Should refugees be women and children only?

[Keith&Co.]

Most people would give help to person A if they need help more than person B.

So, morality is a popularity contest?

If 'most people' would give refuge to any people fleeing a war zone, would that mean any people fleeing a war zone (men, woman and children) deserve to be refugees?

 

[Jayjay]

1. It's not remotely self-evident. In fact, it appears to be false.
But purely for example, if Joe has a 3/5 chance of drowning if he's not rescued, and Bob has a 1/2 chance of drowning if he's not rescued, it doesn't follow that Joe is more deserving of being rescued than Bob, all other things equal. There appears to be no good reason to suspect so. Those chances (if the person deciding whom to rescue is making a proper assessment) may support the conclusion that it's overall better to rescue Joe, but not that he deserves to be rescued more than Bob.

That is a good reason to say that Joe is more deserving to be rescued. Let's say that instead of 60% and 50% possibility of drowning, Joe has 100% and Bob a 0% chance of drowning if not rescued. If Joe's obviously greater need to be rescued doesn't imply that he's more deserving, then both are equally deserving to be rescued, which basically means that the decision who is more deserving has absolutely nothing to do with who lives or dies, and then you are not talking about "rescueing" anyone anymore but something else.

Translated to the immigration topic, this would mean ignoring the possible need for an asylum altogether and treating all immigrants equally by some other criteria, e.g. gender, probability of committing violent crimes or terrorism, religion, education, wealth, ...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

1. It's not remotely self-evident. In fact, it appears to be false.
But purely for example, if Joe has a 3/5 chance of drowning if he's not rescued, and Bob has a 1/2 chance of drowning if he's not rescued, it doesn't follow that Joe is more deserving of being rescued than Bob, all other things equal. There appears to be no good reason to suspect so. Those chances (if the person deciding whom to rescue is making a proper assessment) may support the conclusion that it's overall better to rescue Joe, but not that he deserves to be rescued more than Bob.

That is a good reason to say that Joe is more deserving to be rescued. Let's say that instead of 60% and 50% possibility of drowning, Joe has 100% and Bob a 0% chance of drowning if not rescued. If Joe's obviously greater need to be rescued doesn't imply that he's more deserving, then both are equally deserving to be rescued, which basically means that the decision who is more deserving has absolutely nothing to do with who lives or dies, and then you are not talking about "rescueing" anyone anymore but something else.

If Bob has 0% chance of drowning, then it seems he can't be rescued - he's not in a situation in which pulling him out of the water would be a rescue.
But I don't see how that affects the earlier point about whether in my scenario they deserve to be rescued, which seems to be a function of their moral character.

Maybe here the word "deserves" can be used in more than one sense, and I got mojorising's usage wrong? (in which case, I would still suggest making an argument based on needs, not on desert, to avoid confusion).
However, that seems improbable in context. The context indicates mojorising's argument is through and through imbued with moral condemnation of adult male refugees for not staying and fighting (the bad fight).

For example:

Men are evolved as warriors and they should stay and do the warring where it is required.

They should have been kept in Syria to fight for their country. The women do not cause problems and the children are children so deserve protection.

If anybody is capable of standing up to IS it is the male Syrians who are not members of IS. Because males are evolved as warriors. Fleeing a combat zone while leaving women and children behind to be raped/slaughtered is immoral for any able-bodied male, even a civilian.

It is sad and shameful I would say that these men run away from the situation leaving women and children behind to suffer the horrors of the conflict.

When I read mojorising attributions of desert in that context, I don't get the impression that I missed one sense of "deserves". I get the impression of an attribution of desert in the sense I'm familiar with, based on their merits because of the morality of their character and/or actions.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is sad and shameful I would say that these men run away from the situation leaving women and children behind to suffer the horrors of the conflict.

You keep clearly morally condemning adult males who seek refugee status, regardless of what they did other than running.
Could you try to look at the matter from the perspective of an adult Syrian male?
Let's say he doesn't want to join IS/Al-Nusra, or the Syrian army (all groups that engage in atrocities against civilians, and the only available options), or be executed for failing to join them, or be killed by Russian bombs or Iranian troops.
Why should he not, say, cross the border and seek refuge in Turkey?

 

[mojorising]

If 'most people' would give refuge to any people fleeing a war zone, would that mean any people fleeing a war zone (men, woman and children) deserve to be refugees?

But women and children deserve to be first in the queue, ahead of single men, because they are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves.

You keep clearly morally condemning adult males who seek refugee status

It is morally shameful for a single male to leave women and children in a war zone while he flees to save himself.

