The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: ScottF on March 23, 2022, 03:36:44 PM

Title: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: ScottF on March 23, 2022, 03:36:44 PM
So a supreme court justice nominee just said they could not define what a woman is because "I'm not a biologist."

Shouldn't that response in itself be disqualifying? How can one rule on women's rights issues or other laws pertaining to women if they are incapable of articulating what one is?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Grant on March 23, 2022, 03:52:55 PM
So a supreme court justice nominee just said they could not define what a woman is because "I'm not a biologist."

LOL.  You know, I love to complain about the ever present and returning focus on the *censored*show of modern American politics, but that one is kinda funny. 

I still don't care, though.  Neither does the Republican and Democratic politicians.  They just do this kabuki theatre for the voters watching at home. 

I'm all for removing television cameras, recording devices, and all reporters from the capitol.  Government will function better without an audience for the wrestlers to primp for. 
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 23, 2022, 04:20:59 PM
I'm not a biologist is a weird answer. It seems the answer should have been, for a legal definition I would have to see the statutes and case law in that specific matter. Which is exactly what she did in the follow up.

Quote
“Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide,” Jackson added, reiterating the methodical judicial approach she has historically applied.

If a legislature defined a woman, then presumably that would be the definition. If it didn't, if it just said "woman" like I presume Title IX did, then indeed it is subject to redefinition according to legal arguments. The only way to smear her as a judge is if she answered either way.

A. "A woman is a person with an F on their birth certificate."
B. "A woman is anyone claiming to be a woman."

Both horribly wrong for a judge to state.

The fact that you, Scott, can't comprehend that there is more than one answer is why I'm glad you weren't nominated to the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: ScottF on March 23, 2022, 05:02:26 PM
Luckily for you, my self-identified sex and colour (that one I don't think I can self-claim, but I suspect you might disagree?) took me out of the running before I had a chance.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on March 23, 2022, 05:22:52 PM
If a legislature defined a woman, then presumably that would be the definition. If it didn't, if it just said "woman" like I presume Title IX did, then indeed it is subject to redefinition according to legal arguments. The only way to smear her as a judge is if she answered either way.

A. "A woman is a person with an F on their birth certificate."
B. "A woman is anyone claiming to be a woman."

Both horribly wrong for a judge to state.

The fact that you, Scott, can't comprehend that there is more than one answer is why I'm glad you weren't nominated to the Supreme Court.

It would have to depend on whether the case in fact hinged on the definition of "woman". If it did then, yes, the judge should not legislate or moralize from the bench. If it was just a question of using an English word in regular parlance then, no, of course the judge should not require an expert to define "woman" any more than a judge needs a linguist to define "how" or "what" when identifying points of logic. Normal English knowledge is required to participate in a judicial process, most of which is not legislatively defined but is shared in the lexicon. A judge is perfectly free to say "I know what a cloud is, thank you" if the case involves a detail of whether it was cloudy outside or not. A meteorologist need not supply expert testimony on that point unless, again, the case hinges on whether a particular aerial formation was in fact a cloud (or smog, or etc).
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: msquared on March 23, 2022, 05:28:09 PM
ScottF
Good thing then that you are already so well represented on the SC.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: ScottF on March 23, 2022, 09:04:34 PM
Agreed. Although I didn't do a great job representing my sex and colour from a spelling perspective with this thread title.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: msquared on March 24, 2022, 07:32:13 AM
Josh Hawley wants to know what your third grade spelling grade was.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2022, 07:34:24 AM
If a legislature defined a woman, then presumably that would be the definition. If it didn't, if it just said "woman" like I presume Title IX did, then indeed it is subject to redefinition according to legal arguments. The only way to smear her as a judge is if she answered either way.

A. "A woman is a person with an F on their birth certificate."
B. "A woman is anyone claiming to be a woman."

Both horribly wrong for a judge to state.

The fact that you, Scott, can't comprehend that there is more than one answer is why I'm glad you weren't nominated to the Supreme Court.

It would have to depend on whether the case in fact hinged on the definition of "woman". If it did then, yes, the judge should not legislate or moralize from the bench. If it was just a question of using an English word in regular parlance then, no, of course the judge should not require an expert to define "woman" any more than a judge needs a linguist to define "how" or "what" when identifying points of logic. Normal English knowledge is required to participate in a judicial process, most of which is not legislatively defined but is shared in the lexicon. A judge is perfectly free to say "I know what a cloud is, thank you" if the case involves a detail of whether it was cloudy outside or not. A meteorologist need not supply expert testimony on that point unless, again, the case hinges on whether a particular aerial formation was in fact a cloud (or smog, or etc).

That's sophistry. Everything about a supreme court nomination hearing is about their legal interpretation or moral character or mental state. This was a gotcha question and she should have been better prepped, but those are the breaks. There are current cases making their way to the supreme court on this subject, including anti-trans legislation. I can't find a transcript unfortunately, so it is hard for me to know exactly how the question was worded. Note, however that the follow up from Blackburn immediately swung to talking about NCAA rules. Everybody in that room knows exactly what that question was about in context, it wasn't to quiz her vocabulary. A nice cheeky answer might have been the dictionary definition. "An Adult Female Person". Well, then what is female? Well, merriam-webster includes "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male". So that should have been the answer, possibly. So indeed, the definition IS ambiguous, since that choice is available along with the traditional definition of the word.

In fact, male and female have been used to describe everything from electrical connections to mystical energy (Yin/Yang) to the form of the article taken in romance languages. The Senator's mind might have spasmed if subjected to the idea that every inanimate object has its own pronoun.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2022, 09:38:25 AM
So indeed, the definition IS ambiguous, since that choice is available along with the traditional definition of the word.

Only because we've made it so. The answer should be relatively simple and entirely objective. A woman is a human with two X chromosomes. Not really tricky at all, but we also live in a time where objectivity bows to feelings and perception on a daily basis.

Put another way, if we're collectively agreeing that "woman" means whatever it needs to for the beholder, it means nothing.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: NobleHunter on March 24, 2022, 09:45:01 AM
What about people who appear to be women but don't have have two X chromosomes? Or have two X chromosomes but none of the other characteristics usually applied to women? Or somewhere in between?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2022, 10:03:11 AM
So indeed, the definition IS ambiguous, since that choice is available along with the traditional definition of the word.

Only because we've made it so. The answer should be relatively simple and entirely objective. A woman is a human with two X chromosomes. Not really tricky at all, but we also live in a time where objectivity bows to feelings and perception on a daily basis.

Put another way, if we're collectively agreeing that "woman" means whatever it needs to for the beholder, it means nothing.

I'm so sorry that the world is moving on without you, it must be jarring. It's okay though, you can live in the idyllic world of the 1950s and watch June Cleaver fulfill the role of traditional housewife.

At the end of the day, this isn't linguistics. Even if we made up entirely new words that only meant gender identity you'd be equally upset that dudes are wearing dresses.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2022, 10:16:00 AM
So indeed, the definition IS ambiguous, since that choice is available along with the traditional definition of the word.

Only because we've made it so. The answer should be relatively simple and entirely objective. A woman is a human with two X chromosomes. Not really tricky at all, but we also live in a time where objectivity bows to feelings and perception on a daily basis.

Put another way, if we're collectively agreeing that "woman" means whatever it needs to for the beholder, it means nothing.

I'm so sorry that the world is moving on without you, it must be jarring. It's okay though, you can live in the idyllic world of the 1950s and watch June Cleaver fulfill the role of traditional housewife.

At the end of the day, this isn't linguistics. Even if we made up entirely new words that only meant gender identity you'd be equally upset that dudes are wearing dresses.

Lol, you seem to be interpreting my response as something I'm struggling with. The opposite is true.

It's a cognitive dissonance tell that your response to my very objective and clear definition (those with two X chromosomes) is centered around 50's stereotypes and clothing choices.

As if my definition of the word woman is somehow at odds with being perfectly fine with a dude wearing a dress. Is that all you've got?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Wayward Son on March 24, 2022, 11:27:16 AM
The cognitive dissonance you are seeing is coming from the fact that biology does not fit nicely into your conception of gender. :)

In biology, there are those with XY chromosomes and XX chromosomes and everybody else.  It's this "everybody else" that you are neglecting: those with XXY and XYY chromosomes, those with just the X or XXX chromosomes, and  sex-reversed XX men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome), who are phenotypically men but chromosomally women, among others.  In your simple definition, what do you do with a man with testes who you have defined as a woman?  Which bathroom will you require him to use?? ;D

What you are neglecting is that, biologically speaking, sex is not simply male and female.  There is a whole range in between.  You also neglect that sex is not determined only by chromosomes.  There is a whole slew of developmental steps (I've heard something like 26) that determine the final outcome.  It is complex, messy, and not black and white.

Unfortunately, our society developed with a simple black-and-white outlook that insists that everyone is one gender or the other, as exemplified by a quote from an old book, "from the beginning the Creator made them male and female."  Perhaps it was true at the moment of creation, but it ain't true now.

Of course, since gender is a societal construct, we can assign it to people regardless of their biological sex.  But it isn't necessarily simple.  As in the sex-reversed XX males, there are males out there who are really females.  And there are males out there who see their gender as female, and vice versa.  Since it is somewhat arbitrary how people are assigned their gender, it really doesn't matter if some males act as female and vice versa.  Gender is a construct that does not accurately reflect the reality of biological sex, mainly because it only has two categories.

So the person who asked Jackson to define who is a woman is just simple-minded, who really doesn't understand the complexities of biological sex.  ;D
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 24, 2022, 11:28:30 AM
Bones McCoy delivers a baby. Kirk asks him boy or girl?

"Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a biologist!"
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: NobleHunter on March 24, 2022, 11:35:32 AM
Bones McCoy delivers a baby. Kirk asks him boy or girl?

"Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a biologist!"

Given the rate of error and possible consequences, maybe it would be better if a doctor did say that. I recall a social media post where if you frame determining someone's gender as a medical procedure with potential side effects, it sounds way too risky to do as a matter of course.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 24, 2022, 11:42:47 AM
In all seriousness, you have a good point there as there are plenty of cases in which the doctors cut things that in other medical opinions may not have needed to be cut, performing life altering surgeries with the goal of gender conformity when that person's biology didn't necessarily agree and maybe the person when they were able to consent later on wouldn't have agreed either.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: NobleHunter on March 24, 2022, 11:44:17 AM
Aside: can the mod fix the thread title?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Grant on March 24, 2022, 11:56:51 AM
Aside: can the mod fix the thread title?

Oh please don't.  I look at it sometimes when I'm feeling down and it makes me feel warm.  It might be the only good thing in this thread. 
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2022, 12:01:57 PM
I didn't bother with the chromosome argument, because the people making that argument don't understand genetics and in any event, they are using it to deny that people should be able to define their gender and force them into compliance.

If someone wants to be treated as a woman on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and at other times a man, that's not a problem. Now you can say, well I meant gender at birth, you know like how we use male and female when referring to animals. But if all we applied that term to WAS biology, there would be no need to get upset, would there? Why are you dragging your feet if you aren't worried about gender norms? Do you have a mental image of woman versus man? When you think woman, do you include the thought that the woman might well look and act entirely like a man? Or are you picturing someone who acts feminine?

The problem is in thinking that male and female is as cut and dried as tall and short, that there's some kind of useful objective measure for it.

And I'm with Grant, except for me the reason is the carelessness of the title matches the carelessness of the complaint and argument.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2022, 12:23:34 PM
I didn't bother with the chromosome argument, because the people making that argument don't understand genetics and in any event, they are using it to deny that people should be able to define their gender and force them into compliance.

You keep getting this wrong. I'm fine with people defining their own gender. Or defining their species. Don't care.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on March 24, 2022, 12:24:32 PM
Quote
Unfortunately, our society developed with a simple black-and-white outlook that insists that everyone is one gender or the other, as exemplified by a quote from an old book, "from the beginning the Creator made them male and female."  Perhaps it was true at the moment of creation, but it ain't true now.

Words are symbols on a map and the maps is not the territory.

"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them" In dualistic thought we assume that male = man and female - woman, however the statement, as a good judge might note, does not make that argument. We only assume it does.
Also begs the question If only male = man is created in Gods image then...
Then the Hebrew word Adam is interpreted as a individual person and also as Humanity. the division of the sexes only becoming conscious after Adam/Humanity falls into consciousness.
Words are fun


We stare at the finger and think it the moon.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 24, 2022, 12:32:20 PM
There are a lot of women, whatever that is, who don't want men, or the people those women consider to be men, getting into their intimate spaces, or competing with them in sports. And many of those people who call themselves "real" women are liberals and feminists. That's all just to point out that not all of the people getting upset are on the right. Obviously the opinions of conservatives or religious people don't matter to Democrats but it's getting to the point that the opinions of many of their own feminist supporters don't matter much to them either. It's just interesting and a little sad watching those people get trampled by the woke stampede. All they want is their safe spaces but apparently according to the left, they aren't entitled to them even though they are on the left as well.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2022, 12:32:59 PM
Then why do you care about the definition of woman? Some kind of esoteric linguistic issue?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on March 24, 2022, 12:39:19 PM
"woke" another fun word to play with.
Originally it meant someone "alert to racial prejudice"  (Progressives' suck at choosing words and slogans to rally behind. really, really bad at it.  They get so wrapped up in the words they forget the territory. Heaven help you if you don't use the correct language. So easy for things to become about the language and the person forgotten  )

Now the word 'woke' doesn't mean anything. Its only use a easy way to label something negatively.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: ScottF on March 24, 2022, 12:48:23 PM
Then why do you care about the definition of woman? Some kind of esoteric linguistic issue?

For the same reason that if I wanted to present myself as native Japanese, and believed it down to my bones, you should not be compelled to agree with me. I wouldn't expect you to be an a$#hole about it, but you should not be expected to agree that "Yes Scott, of course you were born in Japan, it's your choice!"

Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on March 24, 2022, 01:30:00 PM
Then why do you care about the definition of woman? Some kind of esoteric linguistic issue?

For the same reason that if I wanted to present myself as native Japanese, and believed it down to my bones, you should not be compelled to agree with me. I wouldn't expect you to be an a$#hole about it, but you should not be expected to agree that "Yes Scott, of course you were born in Japan, it's your choice!"

Had you left out the but...

Anything you say can and will be used against you. :)

Read without any context you have defined being Japanese with being born in Japan.  That the Japanese experience, character, culture... equals a specific geography and action of being born on that geography.  Where you are born = who you are.

If  'Japaneseness' is it more then where one is born then someone could  relate, in  thier bones, to this Japaneseness. 
The law of citizenship applies to place of birth. Applying a Law based on place of birth to japanesness would be problematic.  You are free to dress, eat and enjoy all that Japaneseness may point to but true it does not make you a citzen of Japan.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on March 24, 2022, 01:50:46 PM
I didn't bother with the chromosome argument, because the people making that argument don't understand genetics and in any event, they are using it to deny that people should be able to define their gender and force them into compliance.

You will never be able to understand people who disagree with you on this until you look at your own use of language: you are using the word "gender" as the thing people should be free to choose, but I note you are not using the word "sex". I never hear people say that one can identify as any sex they want. Why? Because sex has the connotation (now) of meaning physiology, whereas the term 'gender' has been moved laterally to mean something like 'sexualized presentation to others' (yes, it also includes presentation to oneself in a sense). So you can have a term like 'gender roles' whereas we do not speak of 'sex roles' (other than in porn casting I guess). However it was previously common usage to use the terms interchangeably at times, even thought strictly speaking they were not identical. That common usage was almost ubiquitous except in academic circles such as gender theory, so it should come as no surprise that at first glance there would be pushback on using the word "gender" in a way that divorces it utterly from how it was typically used before. And I don't mean 'in the 1950's' before, I mean very recently. So that's one area of (IMO deliberate) confusion.

Another issue is that our language previously did not have the capacity to distinguish between social agreement and biology. So a statement about one's social presentation (male/female) was always meant to be synonymous with making a statement about their biology. The whole 'chromosome rainbow' thing isn't really a useful reply to this, since the vast majority fit well into the general usage, which is the entire point of general usage. That's why it's ok to call someone you meet part of "homo sapiens" even though strictly speaking many people have a small % of Neanderthal DNA. Now this is not quite an identical case (one being rare cases of discreet differentiation, the other being a more common vague differentiation) but the principle is the same: the language is good enough if it's good enough. We don't need to be more precise in common usage because it doesn't help. On the topic of whether a person should be free (or rather can require others to agree) to choose their own gender this line of argument is truly irrelevant. I know you used it in response to ScottF's proposed XX/XY definition, but while it sounds like a straight rebuttal it's really a red herring. It doesn't contribute much to the discussion where we are not in fact talking about those people but about 'regular' XX/XY people and how they use language. If the discussion was relegated strictly to those people who do not in fact fit XX/XY then I doubt ScottF would offer any objection.

Bottom line, you are using the word 'gender' in a place where realistically you could but chose not to use the word 'sex'. This is a bit telling, because ScottF is clearly trying to root his position in objective biology, rather than in subjective feelings, and this divide does seem to be carried across in the contemporary difference between the words 'gender' and 'sex'. Otherwise you'd hear people saying they can identify as either sex, but I don't typically hear that word usage, and I think it's for a reason: because it would imply that you can identify as any biology you want, which makes no sense even to people on the far left. That is why, at least I think, why you don't have people identify as 'black' because that is clearly a genetics issue and it's not really disputable. Yes, there is black culture, and I've even heard some people (not even woke people) say they identify with black culture, but they don't say they "are" black. So the word usage here is part of the axis of disagreement, because many people do not agree that the terms male/female should refer to social construction elements but rather should be rooted in the biology. So in this context for them it's like being asked to call someone an 'elf' because they identify with elves in Tolkien; it would be viewed as an eccentric and perhaps even rude request to ask everyone you meet to refer to you as an elf rather than a person. Rude in the sense that you're imposing a personal taste onto others' language usage. Not that it would be 'wrong' per se to identify as an elf; ScottF at any rate seems to be saying he doesn't care about that, but that it's about requiring language use (or in the case of some countries potentially, legally compelled speech). So the disagreement isn't just about whether it's valid to identify as this or that, but whether the common parlance should be pointing to that versus to the simple biology. Obviously this is not a point that is winnable for either side as an argument since it's just conventional usage either way.

What I'm not clear on (or at least it's limited to theories of mine) is why these points seem difficult to see for the gender identification side. It should be pretty apparent what, at minimum, the language dispute is about. Now there are other things at stake, such as social mores, personal comportment, mental health (broadly speaking), and incorrect boxes and lumping people into them, involved, some of which go deeper into the issue. And maybe the surface language disagreement is just a way of almost deliberately avoiding the meatier issues.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2022, 01:52:02 PM
Why born? If you want an equivalent analogy, you might consider someone who learns at a young age that they feel a strong affinity to Japan. In fact, it is so strong that they move to Japan. They become fluent in the language. They become Japanese citizens. Would you really insist that they are not Japanese? Does that mean that every naturalized American citizen is not really American? Can you understand why they might be pretty upset with you insisting that they aren't "real" Americans?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2022, 02:33:29 PM
Why born? If you want an equivalent analogy, you might consider someone who learns at a young age that they feel a strong affinity to Japan. In fact, it is so strong that they move to Japan. They become fluent in the language. They become Japanese citizens. Would you really insist that they are not Japanese? Does that mean that every naturalized American citizen is not really American? Can you understand why they might be pretty upset with you insisting that they aren't "real" Americans?

What the issue really comes down to is sex. To be able to tell by looking at a person and know if they have the sexual parts you are interested in. Basically this is the only scenario where a trans woman and cis woman differ in a way that people really care about.

Sports is a distant second but used as a proxy. Outside of highly competitive sports the gender difference isn't that significant and those sports leagues have their own rules around participation. If we want to keep gendered differences in sports its there must be some rules in place that are greater than someone asking to be called her instead of him at work and in public.

But outside of dating, where trans persons should be open about their status before beginning a relationship and some small regulations around individual sporting events how someone choses to present gender in public really shouldn't matter. If conservatives really cared about small government that would pass a law giving sports leagues the ability to regulate how they handle trans athletes and stay out of the rest because it really, really, really doesn't matter except in a set of very narrow circumstances around dating.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2022, 03:31:53 PM
Sure, and international competition also has a bunch of rules about who can be on the national team at the olympics, or in a regional league. You can't just declare yourself Japanese to play rugby for the World Cup side either.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: yossarian22c on March 24, 2022, 03:38:26 PM
Sure, and international competition also has a bunch of rules about who can be on the national team at the olympics, or in a regional league. You can't just declare yourself Japanese to play rugby for the World Cup side either.

But you can if you follow the naturalization process for becoming Japanese and are good at rugby.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on March 24, 2022, 04:20:45 PM
Why born? If you want an equivalent analogy, you might consider someone who learns at a young age that they feel a strong affinity to Japan. In fact, it is so strong that they move to Japan. They become fluent in the language. They become Japanese citizens. Would you really insist that they are not Japanese? Does that mean that every naturalized American citizen is not really American? Can you understand why they might be pretty upset with you insisting that they aren't "real" Americans?

You've chosen an analogy that works partially only because of the peculiar history of Japan. The ethnic/genetic uniformity and the cultural/national identity are closely linked in the case of being Japanese because they've been so isolated and distinct. They are not a mixed culture, or internationally cosmopolitan (by their own design). So being Japanese (the citizenship) and being Japanese (the genetic heritage, phrenology, etc) are the same in most linguistic uses but obviously are not the same if you're talking about a Westerner moving to Japan and gaining citizenship. At that point you would actually be inviting language confusion for the white man to say "I'm Japanese" because you wouldn't know if he meant the status of his residency or his family genetic history. No doubt such an unqualified statement would garner squinty looks and wondering whether he 'really looks Japanese'. And that's not because of some racist double standard, but purely because of the history of word usage. It would probably be a bad idea IMO for such a person to just call himself Japanese even if he got citizenship, purely because he would be communicating badly and it would cause much more confusion that to say "I was born in Kentuky but live in Japan now."
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on March 24, 2022, 04:25:57 PM
What the issue really comes down to is sex. To be able to tell by looking at a person and know if they have the sexual parts you are interested in. Basically this is the only scenario where a trans woman and cis woman differ in a way that people really care about.

I don't think you're quite right. You're trying to be pragmatic, which is a decent concept, but it's not just about daily pragmatic "what if" social scenarios. I think there is a lot of stuff mixed in with this that goes far beyond just whether you "accept" someone's identity or whether you're flirting with the right people. There's that, but that's sort of surface level stuff. Part of the thing liberals don't understand about well-intentioned conservatives is that a system (social or political) has many facets, most of which are not stated as open propositions. This means that we are essentially unaware, or at least not quite conscious of, much of the stuff that makes up such a system. By making moves to shake up or even de-structure a system, it's not just the things we know that are challenged, but the things we don't know. This is one area where I think the right-wing has a superior theory of interrelationships to the left, which is the notion that we can't name all the things that go on but you change them all when you try to reformulate social relations, and this is something to be very cautious of. In the case of pronoun usage I think there's a sense for some people that something is being challenged and changed that goes deeper than just polite social language. To even articulate what this something is might be quite a challenge, but it can't be swept away as nothing merely because it's difficult to articulate.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2022, 04:57:42 PM
Sure, and international competition also has a bunch of rules about who can be on the national team at the olympics, or in a regional league. You can't just declare yourself Japanese to play rugby for the World Cup side either.

But you can if you follow the naturalization process for becoming Japanese and are good at rugby.

I love that you picked the sport I am most familiar with. There's actually a lot more to it than citizenship, in fact that's not even a criterion.

There are four ways a player can be eligible to represent a country at international level. They are:

They were born in the country.
They have a parent or grandparent who was born in the country.
They have lived in the country for 36 consecutive months (three years) to qualify on residency immediately before playing.
They have completed ten years of cumulative residence in the country before playing.

This is a working definition of who can represent their country. I suspect that definition has been fluid. There was probably a time, especially before the professional era, where it wouldn't even occur to a lot of people that an athlete could represent a country that they don't live in and weren't born in. Literally grandfathered in. I imagine a lot of purists gnashed their teeth about New Zealanders playing for England through a loophole too. It gets REALLY complicated when you start breaking down what locks a player to a country, they can't play for Japan in August under grandfather rules and then play for England in March under native-born rules.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2022, 05:34:43 PM
Why born? If you want an equivalent analogy, you might consider someone who learns at a young age that they feel a strong affinity to Japan. In fact, it is so strong that they move to Japan. They become fluent in the language. They become Japanese citizens. Would you really insist that they are not Japanese? Does that mean that every naturalized American citizen is not really American? Can you understand why they might be pretty upset with you insisting that they aren't "real" Americans?

You've chosen an analogy that works partially only because of the peculiar history of Japan. The ethnic/genetic uniformity and the cultural/national identity are closely linked in the case of being Japanese because they've been so isolated and distinct. They are not a mixed culture, or internationally cosmopolitan (by their own design). So being Japanese (the citizenship) and being Japanese (the genetic heritage, phrenology, etc) are the same in most linguistic uses but obviously are not the same if you're talking about a Westerner moving to Japan and gaining citizenship. At that point you would actually be inviting language confusion for the white man to say "I'm Japanese" because you wouldn't know if he meant the status of his residency or his family genetic history. No doubt such an unqualified statement would garner squinty looks and wondering whether he 'really looks Japanese'. And that's not because of some racist double standard, but purely because of the history of word usage. It would probably be a bad idea IMO for such a person to just call himself Japanese even if he got citizenship, purely because he would be communicating badly and it would cause much more confusion that to say "I was born in Kentuky but live in Japan now."

Only confusing to some. 28% of Japanese surveyed said Japanese ancestry was not very important. What you're describing is Japanese bigotry and racism, and yes it is good to throw that out even if it does disrupt other parts of the society.

Quote
There are many different definitions of “Japaneseness” and they should all be accepted as valid.

research overview (http://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.aiu.ac.jp%2Ficpt%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2FWhat_Does_It_Mean_To_Japanese.pdf&clen=1164852&chunk=true)

Think its too much to call it racism? Well somebody wrote a whole book about it, and listed these fun facts.

Quote
Despite domestic constitutional provisions and international treaty promises, Japan has no law against racial discrimination. Consequently, businesses around Japan display “Japanese Only” signs, denying entry to all 'foreigners' on sight. Employers and landlords routinely refuse jobs and apartments to foreign applicants. Japanese police racially profile 'foreign-looking' bystanders for invasive questioning on the street. Legislators, administrators, and pundits portray foreigners as a national security threat and call for their segregation and expulsion. Nevertheless, Japan’s government and media claim there is no discrimination by race in Japan, therefore no laws are necessary.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Wayward Son on March 24, 2022, 06:45:16 PM
Quote
However it was previously common usage to use the terms interchangeably at times, even thought strictly speaking they were not identical. That common usage was almost ubiquitous except in academic circles such as gender theory, so it should come as no surprise that at first glance there would be pushback on using the word "gender" in a way that divorces it utterly from how it was typically used before. And I don't mean 'in the 1950's' before, I mean very recently. So that's one area of (IMO deliberate) confusion.

It's not confusion, but precision, because it has become more and more apparent that gender and sex are two different things.  And as people become more and more aware of this, they start using the two terms in order to distinguish what they are talking about.  They are not trying to deliberately confuse, but the opposite: deliberately point out the distinction.

