Transgender

[Gralin]

Discussion continuing in Part 2 found here

Transgender - Part 2

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Gethelred]

The whole film reminded me of the old adage about how people won't be persuaded by logic and reasoning if they didn't reach their position by logic and reasoning in the first place.

These people aren't redefining woman because they found a more scientific, more rational framework. They're redefining because the new definition is emotionally satisfying and fits with the values of their worldview- diversity and inclusion.

They think the traditional definition is bigoted. Whether their new definition is coherent is completely incidental to these people.

Admitting the reasoning is circular and their definition defines nothing is a far lesser evil to these gender studies goons than being on the side of "bigoted fascists" who are supposedly causing immense harm to trans people. "Bigoted fascists" or whatever label they pick this week.

Are we up to the bit where you accuse everyone you disagree with of the things you yourself are doing?

 

[Chief]

Whether their new definition is coherent is completely incidental to these people.

you know you can admit you just don't understand it, right?

 

[the_interloper]

Just watched the first half hour: my god it's hard to watch in parts. The exchange with the gender studies professor at around 25 mins is properly cringe-inducing. Can he really not see the problem with defining woman as "someone who identifies as a woman"? I suspect he can, but would sooner look like a complete half-wit than say anything that risks bringing his politics into question.

The interview with Michelle Forcier (pediatrician with blue hair at around 28 mins) is probably worse.

Absolutely, and Walsh appeared to just let him talk and talk and then eventually ask some difficult questions. You can see the confidence of a sheltered academic at the start eventually filter away and he ends up very angry and tying himself in knots.

I rewatched yesterday and remember the ending now, when Walsh's wife needs help with opening a jar and he gives the "ah the world is ok again" sort of look. Kind of a strange ending but makes sense for him I guess, I do think the film discusses some important points and the ending lets it down a bit.

Ehh you and me might be the only ones in here that'll watch it anyway haha

 

[Bloods86]

Absolutely, and Walsh appeared to just let him talk and talk and then eventually ask some difficult questions. You can see the confidence of a sheltered academic at the start eventually filter away and he ends up very angry and tying himself in knots.

I rewatched yesterday and remember the ending now, when Walsh's wife needs help with opening a jar and he gives the "ah the world is ok again" sort of look. Kind of a strange ending but makes sense for him I guess, I do think the film discusses some important points and the ending lets it down a bit.

Ehh you and me might be the only ones in here that'll watch it anyway haha

I'll be giving it a watch sometime now that I don't have to pay the Daily Wire. Dishonest ideologues like Walsh are always going to carefully select who he talks to and would only include favourable segments. I certainly wouldn't be judging the strength of arguments based on the people and discussion Walsh lets on camera, or is willing to pit himself against.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Absolutely, and Walsh appeared to just let him talk and talk and then eventually ask some difficult questions. You can see the confidence of a sheltered academic at the start eventually filter away and he ends up very angry and tying himself in knots.

I rewatched yesterday and remember the ending now, when Walsh's wife needs help with opening a jar and he gives the "ah the world is ok again" sort of look. Kind of a strange ending but makes sense for him I guess, I do think the film discusses some important points and the ending lets it down a bit.

Ehh you and me might be the only ones in here that'll watch it anyway haha

Did they show the bit where Walsh terrorizes his pregnant wife?

 

[Chief]

then eventually ask some difficult questions

They were nonsensical questions that showed Walsh is a deeply unserious person.

He even got to edit it to make himself look good, and he still looked like an idiot.

 

[Chief]

Did they show the bit where Walsh terrorizes his pregnant wife?

No that was Crowder. Unless Walsh did the same thing?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

No that was Crowder. Unless Walsh did the same thing?

Ah. All them bigots look the same.

 

[Chief]

Ah. All them bigots look the same.

Crowder has had more gender-affirming surgery.

 

[Gough]

Does anyone seriously think a guy whose Wiki entry (I had to Google him) says he's primarily known for anti LGBTQIA+ activism really be capable of making a film on transgenderism that should be treated with anything other than riotous laughter and some piteous finger pointing in his direction. Honestly, some people deserve to be conned.