The women and children are more vulnerable.

The man is better able to defend himself.

You have already acknowledged that the second point is true since you used it to justify why there is a male disparity in the refugee population:- they are fitter so they travel while the females and children are less able to travel without help - if that is the case he could use some of his fitness to assist the women and children.

Apart from these facts there is also the damage that large groups of single males from very backward cultures do to the host society. Witness the mass sexual assaults and gang rapes in Cologne on NYE.

At the very least there should be a one man only in the company of one woman or one child policy, but given the current gender disparity I would say a 'no more single males policy' is justifiable.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is morally shameful for a single male to leave women and children in a war zone while he flees to save himself.

Let's be clear:
Is your your condemnantion for all single adult males who flee a war zone, as long as there are at least some females or children left, or are you talking about a male who lives his wife and/or children?

And again, could you address my questions, please.

Let's say Shehada doesn't want to join IS/Al-Nusra, or the Syrian army (all groups that engage in atrocities against civilians, and the only available options), or be executed for failing to join them, or be killed by Russian bombs or Iranian troops.
Why should he not, say, cross the border and seek refuge in Jordan or Turkey?

The women and children are more vulnerable.

The man is better able to defend himself.

On average - i.e., against all threats, considering all adult males -, that's true, but it's an average that doesn't tell us much about the individual situation, or even the situations of members of targetted groups.

For example, an adult male in a village will be more vulnerable against a gang of adult males armed with machine guns, used to killing people, and bent on killing all males in the village and enslaving the females.

You have already acknowledged that the second point is true since you used it to justify why there is a male disparity in the refugee population:- they are fitter so they travel while the females and children are less able to travel without help - if that is the case he could use some of his fitness to assist the women and children.

I didn't say that they're fitter. Adult males do have a better chance on average to successfully undertake those journeys. But that's not to say that the same males that fled successfully would have a better chance at surviving (or at surviving without joining murderous gangs) than females that stayed. For example, the Politico article you linked to states:

Their demographic is often at greater risk of being coerced into joining fighting groups, or being killed rather than captured by such groups.

You persistently do not address that point, or my points about the risks their face, and the lack of a non-evil group that they could join and that has any remote chance of not being defeated.

But regardless, assuming that their survival chances are slightly better, the question remains why they should refrain from crossing the border to save their lives. Is it immoral to flee when one's life is at risk, just because there is someone whose life is at greater risk and isn't fleeing? (clearly not).
With that criterion, why would it not be immoral for adult females to leave? After all, there are people left behind (sick, young children, etc.) who are less capable of fighting than they are?

Apart from these facts there is also the damage that large groups of single males from very backward cultures do to the host society. Witness the mass sexual assaults and gang rapes in Cologne on NYE.

I'm not sure "very backwards" is the problem, but sure, as I repeatedly said, males overall tend to cause more damage than females.
Male children grow of course, and probably in the same culture (considering their mothers, the adult males of the same cultural background already there, and the internet).

At the very least there should be a one man only in the company of one woman or one child policy, but given the current gender disparity I would say a 'no more single males policy' is justifiable.

On the basis of the damage alone, leaving aside danger, accusations, etc.?
That would be another argument, and another conversation. I think that would be exaggerated - there are cases in which they're clearly being targetted, and it's too strict -, but as a general policy for cases in which one has limited info (e.g., who's a refugee, and who's an economic migrant), a policy intended to reduce the percentage of males could make sense (though as always, it depends on the specific situation of the host country, the people seeking to be granted refugee status, etc.).

 

[mojorising]

Is your your condemnantion for all single adult males who flee a war zone, as long as there are at least some females or children left, or are you talking about a male who lives his wife and/or children?

Family men should bring their families. Other men should assist in moving the remaining women and children out of harms way. If they did this then their would be no disparity in the gender numbers of arriving refugees. It is a fairly simple and reasonable position.

Single male refugess who choose to to help their female and young compatriots should stay in camps in neighbournig MENA countries with a view to returning home when the conflict is over.

Families and single women and orphaned children can get refuge in western countries.

Why should he not, say, cross the border and seek refuge in Jordan or Turkey?

He should travel in a group with women and children. He can afford some protection to the women and children and the refugee countries get a balanced intake.

On average - i.e., against all threats, considering all adult males -, that's true, but it's an average that doesn't tell us much about the individual situation, or even the situations of members of targetted groups.

But on average it is still true that women are more vulnerable and men are better able to physically defend themselves so it is a valid basis for formulating policy.

