Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
15
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
More misrepresentation from Sam Seder. And you wonder why she won't debate you? The truth is that Candace was speaking facts that night. Even T.I. and Killer Mike were agreeing with a lot of what she said. T.I. only interrupted her because he could see she was tryna give a thoughtful answer. Can't have that! Gotta shut her up! Meanwhile, Killer Mike gave what seemed like a very similar answer to what she was trying to give. Yet he gets all the applause, Candace all the disdain. No surprise there.
So to answer T.I.'s question, we got to make up our minds if we are talking about how Americans in general were living or just the disparities between black and white Americans. If we're talking about the latter, it was in the 50s before the welfare state had been established. From there, we would see fatherlessness in the home skyrocket, being incentivized by the so-called "War on Poverty". Take Killer Mike's advice and read some Thomas Sowell if you don't know about it.
But if we're talking more generally, in recent years we've all enjoyed blessings in medicine, technology, access to information, etc. that those decades could only dream of. Americans of all colors and socioeconomic status are doing better than ever before. But I'd say it was greater maybe a decade ago, before the SJWs and feminists and race-baiters (more oppressive inventions of the left) were given so much power. In our universities, in Hollywood, in the mainstream media, everywhere. And they took aim at EVERYBODY Just got through tryna cancel Dave Chappelle. Before that they tried to get Mario Lopez fired because he said maybe we shouldn't let 3-year olds choose their fuckin' gender. Trump was a response to exactly that sort of bullshit. T.I. jumps back to before women could vote or before blacks were freed from slavery because it fits his agenda. There's no need for all that. We all know that part of why Trump's in office is because he's a giant middle finger to the establishment, career politicians, and everybody trying to shut us up. And that's real.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@mk......... "The real question is why this is so upsetting for you,"
No, that's just a question you're trying to use to get us off-topic. But to answer, nothing I've said suggests I'm upset about any of it. Are you meaning to ask "Why do you care so much?"
"If someone asks me to use the correct gender, I do so"
How do you know? What makes it the correct gender?
"cause I don't really give a sh!t."
Now that, I'm inclined to believe.
"If someone thinks he/she/it/whatever is a unicorn then I will call it a unicorn if it makes it feel better."
Lol, well at least you're trying to be consistent... so far. What about a white person who identifies as black? Or a 10-year old who identifies as 30?
"That's called being polite and kind."
There are many ways to be polite and kind, without blindly calling someone something they're not...
"And as long as it doesn't affect me personally,"
So you agree that people should be able to speak how they want, run their business how they want, etc.?
"Maybe it's because you want everyone to be like you"
Unfounded. Again, maybe you're meaning to simply ask me "Why do you care?" and just failing...
6
-
6
-
@DarkPuppy9 "well for starters nobody is indoctronating kids to be trans"
How could you possibly know that no one is doing this? And what does that have to do with anything I've said anyway?
"They do have definitions,"
All of them subjective and/or circular so far, yes, which is the problem.
"You see people don't explain it to you, because you don't want to listen and you engage in bad faith arguments."
Also unfounded. And I've actually had lots of people make an effort to explain it to me, but that resulted in me finding out there really isn't any sound logic there.
"No type of discrimination is justified"
Nonsense. We discriminate all the time. There's tons of things you can do that I wouldn't be permitted to do. Things having to do with your money, your home/business, your spouse (if you have one), etc. The question is never, "Is discrimination okay?" but always "What is justified and what is unjustified discrimination?" and then of course "Why?"
"I mean you're othering a minority,"
How do you mean "othering"? Just disagreeing? Because that's all I've done.
"insulting them and making accusations."
I haven't insulted them, no, and the only "accusation" I've made of trans people and trans advocates is that they subscribe to a worldview they cannot logically defend.
"So I'm sorry if you doing the same thing that people who commit violence do that I mistook you for one."
