Allow me to elaborate on why NO is the answer and how it doesn't change based on any additional criteria to the base question.
Base Q: Should we treat men and women differently
Additional Criteria: if gender is a spectrum
Regardless of "if gender is a spectrum" or any other criteria, men and women are not the same physically, mentally, psychologically or emotionally. Trying to treat two different sexes the same is like trying to use the same solution to every question, the same fix to every problem.
"Should We Treat Men & Women the Same if Gender is Truly a Spectrum?"
Kind of a clueless if not pretentious question -- a "deepity". Apparently predicated on ignorance of more or less standard definitions for both sex and gender. Sex is, by definition, a binary, and membership in the sex categories is based on having functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. See:
As for "gender", it is, at best, no more than a synonym for a range, a spectrum, of sexually dimorphic personality types, behaviours, roles, and modes of expression. See my post for details:
Do note the "associated with" -- i.e., not intrinsic to either sex, only typical of. How we can have masculine (gender) "adult human females" and feminine (gender) "adult human males".
But to answer your question, that a man -- i.e., an adult human male -- and a woman -- i.e., an adult human female -- might be at the same ends of one or more dimensions of gender in absolutely no way changes the brute fact that one is a male and the other is a female. Of course they should be treated differently -- for one thing, sexual reproduction might be somewhat "unlikely" otherwise.
I always keep these questions open and participants are welcome to pushback or delve into which aspect of the question is interesting. Alternatively, not answer the question at all!
Don't want to keep them so open that everyone's brains fall out -- because that sure looks like what's happening. If you really want to make "impossible conversations" possible and resolve a serious social problem or two -- and not just pick up YouTube advertisement dollars -- then you might consider the Will Durant quote I posted earlier on defining one's terms:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
If you actually looked at the comments on your YouTube video -- and not just taking the money and running off with it -- then you might realize that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin -- and their furry dogs, cats, and gerbils -- has entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for both sex and gender.
If you were actually serious about resolving that problem then I would think the only "impossible conversation" you should be promoting would be one to find some consensus on workable and scientifically justified definitions for those terms.
You might note an interview of so-called philosopher -- though if the truth be known, grifter and scientific illiterate -- Alex Byrne who, despite making some reasonable points on that dichotomy, still doesn't seem to know whether he's on foot or horseback, doesn't have a flaming clue that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth:
Neither "philosophers" nor "biologists" nor "social scientists" are, in general, covering themselves in much glory over this transgender clusterfuck. Don't see that you're contributing much that's useful either.
True, though that was sort of my point and the reason for the "clueless" in my comment.
The clear implication, and unstated premise, is that "man" and "woman" are genders, and that we are nothing more than some variable collection of "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" or the other. Which is so much arrant nonsense, not even wrong, totally clueless that we are also male or female -- i.e., not any part of "gender" -- or, for some third of us, sexless -- at least according to the standard biological definitions I linked to above.
Which is why I emphasized the more coherent and consistent conception of sex and gender as two entirely different kettles of fish, undergirded with explicit definitions emphasizing the point. The philosopher Will Durant had a rather brilliant elaboration on that theme:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
I am going to break one of my rules which I which I roundly castigte others for violating while in the process of making fools of themselves. I must first admit that I have not watched the video so it's possible that the sentiment that I will express came out in the conversation.
It seems to me that the question up for discussion is missing the point. I would argue that a better question would be "Why do we have to continue to have discussions about sex, gender, patriarchy, chivalry, etc? Chivalry and the biases and hierarchies it generates is so Middle Ages. How about we just treat people as individual human beings to whom each is accorded the base respect due a member of the species homo sapiens. Why does a person's age, gender, skin color, socioeconomic status have anything to do with how they are treated. Why is their behavior not the variable against which they are assessed?
Gender IMHO is simply the grammatical representation of the sexes in the written word and nothing more. Instead of saying male or female the words are he/she and him/her. There are gender specific language from French to Spanish. The activist Left has done what they typically do. They're DSD's; Dynamically Shifting Definitions where the meaning changes based on the context AND the need as opposed to be fixed.
Because power and money can be obtained from the weaponization of these topics. Hate motivates..... unfortunately.
When good intentions like the goal to equal rights regardless of race, sex or religion, produce power and money for those organizing it, they can't let it go once the original goal has been achieved so they find a way to keep it going much like how a Federal Dept created to achieve a goal doesn't end it's existence once said goal has been achieved.
The rule of thumb for articles which ask a question is to answer “no” and turn the page. However, to clarify:
There are three genders in English, masculine feminine and neuter.
There are multiple gender delusions, from “agender” to Cheeto in psychology, which due to the march of entropy is having any shreds of meaning dissipated. It lacks a working distinction from rank fetishism, and certainly doesn’t resemble science.
Under the law they are and should be tested equally except where they are distinct physically - men and women are segregated in prison, and in intimate spaces, as an example.
NO.
Allow me to elaborate on why NO is the answer and how it doesn't change based on any additional criteria to the base question.
Base Q: Should we treat men and women differently
Additional Criteria: if gender is a spectrum
Regardless of "if gender is a spectrum" or any other criteria, men and women are not the same physically, mentally, psychologically or emotionally. Trying to treat two different sexes the same is like trying to use the same solution to every question, the same fix to every problem.