Quote
That's why it's ok to call someone you meet part of "homo sapiens" even though strictly speaking many people have a small % of Neanderthal DNA. Now this is not quite an identical case (one being rare cases of discreet differentiation, the other being a more common vague differentiation) but the principle is the same: the language is good enough if it's good enough. We don't need to be more precise in common usage because it doesn't help.

For common usage, for 99 percent of the time, that is true.  When Jackson refers to a woman in common usage, she is usually referring to a female.  But notice the context of this thread.

The fact that she wouldn't define what she means by "a woman" was for a Supreme Court position.  And the Supreme Court doesn't address "common" cases.  That is for the lower courts.  The Supreme Court handles the small percentage of the cases which are extremely hard to judicate.  Where the common usage of "woman" may or may not apply.  Where the definition of a "woman" may become extremely important.

So although it is nice to continue to use the common usage of "woman" in common settings, you don't want to be restricted to the common usage in the Supreme Court.  Because "good enough for 99 percent of the time" isn't good enough for the Supreme Court.

But that is precisely what the Senator who asked for the definition was trying to make her do.  Because many Republicans want their definition to be the only one, regardless of who they hurt with it.  And be assured, it does hurt.

I was reading at Electoral-Vote.com how half of transgender kids have serious thoughts of suicide every year.   Not just once or twice during adolescence, but constantly.  And I suspect most of this comes from pressure from being different.  From not being accepted for who they are.  Enforcing a definition, even if it is a commonly accepted one, that makes not being accepted into law will continue to hurt these kids.  And for what?  It is not even an accurate definition.  ::)

You worry about the possible consequences of changing the social mores, but disregard the actual consequences of maintaining them.

So, no, distinguishing between sex and gender does help.  It helps because it is a more accurate reflection of reality, and because it helps those who are hurt by the "common usage."
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on March 24, 2022, 07:14:54 PM
I was reading at Electoral-Vote.com how half of transgender kids have serious thoughts of suicide every year.   Not just once or twice during adolescence, but constantly.  And I suspect most of this comes from pressure from being different.  From not being accepted for who they are.

I underlined and bolded to highlight the fact that you're actually making three separate propositions here, and to an extent they're unrelated (i.e. accepting one doesn't require accepting the others). First proposition is that the suicidal thoughts is not just correlated but caused by the fact that they identify as transgender. To date I've actually not heard a cogent argument by an expert getting past this issue, i.e. presenting what I would call double-blind or at least solid evidence that there's a cause-effect situation occurring, i.e. that this person with their physiology might have had suicidal ideation regardless of their transgender identity, for various other potential reasons. It's the "because" I'm addressing. The second proposition is that this comes from pressure from others, which likewise is often repeated as an axiom but I've never heard credible evidence that this is the case. To be clear, I'm not saying it's not the case, but a lot of presumptions are make in these cases which presume a priori that the person is a victim of bad treatment and this can account for all their symptoms, which is not only a large claim but in fact would be shocking if it was accurate (i.e. that such a simple pressure would create such a strangely negative situation compared to other oppressed people who do not share these types of suicide stats). Your third proposition is that not only does pressure cause these symptoms, but that the only pressure required to account for them is the pressure of non-acceptance, another loaded proposition that likewise does not need to map onto other oppressed/rejected sub-groups. Again I'm not refuting these claims, but merely mentioning that they are typically lumped all together with no evidence, and in fact no regard for the propriety of even having to explain why these different propositions are thrown in at the same time. I suspect the reason is because a social agenda (acceptance of trans people) becomes a retroactive explanation for suffering because it fits the narrative, rather than because we came to these conclusions scientifically.

Quote
You worry about the possible consequences of changing the social mores, but disregard the actual consequences of maintaining them.

And this is the thing conservatives are objectively correct about that a lot of liberals don't get: you should be worried about the possible consequences of changing mores. This reminds me of a sort of parallel social movement (and one which I'm actually sympathetic toward) that's anti-capitalist, which suggests that it's a corrupt pyramid-shaped power structure that needs shaking up. But likewise most of the people making this type of argument (often university students) are only where they are because of the actual merits of the American system, and freely make use of the perks while criticizing the very platform giving them the megaphone. Well they might not be prepared for what would replace it if a power vacuum presented itself! All this to say that taking something apart has effects that cannot be understood until long after it's too late to go back, and conservatives know that, but liberals appear to have no concept of it. I say this as someone who is in some ways a radical who would love to see all kinds of changes. And I'm a theatre person, so again don't mistake my arguments for a partisan position. I would likely see many more changes than you'd ever be comfortable with if I had my way. BUT one must have the awareness that there are serious dangers in making big changes, and for people that are not ok with that you can either respect their hesitation or else estrange yourself from them in all discourse.

Quote
So, no, distinguishing between sex and gender does help.  It helps because it is a more accurate reflection of reality, and because it helps those who are hurt by the "common usage."

Well this is the theory. But one of the issues is that it's essentially a gender theory, whereas it went right from 'niche university course' status to you'd better accept it or you're trying to erase people (or whatever). There was never really a public debate about it in the same way there was about sexual orientation through the 80's and 90's. There was no slow course of it slowly appearing on TV, generating discussion, and having multiple sides to it. This has come as an all-or-nothing-you-are-a-literal-Nazi topic, possibly a result of the social media echo chamber brain-melting culture we're in now.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on March 24, 2022, 07:16:59 PM
Only confusing to some. 28% of Japanese surveyed said Japanese ancestry was not very important. What you're describing is Japanese bigotry and racism, and yes it is good to throw that out even if it does disrupt other parts of the society.

No, it would be confusing to everything, despite your tacit claim that only bigots would be confused. That is just not true. Whether it should be modified, or could use a de-racist treatment, or anything else, is your opinion to have. My statement was only that saying the statement with no qualification would result in confusion, and that pretending it doesn't is a sort of bullying in the social sphere.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 24, 2022, 08:44:34 PM
Only confusing to some. 28% of Japanese surveyed said Japanese ancestry was not very important. What you're describing is Japanese bigotry and racism, and yes it is good to throw that out even if it does disrupt other parts of the society.

No, it would be confusing to everything, despite your tacit claim that only bigots would be confused. That is just not true. Whether it should be modified, or could use a de-racist treatment, or anything else, is your opinion to have. My statement was only that saying the statement with no qualification would result in confusion, and that pretending it doesn't is a sort of bullying in the social sphere.

Sure it will result in confusion, for some, UNTIL everyone gets used to it. The first time anybody ever used "they" as a pronoun it was confusing as hell. Then comes teaching, learning, acceptance, and normalization. It's not bullying in any form. It's education and understanding. Oh, now I understand why you want to use "they". Cool.

Hell, it was confusing for Archie Bunker to see somebody with long hair in the men's room.

There are serious repercussions surrounding not making changes or not making them quickly enough also. People were terrified about FDRs New Deal and how it would and did reshape society. But if the existing power structure had dragged its feet, it might well have meant revolution.

The Saudis are real hesitant to let women drive cars or uncover their face. Should we cut them slack because they're worried about changing mores and how it might have negative effects?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on March 24, 2022, 08:59:16 PM
Sure it will result in confusion, for some, UNTIL everyone gets used to it. The first time anybody ever used "they" as a pronoun it was confusing as hell. Then comes teaching, learning, acceptance, and normalization. It's not bullying in any form. It's education and understanding. Oh, now I understand why you want to use "they". Cool.

What I am trying to point out is that to teach you need to have a fact to teach, and if people don't agree on the fact then you have no business saying you are 'teaching' it to them. Learning is what happens when people trust a teacher, but if your 'teacher' is someone who fundamentally calls you evil and racist obviously you'll treat them as hostile, not as a teacher. Acceptance itself does not imply anything good, so let's pass on that one. People can accept horrible things. And normalization is where I would start rather than end the list, because at present the huge push for normalization has preceded any public debate, as I mentioned above. I think the strategy here is to normalize first through brute force, and then when everyone has conformed the need to defend it will vanish. I would personally argue that normalization of new things very quickly is probably a bad thing, even if I agree with the thing. You are treating it as a "we/them" thing, where "we" need to educate "them" and as soon as "they" get on board things will be better. I hope you can see how non-functional that is?

Quote
The Saudis are real hesitant to let women drive cars or uncover their face. Should we cut them slack because they're worried about changing mores and how it might have negative effects?

This example does you no credit, since it's essentially the same as making the 'literally Hitler' argument for anyone who disagrees. Now we don't want to mince words, either: when slavery in the South was pushed against by the North, we very much want to now say the North was right, full stop. Slavery is wrong, and those who required 'educating' needed to be changed. But this is a very dangerous type of mentality, because any fundamentalist or radical movement will see themselves as the North, needing to curb and envirtue the evildoers. So it would be almost better to decline to say the North was right, rather than use it as a signpost for any brute force social change to show that obvious we are the Good Guys so force is justified to make you agree with us.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2022, 10:40:25 AM
I'm sorry you don't see the equivalence. There is room to disagree about the athletics, or scholarships, or hormone treatments for adolescents. But there is no room for a decent person to say, "I don't want my children to know that trans people exist, and I consider them to be mentally ill." Those people after a period of discussion to try and help them understand, do indeed deserve scorn and judgement. That's not the same as using "force" in the sense you mean about the North and slavery. Consequences are not coercion.

We watched this whole sequence play out with gay marriage. Starting with teaching, explaining, learning. Over time that led to acceptance in the form of legal recognition and the preponderance of public opinion. Normalization is when you stop saying "I'm going to a gay wedding." and you just say "I'm going to a wedding." There are still holdouts, and at this point, I am 100% okay with marginalizing them. They've had a couple of generations to get used to the idea and accept it.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on March 25, 2022, 11:01:16 AM
Quote
I was reading at Electoral-Vote.com how half of transgender kids have serious thoughts of suicide every year.   Not just once or twice during adolescence, but constantly.

The rise of Suicided Ideation is a problem across the board. I'm not sure how this measurement is taken, validated and then interpreted. I don't know that many people who have never had such thoughts especially when feeling different.  I suspect everyone when asked will say they have feelings of being different, not belonging and  being alone.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2022, 11:27:03 AM
Should we even be focusing on suicide, an outlying outcome? What about engagement with their education, feeling a sense of community, and feeling accepted? Don't worry if you're ostracizing people, unless we can prove they are killing themselves over it.

As far as which estimate to work with? The maximum estimate indicates the greatest possible harm. If that's what people need to motivate change, I'm all for hedging toward the worse scenario rather than trying to suss out the median. They didn't die OF transphobia, they just died WITH transphobia? Is that where we're at?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on March 25, 2022, 12:14:38 PM
I'm sorry you don't see the equivalence. There is room to disagree about the athletics, or scholarships, or hormone treatments for adolescents. But there is no room for a decent person to say, "I don't want my children to know that trans people exist, and I consider them to be mentally ill." Those people after a period of discussion to try and help them understand, do indeed deserve scorn and judgement. That's not the same as using "force" in the sense you mean about the North and slavery. Consequences are not coercion.

Honestly this doesn't sound responsive to what I wrote...
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on March 25, 2022, 12:21:55 PM
Quote
In the case of pronoun usage I think there's a sense for some people that something is being challenged and changed that goes deeper than just polite social language. To even articulate what this something is might be quite a challenge, but it can't be swept away as nothing merely because it's difficult to articulate.

I'm one of those that don't understand the pronoun thing and do wonder if something deeper isn't being challenged and suspect that most in my generation don't. I'm not saying the challenge isn't a positive or negative, only that I sense a change that is going beyond the issue which I don't understand.

Just completed the diversity training my employer put out. Lots of discussion about the pronoun usage but it didn't feel safe to articulate concern that we might be changing something fundamental that no one understands.

I spent the last few years working on detaching my sense of self, my identity, from labels. (I know how that sounds) I don't want to be defined by a pronoun. Maybe that's privilege because I never had to consider it before.
I think the left is getting so wrapped up in labels as identity and having everyone use the proper language with little room for forgiveness when some get it wrong that thier missing seeing the person. Everyone experience/person hood is important as long as it fits into a accepted label. Its a step backward in my opinion.   

My experience when raising questions on the matter is to be dismissed. Not in a mean way but the Ok Boomer, your world is over and your experience doesn't matter. No country for old men/woman/him/her/she/he/them/theirs...
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2022, 02:38:44 PM
I'm sorry you don't see the equivalence. There is room to disagree about the athletics, or scholarships, or hormone treatments for adolescents. But there is no room for a decent person to say, "I don't want my children to know that trans people exist, and I consider them to be mentally ill." Those people after a period of discussion to try and help them understand, do indeed deserve scorn and judgement. That's not the same as using "force" in the sense you mean about the North and slavery. Consequences are not coercion.

Honestly this doesn't sound responsive to what I wrote...

You claimed that one is not a teacher if one is calling someone evil or racist (and I'll add in ignorant). I'm saying it is sequential. If I make multiple attempts to help someone understand that it isn't okay to make women subservient or to make trans people hide themselves away, or that they shouldn't use racial slurs, then we move on to the disparagement. Because at some point when you don't accept people for who they are and that you shouldn't restrict them, then you are a bad person and don't really deserve civility or an "agree to disagree" attitude. And yes, as an employer, I'm going to send you to training for you to at least not act on your prejudices, and if you do act out those prejudices at work then I'm going to terminate you. That doesn't make me the bad guy.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Wayward Son on March 25, 2022, 03:47:11 PM
Quote
I suspect the reason is because a social agenda (acceptance of trans people) becomes a retroactive explanation for suffering because it fits the narrative, rather than because we came to these conclusions scientifically.

Fair enough.  Let me know if you find any scientific (as far as psychology can go) evidence, and I'll let you know if I find any.

Quote
And this is the thing conservatives are objectively correct about that a lot of liberals don't get: you should be worried about the possible consequences of changing mores.

