Comments by "Sander x" (@Pumbear) on "Addressing Richard Dawkins' comments on "trans ideology" @RenegadeScienceTeacher" video.

@8:30 - 9:04 This segment is just so disingenuous ending in such a dumb point I had to turn off the video. At no point is Dawkins implying that women are just birthing machines. What he did was mention the physical ways in which the sexes are different. And pregnancy isn't just a superficial difference either since the existence of the human species relies on women uniquely having that ability. Fundamentally though the point is that these words have information. By using the terms man or woman the listener actually learns something about the person that is being described. So instead of being reductive, they actually add to the person that is being described. By calling someone a woman I have now learned relevant information about their biology. Let's compare that to Forrest' interpretation of the word woman: "Women are diverse, women are interesting, women have different ways of being women and women are all fucking awesome". This tells me absolutely fuck all. If you'd swap the word women for men it would change nothing and so it tells you nothing. It's just a weird opinion piece that isn't even true, because obviously not all women are fucking awesome. Unless this guy turns out to be Ghislaine Maxwell's sole remaining stan.
24
The attempted psy-op to say that gender and sex were never synonymous is the creepiest thing. If they were never synonymous then why would they recently change the naming from "gender reassignment surgery" to "gender reaffirming surgery"? The earlier term only makes sense in a context wherein sex and gender were colloquially seen as synonymous.
1
@pauldaigle2344 Explain to me how pronouns weren't based on sex, but on gender, when pronouns predate gender theory by millennia? Do you truly believe cavemen and -women had to ask each other their pronouns before understanding what they were?
1
This has nothing to do with atheism.
1