 

[the_interloper]

I'll be giving it a watch sometime now that I don't have to pay the Daily Wire. Dishonest ideologues like Walsh are always going to carefully select who he talks to and would only include favourable segments. I certainly wouldn't be judging the strength of arguments based on the people and discussion Walsh lets on camera, or is willing to pit himself against.

Well yeah of course, it's worth remembering that no doubt.

They were nonsensical questions that showed Walsh is a deeply unserious person.

He even got to edit it to make himself look good, and he still looked like an idiot.

I'm guessing you've only seen this interview with a commentary and edit by your purple lensed mate?

And old mate gave some nonsensical answers, I mean you can't be too smart to define a word using that word.

Did they show the bit where Walsh terrorizes his pregnant wife?

I haven't heard of him doing that, Crowder sure did (he's a dickhead btw)

 

[Chief]

And old mate gave some nonsensical answers, I mean you can't be too smart to define a word using that word.

He's an academic and was using academic terms. Sure "a woman is an adult female" or whatever works most of the time. If you're an academic you likely want to be more exact.

It betrays the fear he wants to I instil in people: something along the lines that academic elites believe in nothing, have nothing in common with good normal people and want to change the world to fit their nihilistic view. Listen to the conservatives. Who are on your side and want lower taxes. Subscribe to their streaming service.

Here's a fun take on Walshy and Jordy doing their nonsense:

 

[Bloods86]

And old mate gave some nonsensical answers, I mean you can't be too smart to define a word using that word.

Depends on whether you think the title "What" (is a woman), makes sense. I.e. a woman is something that can be concretely defined, or at least as definitively as say "adult human biological female", which women typically are. Rather than "Who" (is a woman), with women being a social category, closely but not entirely, linked to biological sex, where defining a woman e.g. what a woman acts like, what a woman does, how a woman thinks, is subject to the stereotypes/allowances across different cultures and times. If it's a social category, then anyone can be included, and the "circular" definition is useful to convey this, as a starting point.

 

[mcnulty]

Absolutely, and Walsh appeared to just let him talk and talk and then eventually ask some difficult questions. You can see the confidence of a sheltered academic at the start eventually filter away and he ends up very angry and tying himself in knots

Going into some of these US College faculties is a bit like going to Trump rallies and sticking a microphone under the attendees’ noses. I guess if your of a certain political persuasion it’s fun to laugh at the loons on the other side, but in the end it’s just depressing.

 

[the_interloper]

He's an academic and was using academic terms. Sure "a woman is an adult female" or whatever works most of the time. If you're an academic you likely want to be more exact.

It betrays the fear he wants to I instil in people: something along the lines that academic elites believe in nothing, have nothing in common with good normal people and want to change the world to fit their nihilistic view. Listen to the conservatives. Who are on your side and want lower taxes. Subscribe to their streaming service.

Here's a fun take on Walshy and Jordy doing their nonsense:

I'm not sure using the word in question in the definition is being more "exact", in fact I'm quite sure it's not.

I might watch your vid later for a laugh, I recommend you watching the actual interview though.

Depends on whether you think the title "What" (is a woman), makes sense i.e. a woman is something that can be concretely defined, or at least as definitively as say "adult human biological female", which women typically are. Rather than "Who" (is a woman), with women being a social category, closely but not entirely, linked to biological sex, where defining a woman e.g. what a woman acts like, what a woman does, how a woman thinks, is subject to the stereotypes/allowances across different cultures and times. If it's a social category, then anyone can be included, and the "circular" definition is useful to convey this, as a starting point.

Well there's a lot of confusion still over gender and sex I'd say. I believe that some think female is the sex and woman is the gender, but what you've written above doesn't represent that.

 

[Bloods86]

I'm not sure using the word in question in the definition is being more "exact", in fact I'm quite sure it's not.

I might watch your vid later for a laugh, I recommend you watching the actual interview though.



Well there's a lot of confusion still over gender and sex I'd say. I believe that some think female is the sex and woman is the gender, but what you've written above doesn't represent that.

Yes, there are people who think it's a 1 to 1 overlap, that's the first bit of what I said, and why you could name your doco/hit piece "What is a woman". My first objection to Walsh if he ever asked that question to me, is that his question isn't based in reality in the first place. It's loaded from the start.

 

[Bloods86]

I'm not sure using the word in question in the definition is being more "exact", in fact I'm quite sure it's not.