Except that's not what you did. People who commit violence are wrong because they commit violence, not because they might agree with any given statement. What next? Is "2+2=4" hate speech, since surely most violent criminals will agree with it?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@nvna1111 The point wasn't to compare "credibility" (which, anyone who can't give an objective, workable definition for "gender" shouldn't be considered an expert on the subject anyway). It was simply to show you why trying to redirect me to someone else to substantiate your position is silly.
"ur also right that basic research is just like a wild goose chase."
It is when I continuously come up empty-handed. No so-called "expert", no scientist, no doctor, no anyone has been able to define their terms in an objective way (that would support transgenderism). You don't believe I've looked hard enough. I don't believe you're truly confident there's a good answer; otherwise, you would've given it yourself.
"its a mystery how misgendering every trans person you meet-"
Not possible, on your worldview. So long as you fail to give an objective definition for terms like "man" or "woman", no one can ever be correct or incorrect in using these terms. Ironically, it's only those of us who reject modern gender theory would could accuse others of misgendering us in a coherent way.
"and denying their identity might fuck them up,"
Someone disagreeing with your beliefs should never mess you up...
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Celestina0 "I provided an objective definition for a woman already, someone with hair longer than 3 inches."
Is that really what you believe? So a woman who loses her hair due to alopecia or chemotherapy is no longer a woman?
"But I’m guessing you’d reject this criteria, despite the fact that it is objective and measurable. Why?"
No no, go right ahead calling everyone with hair longer than 3 inches a "woman" if you like. You will finally at least have a coherent worldview. Not that it will support your views on transgenderism or anything...
"Now how I determine women in practise is roughly whoever says they are a woman, true."
And that would not be an objective definition, since it is based only on someone's opinion (in this case, of themselves). So which is it really? The hair nonsense or the circular nonsense?
"But because when we’re talking about gender identity we’re talking about some kind of mental experience, we don’t have the technology or the understanding of human psychology sufficient enough to get to the root of what this experience ultimately is."
But people can "experience" all kinds of things that aren't real. So this doesn't seem like a good basis for saying "Yep, this is a woman".
"But we can’t find the neutron pathway that could predict whether someone likes marvel comics movies either, but you don’t reject the idea that some people are more prone to liking marvel comics movies than others."
Even that can be proven/disproven. If someone says they like Marvel comics but you discover they don't know anything about them, that person was lying/incorrect.
3
-
3
-
@Celestina0 Well just because there is a difference between a worldview being coherent and it being correct. What makes transgenderism incoherent (as well as incorrect) is that they want to say two things that are incompatible with eachother:
1. That people who call men who identify as women "men" are incorrect (e.g, misgendering).
and 2. There isn't an objective definition for terms like "man" or "woman".
Since it's logically impossible to be correct or incorrect while using terms with no objective definition, that makes their worldview not only incorrect but incoherent.
"So a chair is TYPICALLY a seat with four legs, not always. So I can define women similarly, typically a woman is a human being with two xx chromosomes, a womb, etc. but not always."
What you're not getting is that the "but not always" part does not mean anyone called a woman is a woman, any more than it means anything you call a chair is a chair. There is still an objective standard for chairs, bananas, planets, etc. You only want to make an exception for this regarding gender. And I'm still not getting an answer as to why.
"And no I don’t believe that a woman is defined by whoever says they are, because I accept the possibility that some people may be lying."
But do you recognize that some people might also be wrong, even if sincere, on this? Because if not, then you define "woman" as someone who identifies (sincerely identifies, doesn't just claim to identify) as a woman. It's the same circular, non-objective definition.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nvna1111 "im not here to define and explain to you all the nuances of gender"
Clearly. But you made the claim that I'm incorrect on this. I'm just saying that in order to substantiate your claim, you would need to explain why I'm incorrect. Defining "man", "woman", or "gender" would be a great start.
"you wrote a dumb and disrespectful comment."
1. You haven't established that it was dumb. Indeed you're now saying you're not inclined to even try.
and 2. Disagreement =/= disrespect. Or, if you're just protesting the fact that I'm disrespecting the worldview itself, there's no such thing as a moral obligation to respect ideas, beliefs, etc.
