Youtube comments of Snuzzle (@Snuzzled).

  1. 129
  2. 117
  3. 37
  4. 33
  5. 32
  6. 21
  7.  @nickthepostpunk5766  Autogynephilia is a proposed typology wherein a person is aroused by the thought of themselves as a woman. The original paper by Blanchard was only studied in trans women, but was never compared to cis women. This was a mistake, as it meant that it was never shown to be something unique to trans women. And when cis women were held to the same standards, of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93 percent of cis women were autogynephilic according to a 2009 study One cannot declare that a condition is unique to a certain group without testing other groups, right? The relevance is, that if cis women are overwhelmingly autogynephilic, then it's just a natural part of women's sexuality. And therefore, it shouldn't be shocking or seen as a negative that trans women also experience this. It's not a condition, it's just human sexuality. Some children who are referred to gender clinics are simply gay. Those children do not get diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The criteria for gender dysphoria diagnosis in youth is extremely strict. Autism and "difficult family backgrounds" have nothing whatsoever to do with gender incongruence. Stating such is a bit like the old myth that being gay is caused by lack of a father figure in a young boy's life, or a smothering mother. Gender clinics, as I said, are very thorough in ensuring that medical steps are right for a patient before allowing them to happen. That's why the regret rate for medical transition remains the lowest of any medical procedure, at less than two percent.
    21
  8. 21
  9. 20
  10. 19
  11. 18
  12. 16
  13. 15
  14. 13
  15. 13
  16. 12
  17. 11
  18. 11
  19. 11
  20. 9
  21. 9
  22. 9
  23. 8
  24. 8
  25. 8
  26. 8
  27. 8
  28. 7
  29. 7
  30. 7
  31. 7
  32. 7
  33. 7
  34. 6
  35. 6
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70.  @cgpcgp3239   @cgpcgp3239  Gender: c.1300, "kind, sort, class," from O. Fr. gendre (12c., Mod. Fr. genre), from stem of L. genus (gen. generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also (male or female) "sex" (see genus) and used to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c.; the man-or-woman from early 15c. Sex came to mean "sexual intercourse" in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and meaning "genitalia" is attested from 1938. "Sex appeal" attested by 1904. It is around this time that gender became more meaning physical sex rather than man/woman boy/girl. So, no. You are wrong, and will continue to be wrong. Gender being separate from sex was happening as early as the 1940s, perhaps earlier (we lost quite a lot of literature from the largest transgender institute in the 1930s in Germany...) This idea that so-called "gender ideology" or in other words "trans people exist" is younger than Taylor Swift is nonsense. Gender is a social construct. That's a fact. Guess what? So is the category of sex because humans created those two boxes. So of course most humans fit into one of those two boxes, because we made the boxes to fit what we saw. If we decided to categorize every human into "blue eyes" and "brown eyes" we'd find that, hey, pretty much every human fits into those boxes too! It doesn't mean very much except that we made the boxes so we decided the rules. That's all Abigail means when she said sex is changeable through medical intervention. Many, though of course not all, of the characteristics that determine which box a person goes in can be changed. When someone fits most of the characteristics of one box, and only some of the characteristics of the other, which box ought they to go in?