I think saying "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" is fine as a starting point (it speaks to it being a social category that isn't dependent on sex), but you need to continue on and say what the identification is with. E.g. the expectations and traits commonly associated with the traditional category of "women" (which would often be "adult human female") in whichever culture/time we're referencing.

 

[the_interloper]

Yes, there are people who think it's a 1 to 1 overlap, that's the first bit of what I said, and why you could name your doco/hit piece "What is a woman". My first objection to Walsh if he ever asked that question to me, is that his question isn't based in reality in the first place. It's loaded from the start.

It's also a pretty simple question that not so long ago was pretty easy to answer for the vast majority. And of course it's a loaded question given the people he was asking, that was kind of the point of the doco.

I think saying "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" is fine as a starting point (it speaks to it being a social category that isn't dependent on sex), but you need to continue on and say what the identification is with. E.g. the expectations and traits commonly associated with the traditional category of "women" (which would often be "adult human female") in whichever culture/time we're referencing.

And this sort of definition gives even more fuel to Walsh's brigade, particularly when they'll just say it's an adult human female end of story. And maybe in terms of sex that's a fair definition, with "gender" maybe it's what you describe.

 

[Engimal v3]

Matt Walsh couldn't think his way out of a paper bag

 

[Bloods86]

It's also a pretty simple question that not so long ago was pretty easy to answer for the vast majority. And of course it's a loaded question given the people he was asking, that was kind of the point of the doco.



And this sort of definition gives even more fuel to Walsh's brigade, particularly when they'll just say it's an adult human female end of story. And maybe in terms of sex that's a fair definition, with "gender" maybe it's what you describe.

Yeah, it takes some new thinking for some. It certainly did for me. About 10 years ago I would have been on here arguing with my current self (if I was a regular BF user then).

I think it's a loaded question from his point of view, his assumption/conclusion are already in the question (not that he was ever looking to learn anything via the doco). Although it's likely just unconscious, like others I don't see Walsh as particularly deep-thinking.

 

[PJays]

Depends on whether you think the title "What" (is a woman), makes sense. I.e. a woman is something that can be concretely defined, or at least as definitively as say "adult human biological female", which women typically are.

Regardless of how concretely you think it can be defined, surely we should all agree on the following two points:

1. A definition for something should not include the same word that's being defined.

2. A definition needs to actually define something.

"A woman is somebody who identifies as a woman" is just as intelligent as saying "Aussie rules footy is a game played by anybody who says they play footy".

Or "A chair is anything somebody labels as a chair".

No. Those are circular. They don't define anything.

A chair is a free-standing object that's main purpose is for sitting.

Aussie rules Footy is a contact sport played with an oval shaped ball where the aim is kicking more goals and points through the big sticks than your opponents and generally involving 18 participants on the field from each team.

We all know these things. We know words have meanings that make sense.

The new definition of a woman being given by the gender studies goons is a non-starter. It's meaningless ideological gobbledygook. It's circular and doesn't define the word at all.

Rather than "Who" (is a woman), with women being a social category, closely but not entirely, linked to biological sex, where defining a woman e.g. what a woman acts like, what a woman does, how a woman thinks, is subject to the stereotypes/allowances across different cultures and times.

So what are the stereotypes then?

The vast majority of women are mothers or intend to become mothers. That's a fact.

Women are more likely to work in caring professions- nursing, teaching, disability care etc. That's another fact.

Women are more likely to have long hair and spend significant time caring for their appearance. They often like dresses and make up.

I have a friend who fits none of these. She's a married forty something, a high ranking senior employee in a major corporation. No kids and never intended on having kids. Short hair and doesn't care for fashion.

Because she fits none of the stereotypes, is she therefore not a woman?

But a male who "identifies" as a woman and posts fashion videos wearing make-up on Tik Tok and complaining about transphobia, they are a woman? Not a trans-woman, but a woman?

If it's a social category, then anyone can be included,

Anybody or nobody can be included, depending on the feelings of the definer and their views on social categories which are considered malleable.

This is the problem!

 

[The Tilt]

Absolutely, and Walsh appeared to just let him talk and talk and then eventually ask some difficult questions. You can see the confidence of a sheltered academic at the start eventually filter away and he ends up very angry and tying himself in knots.