"if you truly have any motivation to learn,"
Not the topic (I could be the closed-minded type and still be correct on this). But do you really think you're the first trans advocate I've spoken with? How many hundreds or thousands of subscribers to this worldview (including "experts") must I talk to before I'm allowed to disagree with it?
"you claim it doesnt make sense."
I've given reasons why it doesn't make sense, actually. The only one making assertions without backing them up here, is you.
"will only serve to ruin trans peoples lives"
What exactly are you saying will ruin their lives? Me disagreeing with them? How would that happen if they're otherwise mentally healthy people? Again, if you want to establish that I'm wrong here, you'll need to explain why. Sending me on a wild goose chase won't work anymore for your side, than if I were to tell you "Transgenderism is incoherent, and just watch all of Matt Walsh's videos if you want to know why".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gigameter I explained very clearly how it's a worldview (which beliefs it entails), and followed that up in my last comment by citing what I believe to be the central belief of it. So far, you haven't addressed the original points made in the first comment.
"How are sex and gender not separate things in your mind?"
Sex and gender are one and the same, which is why the roles we're expected to play based on our biological sex are called "gender roles". Moreover, modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) has consistently failed to give any objective, workable definitions for "gender" to establish it as something different from sex.
"If sex and gender were the same thing, why are gender roles so different when comparing different species that have the same sexual roles?"
Gender roles being different between species doesn't do anything to suggest that gender itself is different from sex. I'm not denying the existence of gender roles and norms, or variance in them from one species to another, one culture to another, etc.; I'm saying that to equate them with gender itself is a mistake.
"If gender and sex are the same, shouldn’t gender roles and sexual roles be exactly the same for every species that has males and females?"
No, because gender roles and norms are socially constructed. But that doesn't mean gender is socially constructed.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First off, disagreement =/= hate, and it's not only illogical but dangerous of you to equate the two. Second, it's not actually possible to misgender anyone, on your worldview, because your side consistently fails to provide any sort of objective standard by which someone qualifies as a man or woman to begin with. It's logically impossible to be correct/incorrect in using terms with no such objective standard.
As for defining "female", it doesn't work to say that a female is someone who identifies as female, because you're still appealing to circular logic. But a female is someone whose body developed largely toward the function of bearing children. This would also apply to so-called "intersex" people, as having a few abnormalities does not make you some mysterious third gender, no gender, etc.
2
-
2
-
@wulf67 "...a comment about the “beauty of having the freedom to choose how you want to live your life”?"
That wasn't the comment I was replying to (obviously). It was your claim that "no one cares what you prefer" when your side of this issue continuously criticizes tradwives. I see through that claim, is the point.
"I just want everyone to be happy, and the clearest empirical evidence that someone is happy with their life is that they’re not trying to convince everyone, including anonymous strangers on the internet, that their way is “better.”"
And yet here you are, trying to convincing anonymous strangers on the internet that not trying to convince someone that their way is better, is better 😉
"You trying to convince everyone that your way is “ better” seems like contempt for the lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness of everyone else"
Irony aside, I know the political left loves to call every form of disagreement "hate" or "phobia" (when it's convenient), but even "contempt" is still a bit silly. Don't you find that when and if someone is correct that a certain way is better, then they should say that, and maybe others should even agree? I mean, that premise shouldn't be controversial even if you disagree that traditional marriage is indeed better.
"If we say that your “trad” lifestyle is “better” will you go way and live your own superior life in peace and harmonious bliss?"
I'm not so selfish as that. I want everyone to have a better life, not just me 😋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DarkPuppy9 "no, you haven't given arguments to the contrary"
Sure I have. For example, I pointed out that we are expected to adhere to certain roles purely based on our biological sex, and those roles are called "gender roles", indicating that sex and gender are indeed synonymous. People just look at me, determine I'm biologically male, and expect me to adhere to the gender roles and gender norms of a man.