The problem with worrying too much about the possible consequences is that, historically, a lot of those worries turned out to be nothing. :)

Consider what has happened when we let people of different classes marry.  Or different races.  Or different religions.  Or allowing pre-martial sex.  Or abolishing slavery.  Or giving blacks equal rights.  Or any number of social changes that have occurred in the past couple of centuries.  The "possible consequences" of every single one of those was the utter destruction and collapse of our society, so we were told.  And yet our society still stands.

It is one thing if you can point to a scientifically-proven (as you put it) consequence of a social change.  But worrying about "possible" social changes often is to worry about nothing.  And those problems that do occur usually can be addressed or mitigated when they become apparent.  And you have to weigh these worries about "possible" consequences against the real problems that we see actually occurring right now to real people.  "What if" and "this could lead to" does not trump "which is causing."

Quote
Well this is the theory. But one of the issues is that it's essentially a gender theory, whereas it went right from 'niche university course' status to you'd better accept it or you're trying to erase people (or whatever). There was never really a public debate about it in the same way there was about sexual orientation through the 80's and 90's. There was no slow course of it slowly appearing on TV, generating discussion, and having multiple sides to it. This has come as an all-or-nothing-you-are-a-literal-Nazi topic, possibly a result of the social media echo chamber brain-melting culture we're in now.

Gender is not some esoteric academic theory.  It is simply a fact, one that can be easily shown simply by looking at different cultures and people.  Are skirts only feminine?  Are women always subservient to men?  Are boys always more aggressive than girls?  Are they always more violent?  There are so many assumptions and customs in our society, based on gender, that have very little if any relationship to a person's sex that it not a question of outlook or philosophy, but simply a matter of observable reality.

The only reason gender was not talked about until recently is the almost universal assumption that everything we believed about the differences in sexes was generic or inborn.  That there was no difference between sex and gender.  That they were one and the same.  But as more and more examples of the variety of behaviors within a certain sex became apparent, we needed some word to distinguish those things that were intrinsic to a person biological sex (reproductive organs, hormones, etc.) and those of a person's gender (expected behavior, dress, etc.)

To say that we should first thoroughly debate gender before accepting it is like saying we should first thoroughly debate gravity before accepting it.  Gravity exists whether a person accepts it or not. The proof is all around us.  So with gender.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on March 25, 2022, 04:26:48 PM
Here's a nice example, based on Utah that tried to separate the sports issue from transgender in general.

Quote
Cox’s plan would legally establish the transgender ideology in Utah’s K-12 sports system. That establishment would open the legal door for the ideology throughout the state’s K-12 schools — even as ordinary Americans — and many GOP politicians — are fighting to evict the unpopular and destructive ideology from their kids’ schools. In Florida, for example, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) recently signed a law that largely bars the ideology in classes for kids younger than Grade 4.

Luckily, Cox vetoed the sports bill. Note what they mean by "transgender ideology". The idea that some people are transgender and there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote
Most notably, Cox seemed to express more sympathy for boys who identify as girls rather than actual girls, saying he is “learning so much” from the transgender community and that they are “great kids who face enormous struggles.” He also cited “trans youth suicide rates,” adding that those numbers “most impacted” his decision to veto the bill. He then painted transgender children as  “kids who are just trying to find some friends.”

“Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live. And all the research shows that even a little acceptance and connection can reduce suicidality significantly,” he said

This is a Republican governor in the second reddest state. So maybe its not asking so much to ask people to get with HIS program. Of course, according to Breitbart his stance makes him a liberal Democrat.

Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDeamon on March 26, 2022, 03:16:32 PM
So a supreme court justice nominee just said they could not define what a woman is because "I'm not a biologist."

Shouldn't that response in itself be disqualifying? How can one rule on women's rights issues or other laws pertaining to women if they are incapable of articulating what one is?

Wait, I thought gender was a psychological construct these days. So the correct answer for the "properly woke" should have been "I am not a psychologist."
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: yossarian22c on March 28, 2022, 11:02:05 AM
What the issue really comes down to is sex. To be able to tell by looking at a person and know if they have the sexual parts you are interested in. Basically this is the only scenario where a trans woman and cis woman differ in a way that people really care about.

I don't think you're quite right. You're trying to be pragmatic, which is a decent concept, but it's not just about daily pragmatic "what if" social scenarios. I think there is a lot of stuff mixed in with this that goes far beyond just whether you "accept" someone's identity or whether you're flirting with the right people. There's that, but that's sort of surface level stuff. Part of the thing liberals don't understand about well-intentioned conservatives is that a system (social or political) has many facets, most of which are not stated as open propositions. This means that we are essentially unaware, or at least not quite conscious of, much of the stuff that makes up such a system. By making moves to shake up or even de-structure a system, it's not just the things we know that are challenged, but the things we don't know. This is one area where I think the right-wing has a superior theory of interrelationships to the left, which is the notion that we can't name all the things that go on but you change them all when you try to reformulate social relations, and this is something to be very cautious of. In the case of pronoun usage I think there's a sense for some people that something is being challenged and changed that goes deeper than just polite social language. To even articulate what this something is might be quite a challenge, but it can't be swept away as nothing merely because it's difficult to articulate.

Calling Joe Josephine and she instead of he isn't deconstructing some societal fabric. Just like letting Adam and Steve get married didn't lead to the destruction of marriage and society. I'm open to there being some rules and regulations around scholarships, sports, and with individuals being consistent with their gender expression. Meaning people can't be men everywhere but "women" when going to the locker room or Curves.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on March 28, 2022, 11:48:48 AM
Calling Joe Josephine and she instead of he isn't deconstructing some societal fabric. Just like letting Adam and Steve get married didn't lead to the destruction of marriage and society. I'm open to there being some rules and regulations around scholarships, sports, and with individuals being consistent with their gender expression. Meaning people can't be men everywhere but "women" when going to the locker room or Curves.

Well, this is a fair critique of that position, obviously. But it's also a potentially false analogy. While it's true the same argument was levelled against gay marriage (it undermines marriage, society, etc), this issue is mired by a few points:

1) Marriage is in fact in a pretty bad state generally speaking. Whether this can be laid at the feet of gay marriage is certainly contentious at best, but it's sort of undeniable that marriage is in a manner of speaking under attack. Whether gay marriage was a pertinent part of that attack would be the object to demonstrate.

2) Gay marriage is in fact restricted to gay couples and those who want to attend such events, so in theory if you want to live cloistered away from all that you can more or less accomplish it. To the extent that you may want to attend a pluralistic environment like a university, you're unlikely (in a classroom in any case) to encounter any overtly sexual activity if you wish to avoid it. So the "if you're going to do it I don't want to see it" attitude is largely tenable for someone not comfortable with gay couples. The issue with the trans movement is not just the similar arguments about society, morals, etc, but that it seems to be enforced as a two-way street: so it's not enough to let people do what they want, but you have to also do what they want in some respects. A typical arts environment, among other cases, is to come into a room (or a Zoom room) and immediately either go through the list of everyone's preferred pronouns, or else on Zoom for them to automatically be included in your name as it appears on screen. And lest you think this is just an opt-in situation, it's very likely that declining to do so will be taken as a very overt statement that you refuse to do so, or at least abstain from agreeing with the practice. This makes even mundane (to the extent that anything artistic is mundane) meetings a potentially hazardous ideological minefield. This is extremely different from sexuality, where it is by no means required or even acceptable to ask a group of strangers what their sexual preferences are, to post them on screen, and even to add whether they are married (straight or gay). That it's this in your face makes it quite different from the gay marriage situation vis a vis its effects on everyday life. Someone living in a religious community in a city might very well really not be impacted much by gay marriage, whereas the same is not going to be true of the new language rules and identity politics implicit in the trans movement.

3) Following up on (2), the gay marriage movement, while distinctly part of the general left-leaning trend towards validating what used to be thought of as aberrant lifestyles, was nevertheless pretty concretely its own thing. Gay marriage was about gay marriage, and nothing else that was overtly attached to it. To the extent that it was part of a liberal trend in culture obviously there would never be a "mission accomplished' acknowledgement made after its institution, but at the same time gay couples got what they wanted so it was case closed on that particular grievance. By contrast, the trans movement appears to come as part of a package deal that includes all sorts of various ideological detritus along with it, all of which you must tacitly adopt along with any position you take on the topic of trans people itself. Sometimes this is referred to under the umbrella of CRT, but it doesn't really matter what it's called; the point is that if you wade into the topic of the trans movement, which you increasingly can't avoid doing, you are simultaneously wading into the waters of an entire interpretive structure that covers politics, social mores, personal attitudes, lifestyles, sexual mores, and even abstract concepts like logic and evidence (which are sometimes argued to merely be artifacts of corrupt power structures). So there is simply no way this is "just" about being polite and using the correct pronouns, or about sports and scholarships. It's just that because these matters are so ephemeral and misty, these are the concrete realities we can grasp and argue about, because at least they're intelligible. But the meat of the matter is not 'about' those things. It's about the general view of life; it's an argument about metaphysics to an extent, and about meaning in the world.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on March 28, 2022, 12:18:04 PM
So a supreme court justice nominee just said they could not define what a woman is because "I'm not a biologist."

Shouldn't that response in itself be disqualifying? How can one rule on women's rights issues or other laws pertaining to women if they are incapable of articulating what one is?

Wait, I thought gender was a psychological construct these days. So the correct answer for the "properly woke" should have been "I am not a psychologist."

I don't believe the question was asked in good faith
That said a better intro sentence before she explained what she meant could have been "I'm a Judge not a psychologist, sociologist, or biologist....

I do not believe their was a 'correct' answer and she answered it as a Judge, being open to hearing the arguments.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on March 28, 2022, 02:29:47 PM
Gender is not some esoteric academic theory.  It is simply a fact, one that can be easily shown simply by looking at different cultures and people.  Are skirts only feminine?  Are women always subservient to men?  Are boys always more aggressive than girls?  Are they always more violent?  There are so many assumptions and customs in our society, based on gender, that have very little if any relationship to a person's sex that it not a question of outlook or philosophy, but simply a matter of observable reality.

The only reason gender was not talked about until recently is the almost universal assumption that everything we believed about the differences in sexes was generic or inborn.  That there was no difference between sex and gender.

This is where modern CRT/feminist theory/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is factually wrong about history, both about the term and about social convention. It was a basic assumption of second-wave feminism that gender roles were essentially social conventions, which included household responsibilities, dress, and participation in society. Obviously a huge part of this was opening up the career option for women and the ability (at the time, encouragement) to choose not to have a family. This was well-known at the time, to the point where it was plainly obvious even to conservatives that obviously long hair being feminine wasn't set in stone anywhere, and wearing pink was not feminine unless you decided it was. In fact this concept was so well-established then that we have to take a step back in the present tense as science informs us that some differences between men and women, even in fashion, life choices, and preferences, are in fact biologically determined and are not merely conventions. So to the extent that we ascribe nature to these things, it is more true now than it was in the 60's when the concept of plasticity was even stronger in the humanities than it is now for well-informed people. So that is one thing CRT/whatever is wrong about.

Another thing it's wrong about is that gender wasn't understood until now. And part of this is a language-bending issue. If you're going to use a word in a newly-invented way obviously you'll be able to sell that you've invented the concept you've attached to it, but it's been known not just since the 50's, but for centuries, that there is some spectrum of masculine/feminine in all people, and that you can have a masculin woman and a feminine man. Back then they just called it 'life' and didn't need an academic term for it. Likewise, there were always people who clearly didn't fit into society, both into gender roles (i.e. women belong in the household, should wear women clothes, etc) and in many other ways. Another difference between then (e.g. Elizabethan England) and now is that back then no one fit into society, because the differences between people were huge. Now things are narrowed and normalized, so that you might risk feeling sometimes that people are all doing an impression of each other in language use, manner of dress, meme usage, and especially mores and values. On both liberal and conservative fronts I can pretty much script how an argument would go back and forth on a number of topics, and in 9 cases out of 10 a real live person would say exactly the things I've scripted, like a bot. It wasn't like that back then. So to the extent that normality and fitting into gender roles is such a big deal (to the point of a person saying even their sex-at-birth doesn't fit their self-experience), that is also a fairly new thing since I don't think 'feeling normal' was even a thing hundreds of years ago, such that it would be a big deal if someone didn't feel normal. There was no normal, at least not like there is now. This is due to a combination of processed education and socialization, mass media, commerical branding, and even there mere fact of better nutrition and having less of a health gap in the first world. But people have different internal characteristics along the masculin/feminine axis is not exactly new information, to say the least. All that's changed is how people talk about it. The biology is...interesting...but really not pertinent to this general issue, that IMO nothing new is really being said other than now it's being called an identity and language-oriented normalization issues are arising around it. So that's another ahistorical tacit claim being made.

So I believe you are totally wrong that people previously thought gender was something inborn. Masculin/feminine traits? Yes. But gender was just sex, the thing we call you based on your biology. It was really not complicated. Gender roles was simply the feminist topic of saying that we don't need to conceptualize women's roles as being fixed based on some tradition or antiquated practice. A woman can wear pants and still be a woman, and in fact still be feminine. That is how gender was used as a word. The only reason it was convenient to call it 'gender roles' rather than 'sex roles' is because the latter makes it sound like it's about the sexual act. But now the word "gender" is being related to one's internal dialogue with oneself, self-image, and other things. Fine, fair enough; but that's just a new usage. We haven't discovered these things newly, just now assigned them to a word that previously did not mean that. It's only a magic trick if you think history started in 2010. The things you mention about whether skirts are only feminine, etc, have nothing to do with current gender theory vis a vis identity. In fact, you are unwittingly making second-wave feminist arguments here, because the current conception of gender in fact does presuppose that skirts and dressed are only feminine, and we know this because someone transitioning M-->F shows it (among other ways) by dressing in a way that's traditionally feminine.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: yossarian22c on April 07, 2022, 01:31:06 PM
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091252803/palm-springs-looks-to-create-a-universal-basic-income-pilot-for-trans-residents (https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091252803/palm-springs-looks-to-create-a-universal-basic-income-pilot-for-trans-residents)

Liberals are idiots. UBI is a great idea. But the important letter is the U - universal, not TBI. Way to take what needs to be the future of post scarcity economics and set it back by a few decades by trying to role it out to the culturally oppressed first. Its an economic policy, apply it to all people in need not just trans persons.

