate, nurture skills, etc.  I don't think he meant specific opportunities (or capabilities) were insured for a person.  More that being born with special inheritance would not mean pushing others away from their access to advancement, i.e. create an underclass.  As I said, it's more an "omega point" rather than a specific stage.  As @CharonY noted, one would start with fixes and stopgaps that bring more equity and fair dealing in the system.

  As others noted, sometimes the practical approach is to remove barriers and stigma, and not worry about optimal outcomes.

[Intoscience]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

I have no problem with female teachers being in female areas

Also, rules about kids changing areas ought to be consistent regardless of gender, cis or otherwise. 

Ok, thanks for your insight, I find this an interesting view point.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I wonder, other than on the battlefield (with a genuine hero) or on the Enterprise, how often one would advocate for the greater good when ones own self is in peril?

That's a fallacious argument, which ironically highlights the thrust of my argument; we can't always tell if that medical advancement, will kill more than it heals (less likely now than 50 years ago, admittedly) and we certainly can't know what a patient will go on to do after treatment.

So in essence lets not make any advancements because we can't verify the true outcome, and that there maybe adverse consequences that could potentially occur in the future.

I would say that this is, if not more fallacious. 

I'll be sure to tell my friends that we are not going to potentially save their child with medical advancements just in case when she becomes an adult she might become a dictator and kill loads of people. 

If you invent a time machine and happen to go back to our primordial ancestors be sure to tell them to stick to the tree tops foraging for food in the forests. Better still, head right back to our single celled ancestors and convince them to stay singled celled because if not all hell will let loose.    

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I don't but I do have a problem with people who mischaracterize the issue by subtilty suggesting that all a person would have to is wake up one morning and identify as female so they can ogle young girls in the changing room.   

Why wouldn't they? Who decides when it is morally or otherwise ok to allow a male identifying as a female to use female facilities such as school girls changing areas? The male in question could argue that they identify as a female at any point they choose and should then instantly have the same rights as a female. Or is there a cooling off period where the person has to prove themselves or their intent. 

I have a problem with a male teacher, regardless of how they identify themselves being present in my daughter's changing area. I respect my daughter's privacy at home so why should I not expect that same respect from her teachers?

 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So in essence lets not make any advancements because we can't verify the true outcome, and that there maybe adverse consequences that could potentially occur in the future.

I would say that this is, if not more fallacious. 

I'll be sure to tell my friends that we are not going to potentially save their child with medical advancements just in case when she becomes an adult she might become a dictator and kill loads of people. 

If you invent a time machine and happen to go back to our primordial ancestors be sure to tell them to stick to the tree tops foraging for food in the forests. Better still, head right back to our single celled ancestors and convince them to stay singled celled because if not all hell will let loose.   

AFAIK you're the only person, in this thread that's said, or implied, any of this and that's a strawman.

Change will happen and IMHO that change is better in the hands of professionals, scientists hand in hand with philosophers and diplomats; I'm sure there's others who qualify, but let's keep it simple. 

I think the most important thing we can do for humanity is, learn how to be content with oneself and then teach others what one has learned. 

Content people don't wage war's on, or hate other, people; life/death is circular, being content with that brings it own reward.

 

[Intoscience]

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

AFAIK you're the only person, in this thread that's said, or implied, any of this and that's a strawman.

Change will happen and IMHO that change is better in the hands of professionals, scientists hand in hand with philosophers and diplomats; I'm sure there's others who qualify, but let's keep it simple. 

I think the most important thing we can do for humanity is, learn how to be content with oneself and then teach others what one has learned. 

Content people don't wage war's on, or hate other, people; life/death is circular, being content with that brings it own reward.

 

Your responses have implied such, not me.

I agree with you on the content part, people who are content tend to be at peace, those at peace tend not act negatively. 

What makes all people content?  

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

What makes all people content?

Separation?

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

What makes all people content? 

Nothing, hence utopia...

The question you should be asking is, what makes me content?

The biggest problem with that ls, people tend to conflate happy with content; eternal happiness is utopia and therefore, no place...

[Intoscience]

14 minutes ago, Genady said:

Separation?

For some, myself included, I prefer my own company in general

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Who decides when it is morally or otherwise ok to allow a male identifying as a female to use female facilities such as school girls changing areas?

