But reduced to pragmatic terms- children are an investment to pay future dividends.
In the USA you get pretty sizable deductions and credits made available to reduce your tax burden or increase the amount the government pays you each tax season, that are specifically and only for having children. Many public programs and social welfare programs are only available to parents and families or prioritize those with children. Beyond that, as a society, we rely on the current children to become the workers and consumers of tomorrow or else the economy and commerce fall apart. In the USA and many other countries, social welfare for the older generation falls apart of those kids don’t grow up to make money and pay taxes and olvide car and goods and services.

Not a bad point, but I would contend that adults are as free to use the playground as kids are- most adults just choose not to. I mean, surely it might vary by country, so I can’t speak for places outside the USA as one entity, but public playgrounds are open to adults here as well as kids.
Of course, adults get tax benefits from many things children cannot directly or indirectly freely and independently use in general or things children are unlikely to take interest in or use. I Guess nothing stops a child from taking an annex class on Edwardian poetry at the local community college or auditing calculus at a state university, and I suppose children COULD make use of things like reproductive health services if they really wanted or needed to but overall…

Indeed. Thank you. Not sure how I missed that, but edited.

Focusing on the processing of reality has another upside in diplomacy and personal freedoms.
When we change reality, there are those who usually do not want those changes.
We often must force those changes effectively universally to have them be effective and work for the people who want them.
When we change how the individual processes reality, we are only changing things for the individuals who choose to engage in the processes required to adjust their cognition.

Sometimes it is easier or more prudent to change reality than to change how we interact with it, and sometimes it is more prudent to change the way we interact with reality than reality itself.
We have yet to conquer death and if ever, it doesn’t look like it would be soon for example. All humans, should they live long enough and spend any real time and connection with any other living creatures, will face the potential traumas of death. There are steps we can take in reality of how we discuss and conceptualize and handle death to mitigate trauma, but ultimately one must have the resilience to persevere and see through healthy coping strategies and the processing of such events because we cannot change the event itself.

Paradoxically, the less resilient you are required to be, the more sensitive you tend to become, and that which you find potentially traumatic often becomes increasingly sensitive.
A key factor in all this is to give people the tools and facilitate their ability to engage in healthy processing and coping of events and information. Bad things will happen, we can’t stop it. Due to differences in people, we can’t predict or prevent what is traumatic to whom, and it is actually possible that for some people, the very steps and circumstances of trying could itself create trauma.
So it is wise to mitigate those almost universal and “obvious” traumas- abuse, neglect, etc. but it is as important or perhaps more important in my view to create a culture that is supportive and conducive to processing and coping with whatever reality we face.

Too late, the story of my life. Funny enough I did just sort of run out of steam and just sort of went for a quick wrap out without much thought, hence the poor word choice.
That said, I would point out that if one asks a public forum how they “should feel,” then how could it be wrong to tell them how you think they should feel?
That is distinctly different than asking for validation of one’s feelings- a bit like the difference between asking for opinions on a painting and asking what you should paint.
If you ask what you should paint and someone says that you should paint a Llama, are they somehow awful because most other people think you should paint a bowl of fruit? You asked an open question and can review the answers for the one you wish to choose or be inspired by, the opinions are there for you to review, you are not obligated to follow them or agree.
But again, the end wording was an unfortunate choice and too late or no, I am sorry if I offended you or anyone

Traditions change. Even when we deal with groups that hold certain things scared above all for thousands of years. Has there been no changes in the lives of most Christians, Jews, Muslims or their faiths and how those are practiced? Even fundamentalists- hell, devour orthodox Jewish people, fundamentalist Muslims, Quakers and Amish who are literally the face of living in the last- even they have changed their traditions.
You change or die. That’s how the world works. So I dunnoh- there is room to discuss safe spaces, but it’s a big discussion.

Tradition was that Santa came down your chimney- because most homes had chimneys if some sort because they didn’t have modern HVAC and you needed some actual flaming thing to provide heat for warmth or cooking and such.
Chimneys are relatively rare and primarily a luxury in the modern developed world in new construction and smaller homes like apartments and such are more common.
So Santa doesn’t exclusively come down chimneys. Few if any “bad kids” get coal and even the concept of “bad kids” has changed- hell, the very ideas kid can be “ba d” or telling them so as changed.