    2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93.  @CJ-wh3zy   You're seriously saying it's normal for people to misrepresent a film's purpose and hide the true makers when seeking out folks to interview for a film? That.... seems very unlikely and if that's true, it needs to change. Shady practices shouldn't be the norm. People typically have to disclose things such as the book's title, author, and publisher when interviewing someone for a book. Why is the same not true for a movie? I don't think it's morally ok to basically trick people into a film with a false pretense, and then point to the fact that they left when they realized what the film was actually about as a "win". Not saying you did this, but a lot of Matt Walsh fans definitely feel quite pleased with themselves when they saw the interviewers get up and leave, as though they simply couldn't answer Matt's simple questions. However, in context, I think it's pretty clear that's not the reason they left. These people should have been given the opportunity to give honest consent, and they got mad when they found out they weren't. That's understandable and reasonable. If no pro-trans people agree to be in his film when he honestly told them what it is about, well, that says a lot. He could still use quotes from pro-trans people, their articles, their research documents, etc. It wouldn't necessarily make the film more one sided by not being able to interview them in person. He used one trans teen boy's top surgery photos in his film (without the boy's consent, by the way) as well as clips from multiple trans peoples' tiktok and YouTube videos. And while it's true that these people put their videos online, and it may be legally fair use, I'm not sure, it shows that he's not shy about bringing people into the conversation without having them personally there to be interviewed. The words I would use to describe puberty blockers, aside from "puberty blockers," is medication, or more specifically a GnRH agonist. Hormone agonist, perhaps, for short, as that's what they do. I might use the brand name, Lupron. I wouldn't say "I'm having my morning drugs" when I drink my morning cup of coffee, even though caffeine is a drug and a stimulant. I'm glad you can agree that Matt was using deliberately emotive language there. As far as a way we can talk, I'm not sure. I don't really use other social media like Twitter. YouTube doesn't really have a direct message system as far as I know. I do want to thank you for listening and keeping an open mind. For what it's worth, if you want some more accurate data (though again, it will have a decidedly pro trans bias) I can recommend Cass Eris' channel. She did a wonderful breakdown on Abigail Shrier's book about trans youth, and you'll find a lot of the same statistics and papers Matt Walsh used. There's really a common theme with a lot of these anti-trans folks using the same data points over and over, so the nice part about that is that when someone brings actual data to the table it handily addresses dozens of videos and articles at once. Cass is a cognitive psychologist so she has the educational background necessary to really go in depth into the papers and break them down into layperson speech.
    1
  94.  @CJ-wh3zy   Here is the thing, though. You agree that, when he set out to make the video, he had a preconceived notion, yes? Would it also be fair, then, to state that his audience also had a preconceived notion going in to the film? Why, then, would it not be a better idea to leave in more of the answers that challenge that notion, if the object of the piece was truly to explore what a woman is, and what it means to different people? I think you're being a little disengenuous if you can't admit that he chose to portray the pro-trans side in a decidedly negative light. The people "just got up and left" because of the way he was deliberately phrasing his statements and questions. You may not be aware, but he was actually intentionally deceitful with the way he got a lot of these people in to be interviewed. When he was looking for people on the pro-trans side, he set up a website for a fake organization called the Gender Unity Project, with the actual people behind the project hidden under layers upon layers of registered agents and fake names (the person who contacted Eli Erlick, for example, used her first and middle name, because if you Google her first and last name it immediately comes up that she works with Matt Walsh.) Matt Walsh also, quote, in his own words, "declare(d) an all out war on gender ideology" in regards to the creation of this film. You don't think that's transphobic? These people were told, if we go by the email that Eli got, that the film would be quote "an independent documentary" "exploring the real lives of people in the lgbtqia+ community, and to shed some light on the topics of gender identity, and gender fluidity." I think a reasonable person would agree that is not an accurate description of the film that was produced. It sounds very neutral, positive even, and I believe you did agree that Matt Walsh's opinion of trans people is not neutral, and the film is not neutral. When these people realized that they were not being interviewed in good faith, they left. In one case, the person was a medical professional, and she simply asked Matt to stop using inflammatory phrases like I believe it was "giving drugs to children" (it's been a while since I've watched the thing, and I don't plan on watching it again so I don't recall the exact quote) and he refused. So she left. I agree that bias in creating an informative documentary is inevitable, but that doesn't mean that it can't be handled in a responsible way. When you know you are walking into a topic with a bias, you have even more responsibility to ensure you're not misrepresentating the other side (which I'd argue Matt did intentionally), and to ensuring your facts are correct (which his were not, not even close; he asserts that phalloplasty has a 67 percent complication rate when the reality is it is about thirty percent for both cis and trans men). Matt is not shy about stating exactly what he believes, directly inside the film. Quote: "You are all child abusers. You prey upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult, a cult which holds many fanatical views but none so deranged as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys." He then calls it "vile nonsense" and "poison." Is it really not transphobic to call trans people "deranged predators"?
    1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1