But that's not to say that the same males that fled successfully would have a better chance at surviving (or at surviving without joining murderous gangs) than females that stayed.

Females and children are more vulnerable to violence and aggression than men. Men can afford protection to women and children. Men should be the last to leave a combat zone when their is a civilian population of women and children also trying to leave.

You persistently do not address that point, or my points about the risks their face, and the lack of a non-evil group that they could join and that has any remote chance of not being defeated.

They don't have to join an existing group. They could start their own group. But they don't have to fight at all. They can just go and stay in a camp in a neighbouring MENA country. They should not be allowed into western countries as refugees unless they bring some women and children.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Family men should bring their families. Other men should assist in moving the remaining women and children out of harms way. If they did this then their would be no disparity in the gender numbers of arriving refugees. It is a fairly simple and reasonable position.

Single male refugess who choose to to help their female and young compatriots should stay in camps in neighbournig MENA countries with a view to returning home when the conflict is over.

Families and single women and orphaned children can get refuge in western countries.

I was asking for clarity.
The most probable interpretation of your reply is that your moral condemnation (quoted above) is for all single adult males who flee a war zone, as long as there are at least some females or children left, given that you now say "Other men should assist in moving the remaining women and children out of harms way."

I don't see why. Someone fearing for his life has no moral obligation to stay put, facing a vastly superior opponent with no chance of any sort of significant opposition on his part, only because there are some adult females and some children in the area. In fact, I don't see why he would have an obligation to risk his life if, say, he had a 1/2 chance of survival and 1/2 of winning, for the sake of strangers. That might be praiseworthy, but why would that be morally obligatory?

Moreover, why would it not be immoral for adult females to leave, as long as there are weaker people (e.g., ill people, elderly, children) who haven't left?

Let's say Shehada doesn't want to join IS/Al-Nusra, or the Syrian army (all groups that engage in atrocities against civilians, and the only available options), or be executed for failing to join them, or be killed by Russian bombs or Iranian troops.
Why should he not, say, cross the border and seek refuge in Jordan or Turkey?

He should travel in a group with women and children. He can afford some protection to the women and children and the refugee countries get a balanced intake.

First, he probably can't if he found such groups (being with them would make him more vulnerable instead), unless perhaps the group is made up mostly of males.
Second, there may well not be such handy groups of females and children willing to go with any unrelated males.
Third, even if he did that, he would still be leaving many other females and children behind.

But on average it is still true that women are more vulnerable and men are better able to physically defend themselves so it is a valid basis for formulating policy.

But the average against all threats isn't a valid basis for formulating policy when that includes threats not related to the conflict at hand, and which the people towards whom the policy is intended are not facing and will not face.

Females and children are more vulnerable to violence and aggression than men. Men can afford protection to women and children. Men should be the last to leave a combat zone when their is a civilian population of women and children also trying to leave.

You keep saying that.
But no, a random male offers no protection against a well-armed gang of males, for example.

They don't have to join an existing group. They could start their own group. But they don't have to fight at all. They can just go and stay in a camp in a neighbouring MENA country. They should not be allowed into western countries as refugees unless they bring some women and children.

First, no, most of them couldn't start their own group.
Try to put yourself in their shoes. Let's say that Shehada doesn't have military training, or a group. His town is being bombed by Russia, and on the ground, Hezbollah and Al-Nusra are fighting. Realistically, there is absolutely no way he can start a group and fight them, with any chance of not either joining an evil group, or getting killed.

Second, the other alternative you provide now is far better of course, but it seems at odds with your moral claims that they should stay and fight, that it's morally shameful for them to leave, etc. But if you're getting convinced, great.

 

[mojorising]

You know as well as I do that the disparity between the genders in the numbers of asylum seekers is shameful to the males who have run away.

There is no way to argue around the numbers.

Men should not leave women and children in a war zone and flee to save their own skins in such numbers.

Large numbers of males bring social unrest to progressive host nations especially when they come from such backwards cultures and think sexual assault and gang rape are all in an evening's fun.

The sensible policy for Europe in the short term is to say no more males full stop.

Once the numbers start to balance out a bit we could start to readmit males as long as they have females or children with them.

In future we should make sure that offers to assist large migrations of refugees come with stipulations about gender ratios in order to properly incentivise unscrupulous males who see no shame in pushing women and children out of the way to save their own skin.

 

[bigfield]

Just what this forum needs--another chickenhawk.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You know as well as I do that the disparity between the genders in the numbers of asylum seekers is shameful to the males who have run away.

