neither do you seem to comprehend why people who be attracted to either version of disconnect with biological reality, or its significance

oh wait

We can actually measure age incredibly accurately

By the way, I also just read in a journal for forensics that you can even determine sex/gender from just the teeth.

Wait ... I am still trying to find a study that concerns the accuracy with which age can be determined, but there is also another orthodontic journal that states that you can determine race/ethnicity from teeth.

"Certain morphological features of the teeth are known to show population variation which can be used to distinguish the ethnicity or ancestry. However, the determination of race from morphological features of the teeth remains debatable. These features, characteristics and occupational marks give an idea about the habits and cultural practices of a group of people/ethnicity. The dental characteristics such as the shovelling or scooping of the upper incisor (most common in Asiatic Mongoloids and Amerindians), taurodontism, chisel shaped incisors, Carabelli’s cusp, hypocone, and protostylid, peg shaping of the teeth can be used to determine the ethnicity of the individual [36-38]. According to Vij [8], Aborigines Australians, the Melanesians and the American Indians and Eskimos tend to be large toothed races with wide crowns and Lapps and Bushmen are small people with comparatively smaller teeth."

Krishan, Kewal, Tanuj Kanchan, and Arun K. Garg. "Dental evidence in forensic identification–An overview, methodology and present status." The open dentistry journal 9 (2015): 250.

Różyło-Kalinowska, Ingrid, et al. "Validity of the third molar maturity index I3M for indicating the adult age in the Polish population." Forensic science international 290 (2018): 352-e1.

"This study aimed to assess the application of Cameriere’s third molar maturity index (I3M) to select an individual of 18 years or older (adult) from younger than 18 years (minor) in a sample of Polish individuals. The final sample of 982 panoramic images aged between 15 to 24 years was analyzed. The specific cut-off value of I3M < 0.08 was analyzed. The specificity (Sp) and sensitivity (Se) for males were 91.2% and 86.2% respectively. The Sp and Se for females were 93% and 82.6% respectively. The probabilities of correctly classified individuals were 87.6% and 85.3%, and Bayes post-test probability was 96.3% and 97% in males and females respectively. Further analysis indicated the alternative cut-off value of I3M < 0.07, which improved the specificity, 95.3%, and 94.7%, and worsen correct classification, 86.5%, and 84.4%, in males and females, respectively. Our results showed that the specific cut-off point of I3M < 0.08 may be a useful tool for discriminating adults from minors in Poland."

Age is something we all go through. It is objective with no biological basis, just the effects on biology of a physical manifestation - time

Kind of. There is a related concept in biology called "biological age".

That one is more akin to a rating the way we informally understand it. It is more related to health and wear on the body.

When you read studies like these carefully, you can see that they make distinction between the two.

Borkan, Gary A., and Arthur H. Norris. "Assessment of biological age using a profile of physical parameters." Journal of Gerontology 35.2 (1980): 177-184.

Goggins, William B., et al. "Frailty index as a measure of biological age in a Chinese population." The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 60.8 (2005): 1046-1051.

I am unsure how well established the term is, though.

But it still happens as time passes

Different people do age differently, but it is still the passage of time

At what point do we throw away milennia of ideology to cater to a minute group of individuals who are keeping with the age?

Basically my issue is with the concept that everything is a concept decided by humans, so that automatically gives the oligarchy the right to change, edit, insert, or do away with rules defined by our society in order to prepare for events that appear later on as mutations or unusual disabilities. The things we decided are whats what are based upon group evidence as a society. There are legal and moral problems that come with such a thing as trans ageism. If someone legally changes their age, that implicates a lot of situations where we have determined previous age limitations to prevent or create problems and solutions to protect and uphold our society. So if a 60 year old man decides to say he was 17, and then proceeded to attend high school and then proceed to have sex with a female there? What are the legal and moral implications of that?

We say in a normal situation that would be pedophilia or rape of the highest statute, then criminal activity would increase and we would see crminals being released in droves.

Difference between protecting a group and catering to them is that our hard core facts help us differentiate whats a want and what is need. So why is that even a thing? Because people want it, not need it like real trans people because they arent being discriminated against and dont have the fight for protections and the ability to sue people at will for situations they put themselves in. The idea of a transition of mind from body type and age is something I dont particularly think is ok, because at that stage we have to rewrite every law we have in existence before trans people exploit them.

@SantaSoc I wouldn't "millenia of ideology." I'd consider it millenia of observation and experience and data.

Still doesnt answer the question lol.

Well the question you ultimately have is where you draw your objective values from. If you have no objective values, if you think it's all just concepts created by humans, then, you will inevitably get whichever people are in charge deciding what's rational, what's true or false, etc. No objective set of values is automatically going to get you that pretty quicklky I fhink. This is the role traditional religions and philosophies helped with. Moderns have accepted the notiont hat religion is irrational or dangerous (BS) but in reality, that lack of any respect for traditional beliefs, transcendental beliefs, ultimate metaphysical beliefs, is what reduces you to this radical subjectivity where the people in charge decide what's right and wrong, epriod.

You're begging the question whether objective values even exist.

Do you feel all value sets are equal?

hell no. only far left would think that.

Equal in what sense?

That they are all essentially equivalent. That there is no reason to prefer say, Western values over fundamentalist Islamic values

I'd say they're all on equivalent footing in metaethical terms.

How so?

They all stand independently as value systems.

So you would say the act of revenge rape would be morally laudable when seen in the context of the appropriate value system?

Yes, I would say that's so, by definition.

if you grew up in that system, you would believe it appropriate. Just as someone who grew up in a western value system would view it an inappropriate

now, you might be able to set them as not equal to each-other if you define a set of near objectable metrics for what equals "better". For example the amount of human suffering.

Basing a system of morality on human suffering seems pretty deeply flawed.

Why should any two systems agree about the right amount of human suffering?

someone doesnt understand ideas

all knowledge is integrated here are the basics

percepts come from our senses and our concrete objects