You keep reflexively referring to them as "male identifying as female." They're just "female." Why is this such a struggle for you?

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The male in question could...

You misspelled female again

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have a problem with a male teacher, regardless of how they identify themselves being present in my daughter's changing area.

Unless your concern extends to female teachers as well, then it's unclear why this is a problem. Why can we not just all agree as I suggested earlier that rules for teachers in children changing areas should be applied consistently regardless of gender, whether that gender is cis or otherwise?

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I respect my daughter's privacy at home so why should I not expect that same respect from her teachers?

You'll get no disagreement from me here. I think pretty much everyone here agrees with this. However, you seem to be arguing that your daughter is at some extra risk because some teachers are transgendered. That doesn't make sense unless you fear transgendered people, and you don't strike me as the fearful type... not over pretend and invented enemies, anyway. 

[TheVat]

Weird how the same trans discussion keeps rearing its befuddled head at SFN.

Documented incidents of straight cis male teachers/coaches ogling or fondling or sexually harassing female students -- 34x10²³⁸

Documented incidents of trans teachers/coaches etc -- 0

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

You keep reflexively referring to them as "male identifying as female." They're just "female." Why is this such a struggle for you?

I think it's because, for some folks, transgendered people in general seem like they're trying to "get away with something". I think they assume it's a man or woman who sees more value for them in identifying non-typically, sort of a gender agenda, rather than acknowledging the very real physical and mental issues involved. 

I also think there's jealousy involved. People like JK Rowling sound like they don't consider trans women to be women because there's something special about being born to menstruate. And most of the other arguments sound like they think trans folks are trying to have the best of both worlds, and it's clear they think that's unfair, and question the right of transgenders to be who they are.

[studiot]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have a problem with a male teacher, regardless of how they identify themselves being present in my daughter's changing area. I respect my daughter's privacy at home so why should I not expect that same respect from her teachers?

Whilst it is good that you are expressing/discussing your feelings in a calm and proper way, please tell me how you feel about french lavatory attendants, who are traditionallyfemale in male toilets ?

[Intoscience]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

You keep reflexively referring to them as "male identifying as female." They're just "female." Why is this such a struggle for you?

You misspelled female again

Unless your concern extends to female teachers as well, then it's unclear why this is a problem. Why can we not just all agree as I suggested earlier that rules for teachers in children changing areas should be applied consistently regardless of gender, whether that gender is cis or otherwise?

You'll get no disagreement from me here. I think pretty much everyone here agrees with this. However, you seem to be arguing that your daughter is at some extra risk because some teachers are transgendered. That doesn't make sense unless you fear transgendered people, and you don't strike me as the fearful type... not over pretend and invented enemies, anyway. 

Honestly I don't want to get back into the transgender argument so in hindsight probably shouldn't have used this as an example in this thread. 

I'm not backing down, I'm not afraid in anyway. I just don't want to trawl through replies going over the same arguments.

I don't give 2 hoots what people keep trying to insist on, in general a person born male is biologically (especially post puberty) different than a female and as a result have many differing traits both physical and mental.   

Edited January 6, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

20 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Honestly I don't want to get back into the transgender argument so in hindsight probably shouldn't have used this as an example in this thread. 

I'm not backing down, I'm not afraid in anyway. I just don't want to trawl through replies going over the same arguments.

I don't give 2 hoots what people keep trying to insist on, in general a person born male is biologically (especially post puberty) different than a female and as a result have many differing traits both physical and mental.   

Aren't you lucky, not to be conflicted about your sexuality.

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Whilst it is good that you are expressing/discussing your feelings in a calm and proper way, please tell me how you feel about french lavatory attendants, who are traditionallyfemale in male toilets ?

I don't agree with it, when I use the bathroom I want my privacy respected from both male and female regardless. This is my personal opinion and may not be an issue for most.  

Where I work we have male and female toilet attendants who work in both their respective and non respective toilet areas. however, the rule is that when the attendant is operating in the area the toilets are closed during the works. 

So going back to iNow's point regarding male or female coaches being present in changing areas. They should respect the child's privacy and neither allowed in whilst the child is getting undressed.  

However, and this is where I'm going to get stones thrown at me.

