Comments by "Lewis Smith" (@lewissmith350) on "Why Not Identify As A Dog! - Richard Dawkins on Transgender u0026 J K Rowling" video.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ProfessorChaos1349 But would you agree that the term woman, was never a term that only a obscure trade knew, people would have had such a term since the times of homosapiens arrival in Europe. It's not some never heard of idea, it's a term we couldn't live without. Probably even Neanderthals had a term for men, and a term for women. Additionally 99 percent of the words in any scientific paper are common a garden words everybody uses, like and, or, today, Tuesday, the number one, or man or woman.dont muddy the waters and pretend man or women are unknown words. They have a definition, and everyone comprehends that is a common term, it's fairly reasonables.
3
-
@ProfessorChaos1349 but the word woman in the way Dawkins is using it, is the definition that has existed since the dawn of human language, it's only a political belief , a terminological sleight of hand, that is desiring to change the definition, purely for the sake of what could be called trans rights. It's not science that desired to change the definition, but a political idealogy,that had a set aim, so to pretend he is being wrong on the science, as some politically inspired people, want the term to be changed to what they want, is wrong, he is just not obeying the beliefs of people such as yourself.
3
-
@ProfessorChaos1349 totally agree, that in itself, it is not offensive, but changing the language, and concepts of terms, massively important terms that have been used since the dawn of time, for the sake of a political aim, and not thinking about the consequences and affects it has on all societies and such, is unreasonable, and to them claim anybody who does not unswervingly go along with it, even if they have sensible criticism of the politically motivated change, to claim that anybody who does not unquestioningly go along with this change, is being something to look down on, i feel thats unfair.
3
-
NoBut why do folk like Caitlyn Jenner, and Eddie izzard, who identified as trans but were born biological male, behave more like the stereotype of a quite macho man, specially before they transitioned, remember Caitlin jenner after transitioning threatening ben Shapiro in a debate, hardly a dainty feminine act. And Izzard was always running marathons, and dominating panel shows with a strong persona. Great person,, but what about their behaviour indicates they are more feminine than most men, which surely would occur, if there was such a thing as female brains. If men are from Mars and women from Venus as the book claims in a joke, what about them seems venusian. And both are still attracted to women, I mean can you tell me, in what ways they behave like a typical woman. And the typical extreme trans rights activist often is a biological male, arguing and debating like a aggressive domineering biological male debates, indeed often in a more mansplaining way, than most cis males. Please explain how that is so. Please inform me, as I love to learn. So as of that I think the gender critical idea makes sense, that biological sex exists, there is much variation in personality, sexuality etc in each gender, there are tougher men weaker men, homosexuals and heterosexuals and all sorts, and even biological males who identify as women, but that does not stop biological sex existing, and vice versa for women, females, and heterosexuals and homosexuals are as normal as eachother, but it does not stop sex existence.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
When I say the term woman, I mean it in the sense that every tribe in history had such a word, and every language, and it is one of the most important words any language has, I am sure when homo etectus developed language it was one of the first thousand words, and it meant biological woman, as most people in society means by it, in every land today. Don't pretend a confused unclear idealogy that is trying to appropriate the word, is society, and if you think the word is unimportant, don't write loads of comments about it. Also if you think Dawkins does not know about intersex, you have a very unfair and rude lack of knowledge about him, watch his other videos and he mentions it, and says it's not a separate sex, he knows about it
2
-
@ProfessorChaos1349 it's not misleading, intersex is not a sex, it's a perfectly normal, nothing to be ashamed about deviation from the regular wonder of the universe that is binary biological sex. Think how amazing it is that biological sex occurred from evolution, but as has been said multiple times, intersex in most cases it's just a deviation from the regular biologigy, and in a super small number of cases, harder to define, not that we have to, but it's not some brand new sex. I have nothing against you supporting trans rights, but the term woman, referred to biological women since the Neanderthals and before, the idea that a bunch of political activists can appropriate this term, is just not a goer, it's the most important terms in the lexicon in this field, whether youb are using the french, german or japanese equivalent, so in that way it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist to use it in the way he uses it, he does not have to tow a political line, of using language in the way a particular trans rights activist demands, more so as some even want to ban the term biological sex, and especially when so many sorts of things, on womens rights, and society would be affected if we just take the trans rights activist position, as paramount, and ignore every other aspect of society being affected by these issues. So no, Dawkins is right to use the words he uses, not obey the Orwellian newspeak of the more aggressive trans rights activists. He can use the term woman, in the way he intends. Ps you have the right to use the term woman in the way you wish, but don't have a right to impose your definition of the word on Dawkins, but feel free to use it in whatever way you wish. Why do trans rights activists feel it is their right to impose vast swathes of vocabulary and radically new definitions of extremely important words on society, I think they have a right to use words how they like, but it is obviously political and domineering to expect everybody else to accept new definitions of the word woman, or use terms like assigned at birth, when it's observed.
