Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "Joe Rogan u0026 Matt Walsh On The Different Types Of Trans People" video.

Transgenderism remains a wholly incoherent worldview. One in which people confuse gender roles and norms with gender itself (or appeal to circular reasoning). One in which they insist others are incorrect in using terms like "man" or 'woman" while being unable to provide objective definitions for these terms themselves. And one in which they often even confuse disagreement with hate, which is not only illogical but dangerous.
3
That's why they keep attacking Matt Walsh on irrelevant or minor points, etc. Anything to distract from that question.
3
They don't have time to be all objective and shit, they're doing "science"!
3
@jessereaghen5099 What's your source for that? I mean, full disclosure, I'll maintain that transgenderism is incoherent and foolish either way, but still.
2
@bobbun4369 Yeah, it's strange how these people think they're somehow above Matt Walsh intellectually, when they can't answer the simple question of "What is a woman?"
2
No good. They'll just start telling the kids they can "identify" as adults next.
2
@albertgreen8347 If they were in agreement that a woman was someone who was born female, that'd be nice, but generally they believe quite the opposite.
2
Well said!
2
@KenanTheFab We are literally asking you to define your terms. So pretending we're not trying to "educate ourselves" won't work here.
2
@KenanTheFab "you truly do not care lmao" Unfounded and irrelevant. "there are plenty of videos and posts out there with the answers you want" I happen to have watched many of them, and all of them fail (when they even try) to provide objective, workable definitions for their terms. "Woman is a label that changes between culture, country and even families." Granted. But what does it mean in your worldview in the here and now? "and as such a woman is someone who identifies as one defined around what we currently define woman as." ...which is? And do you really think it follows that identifying as x makes you x?
2
And also to encourage them to stick with this worldview which only increases their suicide rate, to show that we "love" them.
2
Agreed. There are about a thousand irrelevant personal attacks against Walsh here, and not a single objective definition for "woman", lol.
2
Well said. And congrats for having a sane parent!
2
What's ironic is they usually dismiss detransitioners by saying they're extremely rare. Yet... trans people are extremely rare but they insist they have a voice and representation literally everywhere.
1
Evading the key questions is pretty much their M.O.
1
Well currently, they will tell you you're presenting a slippery slope fallacy. But they don't seem to realize that their key premise ("I am x because I identify as x") can and probably will be used to argue for what you're describing.
1
@bobbun4369 Indeed. So long as these "experts" can't even give an objective definition for terms like "man" or "woman", we've no reason to take them seriously.
1
@PlatinumAltaria "It's not a "worldview"," Sure it is; it's a collection of beliefs you live your life in accordance with. I even named a couple of those beliefs in the OP. "I don't confuse gender roles with gender," Okay then, what is gender?
1
@bobbun4369 Not answering questions is pretty much their M.O.
1
@Kaimosae Yes, but regarding everything else, things are defined in an objective way (referencing some objective reality, not just "Do they identify as x?") A woman is an adult human female, with "female" being someone whose development didn't involve both an active SRY gene and active androgen receptors. This causes her body to develop largely toward the purpose of producing large gametes (ova), although rare defects can sometimes prevent the actual production.
1
Didn't one of the higher ups with Disney admit to having a "not-so-secret gay agenda" (their words) not long ago?
1
@samuelrosander1048 Right, but part of that aim for inclusivity is to normalize the behavior. I mean, don't get me wrong, I have no issues with homosexuality (I do oppose transgenderism though). I was only saying this isn't something the conservatives have necessarily made up out of nowhere.
1
@samuelrosander1048 Yeah I think you have a prejudiced view of conservatives. We don't all think these people are recruiting or trying to indoctrinate the youth. As I said though, even aiming to be "inclusive" means at very least normalizing a given behavior. As for transgenderism, there is a huge difference between that incoherent worldview and just being attracted to someone of a different gender. When gay people begin failing to define "gay", "man", "woman", etc. then we can compare these.
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
Well said.
1
Exactly.
1
@KenanTheFab "A woman is someone who identifies as one. That is the simplest definition-" There's nothing simple about that at all. It may be easier to say, but it's a very incoherent statement because it still doesn't tell us anything about what they're identifying as. Is "woman" just a meaningless series of letters now? "unless you wanna fall into a really deep hole of defining even more things." Well yes, definitions in general use words that are different from the one to be defined.
1
@KenanTheFab Wait. So you're admitting that on your worldview, "woman" is a meaningless series of letters? So with it not having any sort of objective definition, wouldn't that mean no one can ever be correct/incorrect in using the term?
1
@KenanTheFab "It always has been and always will be." On your worldview, sure. On mine, a woman is an adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body developed primarily toward the purpose of producing large gametes (ova). This would include those who, due to aging, defects, etc., cannot actually produce ova. "It would be inaccurate to call someone who does not identify as a woman a woman" Logically impossible for anyone to be inaccurate while using terms that have no objective definitions.
1
Difference is, if you ask a black man to define "black" or "man", he can do so without circular reasoning. Same if you ask a gay man to define "gay" or "man".
1
Not these people, that's for sure.
1
Agreed.
1