Now you're making a false and unjustified claim about me, implying that I'm lying. I'm not, and of course I do not know that the sex disparity is shameful to the adult males who have run away.
In fact, I know that it's not. Some of the males who have run away abandoned their families immorally, but there is no good reason to believe that all or almost all or most should be ashamed of the sex disparity.

There is no way to argue around the numbers.

But I'm not trying to argue around the numbers. I'm rejecting some of your moral claims.

Men should not leave women and children in a war zone and flee to save their own skins in such numbers.

And again, you're placing an obligation on all those males to risk their lives (or surely just lose them, depending on the case) for the sake of strangers. I disagree.

Would it be immoral for females to flee leaving children, ill people, etc., in a war zone?

Large numbers of males bring social unrest to progressive host nations especially when they come from such backwards cultures and think sexual assault and gang rape are all in an evening's fun.

I'm not sure "backwards" is the right word (Does India count as "backwards"?), but yes, large numbers of males are likely to cause considerably more violence than large numbers of females, and that's particularly more so when the males come from violent cultures, or cultures that see violence against those who behave like many females in the host country as justified.

The sensible policy for Europe in the short term is to say no more males full stop.

Europe is not an individual. Leaders can only go so far. And they cannot make that choice - their power is limited by factors such as rival politicians and public opinion.

Once the numbers start to balance out a bit we could start to readmit males as long as they have females or children with them.

We? You're not in Europe.

In future we should make sure that offers to assist large migrations of refugees come with stipulations about gender ratios in order to properly incentivise unscrupulous males who see no shame in pushing women and children out of the way to save their own skin.

You're making lots of unjustified claims about male refugees. Most male refugees aren't pushing anyone out of the way. They're just running away.

 

[Will Wiley]

I think there are several benefits to a women and children only policy for refugees.

Only if the women are virgins. After all no male refugee has done anything useful. It's biblical in a roundabout way

16"Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD. 17"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

Fortunately Matt Slick is here to help.
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties...were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites

 

[mojorising]

We? You're not in Europe.

I was using the western 'we'.

Europe is not an individual. Leaders can only go so far. And they cannot make that choice - their power is limited by factors such as rival politicians and public opinion.

Europe is a single political entity in many ways, despite much factional division. I am suggesting in broad strokes what the policy should be going forward for accepting mass refugee migrations into Europe and the west in general.

The reasons why single men should be at the back of the queue are that:-

1. They cause social unrest and friction in the host societies which women and children do not.
2. They are stronger and better able to defend themselves than women and children in conflict zones.

The third argument is only relevant to the current situation

3. Males currently comprise a substantial majority of the already accepted refugee population. For the sake of population balance we should be pushing back on any more male refugees. We should be taking active steps to redress the current imbalance by either accepting no more males or males only with at least 2 women or children with them.

 

[Metaphor]

I was using the western 'we'.

Europe is not an individual. Leaders can only go so far. And they cannot make that choice - their power is limited by factors such as rival politicians and public opinion.

Europe is a single political entity in many ways, despite much factional division. I am suggesting in broad strokes what the policy should be going forward for accepting mass refugee migrations into Europe and the west in general.

The reasons why single men should be at the back of the queue are that:-

1. They cause social unrest and friction in the host societies which women and children do not.
2. They are stronger and better able to defend themselves than women and children in conflict zones.

The third argument is only relevant to the current situation

3. Males currently comprise a substantial majority of the already accepted refugee population. For the sake of population balance we should be pushing back on any more male refugees. We should be taking active steps to redress the current imbalance by either accepting no more males or males only with at least 2 women or children with them.

So gay men are shit outta luck in your plan.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I was using the western 'we'.

I see. But the numbers were from Europe. Do you have numbers for Australia?

Europe is a single political entity in many ways, despite much factional division. I am suggesting in broad strokes what the policy should be going forward for accepting mass refugee migrations into Europe and the west in general.

But my point is that the policy you say is sensible (i.e., no more males full stop) would not be implemented even if it gained the support of some or all EU chiefs of government - they don't have that level of power -, unless it gains the support of much of the general public - at least a majority, more likely a large majority.

As for the people in question, I doubt your arguments could persuade them - and if they did, they would be persuaded by arguments mixing both good and bad points.

Then again, it might be that trouble caused by some male immigrants - whether asylum seekers or not - will eventually convince them.