Its like they literally can't see how this is going to play out on a national level. The Fox News headlines write themselves. "California Democrats pay youth to become trans." Face palm.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: NobleHunter on April 07, 2022, 01:33:23 PM
I can see some appeal for creating a targeted basic income program but it's going to lose a lot of the savings of UBI since it'll need more monitoring and checking.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: yossarian22c on April 07, 2022, 01:41:38 PM
And Fenring, nice post about gender roles and biology vs social expectations. I've always thought a stronger androgynous movement, where people didn't need to fit into one category or the other, would make many trans individuals feel more at ease. The idea that a person needs to deny (or change) their biology to feel at ease in society seems more like a social expectations issue than any inherent biological or neurological issue. But I've always struggled to understand that dynamic while trying to accept people for who they want to be and/or present as, because at the end of the day live and let live. Androgyny seems like a nice fit for what I've head many trans individuals want, at first they want to pass as the opposite sex, but many after they can do that aren't quite satisfied there either, hence the "they" pronoun and non-binary categorization that many of the individuals end up at. 
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on April 07, 2022, 01:53:11 PM
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091252803/palm-springs-looks-to-create-a-universal-basic-income-pilot-for-trans-residents (https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091252803/palm-springs-looks-to-create-a-universal-basic-income-pilot-for-trans-residents)

Liberals are idiots. UBI is a great idea. But the important letter is the U - universal, not TBI. Way to take what needs to be the future of post scarcity economics and set it back by a few decades by trying to role it out to the culturally oppressed first. Its an economic policy, apply it to all people in need not just trans persons.

Its like they literally can't see how this is going to play out on a national level. The Fox News headlines write themselves. "California Democrats pay youth to become trans." Face palm.

In context I believe the money to fund the trial is coming from private sources and they defined the criteria of those who would get to apply

So yes Liberals tend to be terrible (idiots) when it comes to optics and messaging but at least its not tax dollars.
It does meet the notion of Freedom as in those paying are Free to do what they want with thier money so those on the right who hate it should be mindful of what kind of noise they make.
(they wont but conservatives can be idiots as well)

Question: Do the qualifications on who is eligible to be part of the trial make any findings of such a trial invalid? If so why?

Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: yossarian22c on April 07, 2022, 02:02:23 PM
I can see some appeal for creating a targeted basic income program but it's going to lose a lot of the savings of UBI since it'll need more monitoring and checking.

I see the appeal, they want to help people. They are just freaking tone deaf to the national conversation and broader optics in how they're helping people.

Also why not UBI for ethnic minorities or women. There are other groups that would have similar economic statistics. Its just going to end up divisive and ineffective to provide economic aid to one group with above average need while ignoring others. Provide economic aid to people with economic need. Because the 18 year old white male aging out of foster care could really use a UBI as well. A trans 45 year old computer programmer with no kids probably doesn't need a UBI. So if you can't make it universal, at least target it based on economic need.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: yossarian22c on April 07, 2022, 02:07:18 PM
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091252803/palm-springs-looks-to-create-a-universal-basic-income-pilot-for-trans-residents (https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091252803/palm-springs-looks-to-create-a-universal-basic-income-pilot-for-trans-residents)

Liberals are idiots. UBI is a great idea. But the important letter is the U - universal, not TBI. Way to take what needs to be the future of post scarcity economics and set it back by a few decades by trying to role it out to the culturally oppressed first. Its an economic policy, apply it to all people in need not just trans persons.

Its like they literally can't see how this is going to play out on a national level. The Fox News headlines write themselves. "California Democrats pay youth to become trans." Face palm.

In context I believe the money to fund the trial is coming from private sources and they defined the criteria of those who would get to apply

...

Quote
The Palm Springs City Council has approved funding for two local organizations to develop a universal basic income program for the California city's transgender and nonbinary residents.

The city council unanimously approved allocating $200,000 for DAP Health and Queer Works in late March. But this was just the first step to develop the program, which would provide a regular no-strings-attached stipend.

The two organizations are now in the works to design the pilot program. They aim to apply for a piece of $35 million in state funding — set aside for universal basic income programs — sometime later this year.

Sounds like tax money to me.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on April 07, 2022, 02:59:43 PM
I was remember something I heard for San Francisco

So even if the trial comes back with positive data few will see past how the criteria was defined. So a waist of time
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Wayward Son on April 07, 2022, 03:05:36 PM
Well, the Washington Post tried to ask leading Republicans if they could define what a woman is, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/04/06/republican-woman-definitions/) and, as expected, they fell flat on their faces as anyone else would.  ;D

Some samples:

Quote
“I’m going to tell you right now what is a woman,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) informed the audience at a GOP event after namechecking Jackson. “This is an easy answer. We’re a creation of God. We came from Adam’s rib. God created us with his hands. We may be the weaker sex — we are the weaker sex — but we are our partner — we are our husband’s wife.”

Uh-huh.  So where does that leave unmarried women and widows?  ;D

Quote
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was asked by a HuffPost reporter to define woman, and replied, “Someone who can give birth to a child, a mother, is a woman. Someone who has a uterus is a woman. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.” When the reporter asked him whether a woman whose uterus was removed via hysterectomy was still a woman, he appeared uncertain: “Yeah. Well, I don’t know, would they?” ...

Asked again later if he would consider a woman to still be a woman if she lost her reproductive organs to cancer, Hawley said: “I mean, a woman has a vagina, right?”

Gee.  Good question.  And where does that leave a castrated man? ;)

Some Republicans just punted. (https://news.yahoo.com/whats-woman-gop-senators-stumble-094516531.html)

Quote
“I don’t have anything for you on that,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.).

“I’m not going to indulge you,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). ...

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) shouted his definition of a woman before slipping into a Senate elevator: “An adult female of the human species.” ...

"I have more of a traditional view of what a woman is,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). ... “My wife.”

Which doesn't help much when you have to decide who qualifies for women's sports.  ;D

Quote
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said a woman is simply someone who is “biologically a woman,” adding that he thinks most Americans can figure out who’s a woman and who’s a man.

“The birds and the bees stuff ― it’s been a while, but I think I remember the general gist of the differences,” Graham said. “To have a hard time answering that question is kind of odd to me.”

Obviously Graham hasn't been keeping up with current events. :)

Many just fell back on the inadequate answer that cherry used:

Quote
In a follow-up email to HuffPost, a spokesperson for Blackburn said her definition of a woman is “Two X chromosomes.” ...

In a written statement, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered the same definition as Blackburn: “A woman is born with two X-chromosomes.” ...

Cruz, when asked, immediately answered that a woman is “an adult female human.”

He denied that he had recently looked it up in a dictionary.

“I just happen to speak English,” Cruz said, adding: “A Homo sapien with two X chromosomes.” ...

"Take notes Madam Speaker. I'm about to define what a woman is for you," [Sen. Madison Cawthorn] said. "XX chromosomes, no tallywacker."

Which leaves all those with a single X chromosome or three X chromosomes to two X chromosomes and a natural-born tallywacker out in the lurch.  ;D

With none of the Republican leadership able to provide a good answer, is it any wonder that Jackson declined to try? ;)

Just shows how much more intelligent Jackson is compared to the rest of these bozos.  ;D
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Mynnion on April 07, 2022, 03:08:56 PM
Quote
I see the appeal, they want to help people. They are just freaking tone deaf to the national conversation and broader optics in how they're helping people.

Couldn't agree more.  I sometimes wonder if those promoting these ideas want them to fail. 

Another great example is the use of terms like defund the police.  Yeah there are some who actually want the police to disappear but most just want to see demilitarization and an increase in programs that promote de-escalation over the shoot first ask questions mentality that seems to have become the norm.  Why not "Re-imagine Criminal Justice" or something similar.  The same thing with the term "White Privilege."  The term always rubbed me wrong even though I support the idea.  I think of privilege as something you earn not something associated with racial opportunity. 

The Left seems to be constantly trying to recover from self-inflicted wounds.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: NobleHunter on April 07, 2022, 03:16:37 PM
Quote
I see the appeal, they want to help people. They are just freaking tone deaf to the national conversation and broader optics in how they're helping people.

Couldn't agree more.  I sometimes wonder if those promoting these ideas want them to fail. 

Another great example is the use of terms like defund the police.  Yeah there are some who actually want the police to disappear but most just want to see demilitarization and an increase in programs that promote de-escalation over the shoot first ask questions mentality that seems to have become the norm.  Why not "Re-imagine Criminal Justice" or something similar.  The same thing with the term "White Privilege."  The term always rubbed me wrong even though I support the idea.  I think of privilege as something you earn not something associated with racial opportunity. 

The Left seems to be constantly trying to recover from self-inflicted wounds.

"Defund the police"  works because all the other options lead to the governments giving police departments more money and generally resulting in few actual changes to policing. Compromising on "Defund the police" will at least take money away from the cops and presumably used for better purposes.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Mynnion on April 07, 2022, 03:20:04 PM
It isn't about what the movement would like to happen.  It is about the gut reaction to the term and the Right's ability to use that reaction to destroy momentum and prevent systemic change.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: yossarian22c on April 07, 2022, 03:21:02 PM
Quote
I see the appeal, they want to help people. They are just freaking tone deaf to the national conversation and broader optics in how they're helping people.

Couldn't agree more.  I sometimes wonder if those promoting these ideas want them to fail. 

Another great example is the use of terms like defund the police.  Yeah there are some who actually want the police to disappear but most just want to see demilitarization and an increase in programs that promote de-escalation over the shoot first ask questions mentality that seems to have become the norm.  Why not "Re-imagine Criminal Justice" or something similar.  The same thing with the term "White Privilege."  The term always rubbed me wrong even though I support the idea.  I think of privilege as something you earn not something associated with racial opportunity. 

The Left seems to be constantly trying to recover from self-inflicted wounds.

Agree 100% about "white privilege" (and most of the other terms) especially since 99+% of the "privilege" is the absence of discrimination. So its not something whites need less of (which is the connotation of privilege) but that we just need less discrimination in society.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Mynnion on April 07, 2022, 03:27:27 PM
Quote
especially since 99+% of the "privilege" is the absence of discrimination

I'm not sure I buy this.  I think it is an absence of opportunity.  Much of which has been through discriminatory processes at a societal level (Jim Crow, War on Drugs, Separate But (UN)Equal.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 07, 2022, 04:20:39 PM
It isn't about what the movement would like to happen.  It is about the gut reaction to the term and the Right's ability to use that reaction to destroy momentum and prevent systemic change.

Except there wasn't any momentum. We tried a lot of things.

Retrain the police
Militarize the police
Community relations
Federal oversight
De-escalation training
Non-lethal weapons
Body cameras
Citizen lawsuits

None of these strategies held police accountable. None of it resulted in very widespread reduction of violent encounters.

So you're left with a very basic strategy. The less money cops have, the fewer no-knock warrants they can serve. The fewer cops are out on the street able to shoot, choke, and beat suspects. The less money cops have, the more selective they'll have to be about  who gets a uniform, a badge, and a gun. The less money cops have, the fewer racially motivated traffic stops they can make.

There are other things that could work, potentially, but the best way to get there is to threaten departments with the one thing they can't stand - budget reductions and freezes.

Of course its easier to get along with people who attempt to do nothing.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Mynnion on April 07, 2022, 05:01:38 PM
Quote
Except there wasn't any momentum. We tried a lot of things.

Retrain the police
Militarize the police
Community relations
Federal oversight
De-escalation training
Non-lethal weapons
Body cameras
Citizen lawsuits

None of these strategies held police accountable. None of it resulted in very widespread reduction of violent encounters.

So you're left with a very basic strategy. The less money cops have, the fewer no-knock warrants they can serve. The fewer cops are out on the street able to shoot, choke, and beat suspects. The less money cops have, the more selective they'll have to be about  who gets a uniform, a badge, and a gun. The less money cops have, the fewer racially motivated traffic stops they can make.

There are other things that could work, potentially, but the best way to get there is to threaten departments with the one thing they can't stand - budget reductions and freezes.

Of course its easier to get along with people who attempt to do nothing.

Which circles us back around to the Left's inability to control the dialogue.  All's I am saying is that using terms like defund the police when the news is covering riots in the cities isn't going to win any supporters and is going to provide plenty of the wrong kind of message.

To be clear I fully support a major overhaul of our criminal justice system.  My views line up with many of the Defund the Police supporters.  I just feel that the term is to provocative and in the end counter productive to real change.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 07, 2022, 05:16:56 PM
What slogan would have worked for you, marching up and down the street protesting the murder of citizens by police? What does your focus group tell you?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: yossarian22c on April 07, 2022, 05:55:28 PM
What slogan would have worked for you, marching up and down the street protesting the murder of citizens by police? What does your focus group tell you?

How about disarm the police?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: NobleHunter on April 07, 2022, 06:05:10 PM
How about disarm the police?

Because you want them to be murdered by thugs and drug dealers? /talking point

Liberals would do better to refrain from clutching their pearls over slogans and focus on building a compromise of only cutting police budgets by 20-30%.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 08, 2022, 06:46:31 AM
I disagree. Slogans can be powerful. Look what happened with Maga. Build back better? Really? It's like the marketing people are all Republicans. Hope and change wasn't bad.

Here's what defund the police did. It planted the discussion as a permanent part of the political landscape, which had never happened before with police brutality, not even after Rodney king. Because if a good cop stops a bad cop from beating a restrained suspect and gets fired rather than praised, zero tax dollars should go to that department until every link in the leadership structure is shown the door.