2
-
@ProfessorChaos1349 nuanced, that's a word that's being misused here, in the sense that fox news or pro Highland clearances people start their sentences with the words, no it's more nuanced than you think, then proceed to say what they think, that expelling crofters was perfectly ok, or trump's mean remarks on a issue should be forgotten. It's the same here, you say it's nuanced, but just say the inaccurate idea that sex is not binary as of intersex, when intersex is clearly not a sex. Also to appropriate the term woman, a term that has existed since the Neanderthals, and to not massively caveat the consequences of this, is either deliberately spin doctor style wrong, or super naive, . The way you use the word nuanced, is like someone at a party saying to the twenty other guests, well may I in a more nuanced way have all the birthday cake for myself. Clearly the trans activist position is to claim biological sex is a impossible to understand muddied thing, that is meaningless, so the only definition we should use to define gender is self id, or a version of that, when on reality, biological sex clearly exists and for well over ninety nine percent of people is a prime detail of them, so to deny it's importance is extremist and naive. And what about when biological males have gender affirming care, to be more like biological women, a sex change operation, and such, all this proves the whole idea of a woman is based on the proven reality of biological sex existence, and to deny it's importance is just a denial of rational observations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@denzellmovies good correction, it was someone called Zoey tur, who made that threat to shapiro. i am not saying running a marathon is masculine, but running 50 of them, to great acclaim, is not a famously effeminate activity. The whole idea of the word feminine is based on the idea biological women exist, and things they do are classed as feminine, things biological men do are classed as masculine, if a biological male behaves very masculine, and macho, but his brain waves are similar to a woman's usual brain waves, and maybe some of these such folk believe they are women, and some believe they are men, what should society do. I say we still accept biological sex exists, and is very important, and it's ok to accept it's important in policy making.the problem with your argument is that plenty of biological males who identify as women, who are actually as macho as most other biological males, so whats the big deal about the brain waves, why does that mean anything. Are you agreeing that if a biological male identifies as a woman, and his brain waves and patterns are similar to a woman's, then it certainly does not mean that he will be more inclined to statistically feminine traits in personality, of on average being much less aggressive, and certainly won't be the case he shall automatically a kind of shrinking violet, dainty feminine jane austen character lady, stuck in a biological males body. I am not being mean there, but if you look a trans rights campaigners and their aggressiveness, it's often far more macho than feminine, correct me if i am wrong. I mean I like izzard who is a great comedian, and labourite, but I remember one of izzards shows had a bit, where izzard was rightly proud of fighting back some thugs who made some homophobic bullying remarks towards said izzard,, while look at Riley gaines, when she had some aggressive bullies surrounding and intimidate her she did a normal feminine thing of seeking safety. I mean look at all these let women speak events where a bunch of middle aged female professors stand at a street corner just making a speech, and then tra activists make threats and come looking for a physical fight,, and have banners making terrible threats about what they dismissively and macho and dehumanisingly call terfs. Surely the brain waves or pattern thing does not change the reality, that biological sex exists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Cardinal_Hordriss it is Orwellian, as everybody who had any even mild criticism, to your slogans and laws was the victim of Orwellian campaigns to silence them, even jk Rowling, chapelle and Dawkins. It did not succeed for them, but people lower down, were sacked just for saying biological sex exists And we totally accept there are people who are trans, there is just a debate about women's