Ferk

True, but then you have bigger problems than just the journal.

Then simply write it in a text editor without saving it into a file, it'll be lost after closing the program.

I've been advocating protectionism in EU, even before Trump did it first.

The EU is way behind when it comes to very important strategic markets in relation to digital services... I feel import taxes in those sectors would make the EU stronger. EU might be good with cars and vehicles, but imho that's a legacy market that's not really fitting for the EU anyway, we are a dense enough area to be able to work pretty well without the need of cars (pushing for public transport + bicycles is another thing I've been advocating for ages).

The problem is that the existing exporters in the EU didn't want to get shot in the foot.. so I was very happy when I heard Trump would apply these tariffs, because it could finally be the push for the shift we needed.

leaving host countries to decide whether to wind down these protections, push for integration, or nudge refugees back home

It could also be a mix of all of the above. I think determining the optimal approach depends on way too many factors (many of which are unknown yet) and it makes sense to let each country decide. To me it would be surprising if the EU already had a (public and agreed upon) plan, specially considering how heterogeneous of a group the EU is and all the burocracy when taking decisions (which isn't necessarily a good/bad thing).

Utimately, after the war, it's also up to each Ukranian to decide whether to integrate or return. I think most (if not all) EU members would welcome anyone who legally integrates and support anyone who wants to go back.

This does not make the (hypothetical) ceasefire a bad thing, it makes the war a bad thing.

Can you point to a specific law that the EU has passed in this direction?

Cos according to the article all attempts to pass something like this that have been presented in the EU have been blocked. By the EU.

An alternative title could have been: "EU Possibly The Only One Who Has Been Explicitly Rejecting Backdoor Mandates Until Now"

Sure, proposals keep being presented.. but I feel it's kind of a bit early to call the EU "greatest threat" just because yet another attempt has been made. Specially when you compare it with many other places where they apply things like this without batting an eye.

I'm not saying we (Europeans) shouldn't push (yet again) to make sure this also fails... but the title of the article is a bit misplaced, and after a history of successful rejections I feel a lot more optimistic.

Yes, I agree with all that.

Social / behavioral archetypes can be complex and fuzzy, they might change with the society and with time. It could be that what we consider today as a "pizza-lover" might not be what was considered a "pizza-lover" in the antiquity, when Europe did not even have such a thing as a "tomato" and the word "pizza" might have been used for a completely different dish that today we would not call "pizza".

This is why I personally think that the internal way in which I feel should be independent from the concept of gender role / gender expression... I am what I am.. I'm not necessarily a "man" or "woman" in a universal and unequivocal social way, I'm just me. I might fit very precisely one of those labels now as generally they are understood.. but who knows if I'll fit the social label they'll have in the year 4000.. or if I fit the label from year -4000. Or the labels they might use in the planet Aldebaran 2.

Yes, I agree, that's essentially what I was saying before.

Some people seem to think what makes a man or a woman is purely biological (or like you said, "anatomy"), whereas others think the distinction has more to do with what's understood as a "social construct" (or like you said, "behavioral cues").

So, in the comment you were replying to I was taking the second interpretation, that's why I was saying it's defined by social/behavioral traits.

I agree. But this also applies to all social/behavioral labels.

Not all pizza-lovers are the same, not all left-handed people are the same... etc.

The question is: what is it that makes a "man" be considered different than a "woman"?

What do those 2 men, who are different, have in common that makes you still call them "men"?

Sorry, I was just agreeing with what you said in your second paragraph. Because it makes complete logical sense what you said there. So the "of course you would" was just a reaffirmation of what you described yourself, not a mandate over what you should feel.

Also, I do experience gender, just the same way as I experience color, taste, pain, happiness and all other experiences. I tried to explain it when I gave the example with "green" before. I experience green.. what I don't know is if "what it feels like" to experience green for me could really be identified with "green" beyond the social understanding I have from my interactions with other people when we see green.

In an island of men (not women) you would be exposed to the same different external behaviors and preferences associated to the archetype that you do not identify with, so of course you would feel a difference.

These external behaviors and preferences you perceive as different is what I was referring to with archetype/label/stereotype/pick-your-word.

The experience you describe requires interaction with other people who you (and society) categorizes as "girls" and "boys".

Without this interaction with this external categorization: would you have been able to find anything was "different"?

I feel that in order to have something feel "different" you need to have something to compare it to. Something you can perceive from others and that thus it must be reflected externally and not just something purely internal at the level of qualia (otherwise you wouldn't be able to compare it). So this is what I meant by archetype/label/stereotype/pick-your-word. That thing you felt was different which you perceived when comparing with other people outside of yourself.

I don't know, I would not say that I knew automatically when I was born what's the difference between "man" and "woman". Of course I have had clear feelings and preferences about a variety of topics, some instinctive and well defined, ever since I was born. But I don't think that's determined by a label. They clearly can fall into a particular label, but only "after the fact".

To me, "man" and "woman" can't be labels that go beyond the social/behavioral because I don't know what it feels like to be a man anymore than what I know it feels like to be a woman.. I only know myself, I can't possibly compare what I feel to what others feel, because those feelings are a "qualia" that cannot be simply be transmitted with words.

And without communication to compare and reference, I could not judge whether what I feel is "man" or "woman" at the level that you choose to do it. To me it's logically impossible to set a gender at such a deep level.

An analogy would be how I can never be sure that other people experience the same thing I experience when we both see and point to the color "green". "Green" is a construct based on our common understanding of the experience a particular wavelength that is emitted by an object we are pointing to. But the label "green" cannot go beyond that external consensus, because what I experience when the impulses caused by that wavelength reach my brain could perfectly be different than what you experience when that same wavelength causes yours.

We might even agree on what are the wavelengths that we call green, based on our own internal experience, because the experience I feel when seeing green might be similar every time I see green (and the same will happen for you)... but that does not mean that we are both having the same experience, it could be that what you experience as blue I experience as green and that what you experience as green I experience as blue, and yet every time we would agree on calling the same wavelengths the same way, because we would have learned to call them that way.

So it would be meaningless to say beyond any social agreement that I deeply think that this color should be "green" only based on my experience alone, because it would not be any different from saying that this color should be "blue"... the only thing that makes us both agree on calling a particular color experience as green and not blue is the social understanding of that experience matching a common external pattern we both agree on, and that we each match it with our respective (and possibly different) subjective experiences (qualia) when we see that color.