Maybe the slogan should have been more on point

Defund dirty cops, or corrupt cops, or violent cops.

You really think any slogan is going to bring the cop apologists on board?

Meanwhile the slogan also produced majority support for refunding the police.

Quote
Many activists are pushing for more sweeping changes than those covered in congressional legislation thus far, including the “defunding of police,” which is essentially the reallocation of resources from law enforcement to other social services. A majority of voters surveyed favor some reallocation: 63 percent agree that some funding should be shifted from police departments to establish a new agency of first responders who focus on mental health and addiction-related needs, including 83 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents, and 43 percent of Republicans.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Mynnion on April 08, 2022, 02:42:58 PM
I had a boss once tell me if you wanted to know the truth you needed to follow the Benjamins.  When you start to add up the costs of incarceration, police forces, the criminal court system we are looking at something like 1/2 a trillion dollars a year.  We have for profit prisons which have in some case cozy relationships with both police and judges.  These costs exclude the massive economic cost of removing a potential bread winner/provider from a family unit.

We as a culture are fixated on incarceration as the answer to everything.  At the same time as the government has been pushing military grade equipment through grants to police forces (likely backed by the manufacturers of said equipment) cuts have been made in programs designed to provide mental health and substance abuse services that are far more effective than dumping the mentally ill on the streets.

Defunding isn't the short term answer although effectively reducing the number of incarcerated may have that impact in the long run.  Re-imagining how we view Criminal Justice is.  We can play hard ass folks who are only interested in dishing out the maximum punishment or we can be smart and change how we do things.

Our nation has moved to an US/THEM mentality and those who are benefitting from that will do all in their power to keep the divide in place.  Terms like Defund the Police just give them ammunition to prevent any real change.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on April 08, 2022, 03:29:30 PM
Which leaves all those with a single X chromosome or three X chromosomes to two X chromosomes and a natural-born tallywacker out in the lurch.  ;D

With none of the Republican leadership able to provide a good answer, is it any wonder that Jackson declined to try? ;)

I would like to point out again that while even simple questions may confound people with no knowledge, that doesn't mean that a deconstructive approach is constructive. If you want to illustrate that any 'rule' about who is male/female can be confounded with rare exceptions, you are inadvertently using a deconstructive argument where you can reduce anything to components that don't mean anything. It's partially a result of looking at something at the wrong level of analysis; and partly mistaking what a definition's purpose is. Take a table: what 'defines' it being a table? Has to have 4 legs? What about tables with 8 legs, or one big leg in the middle? Maybe just that it's a broad surface held up by legs...but then what about a small table, or a table suspended from the ceiling somehow that's still load bearing? So you can always poke a hole in an English word by showing instances where a given definition will break down. But unless it's your goal to literally undermine the ability to use language, you do have to accept a generally reasonable definition that fits most use cases. The edge cases matter if it means those people will be discriminated against, but otherwise do not stand as some kind of refutation of a generally useful definition. We can discuss tables, or whether someone is born male or female, without worrying about edge cases. Since they do exist, we can develop specialized language to deal with them, rather than to subvert life in general.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on April 08, 2022, 03:48:22 PM
About slogans such as "defund the police" it's not as simple as having strong slogans with moderate policy ideas. If anything the 'core' of the groups starting these events are far more extremist than even the slogan would suggest, but with a motte-bailey built in so that anyone involved can claim that those with the extreme views are few and not representative. Those who launch certain protests, e.g. Black Lives Matter, are not moderate groups who you can align with if you have problems with the police. The problem comes when it's the only game in town making a splash, so you feel like you have to support it if you're going to have someone pursue your goals (which incidentally was precisely the mechanism allowing crazy parties in places like Germany 1933 to get popular support). But the people founding BLM are basically maniacs as far as I'm concerned, so even if there's no other game in town challenging police militarization (which is an issue I do care about) I still wouldn't support them. More likely than no there are many topics I care about where no one is going to champion them that I can actually support, so that's just too bad for me (and a strike against crony capitalism mixed with crony government).
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Wayward Son on April 08, 2022, 04:02:15 PM
Quote
But unless it's your goal to literally undermine the ability to use language, you do have to accept a generally reasonable definition that fits most use cases. The edge cases matter if it means those people will be discriminated against, but otherwise do not stand as some kind of refutation of a generally useful definition.

Except isn't that the whole purpose of asking Jackson to define what a woman is? ;)

In common parlance, we all agree what a man and a woman is.  It is only those edge cases--people who want their physical sex to reflect their mental sex, or biologically don't fit into the agreed-upon categories--where there is any controversy.  And the only real controversy is in some people trying to deny things to those edge cases.

Republicans want a nice, simple definition that can be applied to everyone, especially the "edge cases."  But they themselves can't come up with such definitions, because life--biological and social--is not a simple, black-or-white, male-or-female thing.  The only way they can achieve this is by forcing people into these categories, and ignoring/repressing the "edge cases" into them.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 08, 2022, 04:34:11 PM
Quote
Our nation has moved to an US/THEM mentality and those who are benefitting from that will do all in their power to keep the divide in place.  Terms like Defund the Police just give them ammunition to prevent any real change.

I contend that it prevented no change because change wasn't happening. People made the same argument against MLK for driving a wedge between people. Likewise with homosexuality, leading to monstrosities like "Don't ask, don't tell" or marriage with another name, "Civil unions". Because people are always going to be terrified of change, and sometimes you got to drag them kicking and screaming with parades and marches for your rights, and slogans that make conservative people uncomfortable.

The slogan used and made famous by Patrick Henry wasn't "Let's Reform the Monarchy" it was "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" I'm sure that pissed a lot of Royalists off. Couldn't swing them to the cause. In the end, they lost.

So yeah, I'm going to support "Medicare for All" even though the thought of having to get in the same line for care as poor people terrifies conservatives.

And a "woman" is anybody who would like to be called and treated as a woman, with some limited exceptions like physical feats of strength and her own doctor's care. A table can be anything you want to sell that fulfills the purpose of putting a thing on it. If somebody calls a desk a table, does society crumble? They are mostly equivalent at the intersection of small tables and sparse desks without drawers. Could you not use a desk as a table? I know you can use a table as a desk. Do we need to neatly separate them, or squeal "That is NOT a table!"
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: LetterRip on April 08, 2022, 06:04:37 PM
Medicare is for elderly, Medicaid is for the poor.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 08, 2022, 09:05:33 PM
Medicare is for elderly, Medicaid is for the poor.

It is now. But Medicaid is means based. Medicare is currently for the elderly. The Medicare for all policy says every citizen would be on it, not just old people. Medicaid would therefore cease to exist by being unnecessary.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 08, 2022, 09:12:36 PM
"When you start to add up the costs of incarceration, police forces, the criminal court system we are looking at something like 1/2 a trillion dollars a year."

Democrats and the left focus on those things but seem to lose sight of what we're getting for that money, or what are the costs of not being tough on crime?

Even as it is every year we have tens of thousands of murders, hundreds of thousands of rapes against women, hundreds of thousands if not millions more rapes against children, millions of robberies, burglaries, muggings, assaults, thefts, and so on. There are a lot of evil people out there and they need to be stopped. If living in a country with one of the highest standards of living in the entire human history of the planet wasn't good enough for them I'm not sure that throwing money or social workers at them is going to do it either. Sure, worth a shot, but there are a lot of just very evil people out there, your Mansons, Dahmers, Bundys, MS-13, crips, bloods, the mafias including but not limited to Italian, Irish, Russian, Mexican, and Amish. It's not a lack of social workers or jobs or money that's causing people to buy fresh unpasteurized milk.

Seriously though, half a trillion dollars a year spent and how many rapists, murderers, and pedos did that keep off the streets and for a while at least keep some women and children safe? That's money very well spent. We see the proof of it every time we set someone who should be in jail free and they prove it by raping, murdering, or molesting someone soon after their release.

It's interesting how the left including Justice Jackson doesn't display as much sympathy for the victims as the perps, including that pedo pornographer she let off with just 3 months and I don't care if he was "just" 18 because all of his victims were much, much younger than that. Judges like her with decisions like that are more problem than solution, and whatever it costs to keep children safe from porno predators like that is well worth it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10649571/Pedophile-center-Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-hearing-continued-looking-images-children.html
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 09, 2022, 08:57:58 AM
Most people incarcerated are not violent criminals. 45% are for drug offenses. Are we significantly safer than Canadians? We imprison six times more per Capita than they do. Would you be terrified to walk the lawless streets of... Toronto?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Crunch on April 09, 2022, 09:37:27 AM
So here’s the lessons learned from this confirmation:

1. Child porn is no big deal
2. Women are not valued
3. Pedophilia is just on orientation

Prediction - at least two of you will, in the next 18 months, tell me that “love has no age” and call me a pedophobe.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 09, 2022, 01:26:31 PM
It might be illegal to mention this nowadays but I just looked at the racial demographics of Canada and it was interesting, 72.9% European 17.7% Asian 4.9% Indigenous 3.1% African 1.3% Latin American 0.2% Oceanian. Of course there isn't just race but also the fact that Canada didn't have much slavery, according to the internet about 4,200 slaves in Canada between 1671 and 1834 when the British got rid of slavery and two-thirds of the slaves were indigenous people with one third black, so the few black people Canada does have probably don't have the same hateful grievance attitude against their country. Canada is also a lot more particular about who gets to immigrate there. Not just racist either but ageist and ableist.

A little more sidebar about Canada from wiki: Indigenous people are vastly over-represented and make up a rising share in the Canadian prison system, making up 30.04% of the offender population in 2020, compared to 4.9% of the total population. In 2018-2019, the offender population included Caucasians at 54.2% and Black people at 7.2%; meanwhile, Asian people made up only 5.3%, thereby being vastly underrepresented compared to their share of the overall Asian population at 17.7%.

As for drug use being non-violent, passing around child pornography might be considered non-violent too, particularly by judges like Jackson. The guy she sentenced to only three months didn't rape the child in the videos. Someone else did that. The stock broker or Hollywood A-lister snorting lines of coke off hundred dollar bills didn't torture a female Mexican cop and her husband to death and leave their violated bodies in the street to get information about the other members of her anti-cartel task force but that's how the sausage gets made and distributed. It's a violent process. So just legalize drugs? Then we get more of people like the drug-addled homeless man pushing an innocent Asian woman onto the train tracks and killing her because "she stole my jacket", or another man in London smashing a stranger's head with a brick while high on a synthetic drug but having his lawyer argue that he was not guilty of murder because he was suffering an abnormality of his mental functioning at the time, or the mother of a 3-year-old Michigan girl found stabbed inside a garbage bag who says SpongeBob told her to kill her in a hallucination.

So when that happens then just prosecute and jail? That's a day late and a dollar short and no help at all to the victims.

And that's where the libertarian take on drugs fails. And the Democrat idea too. Just leave people be and let them do their thing until they hurt someone? When doing their thing often makes them violently and murderously psychotic, waiting until after someone gets hurt is waiting too long. Alcohol can do the same thing and it's not illegal? Well maybe learn something there and don't make the same mistake twice and make it worse. Being soft on crimes hurts more people than it helps and it hurts more of the wrong people too, the innocent ones particularly the children.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: NobleHunter on April 09, 2022, 01:32:48 PM
cherry, you're aware the data shows that severe incarceration and other "tough on crime" policies fail at either deterring crime or preventing recidivism?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 09, 2022, 02:16:43 PM
I'm not aware of that. The idea that we're tough on crime now is the fallacy. We're not tough enough. Jackson proved it. Three months for child pornography? And even five, six, or ten years is considered tough and when that doesn't prevent recidivism then being tough on crime is a failure? How about life in prison with no parole for child pornographers who are purposefully distributing it? For people guilty of murder, attempted murder, rape with a conviction at a higher standard of beyond a shadow of a doubt, gang violence like drive by shootings, and other violent crimes like that? That's what I'd consider being tough on crime and it would prevent recidivism. We're not tough on crime. We're catch and release. And the prisons are madhouses often run by the inmates and instead of teaching them useful skills to be contributing members of society often times they are gang recruitment centers that train criminals on how not to get caught so easily next time. A prison in which the inmates rape each other isn't a tough prison, not tough as in run with strict discipline. I could agree with prison reform if by reform it meant that the prisoners would be controlled better. If they aren't expected to act right in prison what makes anyone expect that they'll act right when they are released?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: kidv on April 09, 2022, 02:52:17 PM
Three months for child pornography?

A question -- could someone please track down if that person re-offended?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 09, 2022, 04:30:03 PM
From the stories I've seen he hasn't reoffended yet. Some sketchiness but nothing illegal. He's still young though, which was ostensibly why he wasn't put in prison for longer. Ostensibly because there could be another factor involved but of course it would be racist to mention it. Besides which just because someone never offends again doesn't mean they shouldn't serve a long sentence for serious crimes. And whether or not it's a deterrent shouldn't matter either. The victims deserve more from our justice system than criminals getting one free use opportunity with them.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Crunch on April 09, 2022, 06:50:01 PM
cherry, you're aware the data shows that severe incarceration and other "tough on crime" policies fail at either deterring crime or preventing recidivism?

You’re aware that the point of prison is not to deter crime nor prevent recidivism?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on April 09, 2022, 07:45:35 PM
You’re aware that the point of prison is not to deter crime nor prevent recidivism?