The reasons why single men should be at the back of the queue are that:-

1. They cause social unrest and friction in the host societies which women and children do not.

It's true that allowing in large numbers of males from the source countries of most present-day migrants will very probably result in further social unrest, friction, etc., as it has already been happening. But your argument seems like an overgeneralization.

Moreover, while women (i.e., females) tend not to cause that unrest/friction, as I pointed out, male children nearly always become adult males, and they are likely to become culturally similar to their parents - because of their mothers, because of adult males who already arrived and live there, because of the internet that allows them to contact people in their countries of origin, because of the presence of Europe-born males who grow into a culture very different from that of most Europeans, etc.

2. They are stronger and better able to defend themselves than women and children in conflict zones.

Sometimes they are, but then again, sometimes they're deliberately targeted (see the Politico article you linked to).

The third argument is only relevant to the current situation


3. Males currently comprise a substantial majority of the already accepted refugee population. For the sake of population balance we should be pushing back on any more male refugees. We should be taking active steps to redress the current imbalance by either accepting no more males or males only with at least 2 women or children with them.

There are a number of problems with that, such as:

a. Is that true of all Western countries?
You haven't produced evidence for them all.
b. Even if it's true, in most countries, refugees represent a minuscule proportion of the country's population, so a sex imbalance among barely registers among the general population.
c. You need to argue that imbalance is the problem, rather than males. But given that you're saying the problem is that males cause trouble (and overall, males are more likely to do so), why would a balance be a goal, rather than a higher percentage of females?

Let me put it in a different way: suppose in a country, there is an imbalance in the other direction (e.g., females outnumber males 3-1 among refugees). Would you say that for the sake of population balance, that's a good reason to push back on any more female refugees? (even if the other reasons count in the other direction; but we can address that too, changing the scenario).

 

[whichphilosophy]

I was using the western 'we'.

Europe is not an individual. Leaders can only go so far. And they cannot make that choice - their power is limited by factors such as rival politicians and public opinion.

Europe is a single political entity in many ways, despite much factional division. I am suggesting in broad strokes what the policy should be going forward for accepting mass refugee migrations into Europe and the west in general.

The reasons why single men should be at the back of the queue are that:-

1. They cause social unrest and friction in the host societies which women and children do not.
2. They are stronger and better able to defend themselves than women and children in conflict zones.

The third argument is only relevant to the current situation

3. Males currently comprise a substantial majority of the already accepted refugee population. For the sake of population balance we should be pushing back on any more male refugees. We should be taking active steps to redress the current imbalance by either accepting no more males or males only with at least 2 women or children with them.

The simple solution would be to turn back unqualified people at the border. Europe does not need economic migrants whether they are men or women. It has its own issues to attend to. Those vetted as asylum seekers can of course be given entry. Most coming over on the boats are not refugees but economic migrants.

 

[mojorising]

So gay men are shit outta luck in your plan.

Ideally I would make an exception for gay men since they are clearly in danger from the backwards culture of the middle east. It might be a bit difficult in practice since it would be easy to claim to be gay while actually being straight. But how many ME men would claim to be gay to get asylum? That would be very interesting to find out!

I see. But the numbers were from Europe. Do you have numbers for Australia?

Australia is accepting 12000 refugees. They have yet to arrive and I think there will be stipulations about gender balance similar to Canada but details have not been confirmed.

But my point is that the policy you say is sensible (i.e., no more males full stop) would not be implemented even if it gained the support of some or all EU chiefs of government - they don't have that level of power -, unless it gains the support of much of the general public - at least a majority, more likely a large majority.

Well that is really an argument about how effective European government is. I am more interested in the argument in principle about the refugee problem.

But your argument seems like an overgeneralization.

All policy implementation involves finding a balance between catering for the individualities of each case and effecting a policy that is best for the general situation. You say I over generalise but much of your earlier argument involved countering what I was saying generally with a myriad of specific hypothetical scenario objections.

male children nearly always become adult males, and they are likely to become culturally similar to their parents

Yes we also have a problem with second generation immigrants not integrating properly. That should also be addressed with other policy. I am mainly arguing about the short term strategy to deal with the current influx.

Sometimes they are, but then again, sometimes they're deliberately targeted (see the Politico article you linked to).

Yes the Politico article was quite fair by raising the specific issue that males could be considered targets specifically because they can be recruited or killed (since they are potential combat agents). I don't think on balance that is a good argument to justify males fleeing the war zone while leaving females and children behind. Females and children are more vulnerable on the whole than males I think.

a. Is that true of all Western countries?
You haven't produced evidence for them all.