I've also pointed out that since you cannot give an objective definition for terms like "man" or "woman", on your worldview, this makes it impossible to misgender anyone. After all, if there is no objective standard to meet to qualify as either a man or woman, then no one can be correct or incorrect while using these terms.
Ironically, it's only those of us who reject transgenderism that can accuse others of misgendering them in a coherent way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Celestina0 By "objective", I mean a definition based on something outside of opinion or feelings. And we require objective standards for everything else we wish to say "I'm correct and you're incorrect" on. Why make an exception for gender?
"Not even definitions for the simplest things, like chairs. If a chair can be ‘typically a seat with four legs’, leaving open the possibility of a chair with three legs,"
But it would still exclude something like an orange, or a computer. Meaning the definition includes some standard a thing would have to meet, in order to be a chair.
"then a woman can be defined as ‘typically someone with two xx chromosomes’, leaving open for women with different chromosomal makeup."
Well it already does as far as that goes. What makes someone a male or female isn't quite as simple as their chromosomes. But that doesn't mean there isn't an objective standard. Indeed, it has to do with whether or not your development involved an active SRY gene and functional androgen receptors.
The point is simply that it's more than "someone who identifies as a woman". And to the extent that you insist what obligates me to call someone a woman is that they identify as one, then it follows we're similarly obligated to call anyone anything (or anyone else) on that same basis. In short, transgenderism is inconsistent as well as incoherent.
2
-
@Celestina0 "...defined by the decisions we make collectively about how we communicate with each other about each other and the world."
Which, again, also refers to something objectively true or real. So for example, we don't call someone a lawyer if they don't have a law degree. We don't call them a basketball player if they've never touched a basketball, etc. Now, again, what is the difference between someone who identifies as a woman and is correct, and someone who identifies as a woman and is incorrect?
"So misgendering is not a question of whether someone’s ‘correct’ about a transgender man being a man or a woman,"
Then it isn't actually MISgendering. That's the point there. The essential complaint is then "You're not doing what I want you to".
"It is wrong to misgender people, I.e. refer to them as female when they insist on being referred to as male, because we SHOULD want to categorise people in a way that improves their wellbeing and allows everyone to function happily and healthily in society."
Not at all. Something making a person feel happier in no way obligates everyone (or anyone) to do it. You can feel happy in any number of ways, including doing truly immoral things. And those who experience gender dysphoria can choose a logical, coherent approach or something like transgenderism. If they choose the latter, I'm in no way morally obligated to facilitate that.
"When we say a chair is typically a seat with four legs, it’s not that oranges or computers are not, objectively, chairs,"
Sure it is. Because we've given an objective standard for chairs which excludes oranges and computers.
"but that it would render the word useless if we included oranges and computers in that category."
Likewise, it renders the word "woman" useless to say that anyone who identifies as a woman is one.
2
-
@Celestina0 No, they support my point which is that we have objective standards by which we correct everyone else who claims/believes themselves to be something they aren't. And I ask you again, why should gender be the exception?
"Neither having a law degree makes someone a lawyer, and nor does touching a basketball make someone a basketball player."
But both of these things are required. Therefore, if they don't have a law degree they are not a lawyer, and if they've never touched a basketball, they're not a basketball player...
"I mean, try and define art. Is there one common thing that links every piece of art and excludes everything that isn’t?"
Yes. Art is something created. If it wasn't created by anyone, it isn't art.
"I want a happier, healthier society,"
Which typically requires minimizing cognitive dissonance. Not subscribing to worldviews you cannot logically defend (neither to others or even yourself). And definitely not equating disagreement with hate; that will only make you less happy and less healthy.
"This is proven to improve the wellbeing of trans people."
As said before, there are many ways of achieving a goal, and sometimes that goal may even be achieved long-term. But that doesn't mean it was the best way, nor does it necessarily take into account other harms you are doing (e.g., you admitted earlier you'd treat a 40-year old like a 10-year old, which reveals a very dangerous precedent you've set by accepting transgenderism).
