To say that a situation is not wholly caused by enumerated factors is generally trivially true, so the question becomes how much connotation is intended, which means the question should probably be rephrased.

Very true, and I must pedantically point out that I did not ask a question about how much connotation was intended. I suggested that the connotation of 'harmless' seemed careless to me. Literally and seriously careless, especially given my trivial research into the subject revealed that there is bias for male employees that employers, rationally, respond to.

I don't think it's a good idea to ask if states of the world are justified when people disagree about the causes of those states of the world unless great care is taken to not be confusing. Those things can be addressed separately by just talking about causation and also asking what would be justified under a hypothetical set of facts.

I agree. I was trying to avoid this, because I mostly agree. I did not bring up the state of the world, and I seriously did avoid discussion of it in this thread, which apparently was also offensive? I am somewhat concerned about the state of the world, but I already take great care not to be confusing, and fail.

I do have some doubts about drawing conclusions from a hypothetical set of facts, unless those conclusions are testable and, in fact, tested. But I am philosophically inclined to talk hypotheticals long into the night...

I don't know how to think of those things, particularly self respect, particularly since the frame is not just causation but justice.

Well, I probably care more about justice than I do just word choice. But I do far more for the cause of just word choice than any other. I will apologize for being elusive on more serious issues. I probably could have caused less confusion if I had not specifically tried to avoided answering questions about states of the world. Do you agree?

I am really enjoying this discussion. And I respect the fact that you are reserving judgment, as you haven't thought it out very thoroughly.

I didn't think my objection to the use of the word innocuous through before I voiced it, and I absolutely don't regret it.

But I am literally having trouble figuring out what else I am supposed to object to. I am willing to try to explain. And I think I can better understand my position, if I understand IF or HOW people disagree with my original objection about word choice. I have not stated this confusion often or clearly enough, so, to set a 'good' example, I will state it as a question:

Do you approve of the word innocuous, meaning harmless, in the statement above? Why or why not?

Having said all that, I'll give it a stab a reply to your more recent comments anyway. The use of a question mark in your words makes it much easier for me to identify your question, and answer it.

Personal note: I am not usually trying to be ironic, but I am aware that I often come across that way. I make special effort on LW to be more precise and direct, and careful in my statements. Taking out the word 'totally', which I usually sling about in order to increase positive feedback in my day-to-day life, in order to suggest that I have a sense of humor about my unfortunate 'know it all' attitude may have been an error. Feel free to assume I am just trying to make a humorous point instead of a serious one, if you find me offensive on a rational level!

But enough about me...

'such work' is not defined, but I assume you are referring to home work, whether paid in negotiable tokens or 'financially unrecompensed'.

I did not notice stating this:

You stated that house work was financially unrecompensed.

And what the state of CA thinks about the negotiable and non-negotiable arrangements you make with each other, or with employers, I do not really care about, as long as CA does not force you to live there, and there are a wide variety of other options available to you both. Do you have a wide variety of other options?

As either of us does tasks that save us money, we have more tokens. Describing the latter as not involving "financial recompense" I view as inaccurate.

I disagree with your conclusion, but on a somewhat pedantic level. Financial recompense and Optional reduction of financial expense are not equivalent. One is simply a pile of tokens. The other is a choice and a judgment about what to do with a pile of tokens. Do you disagree?