The numbers are just for refugee influx as a total. I don't have country specific breakdown but I imagine it will be reflected by a similar disparity.

b. Even if it's true, in most countries, refugees represent a minuscule proportion of the country's population, so a sex imbalance among barely registers among the general population.

The Politico article outlined a detailed example of impact on populations in Sweden. Immigrant populations tend not mix thoroughly anyway so the gender imbalance and the frustration it causes will still be significant even if refugees are a small fraction of the total population.

Let me put it in a different way: suppose in a country, there is an imbalance in the other direction (e.g., females outnumber males 3-1 among refugees). Would you say that for the sake of population balance, that's a good reason to push back on any more female refugees?

It is quite a far-fetched scenario but for arguments sake I will respond. It is excessive numbers of males specifically that cause social problems. there is no evidence of excessive numbers of females causing increases in violence and unrest in populations so I would say that the reverse argument does not work. Also females are still the ones who are more vulnerable to harm from violence in war so they would still merit higher consideration.

Perhaps if the numbers were very skewed then males could even be given priority but I cannot see this being a realistic scenario.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Australia is accepting 12000 refugees. They have yet to arrive and I think there will be stipulations about gender balance similar to Canada but details have not been confirmed.

Okay, so at this point there is no imbalance in Australia.

All policy implementation involves finding a balance between catering for the individualities of each case and effecting a policy that is best for the general situation. You say I over generalise but much of your earlier argument involved countering what I was saying generally with a myriad of specific hypothetical scenario objections.

No, I was (mostly) objecting to the generalization of moral condemnation - as well as to some other moral claims.

Policy implementation needs to consider probability of certain outcomes. It doesn't need to morally condemn people who did nothing wrong.

Yes we also have a problem with second generation immigrants not integrating properly. That should also be addressed with other policy. I am mainly arguing about the short term strategy to deal with the current influx.

But my point is about what will probably happen with many male children in the current influx who become adult males.

Yes the Politico article was quite fair by raising the specific issue that males could be considered targets specifically because they can be recruited or killed (since they are potential combat agents). I don't think on balance that is a good argument to justify males fleeing the war zone while leaving females and children behind. Females and children are more vulnerable on the whole than males I think.

If adult males are specially targetted, then females and children are not more vulnerable. On that note, do you have any figures regarding adult male civilian casualties vs. adult female civilian casualties?
But that aside, I don't agree that they need an argument to flee from mortal danger in order to try (almost certainly futilly) to protect unrelated females and children, because I don't see why people would have a moral obligation to risk their lives like that for strangers - even if the risk were even greater for strangers. Using the expression "leaving behind" suggests an obligation not to leave.

The numbers are just for refugee influx as a total. I don't have country specific breakdown but I imagine it will be reflected by a similar disparity.

Actually, not in Australia, at this point - for instance.
So, point 3. does not apply to Australia.

The Politico article outlined a detailed example of impact on populations in Sweden. Immigrant populations tend not mix thoroughly anyway so the gender imbalance and the frustration it causes will still be significant even if refugees are a small fraction of the total population.

But that's to a considerable extent due to bad policies in the host countries, blocking integration.

It is quite a far-fetched scenario but for arguments sake I will respond. It is excessive numbers of males specifically that cause social problems. there is no evidence of excessive numbers of females causing increases in violence and unrest in populations so I would say that the reverse argument does not work. Also females are still the ones who are more vulnerable to harm from violence in war so they would still merit higher consideration.

Perhaps if the numbers were very skewed then males could even be given priority but I cannot see this being a realistic scenario.

Okay, so you think that if there were similar numbers of males and females, there would be no significantly more social problems than, say, females outnumbering males 3:1?

Because if you think equal numbers still cause more problems than much greater numbers of females, point 3. would not seem to add anything to point 1 - imbalance wouldn't seem to be the issue, but males.

 

[Jayjay]

Because if you think equal numbers still cause more problems than much greater numbers of females, point 3. would not seem to add anything to point 1 - imbalance wouldn't seem to be the issue, but males.

Just because imbalance wouldn't be the only issue, doesn't mean it isn't an issue. I think he made it clear that it was just one reason among many.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because if you think equal numbers still cause more problems than much greater numbers of females, point 3. would not seem to add anything to point 1 - imbalance wouldn't seem to be the issue, but males.

Just because imbalance wouldn't be the only issue, doesn't mean it isn't an issue. I think he made it clear that it was just one reason among many.

He said it was an issue, as he said a number of other things. I'm probing that particular part of his argument to see whether it actually adds anything, which is not clear to me.