"You can’t claim to have found the true definition of women, to which transwomen don’t conform,"
Sure I can. A woman is an adult human female (someone whose development didn't involve both an active SRY gene and active androgen receptors).
And the harm is all on your side. For promoting an incoherent worldview to begin with, which leads many to mutilating their bodies permanently and even encourages them to feel hated when most of the time they are merely being disagreed with.
2
-
@Celestina0 "All you seem to be saying is that a category needs at least one necessary condition to be met in order for someone or something to belong to that category."
Yes, that is in general how we all operate in our use of language.
"You need to be a human to be a woman."
But also to be a man, right? So what is the difference, according to your worldview?
"Your attempt to define art is telling, because you’ve identified a necessary condition, I.e., being created by human hands, but your definition lets in loads of stuff nobody would want to call art. Is a Big Mac art?"
Actually there's probably someone who considers a Big Mac they've just created for a customer "art", lol, but that's besides the point. I didn't say everything that is created is art, I just answered your question about having one way of separating art from non-art.
"Now you claim to have found the true definition of woman, but how can you demonstrate that this is the true definition?"
Not necessary; I can fully admit that we all sort of agree socially what is/isn't a particular thing. The definitions are chosen subjectively but based on something objective as I've demonstrated. So again, we can correct a person who claims/believes that they're 10 years old (when they're not), that they're a lawyer (when they're not), literally anything else. But you want to make an exception for gender, why?
2
-
2
-
@Celestina0 "why do you choose to define women in such a way that it excludes transwomen."
Because there are many biological differences between men (including so-called "transwomen") and women, and the only definition on offer for "woman" on your worldview seems to be, "someone who identifies as a woman" which is no definition at all.
"Neither of us can provide an objective true definition of what a woman is,"
I can and have. All it requires is a definition referring to something objectively true/real, same as we do for literally any other descriptor we would seek to correct someone on.
"I’ve given my opinion of how I think we should categorise people, which in practice respects peoples professed gender identities."
Would you similarly "respect" if a 40-year old white person identified as a 10-year old black person?
"Doing so improves peoples lives in quite straightforward, demonstrable ways."
Again, there are many ways of improving your life, even if you experience gender dysphoria. The vast majority of children who are treated for gender dysphoria do not show continued dysphoria as adults.
The question is, of the ways a person can feel better, is the best way to subscribe to an incoherent worldview in which they think it's possible for someone to "misgender" them with terms that have no objective definition? Is what's truly in their best interest a belief system teaching them that those who simply disagree with them actually hate their guts? Well, I'm quite skeptical of that.
"What I think you’re still trying to do, is to suggest that transwomen arent ‘actually’ women, and so they’re deluded."
Indeed! After all, literally the only thing supposedly obligating me to call them women is just that they identify as such. You tell me, what's the difference between that and a delusion? Again, what is the difference between someone who believes they're a woman and is correct, and someone who believes they're a woman and is incorrect?
"You might be right to call them deluded if they believed they were born with vaginas,"
Why? Why couldn't they just identify as people with natural vaginas? And would you correct them if they did? After all, they could just say "You're trying to impose your definition of 'vagina' onto others". Maybe what you traditionally call a "penis" is what they will call a "vagina", hmm?
"They just want to be accepted into that rough class of people we call women"
Everyone would like to be accepted as something or another they're not. I would like to be accepted as Elon Musk's 12-year old son. It would certainly make my life a lot easier and I've good reason to think I'd be happier that way. Now... why can't I do this? Since "being respectful" (as you conceptualize it) is the highest priority?
"who tend to certain behaviours, certain roles and expectations in our society."
Right, this is the confusing of the inclination/disinclination to adhere to certain gender roles and norms with gender itself I mentioned earlier. None of that means or implies you're the opposite gender. Never has, and never will.
2
-
2
-
@Celestina0 "We do distinguish between cis-men and cis-women."
I said men and women. What is the difference? You're still not able to say. And Idk why you keep bringing up chromosomes; I told you, the difference between a male and a female has to do with the SRY gene and androgen receptors.