A very important one not yet addressed? Traditionally… tradition is just what has been done before no? So if we change what we do today, the traditions change tomorrow.
We have more than enough human history- hell, anyone paying attention by the time they reach at least their 30’s will have seen the traditions and conventions and customs and routines of the world they grew up in change. That’s how this all works. Traditions today are not what they were 50,100,200,1000 years a ago in general. Even those traditions that have endured centuries and millennia seldom are actually truly a tradition. We do not celebrate Christmas the same way they did a century ago. We generally do not eat the same meals in the same ways and hold all the beliefs and rituals with identical details.

At the very least they encounter the same issues of classification.
Except when we say that a space is traditionally masculine, we aren’t talking about some chromosomal or anatomical fact that can be definitively specified and sorted. We are talking about an abstract concept existing contextually to a society- gender roles, which then would equate to our trans population who regardless of chromosomes or anatomy, hold a certain identity.
So what do you make of all this? We can say that it certainly proves the already established but often refuted fact that gender identity is a concept, but we are left with many dangling threads.

So I don’t know. There is a lot to it, and it isn’t completely invalid to examine the fact that exclusion based on a broad general class is inherently discriminatory.
But again- it is rife with paradox.
If sports is traditionally masculine, and thusly only men should be allowed, define a man for me? Because here is the thing… how do you feel about same sex rest rooms? If we say the men’s room is traditionally a place for men- then a biological male presenting as female would not be masculine generally by default no? If they have no penis… well… so they go to the women’s room? Is that your stance? I’d say there is probably significant overlap between the people who would want to exclude women from sports and people who don’t believe in all sex bathrooms, yet those positions can be argued to conflict.

hold social gender norms or expectations. But- if having a woman and her “femininity” ruins a space, how do you screen for men with femininity?
I’ll speak plainly and without sensitivity. A lot of these sports commentators and players in my view are, or act like, little bit$hes.
Now what one person defines as masculine or feminine may differ, but many to me are possessing behaviors or demeanors and mannerisms which is traditional ascribe to what I see as being feminine. So why can they get a ticket in as heterosexual biological males who act like little bit$he’s and a woman who is more “man” than they may ever be is excluded because she may throw off the vibe? It doesn’t track.
And that does present a problem in the discussion of “safe spaces,” in that the idea is like minded people can express themselves freely around each other and enjoy shared touchstones- but while gender is one generalized means of discerning who is “like,” it isn’t absolute.

Now I’m not saying that everyone who believes sports should be male thinks that. I’m saying that if you examine the stance and actually think about it- that is the logical ends, and most people don’t think that far. They may, likely, not even want that, they just like sports.
And I get it. It isn’t my thing, but lots of guys like to stare at all men and enjoy the rough physicality and domination power plays of masculine energies and bodies intertwining. They enjoy the banter of men and hearing their deep voices and grunts. You don’t have to be exclusively homosexual on the spectrum of sexuality to want that or to enjoy sports or male spaces. That’s just what you like, perhaps in a no sexual way, and having that “feminine energy” can throw off a vibe. Of course- as a counter point- what about men who have a certain feminine energy? Again- that isn’t about sexuality. Many men who engage exclusively in heterosexual sexual activities and desires can be or are “feminine” by the widely

And as a news flash- almost all jobs and industries in western and many other societies in the modern day are traditionally male dominated because women weren’t and in many places still aren’t allowed to do them dingus.
Women weren’t allowed to be combat soldiers in the US until less than a generation ago and only recently gained the ability to even try for special forces.
Women weren’t allowed or were prohibited from being doctors and lawyers, working the trades, driving jobs, any number of things… and many people on this board and millions- hundreds of millions or more alive today were around to see that.
So if you can block women or say we should block women from being in traditionally male spaces- you are basically saying women need to be in the kitchen or at home because those were largely, until very recently in history, the only spaces asides perhaps salons and such which were traditionally “female spaces.”

