naitche

So that a black woman who stands in front of congresss and declares she is not oppressed and won't accept that label becomes a 'Racists wet dream' and an enemy of her shared humanity.

Contradictory in your indirect appeal to the virtue of a place in Humanity, For those not equally invested in this structure bias. Regardless of our subjective, lived experience. The original objective premise is the incorrect application of value, no matter the motive. It assumes a fixed structure. Accepts that as part of our subjective being.

I think it does when you say Human conditions like sex can't be defined by objective measures while assuming their application to your subject. ie oppressed and oppressor. Representative of numerous perspectives when applying subjective values, yes. It is an important difference that plays a huge role in biological/social structures in assigning values. Starting with an objective premise creates margins and an expectation of their maintenance to uphold the objective entity/identity thus recognized. It corrupts the language of our biology to maintence of an objective structure as essential to any further direction. Like faith. It creates that bias. The gymnastics of a logic in applying objective value to a subjective and expecting an integrated whole I can believe must be very nuanced, multifaceted and layered.

So basically, A pattern was detected. Information received. Yup, sounds about right

I did not see the major players in this thread discredit the Humanity of Trans Women in such a way as this. Food for thought? I could admire this sentiment if I thought it could have a positive out come, but every thing I see says attempting objective measures of Human conditions is not possible with out exclusion. That Critical Theory in practice is not anti racism or anti bigotry at all, just more of the same with a vengeance. More dangerous for its lack of focus. It discredits all of Humanity. There will be loss. Without focus, that doesn't allow you see whats being excluded. It scares hell out of me. I have observed the same thing in The pedigree Dog Registries and its subtly devastating to the subject. Applying negative values and expecting a positive out come. Your arguments are contradictory because they flip from from objective to subjective depending on what best supports them.

This is appreciated. Tho' It does appear you've made assumptions of your own And for the record, I do not neg rep.

It could be as easily said that your insistence a trans woman must be either Male or Female to be recognized demeans the very idea of diversity.

Sorry, Agreed! I was referring to the "something Physical that divides systems and their local environments according to information". Such a faith in the integrity of a systemic state would require certain information to remain external. Blocked. It could explain an evolutionary role for faith, and some of its notable effects on Us Humans Addition highlighted.

Musings here that may or may not be relevant. I still have much to learn of expression in this culture, after too long away from it. My understanding of the physics of biological / social organization has been much more comprehensive when my perspective was shunted from the above, to seeing it all as external. ie my body as the vehicle of consciousness. Another set of conditions I have to contend with. I'm lead to think this might be belief, or more accurately faith, if that can be defined as an assumption that value lies in a 'state' of being rather than the potential of being. Objective value rather than subjective. Faith, that there is a valid form to manifestation with no other being equal to that. to that belief in common. The one with faith in maintaining its statehood, regardless that environmental will not? As for consciousness in other animals, there is the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness. As a person who works extensively with animals of various species I have no reservations in accepting that. The dog as my avatar was able to learn new things with ease by asking her to imitate me, then putting words to the action. The experiments gave me a lot of insight into how she interpreted those actions and her understanding of them. When I asked her 'do this' and turned full circle in front of her, she walked around me instead- I had exposed all my sides to her, in circling me that was repeated. Turning on a light, she made several attempts to nose it without tripping the switch. Rather than end on a failure we moved on to what she knew before ending the session. The light was not needed so left off. Retuning to room, I found the light on and I switched it off thinking it was my doing, but it was on again several times I returned. Looks very much like an understanding of consequence to me.

I do not understand what is 'transphobic' in acknowledging, recognizing and accepting differences as part of a shared human identity. As if equality is something that does not exist while diversity is recognized, so that a recognition of our shared Humanity can be achieved only if we blind ourselves to it, or mask it by altering our language to so its unable to express diversity.

The value is Subjective. To Environment. Achievable through recognition of diversity, and increasing environment/potentials. The value is Objective, to Environment. So a reductive measure towards a fixed and uniform state.

I think some of us just see equal Human beings, despite our diversity. Where others see Statehoods unequal to their ideal of Humanity.

The greater the diversity of a species, the more likely response to adversity or adaptation to conditions will be found within the species. Physical and mental adaptive abilities would seem equally important.

Chicken or eggs? Or is fish back on the menu?

To seek the potential of its being. Response.

The value of Domestic Dogs lies in their commonality and purpose to a diverse human environment, Not in a statehood unequal to that. Putting Form before Function.