Yeah, it really does make for difficult viewing.

The key problem here is that the ‘no debate’ mantra has essentially absolved these types of academics of the burden of having to rationally defend their position (“we can’t debate someone’s ‘right to exist’" etc etc). Instead, the response to any criticism is to dismiss the questioner as a bigot. The thing is, it’s inevitable that they get caught on the open field of debate from time to time, and they’re woefully ill-prepared for it. And it shows.

 

[The Tilt]

Going into some of these US College faculties is a bit like going to Trump rallies and sticking a microphone under the attendees’ noses. I guess if your of a certain political persuasion it’s fun to laugh at the loons on the other side, but in the end it’s just depressing.

Yep.

 

[Bloods86]

Regardless of how concretely you think it can be defined, surely we should all agree on the following two points:

1. A definition for something should not include the same word that's being defined.

2. A definition needs to actually define something.

"A woman is somebody who identifies as a woman" is just as intelligent as saying "Aussie rules footy is a game played by anybody who says they play footy".

Or "A chair is anything somebody labels as a chair".

No. Those are circular. They don't define anything.

A chair is a free-standing object that's main purpose is for sitting.

Aussie rules Footy is a contact sport played with an oval shaped ball where the aim is kicking more goals and points through the big sticks than your opponents and generally involving 18 participants on the field from each team.

We all know these things. We know words have meanings that make sense.

The new definition of a woman being given by the gender studies goons is a non-starter. It's meaningless ideological gobbledygook. It's circular and doesn't define the word at all.


So what are the stereotypes then?

The vast majority of women are mothers or intend to become mothers. That's a fact.

Women are more likely to work in caring professions- nursing, teaching, disability care etc. That's another fact.

Women are more likely to have long hair and spend significant time caring for their appearance. They often like dresses and make up.

I have a friend who fits none of these. She's a married forty something, a high ranking senior employee in a major corporation. No kids and never intended on having kids. Short hair and doesn't care for fashion.

Because she fits none of the stereotypes, is she therefore not a woman?

But a male who "identifies" as a woman and posts fashion videos wearing make-up on Tik Tok and complaining about transphobia, they are a woman? Not a trans-woman, but a woman?



Anybody or nobody can be included, depending on the feelings of the definer and their views on social categories which are considered malleable.

This is the problem!

I've said that it's a fine starting point. I've not heard people leaving the definition at that, and refusing to comment on what people who identify as women, might be identifying with. They might also be answering the "who" question rather than the "what" as I mentioned. I.e. Who can be a woman, rather that what does being a woman entail.

Stereotypes differ between cultures and across time. I did also include "allowances", given society accepts a range, so your friend can be considered a woman, though there would be some who would actually take the time and effort to criticise her on the basis of stereotypical womanhood (note: they would be morons). In the same way, there's probably some people who would question how "manly" I am, given I like flowers and cocktails, and have no desire to father any offspring / continue the family name.

I wasn't going to introduce the idea that maybe our concept of gender is getting outdated, given the traditional expectations, traits, roles etc are becoming increasingly blurred and irrelevant. But good that you recognise this.

Trans people are in a world currently where these stereotypes are still perpetuated to some degree and so they may be the categories that have the most utility to identify as / fit into, but maybe one day none of us will care about gender. And yes, trans-women are women, joining the bulk of women who are comfortable with keeping the gender they've been given by default, as adult human females.

Small steps though, since there's still people who'll question the lifestyle choices of your friend as a woman, and still people who see sex and gender as the same thing.

 

[PJays]

Instead, the response to any criticism is to dismiss the questioner as a bigot. The thing is, it’s inevitable that they get caught on the open field of debate from time to time, and they’re woefully ill-prepared for it. And it shows.

I found myself wondering how these people agreed to an interview with Walsh.

Even before this doco supercharged his fame, Walsh was already known as a provocative social conservative.

I can only assume it was a combination of:

1. Walsh or his producers making every effort to come across as non-combative and investigative or perhaps suggesting the documentary might not be as polemical as it ended up being.

2. The professors/academics and their PA's not doing enough due diligence

3. Financial incentives offered by DailyWire.

Cos these goons ended up looking really silly. Apparently it's the top rating documentary right now. It's certainly done plenty to advance a position the interviewees find distasteful and "transphobic".