"If someone says they’re ten years old, and they mean that they’ve been on this earth for ten years when they actually haven’t,"
No, even without that, if they say "I identify as 40 years old" (just like how a "woman" will want to be treated like a woman) would you treat them like a 40-year old. Yes or no?
"But this isn’t what’s happening with trans women. They’re not saying they were born with xx chromosomes, or that they have vaginas."
But they're wanting to be called "women" and treated the same way as women regardless. The point is that coming up with a different word/using an established word a different way doesn't solve the problem. If the person in question used a different word for "40 years old" which meant they wanted to be treated like a 40-year old, what difference would it make?
"And detransitioners make up only a small proportion of people who’ve undergone transition."
So we're told. But again, we already know that the vast majority of children treated for gender dysphoria in gender clinics (which isn't even all of the ones who experience it) do not continue to have dysphoria in adulthood. So for all we know, most people really shouldn't be "transitioning" even if the worldview were coherent, which it isn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eiyukabe "Like I said -- you can't when all arid land is already owned."
We were talking about the individual "having to" buy from businesses, right? Well that's what I was saying; you only have to buy what you can't/won't grow on your own property.
"You're not entitled to their labor, but you are no less entitled to the land they have monopolized than they are"
Eh? Who the hell has monopolized land? You're not making any sense. No, people (tons of different people) own land because they or their ancestors bought it. And by the way, if we keep giving the government more power, then there will be a monopoly on the land and one that it's literally impossible to break.
"just because they got there first or had the largest army to take it."
Well we draw a clear distinction between the two. The latter is truly just "might makes right", the former is that, even though you had an advantage (not always, mind you, but usually), the land wasn't acquired by force but mutual exchange, and with money you typically had to create value for others in order to get.
"If we are talking about people staking out the property that they need for their families (and no more)that is one thing -- but businesses try to own as much as they possibly can."
So you would have everyone grow their own food?
"If left unregulated, all arid land in a region would very quickly become privatized from a gold rush frenzy mentality. At that stage they aren't "laboring" even though they will later -- they are simply hoarding for wealth."
If they can come up with enough uses of it to make it worth the money, they might. But more likely they'll expand as they can make that expanse worthwhile.
"And the only reason you "need" their labor to give you food is because they took your ability to labor for food"
I disagree. I could be growing tomatoes (at very least) outside my house right now, but I choose not to. I'd rather buy it, so I can spend my time sitting here arguing with you about how bad capitalism sucks :P
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Then they would only build roads that benefit them."
Same for the government. Plus the government doesn't really have any direct incentive to do their job fully. And if they can get more votes or funding from higher government another way, they've no reason to build/maintain most roads.
"But what will the poor do for roads?"
Like you said, it's not a terribly difficult thing to build one. Are you saying the poor are too stupid to build a functional dirt road? And BTW they'd be less poor if they didn't have to pay taxes...
"But then the rich people won't let them use the roads they built!"
Fine, someone else will find a way to build one for public use and monetize it. You don't realize that your "Greed!" and "Lust for power!" narratives are conflicting here. And besides which, maybe you're just projecting your own personal potential attitudes in such an economy. Maybe you would be like that, but you haven't given us any reason to think anyone else would.
"They would determine what benefits them not by having a civic society."
Unfounded. Who are you to say that wealthy people wouldn't want a "civic society", or that it wouldn't be "smart" to work towards one? Seems to me that depends on your values. If I personally care about x problem in society, I'm going to want to fund fixing that problem, whether a monetary payback is promised or no.
