Comments by "Lewis Smith" (@lewissmith350) on "andrew gold | heretics."
channel.
-
He is not disgusted at them at all, he disagrees with certain agendas of the trans rights lobby, and accepts biological sex has massive consequences, so should affect laws and safeguarding rules to protect and defend womens rights and safeguarding, but he has compassion and understanding for them. .i would say his view is the moderate centrist sensible position, opposed to hatred and bullying and bigotry v trans people, supportive of gay rights, but also equally opposed to the fanatics who believe biological sex should not be classed as far more important than gender idealogy, and opposing the fantasies who deny the obvious glaring existence of recognition that biological women exist, as biological women rights matter. As does recognizing biological women exist, and this has consequences on safety and all that.
28
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
I agree, that idea that any human with a IQ under 80, could function is daft, and that would be so for any neolithic or even mesolithic society. Some of the IQ tests claim Nepal has a IQ score, which is impossibly low. They claim scores in the fifties, for a country, with beautiful temples, beyond the design of the average person anywhere, and of whom, the great sherpas and gerkhas came from. How could sherpa tensing have climbed Mount Everest if he had a IQ of the fifties, he would have slipped to his death in no time with a IQ that low. How come so many gerkhas learned great English and were able to handle being great soldiers. The believers in racial IQs are fantasists. And hilariously most of them on this YouTube comments spell worse even than me. Even Bushmen and aborigine lifestyle need a IQ well over 80 to survive, what with their cultural stuff, if you watch how rich their cultures are, you realize they can not possibly have the IQs the racialists like to claim for them. I mean who invented the boomerang, or the pygmy cultures, that ray mears and the like see. There is no way iqs are all that different, that can't be explained for now by culture.
6
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
I think trans rights at its most extreme is nothing to do with feminism, in fact its quite the opposite, its people were assigned at birth male, expecting everybody to see them and their world view as what matters most, if anything its quite a pompous macho assertiveness. Also i think it actually descended off lgb rights activism, for 2 main reasons, what happened was, just like heterosexuals have various ways of being hetero, so do gay men, and some gay men see a varied gender spectrum element as important to their sexualities, so they see trans rights as integral to their sexuality, and identity, they are such a strong element of the lgb community, that this became a gay rights issue, then even though many gay men have a version of homosexuality, which is different, and sees the biological divides in sex as being fundemental to their, sexuality, these gays are ignored by what have become lgbt groups, then of course some lesbians care even more so seeing, the fundemental divides of biological sex as wholly important to them, then they were the free core of fighting intelectually against extreme trans rights in britain. They allied to a rump element of the right on this issue, and some free thinking figures on the intellectual left. The reason extreme trans rights did so well in the 2010s, was as gay rights was a massive left right political issue on the west till then, but then in the left wing Victory on gay marriage ,i believe the right surrendered, like iraqis to the Americans in the gulf war, or germans to the allies in 1945, and what had been a hard fought war of attrition became total abject absolute total surrender, so even right wing institutions surrendered totally on trans rights with no debate. The debate was picked up, and now even the centre left agree with much of the gender critical line, even after having voted aspects of trans rights through with no debate whatsoever. I mean we should have a world for all, that loves everyone, whoever they are, but most agree biological sex exists.
2
-
Also undestably a lot of males who are attracted to women, had gender dysphoria, and their disophoria was coated into the lgb rights panorama, which made lgb so LGBT rights more pro the trans agenda, than against, so it be same part of the LGBT ticket. Which many gender critical people could not understand as gay seems so different to trans. Also the big difference with gay rights is this impact so massively on non gay people, so instead of the live and live way being applicable, people say, how can I live in this, if I don't ask for some reasonable boundaries. I think that's why so many things became pro LGBT rights, that's my dispassionate analysis there.
2
-
2
-
​​​​ @Lollero200q yes, let them be, but also have safeguarding for kids in terms of chemicals and surgeries, and for womens rights, have fair women's sports, where the best biological women win, let people be attracted to the sex they want, without condemnation, and have capacity for sex based women safe spaces. Let biological women and biological men be, as well, we all matter, not just some people. Love all. And you said on a manner of words you don't care if people ruin their lives, so don't pretend your on the caring side. A lot of trans activism is just people who don't care about the consequences, it's like dog eat dog capitalism. That kind of libertarian thinking is why the us has its fentanyl problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2