"Should We Treat Men & Women the Same if Gender is Truly a Spectrum?"
Kind of a clueless if not pretentious question -- a "deepity". Apparently predicated on ignorance of more or less standard definitions for both sex and gender. Sex is, by definition, a binary, and membership in the sex categories is based on having functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. See:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
As for "gender", it is, at best, no more than a synonym for a range, a spectrum, of sexually dimorphic personality types, behaviours, roles, and modes of expression. See my post for details:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/a-multi-dimensional-gender-spectrum
But Merriam-Webster put's it quite succinctly:
MW: "gender: 2b) the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
Do note the "associated with" -- i.e., not intrinsic to either sex, only typical of. How we can have masculine (gender) "adult human females" and feminine (gender) "adult human males".
But to answer your question, that a man -- i.e., an adult human male -- and a woman -- i.e., an adult human female -- might be at the same ends of one or more dimensions of gender in absolutely no way changes the brute fact that one is a male and the other is a female. Of course they should be treated differently -- for one thing, sexual reproduction might be somewhat "unlikely" otherwise.
I always keep these questions open and participants are welcome to pushback or delve into which aspect of the question is interesting. Alternatively, not answer the question at all!
Don't want to keep them so open that everyone's brains fall out -- because that sure looks like what's happening. If you really want to make "impossible conversations" possible and resolve a serious social problem or two -- and not just pick up YouTube advertisement dollars -- then you might consider the Will Durant quote I posted earlier on defining one's terms:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
If you actually looked at the comments on your YouTube video -- and not just taking the money and running off with it -- then you might realize that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin -- and their furry dogs, cats, and gerbils -- has entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for both sex and gender.
If you were actually serious about resolving that problem then I would think the only "impossible conversation" you should be promoting would be one to find some consensus on workable and scientifically justified definitions for those terms.
You might note an interview of so-called philosopher -- though if the truth be known, grifter and scientific illiterate -- Alex Byrne who, despite making some reasonable points on that dichotomy, still doesn't seem to know whether he's on foot or horseback, doesn't have a flaming clue that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth:
https://www.persuasion.community/p/byrne?triedRedirect=true
Neither "philosophers" nor "biologists" nor "social scientists" are, in general, covering themselves in much glory over this transgender clusterfuck. Don't see that you're contributing much that's useful either.
The "if gender is a spectrum" is just criteria to a base question which has the same answer regardless of the additional criteria.
True, though that was sort of my point and the reason for the "clueless" in my comment.
The clear implication, and unstated premise, is that "man" and "woman" are genders, and that we are nothing more than some variable collection of "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" or the other. Which is so much arrant nonsense, not even wrong, totally clueless that we are also male or female -- i.e., not any part of "gender" -- or, for some third of us, sexless -- at least according to the standard biological definitions I linked to above.
Which is why I emphasized the more coherent and consistent conception of sex and gender as two entirely different kettles of fish, undergirded with explicit definitions emphasizing the point. The philosopher Will Durant had a rather brilliant elaboration on that theme:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
Rather sloppy "epistemology" -- at best -- on Peter's part to not start off from that point.
Shame each comment get's but 1 like from others.
I am going to break one of my rules which I which I roundly castigte others for violating while in the process of making fools of themselves. I must first admit that I have not watched the video so it's possible that the sentiment that I will express came out in the conversation.
It seems to me that the question up for discussion is missing the point. I would argue that a better question would be "Why do we have to continue to have discussions about sex, gender, patriarchy, chivalry, etc? Chivalry and the biases and hierarchies it generates is so Middle Ages. How about we just treat people as individual human beings to whom each is accorded the base respect due a member of the species homo sapiens. Why does a person's age, gender, skin color, socioeconomic status have anything to do with how they are treated. Why is their behavior not the variable against which they are assessed?
Gender IMHO is simply the grammatical representation of the sexes in the written word and nothing more. Instead of saying male or female the words are he/she and him/her. There are gender specific language from French to Spanish. The activist Left has done what they typically do. They're DSD's; Dynamically Shifting Definitions where the meaning changes based on the context AND the need as opposed to be fixed.
Because power and money can be obtained from the weaponization of these topics. Hate motivates..... unfortunately.
When good intentions like the goal to equal rights regardless of race, sex or religion, produce power and money for those organizing it, they can't let it go once the original goal has been achieved so they find a way to keep it going much like how a Federal Dept created to achieve a goal doesn't end it's existence once said goal has been achieved.
The rule of thumb for articles which ask a question is to answer “no” and turn the page. However, to clarify:
There are three genders in English, masculine feminine and neuter.
There are multiple gender delusions, from “agender” to Cheeto in psychology, which due to the march of entropy is having any shreds of meaning dissipated. It lacks a working distinction from rank fetishism, and certainly doesn’t resemble science.
Under the law they are and should be tested equally except where they are distinct physically - men and women are segregated in prison, and in intimate spaces, as an example.
If your maleness or femaleness depends on ability to deliver functioning sperm or eggs , what do you make of your elderly grandparents?