And let's not forget about charity. People give tons of money to strangers for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical expenses, the list goes on forever. But then with roads no one would contribute (if and when the need arose) because, reasons?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@f.u.c8308 Well, the very reason few anti-theists admit that's what they are is because they know it puts a burden of proof on their shoulders no one's been able to bear. It is, by definition, opposing theism. But to justify that, you'd have to show that theism is false. Originally, I thought like you did, that if it's harmful in and of itself (which also hasn't been proven), that's reason enough to oppose it. However, if we discovered that god did in fact exist, we wouldn't deny that. We'd be theists, and we'd simply work to minimize whatever harm came from acknowledging god exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samuelrosander1048 "sex and gender are not the same,"
Sure they are, and we've known that for a long time. It's the very reason the roles we're expected to play based solely on our biological sex are called "gender roles" to begin with. And when people deny this they usually do it by confusing gender itself with the inclination/disinclination to adhere to certain gender roles and norms.
"Is it XX and XY chromosomes? What about people who have XXY or just X?
Is it a penis and vagina? What about people who are born intersex?
Is it the ability to produce eggs? What if you have a penis and also a functioning uterus?"
These are indeed faulty definitions conservatives unfortunately offer. In reality, it has to do with the SRY gene and androgen receptors. If your development involved an active SRY gene and active androgen receptors, you develop as male. Otherwise you're female.
"gender is not easy to define, because on what do you base it?"
I base it on biological sex, as was customary in American English until fairly recently.
"What about "men" who are more domestic more "feminine" in their behavior/thinking/interests? What about "women" who are more aggressive and "masculine" in their behavior/thinking/interests? Should the "man" who is more like a "woman" be beaten into submission until they behave like a "man?""
No, but you are highlighting the confusion of gender with one's inclinations regarding gender roles and norms I mentioned previously. And another problem with that definition for "gender" would be that it isn't even workable with transgenderism itself. After all, if someone adheres to all of the behavioral norms and socially constructed roles of a man, but identifies as a woman, which one are they?
"In reality, the kids aren't being hurt by anyone but the conservatives"
You don't consider an increased suicide rate harm? I mean, I get that you place all of the blame for it on those who reject transgenderism, but it could just easily be due in part to committing yourself to a worldview you cannot logically defend (to yourself or others) along with the common trans belief that tons of people don't just disagree with you but hate you personally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Celestina0 "finding a single characteristic that all women have and all none women don’t is a fools’ errand."
Apparently not, since I've done just that (again, there being active SRY and active androgen receptors in their development).
"Generally women want to be referred to as women, identify as women, and typically dress and behave in certain ways that distinguished them from typically male patterns of dress and behaviour."
But wanting to be, identifying as, and "acting like" a woman doesn't make you one. Otherwise, you're admitting there's no objective definition and therefore no way for anyone to be correct/incorrect while using terms like "man" or "woman" on your worldview.
"You obviously keep insisting it has to do with SRY gene and androgen receptors… receptors which everyone has by the way."
Ah, but if they are not active and paired with active SRY genes, you get a female, never a male. This is why there are only types of gametes, BTW, and why there are only two genders.
"And I don’t even know what treating someone as if they were forty years old would even mean."
Seriously? You don't think we treat 40-year olds differently from 10-year olds?
"And your claim about children in gender clinics kind of disproves all the scaremongering about gender clinics right?"
Depends on what exactly is being done in them, naturally (which will surely vary from place to place and time to time). And it's not a claim, it's established science. Studies have been done and replicated to show that gender dysphoria typically does not continue into adulthood.
1
-
@Celestina0 "saying you define women as not having SRY genes, because women don’t have SRY genes,"
Not quite the standard I cited, but go on...
"is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT."
That's not why it's defined that way. We've created the word "woman" to distinguish those without this particular development from those with it (aka "men"). All definitions can be accused of circular reasoning in this same fashion, but it's imperative if we're going to use language effectively.
"And I already said debating the correctness or incorrectness of definitions is pointless,"
Which isn't addressing my point. The point is you cannot call someone's use of a word correct or incorrect (e.g., can't say they're misgendering) if you admit the word doesn't have an objective standard at all. That places it squarely in the realm of subjective opinion where no one is correct or incorrect.
"So please explain the utility of your trans-exclusive categorisation and why I should drop my trans-inclusive one."