This is an opinion, not a fact. There is no fact regarding what prisons are 'for'. They existed before and continue to do so, and one can create justifications about why that's ok. To know what they used to be for you'd have to look way back in history. At this point they're here because they're here.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 10, 2022, 05:12:42 AM
I agree with Crunch. If we wanted to deter crime we would do something like the Muslims do and cut off hands for stealing and then for worse crimes the punishments start getting serious. If we were actually concerned with recidivism we wouldn't let them out. So what's left? Punishment. Prisons are a punishment for getting caught and convicted of doing something wrong. The punishment may be too lenient in the minds of some and too harsh in the minds of others or some combination of too harsh and too lenient in the minds of people like myself but it is what it is. Thinking it's something else is just getting set up for disappointment. If sometimes it serves as a deterrent or rehabilitation or stops recidivism that's great and it's worth shooting for but I think we all agree that none of that is 100% whereas practically no one will disagree that prison punishes.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDeamon on April 10, 2022, 09:47:43 AM
It might be illegal to mention this nowadays but I just looked at the racial demographics of Canada and it was interesting, 72.9% European 17.7% Asian 4.9% Indigenous 3.1% African 1.3% Latin American 0.2% Oceanian. Of course there isn't just race but also the fact that Canada didn't have much slavery, according to the internet about 4,200 slaves in Canada between 1671 and 1834 when the British got rid of slavery and two-thirds of the slaves were indigenous people with one third black, so the few black people Canada does have probably don't have the same hateful grievance attitude against their country. Canada is also a lot more particular about who gets to immigrate there. Not just racist either but ageist and ableist.

Uh, you might have heard of a thing called the underground railroad? A lot of escaped slaves wound up in Canada after a certain Supreme Court ruling meant just escaping to a "free state" wasn't enough to ensure continued freedom.

Tangentially, that also ties into another reason why Canada lurched to the left after the 1970's. Vietnam War draft dodgers obtaining Canadian citizenship and having kids, or going to work in education fields inside Canada.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 11, 2022, 01:29:23 AM
That should result in people being even more grateful but their incarceration rate is still double their population percentage. I could see indigenous people being sore about Canada but not black people, and I wonder if all the excuses you hear about America for the high crime rate apply to Canada, meaning that I don't see how those excuses could apply, good excuses too like the the welfare system incentivizing fatherless households, a longer history of slavery, drugs being allowed to flow into their neighborhoods, and the rest of it. How much of that went on in Canada? And then you have the Asians with five times the black population but a couple of percentage points lower for their incarceration rate. I guess the main thing that explains all of that is proven by this post even existing: racism.

I was wondering if we beat Canada to the punch here. Do they have any black Supreme Court justices, or black women? While I was looking into that I stumbled upon some controversy with one of their black women judges. Apparently, a higher court than hers got it into their heads that one of her rulings was tainted by favorable racism in which she found a defendant not guilty by reason of being the same race as him. Her verdict was overturned by the next higher court but then that was overturned by their Supreme Court. It was just interesting that they actually went there.

"In 1995, Sparks heard the case R v S (RD), in which a 15-year old black teenager was accused of hitting a police officer with his bicycle while the officer was attempting to arrest another person. Sparks acquitted the defendant, and in her decision she explicitly appealed to the "prevalent attitude of the day" as social context relevant to the ruling. The legal scholars Allan C. Hutchinson and Kathleen Strachan later summarized Sparks's specific finding in the case as follows: the police officer in question was acting in a context in which police officers have been known to overreact while dealing with non-white people, and certain claims by the defendant were believable in context, with the consequence that the Crown had not discharged its evidentiary burden to prove that all of the alleged offenses had occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown appealed Sparks's decision, focusing their case on the possible apprehension of bias, asserting that as a black Nova Scotian Sparks may have been biased towards the black Nova Scotian defendant. The motivation for this appeal caused substantial controversy, particularly since the allegation of bias was directed against the first black woman to be a judge in Canada, who was also at that time the only black female judge in Nova Scotia, as well as the most senior woman and only racialized minority judge in the province's family court bench. The appeal was initially successful, and Sparks's decision was overturned by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, but the case was taken up by the Supreme Court of Canada who in 1997 reversed the decision by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and restored Sparks's original decision. This appeal and the Supreme Court's rejection of it have been studied for their implications of bias in the Canadian justice system, and how they affect the reasonable apprehension of bias. The political scientist Shanti Fernando wrote that the appeal against Sparks assumed two things: first that to observe the existence of systemic racial bias in the legal system is to violate judicial impartiality, and second that judges are more sympathetic to defendants of the same ethnicity. Hutchinson and Strachan wrote that the case functions "as a springboard" for understanding the connection between a judge's interpretation and their identity in their legal decision-making. Judges have subsequently argued that the absence of similar official accusations of bias against white judges does not signify that white judges have never been biased towards white defendants, but rather demonstrates a depth of bias against non-white people in the Canadian justice system at the time."

------------------------------------------

I don't know the particulars of the case but her tortured reasoning seems more like a version of jury nullification where as judge she's letting the person off not because she doesn't think he actually hit the police officer with a bicycle while the officer was arresting someone else but because, as the wiki article stated, "the police officer in question was acting in a context in which police officers have been known to overreact while dealing with non-white people, and certain claims by the defendant were believable in context, with the consequence that the Crown had not discharged its evidentiary burden to prove that all of the alleged offenses had occurred beyond a reasonable doubt." That sounds a lot like nonsense but actually it's even less non-sensical than Judge Jackson letting a pedo-pornographer off with 3 months.

Now the same thing happens a lot with white judges and white perps too as we've seen numerous times like with a rapist or a drunk driver who kills a family getting probation as long as they are young white men, at least one of whom was suffering from affluenza at the time, and the judge wouldn't want to ruin their lives.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 11, 2022, 09:43:54 AM
The death penalty and canings didn't seem to curb the drug trade in Thailand, so how punitive would you like to get, cherry, and is it about reducing crime or about hurting people in retribution?

Thailand, by the way, is easing away from the punitive incarceration route, and the killing people route.

Quote
Eighty percent of more than 300,000 inmates in the Thai penitentiary system are currently detained on drug-related charges, according to official figures.

Quote
"The new law shifts away from the old concept that emphasises only suppression because more suppression has not resulted in drug eradication," Chatchawan Suksumjit, a senator who chaired a joint parliamentary committee overseeing changes to the new narcotic laws, told Reuters.

"Punishment will now be divided between low level, which means drug users, who will systematically receive treatment rather than prison, while high level offenders will face more severe punishment," he said.

As much as people want to glorify Old Testament Justice, it doesn't work but is paradoxically embraced by supposed Christians with a purported philosophy of forgiveness and the redemption of the sinner.

Thailand gives up on failed drug laws (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/thai-parliament-passes-new-narcotics-bill-that-could-ease-overcrowded-prisons-2021-08-24/)
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: msquared on April 11, 2022, 09:47:58 AM
The forgiveness and redemption is only for them and their friends, not for the other.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on April 11, 2022, 10:05:23 AM
I find that many people throw around words like Love, forgiveness, freedom without ever really knowing what they mean when the use them.

Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on April 11, 2022, 10:31:56 AM
I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, just to try to steel man cherry's position. One of the things about love, forgiveness, and freedom, is that they are not innately easy virtues to foster, and I suspect they develop for humankind over time in relation to our ability to generate good environments (yes, I'm using a lefty argument to support a righty position!). If you are living in a crime-ridden corrupt cesspool you will not be able to enjoy freedom regardless of your personal beliefs; otherwise you may 'feel free' but be mostly restricted in your choice. In fact I doubt if someone stripped of most choice will even psychologically be able to feel free. Likewise with forgiveness: if there is no quid pro quo at all then this virtue will be almost impossible to foster. When dealing with criminality I think part of the right-wing position is not so much that each person must be punished for the joy of seeing them punished, but rather out of concern for the disordering of society. Let your guard fall, and criminals will slowly erode the safety of neighborhoods, undermine faith in the system, and lower all of our standards. I think it goes something like this.

If I'm right, then the need to ensure criminals are dealt with strongly (tough on crime) is an attempt at having a strong immune response to infection, which in turn is actually the perceived best means of fostering the forgiveness, freedom, and love that require so much environmental nurturing. At least, this is in theory. And I actually agree that our civilization is much closer to chaos than most would want to admit; see what happens when lockdowns are threatened (hoarding toilet paper, etc) and you'll see just how little it would take to devolve into utter pandemonium. I don't think we are quite so far from barbarism at all times, and keeping this thin layer of civilization present and strong may require stern measures. I do not happen to agree with right-wingers about the prison system, especially in regard to non-violent crime, but I do agree with the sentiment that something has to be done and we can't be lax about keeping the environment around us as clean as possible so as to make fostering virtue not only possible but attractive.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on April 11, 2022, 11:12:47 AM
Its all how you define the words
If one is assumes the act of forgiveness means one cannot hold the person forgiveness accountable or responsible for their actions then your argument holds. There is no place for forgiveness in the 'justice' system.

Phycological the experience of Freedom often has little to do with what one can or cannot do. Thus those the make the loudest noise about Freedom are also those most willing to take it away from others in the name of freedom.  The rise of the dictator proves that to avoid the fear of losing what one has one will sell ones freedom in the hope of retaining it.

Love, Freedom, Forgiveness, Justice, Boundaries, Social Contract we think we know what we mean but keep stumbling on contradictions, paradox, hypocrisy, fear, ignorance, greed... till those words have very little meaning. 
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on April 11, 2022, 11:37:43 AM
Just as Fear is to Courage as Doubt is to Faith... so to  the virtue of Love, forgiveness and experience of freedom none of which are tested when all around us conforms to our will and imaginings of how the world should work and conform... To argue that one can only Love and forgive when things are good suggests to me a huge disconnect of what it means to love and forgive. How it is those virtues and agility the engenders the experience of freedom. Or so the wisdom traditions suggest.

Sadly the virtues and so our real freedoms are the first things we surrender when life is not as we will it to be. the false quest of 'freedom'.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on April 11, 2022, 12:05:56 PM
Well, leftright, part of the issue is indeed language - specifically about what a person actually wants versus how they express that (or are unwilling to). Let's say a person has a deep-down conviction that they are more important than everyone else; actually this is probably the norm. And let's say additionally they have a deep-down conviction that other people innately owe them things, but virtue of being more important. And the conclusion of this line is the deep-down feeling that you have an innate right to enslave any or all to serve you. I don't think any of these sentiments are particularly rare, but they are rarely concious and therefore the manner of expression in language becomes mired in these hidden desires. So when someone  says "people should let me do as I wish" (which to some is how they define freedom, although not me) that may actually be an expression of the inner feeling "I should be treated as a king, and this is a minimum requirement of that". Obviously this sort of statement will not adequately express the inner feeling, even setting aside how socially unacceptable it would be to say such a thing even if you were aware you felt it. So yes, the propositions (love, forgiveness, etc) do not end up meaning what they claim to mean on paper, because the source of these statements isn't a long intellectual discernment process but rather the best way to express the primal urges they felt anyhow.

Thinking along these lines, it might not be quite proper to say that many claim to believe in freedom but are hypocrites. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they do not in fact believe in freedom in the sense you might mean it, as would be revealed in a Socratic dialogue. They believe in something or other, which is labelled as "freedom", but in other parlance might mean something quite different. Catholics define freedom as meaning the ability to choose the good; but it does not mean the ability to define the good. So it is actually the opposite of saying you can choose to do anything you want; the idea of doing any thing you wish would be more likely defined as being trapped in a prison of your own desire, not freedom. I suspect the Buddhists might agree with this particular proposition, at least. But the American "the only law shall be do as thou wilt" is obviously very different from this. I would call that license, not freedom. So the word choice and baked in content matters a lot. And yes, there is room for hypocrisy even if a person has clearly defined what they mean. But I don't think the right-wing position is inherently hypocritical.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on April 11, 2022, 01:59:28 PM
So you might agree that when people use these words they do so without much thought.
In the religious community I grew up in I can comfortably say that the words were used so often that it was assumed those using them and hearing knew what the meant and of course failing to see the log in their own eyes . In assuming often behave like asses
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Fenring on April 11, 2022, 02:05:54 PM
So you might agree that when people use these words they do so without much thought.

Yeah, that sounds likely. Or maybe more specifically, that they do have thoughts about what they want and the words are just a means to an end to get what they want. So if what I want is "to be honored by everyone around me" I might choose to say things and use words that will achieve that, which is a sort of social realpolitik. You are gaming others all the time, in other words. So if we're going to agree that it's "without thought" I guess we'd have to specify that it's without thought for something more important than craven desires. They definitely do have thoughts, just probably incorrectly-oriented ones. But I should be clear again that this isn't my general statement about conservatives or religious people; I think left-wing people are just the same in this regard, using various words for social cred or power games rather than because of their inherent rightness or goodness.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 11, 2022, 04:04:14 PM
Quote
s an attempt at having a strong immune response to infection

Except its like trying to boost your immune system with the power of healing crystals and votive candles. There's no evidence that doubling penalties has much impact on crime rates. But I don't think its like that at all, not based on the language tough on crime people use. They like to dress up the death penalty as a deterrent to crime because they don't want to admit that they just want to kill the offender punitively as his comeuppance, the righteous consequence of his action. Revenge. You hurt one of our nice citizens, now we'll make you hurt worse. Lucky the founders excluded corporal punishment in the books, although there are ways around it like housing people in tents in the desert. I don't doubt that many of them honestly believe that violent crime can be deterred by tougher sentencing. They think to themselves, "I'd sure think twice about it." Not understanding the lack of rational thought that goes into such things, and not trusting actual research.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on April 11, 2022, 04:34:33 PM
If the stories we tell, movies, tv shows.... are a reflection of how people perceive the concept justice then justice has become something you GET something you deserve, usually thorough meeting out of punishment vice consequence for breaking of the social contract as defined by the people.

There is a reason a crime is considered to be an offence against society as a whole and not the individual. The idea is to prevent the revenge and justice getting confused. we have failed

The majority of people I a have talk to about the idea of justice see it as the movies tell it. Something they deserve to have as a form of revenge when someone does them wrong. It is the revenge that makes them feel better not justice. 

Lately when I'm engaged in conversations about things like freedom and justice I have started to ask the them about what they mean when they use those words. Its been eye opening. Usually it ends the conversation.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 11, 2022, 07:52:18 PM
So how does the better system work?