In general, males offer a greater threat to females than vice versa. By this what I'm saying is, in general females feel far more intimidated by males, especially when it comes to physicality. In general females are more sensitive to their privacy, especially when it comes to physicality than males. Hence in general males are less physically intimidated by females so feel more comfortable when they lose their privacy to females than females do to males. 

I find it all very fascinating, how it seems at least different cultures view things differently. My friends wife is a primary school teacher and over dinner I discussed this thread with her. She was horrified at the suggestion of a male coach identifying as a female attending a girls changing area. However she did say that the female teachers (and all teachers) at her school are careful not to make the children feel uncomfortable or vulnerable and when required would ensure their privacy at all times. 

What I'm saying is, where I come from this sort of situation is a big no no and maybe this is an archaic view. This is how I was taught and how I live my life within my society.     

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Aren't you lucky, not to be conflicted about your sexuality.

You are assuming I'm not.

I would argue that most confliction is a result of a mental disorder, not physical. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You are assuming I'm not.

I'm assuming that you think, given the topic, "the most important thing for humans" is to stop people expressing their sexuality (if you don't agree).

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I would argue that most confliction is a result of a mental disorder, not physical.

So what, why do you care what reasons I choose to "chop off my willy and tuck in the edges, Tracy did and made a beautiful job of it."? 😁

Edited January 6, 2023 by dimreepr

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't agree with it, when I use the bathroom I want my privacy respected from both male and female regardless. This is my personal opinion and may not be an issue for most.  

Where I work we have male and female toilet attendants who work in both their respective and non respective toilet areas. however, the rule is that when the attendant is operating in the area the toilets are closed during the works. 

You are stating british custom.

I asked about french custom.

My point is that there is no intrinsic correctness or right of this. It is a matter of custom and practice.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So going back to iNow's point regarding male or female coaches being present in changing areas. They should respect the child's privacy and neither allowed in whilst the child is getting undressed. 

So we should forgo adult supervision, in a situation where according to the law, a child could rape and not be a rapist? 

 

[Intoscience]

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm assuming that you think, given the topic, "the most important thing for humans" is to stop people expressing their sexuality (if you don't agree).

So what, why do you care what reasons I choose to "chop off my willy and tuck in the edges, Tracy did and made a beautiful job of it."? 😁

I don't expect people to stop expressing anything, I believe in free thought, free speech, equality of opportunity... What I don't agree with is a person expecting those rights to extend into a right to do what ever they please without consideration or consequence.

Is it ok for me as an adult to identify as a child, dress up as so if people need convincing i'm serious and not suffering from some mental disorder, then expect to retain any privileges and rights a child may have over an adult?

Or lets flip it and I now identify as a dog, as a result do I automatically lose my rights as a human? If not, why not all things being equal?   

52 minutes ago, studiot said:

You are stating british custom.

I asked about french custom.

My point is that there is no intrinsic correctness or right of this. It is a matter of custom and practice.

Fair point, and I did express that my opinions are most likely bias towards my upbringing and society I live in.

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So we should forgo adult supervision, in a situation where according to the law, a child could rape and not be a rapist? 

 

lets see,

This depends on the situation, pre puberty children are not likely to rape or be capable of rape. A male teacher is in a prime position to commit this act if they are sick enough to do so and a child is going to have no chance of defending themselves. 

Look, I'm not saying that just because the teacher is male or female means they are more likely to commit a crime. I'm saying as a female child you are more likely to feel insecure around a male teacher especially in a sensitive situation such as a changing area. Rightly or wrongly this is what most people believe.

All children are potentially vulnerable regardless of sex, maybe we do need to change our attitudes and accept a society where sex orientation and gender identity has no bearing. 

You are lulling me into the transgender arguments now which I'm trying my best to avoid.   

Edited January 6, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I don't expect people to stop expressing anything, I believe in free thought, free speech, equality of opportunity... What I don't agree with is a person expecting those rights to extend into a right to do what ever they please without consideration or consequence.

Is it ok for me as an adult to identify as a child, dress up as so if people need convincing i'm serious and not suffering from some mental disorder, then expect to retain any privileges and rights a child may have over an adult?

Or lets flip it and I now identify as a dog, as a result do I automatically lose my rights as a human? If not, why not all things being equal?   

Those are just excuses to not be content with another person's reason for being content.

So I ask again, why do you care? iow what "reason" do you have to deny anothers perceived identity?