Neither. Logic and application of biological law. If you create an organisation for the benefit of the community, then marginalise that community to their accreditation, then that memberships purpose is corrupted. From benefiting the community, to imposing 'standards' of acceptability and recognition. Certification in this instance would be for the purpose of standardising responses, making them conditional. Not response, Conditions of response. You can be accredited as say, a Mechanic- but that won't have the same effect because accreditation is not designed to keep machines out the hands of non-accredited persons. The feedback and information flow between the environment and the accrediting body is intact since the service provided (purpose) remains to the environment. In that case, accreditation is to better serve the unaccredited. So accreditation isn't the problem, restricting familiarity to the accredited is. The purpose is corrupted when environment of the organisation is unrecognised. if all the value is placed in accreditation, the environment is discredited. Standards replace response. Familiarity is then to standards set as acceptable within the margins of accreditation.I can provide examples to demonstrate how it works in practice and has already damaged the human/dog partnership,but its a long story. Many working breeds are on their way out , or already failed to maintain their value and purpose through 'accreditation' of Breed or Training Standards when those condition fail to recognise the diverse environments that inform the purpose. Restricting resource access to those initiated into an accredited environment serves only that environment.Purpose and responsibility will be lost to the environment over time, not gained. Dog ownership become irrelevant to the broader community who may eventually refuse to support it. We have no disagreement on that point. I think responsibility of Dog Ownership depends on our promotion and demonstration of the benefits, not the costs, to others. Accreditation to experience any lasting personal value or real familiarity though can only reduce its range.The kind of accreditation you propose isn't based on value to environment, but value to conditional standards . There is value in accreditation subjective to Dogs and the people who own them. Value is always subjective. Accreditation before ownership though draws an objective line of value between the accrediting body, and its environment. It will object to its environment. Its object will be to impose standards. The value is being applied to the wrong subject. Same mistake as critical theory, with the incorrect application of value.

Yes to the 1st line. Please No! To the 2nd. At risk of taking this off topic, Formalized qualification for Dog ownership will have the opposite effect to promoting responsibility, with fewer qualified to lower standards. Familiarity is needed for responsibility, not standardised responses to a diverse environment. (Dog ownership and husbandry) You can't legislate your way to responsibility, Only reduce responses available with out cost out weighing their value. More often than not, the standards proposed make assumptions of dogs, and their environments causing both to be reduced for the standard set. Not improved, eliminated along with any potential direction they could have taken. Its a action that takes Domestic Dogs further out of their natural environment. A process predicted by the Kennel Clubs refusal to recognise the species beyond their own breed standards. The 3rd line has reliability only as long as Dogs are bred for their success and ability of response in the environments they are being selected into. Australian legislation already promotes an expectation of Commercial motive and Codes of Practice that will heavily impact on the availability of Dogs to pet market and especially of larger breeds and working breeds that can not easily transfer to Commercial breeding standards. Selection is also badly compromised.

Cancel culture seems to be the chosen expression of Critical theory for many. It looks like a zero sum proposition, to expect 'improvement' from reduction of what you have to work with. Purpose becomes secondary to arbitrary 'qualification.

Yes. So you see how that aids extremism, and polarisation when identity is politicised. When characterisations and spread sheets decide where a person must stand, 'as opposed to' Humanity as a whole. How acceptance of a Characterisation reduces the diversity and response- ability of an assumed identity. Imposes additional qualification. To reduce diversity.

I don't defend the violence occurring on either side, but but pretty sure 'cancel culture' and de-platforming played a huge role in what occurred at the Capitol, and will likely provoke more unrest and polarisation while it continues. If perspectives are denied as illegitimate, not to be voiced, there is going to be mistrust of the institutions allowing that to happen.

I.Q tests are arbitrary, in deciding Human value potential. So is Race, and intelligence. We have diversity. I can't see any value to such studies other than to discredit that.

The language behind Critical Race Theory tells us that characterisations of human conditions are essential for equality. We must be responsible for actively upholding that ideal in all facets of our lives. Refusing space, standing or recognition of value to those who refuse to recognise in-equality. Characterising that as a 'set apart' from Human values on the basis of racism or bigotry, in broad terms that affect every area of our lives.. That assigns a negative or contrary value to a broad range of people who may display 'Characteristics' Language is altered to reflect the new definition of bigotry more accurately. And allows its perpetration on the 'set apart' to enforce conformity. Assigning a negative or contrary value to broad range of the population based on characterisations. It looks to me this allows the idea of a biological space, and prediction based on mathematical laws. Equality comes at the expense of diversity. Diversity is our environment. You reduce environment and keep dong that as long as you try to measure its value by its diversity, rather than its fitness for purpose. It creates belief that clouds reason and an enemy of humanity if we look to discredit its parts. When we could contribute to them instead. Alter perspectives, instead of removing their positions in space.

Thank you for your help sifting.

Yep. Just some times you have to sift through a lot of shite to find them.