What's an acceptable recidivism rate?

Let's say we release a hundred criminals and 95 of them go on to become productive members of society and never get into problems again but 2 of them end up murdering people and three of them end up raping some people.

We got 95 people out of 100 completely rehabilitated. Basically, we saved 95 lives and it only cost us however many victims there were from the 5 who failed. Are we going to say that's a success and pat ourselves on the back?

There's an argument that giving 100 guilty people a second chance isn't worth it if it gets one more innocent person raped or murdered. That's a judgement call though. What are acceptable losses? How much collateral damage is worth it? How many more innocent people have to suffer so some of us get to feel good about being forgiving and providing a chance for redemption? If we knew for sure it was our own loved ones who would pay the price for it would that make a difference?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: msquared on April 11, 2022, 08:08:40 PM
Cherry

Didn't one of the founding father say something like it is better for 100 guilty men to go free then one innocent man to loose his freedom?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 11, 2022, 08:34:53 PM
That came to mind but this is something a little different. This is setting 100 guilty men free knowing that some innocent people are going to get raped and killed so that most of those guilty men would have a second chance. The premise here is that we're talking about people we know are guilty: rapists, pedophiles, murderers, and we're deciding to set them free anyway knowing full well that some of them will commit more of the same crimes they did before, knowing there will be more innocent victims, and deciding to do it anyway because most of them will use their second chances wisely.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 11, 2022, 09:48:24 PM
So how does the better system work?

What's an acceptable recidivism rate?

Let's say we release a hundred criminals and 95 of them go on to become productive members of society and never get into problems again but 2 of them end up murdering people and three of them end up raping some people.

We got 95 people out of 100 completely rehabilitated. Basically, we saved 95 lives and it only cost us however many victims there were from the 5 who failed. Are we going to say that's a success and pat ourselves on the back?

There's an argument that giving 100 guilty people a second chance isn't worth it if it gets one more innocent person raped or murdered. That's a judgement call though. What are acceptable losses? How much collateral damage is worth it? How many more innocent people have to suffer so some of us get to feel good about being forgiving and providing a chance for redemption? If we knew for sure it was our own loved ones who would pay the price for it would that make a difference?

Such drama! I'm sure the casual drug user is going to pop out of prison and start murdering people. You know what would also keep people from getting killed? Living in a police state. Well, as long as you don't count murders done by the authorities. How about we just make every sentence mandatory life? Zero chance of anybody getting hurt by a repeat offender - BIG WIN! Then you go on to say "people we know are guilty" when we know nothing of the kind. There are innocent people who take plea deals because the system is stacked against them. Innocent people convicted. Does that change the "lock em up and throw away the key" equation? You really want to prevent yourself some crime, start reading people's communications before they commit the crime. Why wait until the first offense to lock them up, much safer to seal them in a tomb if they look dicey.

Some people might say that knowing full well that some of the cops are going to commit murder and assault, we should defund them to prevent that.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 11, 2022, 10:50:59 PM
We need to understand what we're talking about here. For the people in prison for using drugs, what should we expect them to do if we release them? Hopefully some will get the help they need but for many their act of recidivism will be using drugs again. And that's fine.

But now if we're talking about second chances for rapists and murderers that's a different story. Their act of recidivism may be another rape or murder. And that's not fine. That's a huge problem.

So we still get back to the question of whether or not it's worth giving them another shot at society if a few of them go back to doing what got them into prison in the first place. Using drugs? Sure, go for it. Forgive and give them another chance. Raping women? Raping kids? Raping men? Murder? Drive by shootings? Nope. No thanks. The price for their victims is too much to pay.

So sure, if you're talking about people in prison for using drugs or putting their child in a good school district that is outside of their neighborhood residence eligibility then yeah a second chance shouldn't be out of the question. A guy spreading videos of little kids getting raped? Yeah, maybe a second chance eventually, but not after only three months.

Better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison, so the saying goes. Well how many innocent people is it better to have  raped and murdered than to have a hundred guilty men stay in prison for a long, long time?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 11, 2022, 10:56:58 PM
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Perpetrators of rape are often serial criminals.

Out of every 1,000 suspected rape perpetrators referred to prosecutors:7
370 have at least one prior felony conviction, including 100 who have 5 or more
520 will be released—either because they posted bail or for other reasons—while awaiting trial
70 of the released perpetrators will be arrested for committing another crime before their case is decided

When convicted, perpetrators are spending more time in prison.

In 2013, there were 161,000 state inmates incarcerated as punishment for sexual violence crimes—that’s about 12% of all state inmates.
These inmates are staying in prison longer: the median time served for sexual violence convicts has increased 10 months since 2002 (from 38 to 48 months served).

------------------------------------------------------------------

Less than 4 years. Set free to rape again and again. And that's out of the relative handful that are ever even charged and convicted. Pathetic.

I mean if you want to talk about releasing non-violent people that's one thing but we're already giving these rapists only 4 years and how's that working out? Is that making people safer? Would releasing them sooner or not sending them to prison at all be even better?
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 12, 2022, 03:48:57 PM
Using your source, and allowing the specifics of sexual violence for ease of discussion and to keep from having a moving target:

Quote
Victims of sexual violence who are incarcerated are most likely to be assaulted by jail or prison staff.

In jail or prison, 60% of all sexual violence against inmates is perpetrated by the institution’s staff.4

That might be a pretty good indication that releasing a prisoner might prevent a rape rather than causing one. But also that you might not be preventing the rape, you might just be shifting it to a fellow prisoner. Who might be a non-violent offender.

What about these pre-trial releases? So the idea is to deny bail to everyone? Not worried about a wrongful accusation? This isn't your scenario of letting a guilty person out, they aren't proven guilty yet.

I don't disagree that some convicted of sexual crimes receive a light sentence. Brock Turner certainly lands in that category, he faced a maximum of 14 years, prosecutors asked for 6, and received a sentence of six months.

When it comes to rape, as opposed to other sexual violence crimes - including sexual assault - national guidelines are between 8 and 20 years - I guess you'd make that life without parole? One thing to consider, if you make rape punishments the same as murder, there's really no upside in the rapist letting the victim live. It also eliminates any plea bargain, so you'll be taking everyone to trial. Which may injure the victim - or  make them less likely to report it knowing they must testify for sure.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: msquared on April 12, 2022, 04:01:32 PM
What was different about Brock?  Oh yeah a young white male from a privileged back ground.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 13, 2022, 11:43:13 AM
Recently there was a mass shooting in Sacramento, I'm sure you read about it in the news.

One of the suspects was sentenced in 2018 for domestic violence and assault with great bodily injury after he pushed his way into his girlfriend's home, punched her, dragged her from the residence by her hair and whipped her with a belt.

He was released from his 10-year sentence in February of this year after authorities said his sentence was completed due to pre-sentencing credits, even after a parole board rejected his bid for early release last May. In that parole haring prosecutors said the 2017 felony assault against his girlfriend along with convictions for possessing an assault weapon and thefts posed "a significant, unreasonable risk of safety to the community."

Will we lock this guy up forever this time?  My guess is no.



Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 13, 2022, 12:22:48 PM
Recently there was a mass shooting in Sacramento, I'm sure you read about it in the news.

One of the suspects was sentenced in 2018 for domestic violence and assault with great bodily injury after he pushed his way into his girlfriend's home, punched her, dragged her from the residence by her hair and whipped her with a belt.

He was released from his 10-year sentence in February of this year after authorities said his sentence was completed due to pre-sentencing credits, even after a parole board rejected his bid for early release last May. In that parole haring prosecutors said the 2017 felony assault against his girlfriend along with convictions for possessing an assault weapon and thefts posed "a significant, unreasonable risk of safety to the community."

Will we lock this guy up forever this time?  My guess is no.

Are you recommending life imprisonment for domestic violence assaults, and then letting parole boards decide who is risky and who isn't? And what happens when the parole boards approve all the rich white abusers for early release, and not the poor minorities? We know parole boards are biased from statistics. The recidivism rate for such cases is 23%, so its not like it is inevitable that they will repeat.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 13, 2022, 02:36:08 PM
Hardly, but I do believe that government has an obligation to society to protect them from violent criminals. Notice, I did not mention race in my previous post, nor will I in this one.

Lets talk a bit more about Smiley Martin.
Six months after he turned 18, Martin was caught in January 2013 with an assault rifle and two fully loaded 25-bullet magazines and was convicted of felony gun charges.

Quote
“The rifle had a pistol grip and the capacity to accept a detachable magazine in front of the pistol grip. Inmate Martin was also found to be in possession of two fully loaded twenty-five round magazines for the assault weapon. Inmate Martin admitted to transporting the assault weapon and large capacity magazines to potential buyers. Inmate Martin was sentenced to probation and county jail.”

10 Months later, he pushed aside a Walmart clerk to steal computers worth $2,800. He pled to the robbery and was sentenced to two years in state prison.

In 2016, he was arrested as a parolee at large. And less than six months after that was the assault that sent him back to prison.

He plead no contest to charges of corporal injury and assault likely to cause great bodily injury.  In return for the government dropped the charges of kidnapping and intimidating a witness or victim.

For some reason I cannot fathom, of those charges only Kidnapping is considered a violent felony in California.  This will be important later.

Prior to sentencing Martin sat in jail for 254 days.  The judge awarded him time served credit for twice that. again, I don't get California.

So that would knock his remaining time to serve down to about 8.6 years for release sometime in 2026.

But it gets better!  In California, non-violent felons can earn "a variety of additional post-sentencing credits" which would have prior to 2016 reduced his time served by an additional 20%. But in 2016 California passed Proposition 57 which bumped those credits to 50%!

So that is how a clearly violent criminal only serves 4 years of a 10 year sentence.

The problem is that California failed it's duty to protect society from a violent criminal. Who though he has not been charged for it yet probably participated in a mass shooting resulting multiple murders.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 13, 2022, 05:11:05 PM
Forgive me if I'm not seeing something but the appearance is that Democrats care more for the guilty criminals than they do for innocent victims. The only innocent people they care about are the ones falsely accused and put in prison, and that part is noble, but the innocent people who are hurt by people who were rightfully convicted of violent crimes and then set free? If there is any concern for them anywhere in the Democratic platform, it's well concealed.

Is that because the guilty people who are in prison are being punished, being hurt, by the government which is made up of the people so Democrats feel they are responsible for causing people pain as opposed to when the violent criminals who are set free shoot, rape, rob, and murder innocent people the Democrats see that as "not my problem, not my responsibility"?

We have no duty, or if we do have any obligation it's very small and limited, to protect people from people, to protect citizens from citizens. The main responsibility we have is to protect people from government law enforcement, cops and the prison system. What people do to each other doesn't weigh on our conscience because we can't be expected to control that. We only have control over what our government does.
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: rightleft22 on April 13, 2022, 05:50:01 PM
Quote
Hardly, but I do believe that government has an obligation to society to protect them from violent criminals

The government (we are the government) has a obligation to protect society thus justice is a balance. Justice and freedom the the exercises of determining and setting of boundaries.
As individuals we wish to be protected from criminals and protected from wrongly being convicted. There by the grace of God...

Quote
Forgive me if I'm not seeing something but the appearance is that Democrats care more for the guilty criminals
That says more about a bias then fact. Outside the echo chambers the desire to set healthy boundaries of freedom and protection the concern is the same. The difference is scale - freedom from <-> freedom to...

Lioyd's argument was interpreted as recommending life imprisonment for domestic violence assaults. Taking that If I say all republicans want to lock up for life anyone they perceive as a threat for life.  Better a innocent man go to jail for life then in hindsight we hear a story of someone released commenting more crime.

That of course is Absurd. Sadly it is all to common to chose a few examples as proof of the whole. I have a example of dem being idiots ergo all Dems are idiots

Everything is either or, with me or against me making honest dialog impossible. I'm not very optimistic we will do anything about the absurdity and change the inevitable end of such foolishness'. 

Societies rise and fall as all things do. Even if we clearly see it coming we won't change it. History shows we will press down on the accelerator. The better we have things, and never have so many people have things so good, the more we will try to cling and create the very outcomes we fear. 
Title: Re: I'm not a bioligist
Post by: TheDrake on April 13, 2022, 06:21:43 PM
Forgive me if I'm not seeing something but the appearance is that Democrats care more for the guilty criminals than they do for innocent victims. The only innocent people they care about are the ones falsely accused and put in prison, and that part is noble, but the innocent people who are hurt by people who were rightfully convicted of violent crimes and then set free? If there is any concern for them anywhere in the Democratic platform, it's well concealed.

Is that because the guilty people who are in prison are being punished, being hurt, by the government which is made up of the people so Democrats feel they are responsible for causing people pain as opposed to when the violent criminals who are set free shoot, rape, rob, and murder innocent people the Democrats see that as "not my problem, not my responsibility"?

We have no duty, or if we do have any obligation it's very small and limited, to protect people from people, to protect citizens from citizens. The main responsibility we have is to protect people from government law enforcement, cops and the prison system. What people do to each other doesn't weigh on our conscience because we can't be expected to control that. We only have control over what our government does.

This brings so many things into play. One does not lose all their rights and liberties forever because they are guilty of one act. I suppose we could do that, but we have decided not to. We certainly do plenty, from onerous parole and probation requirements to disastrous three strike rules and sentences so high that even Trump reformed them - a man who can hardly get any more law and orderish and harsh on crime.

The First Step Act was proposed by a Republican and passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. Most people aren't prepared to discard anyone who has ever committed an assault.

As for Lloyd's anecdote, it is completely useless. I'll bet I can find an anecdote of a violent offender, maybe even a repeat offender, who went on to become active in his community devoting himself to a life of service as well. Or an anecdote about somebody who spent twenty years in prison under mandatory minimum sentencing and was eventually exonerated by the Innocence Project.