safe spaces and sports, and the right of people to be attracted to the biological sex they choose, without condemnation by trans activists. Look at the Wikipedia page on gender critical feminism, it is just a Orwellian hit job, ninety percent coffee which is about trying to link it with the right and far right. No attempt to understand that some people believe biological sex exists, that we should treat trans with respect, but also biological sex exists, has consequences, and the law should be partly be moulded about that fact, not just Orwellian slogans of believers in gender idealogy. I mean even Dawkins video has been demonetised, on this channel, can you think of any gender idealogy videos demonetised, for saying their beliefs on n the subject.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
No, he is right. He is not half way to being wrong, he is just right. The problem with the sapolsky idea. Is that even if you believe that a biological male who identifies as a woman, identifies as a woman because they're brain tells them they are a woman. Maybe because their neurons are the same as a woman's neurons. Even then, the reality is, biological sex still exists. So in all sorts of statistics, biological males who identify as women offer the same risks as biological males who identify as males. So, yes a biological male may believe that he is a woman, but because of his instincts and so many things about him, then he has the same level of threat towards women as other biological males. Look at crime stats, trans women are closer to cis males, at many important crimes, per population. Whether it is certain violent crimes, or s🤒x offences, I I am not saying they are more of a threat. They are not more of a threat. Also in sports they have those advantages as well, and the rest of the population can see they have those advantages and certain personality traits, that biological males, who identify as men also have. Look at the debate here. Gender critical women debate like, by writing eight thousand page tomes, and sit at tables speaking like a jane Austin character, about why they want trans people to be respected, but biological sex exists, and has consequences on biological women and biological men, so biological women exist, while trans rights campaigners have Hamas style slogans, with threats against their opponents on banners, which also use dismissive terms about what they call the terfs we ho they are threatening. Then they try and ban people from having gender critical views, and label them in a dismissive macho way, like only really powerful aggressive biological males can do. Surely the reality is gender disphoria exists, but it does not stop biological sex and it's instincts existence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
but what if somebody believes it is their identity, and has a affinity with ostriches, like in the jungle book. I mean who are you to say what's acceptable or unacceptable, I'm not saying you don't have that right, ,but what makes it so, you can judge them on this issue. What's the big picture here, on the ostrich question, the right or the wrong. And who are you to say it is cartoonish. What if somebody believes they are a ostrich, surely that is possible, it must be, as people have done much more unusual things than that. And what about the perfectly well respected idea of native American spirit animals, like eagles or bears, isn't that identity.
1
-
@denzellmovies well then it makes the comparison not offensive, some people were offended when Dawkins compared a biological man. identifying as a woman, to identifying as a dog, but are you saying these people are being reasonable or unreasonable,if its ok to identify as a ostrich. Are you saying it's ok, to say they are a hateful ignorant out of date, bigot, to be compared with n,azis and racists and homophobes, if they don't accept the person is absolutely a ostrich. Like what most trans rights campaigners say about gender critical critics of the gender idealougues. To be honest, I don't think identifying as a ostrich makes you a ostrich,band I think mild gender critical views are pretty much a sensible way forward. We should be tolerant to trans, welcome them into society, but also accept biological sex exists, and we must decry those who bully gender critical believers. Muitos apolgencia, if I sound a little hot headed there. I mean no offence. Have a great time.
