if we are critically examining Sumerian religion
and their creation myths, we may not want the Sumerians
in the room even if they were readily available, since
they may well take offense at us disrespecting and
dissecting their beliefs.
I would agree with this specific example.
Religion is a special case when it comes to rational discussion. It is explicitly a belief in the irrational, and is not compatible with rational thought.
When the "out group" decides to exclude the "in group" from a discussion, we should be very very sure that there's some highly specific reason why the "in group" is simply incapable of rational discussion.
For example, we exclude my car from discussions about his medical care because he is a cat and he can't speak or understand medicine. If we do that with people, we need to be very careful.
And to use a example more grounded in reality,
a group of men can't have properly conduct a
discussion on how to attract women with women
in the discussion.
This is completely opposite to my experiences.
I certainly think it's healthy and good for men to discuss sex, attraction, etc, without women as well. Heterosexual men are a part of the group that experiences dating and sex with women. (I wonder how many hours of my life I've spent on this? Thousands? Tens of thousands?)
This is markedly different than, say, a panel of men discussing/deciding things for women, i.e. a panel full of men deciding what women can and cannot do with their bodies.
a group of rape victims can't have a discussion
with a rapist, even though the rapist would be
able to add their side of the story to the discussion.
I agree with caveats. (Some victims find power and closure by confronting their rapists, etc.)
To generalize this specific example into something broadly applicable, the reason why this example works is because in this case the rapist has done something highly transgressive - essentially, they have broken anything that might reasonably be considered a social contract - and it would certainly be reasonable for a rape victim to find it highly upsetting to see their rapist, much less listen to them.
So again, I would say the validity of excluding a person from a discussion relevant to them would highly depend upon some explicit evidence or reasoning that productive discussion simply cannot occur if they are a part of it.
This would not apply to, say, a room full of white people deciding things about the Black experience.
Religion is a special case when it comes to rational discussion. It is explicitly a belief in the irrational, and is not compatible with rational thought.
When the "out group" decides to exclude the "in group" from a discussion, we should be very very sure that there's some highly specific reason why the "in group" is simply incapable of rational discussion.
For example, we exclude my car from discussions about his medical care because he is a cat and he can't speak or understand medicine. If we do that with people, we need to be very careful.
This is completely opposite to my experiences.I certainly think it's healthy and good for men to discuss sex, attraction, etc, without women as well. Heterosexual men are a part of the group that experiences dating and sex with women. (I wonder how many hours of my life I've spent on this? Thousands? Tens of thousands?)
This is markedly different than, say, a panel of men discussing/deciding things for women, i.e. a panel full of men deciding what women can and cannot do with their bodies.
I agree with caveats. (Some victims find power and closure by confronting their rapists, etc.)To generalize this specific example into something broadly applicable, the reason why this example works is because in this case the rapist has done something highly transgressive - essentially, they have broken anything that might reasonably be considered a social contract - and it would certainly be reasonable for a rape victim to find it highly upsetting to see their rapist, much less listen to them.
So again, I would say the validity of excluding a person from a discussion relevant to them would highly depend upon some explicit evidence or reasoning that productive discussion simply cannot occur if they are a part of it.
This would not apply to, say, a room full of white people deciding things about the Black experience.