Let's not pretend you're not just as "exclusive", with your comments on how you would treat a 10-year old who identified as 40, first of all (not letting them operate machinery or drive cars). And secondly, the utility in defining every word is simply to give clear distinctions. You haven't offered one that will do so on your worldview, so I'm not the one on trial here when it comes to that.
1
-
@Celestina0 "How is it POSSIBLE that woman emerged as a concept to refer to people with inactive SRY genes/androgen receptors or whateverthefuck, BEFORE people even knew what SRY genes were,"
Oh I'm definitely not making that claim. But people have observed the differences between what we've called "men" and "women" since long before we understood what made them develop so differently.
"before they even began to think that words even NEEDED definitions?"
Well it's kind of like hunger, or thirst, in that regard. Humans have recognized the need for food and water since the beginning of humankind, but only recently (in the grand scale of human history) came to understand why. Same for precise language (including definitions).
"I already said that the critique of misgendering isn’t based on correctness or incorrectness."
Which means it isn't actually MISgendering.
"It is wrong to misgender someone-"
It's impossible to misgender someone, on your worldview, as I've shown. But I understand that you mean "It's wrong to call someone a gender they don't identify as".
"because it is extremely disrespectful to deny someone such a simple common courtesy."
It being simple in no way means I'm obligated to do it. And it's not common to call someone something they're not (which was my earlier point on the inconsistency of transgenderism). So how can we conclude that anyone "should" call someone a woman when we can't even decisively conclude that they are a woman.
Basically, so long as you can't distinguish between someone who identifies as a woman and is correct and someone who identifies as a woman and is incorrect, you can't say I'm right/wrong for using these terms either.
"It would be like refusing to use someone’s name properly."
Not at all. Because you can change your name, but you can't change your gender.
"As I’ve shown ten times, your claim to have the true definition of woman/man is completely empty, based on circular reasoning."
It's not a question of having a "true" definition of something (We both acknowledge those are subjectively chosen by society at large). But the definition itself should be based on something objective (if we're wishing to claim someone is using the term incorrectly) and non-circular. The typical answer for defining "woman" on your worldview, for example, is "Someone who identifies as a woman". That's obviously subjective and circular, so we can't take that seriously.
"If a ten year old claims to be forty, and what they mean by that is that they were born in 1982, then that is something we can objectively verify as true or false."
The scenario presented to you was not that. I was asking if a ten-year old who identified as forty, should be called and treated as a 40-year old based on their self-identification. These "women" (men who identify as women) may freely admit to being biologically male, but they still want to be treated like the biological females are. So if they get to be plainly called "women" and treated the same as actual women, why wouldn't you call a 10-year old 40 and treat them exactly as an actual 40-year old (you said you wouldn't let them operate heavy machinery or drive cars, for example)?
Also note that any talk of "maturity level" misses the point of the question. You don't require any of these biological males who identify as women to meet some criteria apart from just identifying as women. Why would you require someone born ten years ago but identifying as forty to meet some criteria apart from identifying as forty?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@laurelbeach4529 If there was a demand for it (e.g., if there was no tax-paid option), someone would step up to make a profit from that service as well. And they'd probably find a way to do it cheaper and/or better as businesses tend to do vs. the government.
I'm also more concerned with what's motivated by profit (or fear of loss) vs. what can be stolen, than what can be considered "centralized". Wal-Mart is not successful because it managed to "centralize" something; it's successful because it found a way to provide goods cheaper than most companies. And it only did that because it couldn't just take our money and give us an unverifiable claim that it did something good for us in return.
I don't think our healthcare system is worse than most developed nations (the insurance statistics often given are misrepresentations, playing with the definitions of "underinsured" and so on), but in any case the healthcare system is already run by our government so that's not to be blamed on the free market in the least. Generally, the most regulated industries are the ones in which costs continue to rise, with the healthcare and higher education industries being at the top of the list.
But yes, if we could find a way to always have benevolent dictators, we'd see better results (provided they were also always competent and knowledgeable). But the free market seems to provide cheaper and more efficient means, so that's what I support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1