So I can’t support keeping women out of sports anymore than I could support keeping men out of designing women’s clothing or being nurses or any number of industries and jobs within a traditional “feminine” space. If you want to have a local club or a guys only game night or something and that is a thing you can negotiate equitably with the women or others in your life, who am I or anyone else to judge? But saying. That women cannot enter into a multi billion dollar globe spanning industry that has lucrative opportunities to grow wealth, careers, endorsement and book deals, consulting and all the other doors that working in sports and sports news and such Can open..? That’s… well… that’s a bit much.

So there is room for discussion on male spaces and spaces for specific groups to be able to express things in a safe, healthy way that doesn’t disrupt society. Having these spaces can be a good thing and it can be beneficial to everyone.
That said, I can speak to the specific example of sports and say that it is one thing to claim a “male space” and another to attempt to monopolize a multi billion dollar industry.
Say you and your friends all share an interest and want to make a club where you can enjoy that together free of distractions and judgements and such. Ok. But what if you claim every Walmart in America as that space? So no one can shop or work or be in that space except you and your friends? That doesn’t really work does it? That everyone except you and your friends are excluded from making money or getting benefits or access to such a huge and important opportunity just so you can have your “safe space”?

The point being that men can control themselves and do not need to behave as animals. Societies existence proves this, but it also means that certain needs and instincts and urges still need to be given healthy and socially acceptable means of expression.
It means that we can dictate how people would behave in a society so that everyone can have a balance of comfort and security and safety and well being, but we can’t dictate the way people think or feel inside themselves.

While the argument that men are naturally prone to “problematic behaviors” and hold no responsibility is laughable, it is also true that certain generalities can be made of the male gender as far as sexual desires and needs and expression. Often times discussions of behaviors concerning sex do not even consider the male need or perspective. For a long time, issues of sex have more or less only been from the male perspective, so I am not saying that the male perspective should lead the discussion- but it is an example of where the male perspective is not really considered. An almost unilateral discussion where terms are set and expected to be accepted universally.

So there is certainly value in having spaces where likeminded folk can feel more free to not wear these masks.
We need outlets for instinct and behavior.
I am, as anyone who’s read almost anything I’ve written knows, no advocate of “men’s rights” as the modern trend goes. I believe in human rights and equity, I believe there are inequalities of gender that apply to men as much as women or other genders- but I don’t subscribe to the conceit that men are an oppressed and victimized group. With that said- Sex. Sex is a common issue when discussing gender issues. Both the marginalization and shaking of the sexual desires and freedom of women, and the expectations and drives and behaviors of men.

Part of society and civilization are being able to not pick fights and sow conflict with every single person that upsets you in some way or you dislike for some reason. For all the wars in human history, we’d have many more conflicts if people just went around saying and doing as they pleases without regards to others. That isn’t a society, it is a free for all throw down where progress and stability all but halt.
The amount of filter we use is contextual to culture and circumstances, but few if anyone is completely open and honest in all their feelings and thoughts all the time even with those they are closest to.

Your partner or a loved one may have certain aspects of them that they are sensitive about and may be beyond their control or not. It is generally considered rude to point and stare at those with obvious differences in ability physically or mentally. In most societies people do not speak every thought that enters their head, every opinion. This is a type of dishonesty and it is inherent to most societies because individuals are different but to have a society we must get along and share spaces and tasks and resources.

In many cultures, when you dislike someone you don’t inherently go out of your way to be aggressive. This is socially disruptive. You generally need to be able to exist in the same spaces, work together for the good of family and community or self, participate in important social events etc.
what it means to be polite or professional is contextual- but lost societies have some version of this. You hate Jane at the PTA but you still say please and thank you, you don’t tell her to f$ck herself whenever she voices an opinion you don’t like, and when you offer refreshments after the meeting you offer her some too. It doesn’t mean you’re friends, but it isn’t your natural or honest feelings.

Yo be clear, I’m not arguing against men, or women, or really almost anyone from having “safe spaces” where they feel free to express themselves and behave “naturally” without prejudices or judgment.
Most humans in most societies have values such spaces- the home has often been such a space, or some area of it like a study or private chamber. Social pressures, pressures to conform to expectations or an image, the need to consider others feelings and opinions. When you speak and act- it’s stressful. Most people want and Can benefit from having spaces where they feel able to just speak freely without worry someone will misunderstand them or judge them or be offended. Most human civilization is braced by the “white lie.” By to some degree hiding or obscuring things that can cause disharmony.