1
-
@denzellmovies 😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢?ernie the ostrich, 😊? ?well maybe i have talked too long. That's where I leave this thread. Other than this, you are absolutely correct to have found out that some people believe gender, is a term that refers to identity and self expression, and some people believe it is more correct to define it by the same way we define sex. This truly is a interesting place for varied opinions. Well done you for looking at this subject, and deciding that you believe it refers to identity. What is your view though of those whose belief that gender as a word, refers to sex as well. Surely it's ok for them to choose that as the definition, just as some people who believe in gender idealogy, think the term women, should also include what they refer to a trans women. Do words matter here, can people use the terms dependent on their interpretation. Good week to yourself. Ps I am not saying anybody is lying about anything, so don't put words on my mouth there as i know one tool trans activists have, is to higher the temperature of the debate, by making allegations, about those on the gender critical side, to make it sound like they are just hateful and should be ignored, when in reality, all that has happened, is sometimes gender crirical people they are not Always agreeing with their opponents very rigid one dimensional terms, or interpretations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cardinal_Hordriss that was a very long essay, and I have not the time to answer all. It's too tiring. But gender critical people do not want to oppress trans people. Dawkins and Rowling are not calling them freaks, they would treat them politely and as human beings,. Like he did to Jan Morris, All they are saying is biological sex exists, and has consequences, and law should therefore be structured with that reality in mind. A biological male who identifies as a female is much a threat to women, as a biological male who identifies as a man. Also I would say be who you want to be, but also accept biological sex exists. I condemn anybody who bullies people for being trans, but gender critical feminists have a problem with trans biological males who identify as women in women's sport as of them being biological males, not as they are trans. Also to be honest I would say the people at the bottom of society in many ways, below trans, in terms of their treatment are the homeless, the severely mentally challenged, the severely disabled, some criminals, some victims of crimes even after the crimes , afghan women, thelidimdide sufferers and the like, i mean look on the bright side. On some things trans are actually quite elite, like there were three trans roman emperors, so let's not pretend you are like pathetic creatures, your not treated like jennifer Lawrence or arnie in their prime, but few of us are. I get called horrible names as well, but I don't twist this into reasons to blame nice people like jk Rowling.
1
-
@Cardinal_Hordriss why do trans activists always compare biological men competing in women's sports, to black women competing in women's sports. It's really racism to say that. I mean why do they never say, well if it's ok for young white canadian daughters of the liberal middle class to compete in women's sports, it's ok for big tough biological males to compete. It's as they are racist. Also jk Rowling is a hero, for standing up to Orwellian bullies, who twist her words, . And nobody said those boxers are trans, they say they are intersex, which is very different. Also look af Rachel devine, that's someone with power, who has used it for trans rights activism as well. And I agree most people in power at not at all trans, but it is wrong to ignore the concerns of others, with throwvawayvdismiss
1
-
I dont hate trans people, if we had a trans pm, I would have no problem, if I had a trans work mate, I would have no problem, if i had a trans kid, or wife or husband , or doctor, i would not mind. By gosh trans are no threats to us whatever per say. What I hate is bullying trans activists calling people names, for saying biological sex exists. I abhor that, as I hate people being condemned for saying inoffensive truth, that people should just get over and accept. When you consider there are guys with no arms and legs, or who are blind and such, who don't go around hating everybody for not agreeing with everything they say, it gets on my nerves that people call Dawkins and Rowling names when they are nice people, just for not agreeing with then, and there are plenty of gangsters, dictators bullies, thugs and skinhead, racists, and bullies fior them to hate, but these bullies pick on jk rowling, for defending biological women, from a nuanced feature of debate. Stop calling people horrible names for not agreeing wholeheartedly with your idealogy, stop being bigots, it's horrible what extreme trans activists say about nice decent left wingers, just for saying biological sex exists and has consequences. Stop calling people bigoted, or ignorant or far right, just as they say biological sex exists. We should love everyone non trans, and trans, but don't call people bigots for saying biological sex exists. Stop it, it's not nice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think Dawkins has anything against adults choosing to do what they want to. Remember he has much respect for Jan Morris. But we do need nuanced laws, tolerating and accepting trans people, but accepting for safeguarding that biological sex exists, for sports, dating, and women's safe spaces. Also there are reasnoble debates about puberty blockers, and transitioning for non adults, and Dawkins accepts that, he is actually the moderate living caring centrist moderate view, neither hateful and nasty far right, or biological denying trans rights extremists. He has it just right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rowling and gold and Dawkins would abhor anybody being bullied or beaten up for being trans. But in the debate on trans rights, definitely it's just macho slogans hate, and orwellianism and gas lighting from trans activists, v effete intellectual respectful tone writing, tip toe careful language gender critical people, who always say they respect trans people and oppose bullying v them. And the Dana Rivers case, and others are indicative of the aggressive nature of extreme trans rights activists, while Dawkins sitting at a desk saying he has compassion and understanding for jan Morris, is indicative of the GC side.hebis not effete, but gc women are. Indeed most mainstream trans rights campaigners believe people should be arrested, or fired or cancelled for expressing gender critical views, believing in a policy of fear, making people scared to be gc, which gc people do not believe in vice versa.
1
-
1