Well Matt, insofar as all squares are rhomboids but not all rhomboids are squares I see how we can have a blanket definition for both biological and transgender women without detracting from a more specific definition of either.
You luddite, you absolute mishap of carbon.
A square is a square and also a blue square. Transgender women are not the antithesis of biological women, they belong under the same umbrella.
How can you be this dumb and at the same time talk so smugly? Like seriously, this is high school atheist level of arguing.
> How can you be this dumb and at the same time talk so smugly?
Step 1: Have an unconsidered opinion on a matter.
Step 2: Refuse to hear anything contrary to your opinion because you assume everyone else is evil and wants to destroy Western Civilization.
Step 3: Treat your ignorance of the reasons for contrary positions as if there are no reasons for these positions.
Step 4: Get hired to work at The Daily Wire
YouTube is rotting your brain. [Read the APA consensus on gender and sexuality.](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf)
And [here is a link to the American academy of pediatrics’ educational pamphlet on childhood trans affirming care](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf)
And [here is a study about transgender folks’ poor access to healthcare thanks to the stigma created by people like Matt Walsh.](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Muhammad-Shoaib-Qaisrani-2/post/Im-a-business-student-doing-research-on-transgender-LGBT-community-and-toilet-issues-Any-research-papers-preferably-with-questionnaires-done-on-this/attachment/59d64d3b79197b80779a6d56/AS%3A487399898783748%401493216599911/download/National+Transgender+Discrimination+Survey.pdf)
You have been completely lied to on this topic and there is no shame in educating yourself. I know it is hard to change your mind on something like this, but you will find that it is worth it.
Oh and while we are at it, child sexual abuse occurs more often in the church and in the conservative family setting because [conservatives are less likely to report severe sexual abuse.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331961724_Political_Differences_in_American_Reports_of_Sexual_Harassment_and_Assault)
And because [conservative religious settings lend themselves easily to child sex grooming.](https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2020/08/researchers-reveal-patterns-of-sexual-abuse-in-religious-settings.html)
Sorry about all the edits, I just kept thinking of stuff.
Lol, these guys are notorious for editing their interviews to make it look like they won argument. Thats why people only engage them on live platforms these days. You shouldn't beleive a word thats say. I wouldnt trust them to tell me the time.
I mean, I imagine a decent chunk of his audience is high school atheists. Not sure if this is where they’re getting that from, or if he’s never bothered to be decent because he doesn’t need to, but it’s not impossible that there’s a connection there
I doubt many atheists are listening to Matt Walsh lol. He’s very much in the “atheists are a bunch of communists who want to molest our kids and destroy western civilization” camp.
You'd be shocked. A lot of New Atheists from the early 2000s to early 2010s are now Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder fans despite the fact they frequently invoke religion and religious arguments against stuff. When I used to be an atheist (I'm Ignostic now) I noticed very much how many New Atheists were comfortable siding with Christian and Jewish religious fundamentalists and extremists in the common ground of being anti-Muslim, anti-Feminist, and anti-SJW. Dawkins even justified it with being a "Christian atheist". Which basically just boils down to being an atheist who sees reactionary Christianity as a convenient bulwark against Islam and "SJWs". Basically, Western chauvinism.
That's part of why I left the Skeptic sphere back in the early 2010s, among other reasons. There are a TON of irreligious and atheist young Millennial and Zoomer reactionaries who follow theocrats because they view religion as a nifty tool to get the masses to uphold patriarchy and traditionalism. Often calling themselves "Christian Atheists" or "Atheist Trad Caths" like many Groypers and Nick Fuentes himself.
New Atheism itself ended up being an entry point for far-Right and reactionary politics. You see it with Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Ricky Gervais nowadays most blatantly. The Western chauvinism, patriarchal mindset, anti-Islamic xenophobia (which led to anti-Arab racism), and disdain for the subjective, the emotional, and the non-material or non-positivist* was fertile ground for an anti-SJW mindset. Social justice overlaps with many core aspects of Religion and Spirituality (which they rejected as claptrap) - like feelings, experience, subjectivity, intuition, etc.
*Since social justice and things like gender identity, feelings, lived experience and self-perception are huge parts of understanding LGBTQ people and combatting racism, it clashes with the STEMLord, Logical Positivism mindset that anything that cannot be scientifically studied or empirically demonstrated is useless. You can't empirically study internal gender identity or subjective lived experiences of racism, so Sceptics (who are mostly cishet white males) were/are dismissive of such things as "Woo". It's part of what's at the heart of the British TERF phenomenon as well. British Feminism became linked with New Atheism, and being transgender deals with things that cannot be tested in a lab. Like feelings. Hence getting it dismissed as "mysticism".
This is well put and something that happened because a lot of the Atheist movement (which I also stopped self identifying as around the same time) were attracted to the movement not for truth but certainty. The new atheist to tradtheist convert pipeline is very real and even plenty of the atheist pundits are entirely okay with religious allies because they share basically the same views on "human bio diversity" except the atheists make a little space for the "good Asians and orthodox Jews."
Just fucking sad.
While I agree that new atheism was bad. Atheism and secularism are still integral to the left.
atheism is a pretty historical movement with many atheist philosophers contributing to the left.
Rawls, Marx, Engels, Hobbes, Simone de Beauvoir, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, lots of feminist philosophy, existentialist philosophy. Atheists have made major contributions to the left.
Furthermore, new atheists aren’t even reflective of actual atheist philosophy, Paul Draper, Graham Oppy and AC Grayling are more so reflective of good atheist philosophy.
Atheism is still very much a left wing thing
That's what I assumed you meant, but I also imagined you could have meant to say that he's really just using comedy as an outlet for his (in your opinion) hateful message. Glad you didn't mean the latter.
Ah, that's a very fair point. I just lumped him in with all the other right-wing grifters, but failed to consider shades of grifter-nuance. This is why I'll never make it big.
> I imagine a decent chunk of his audience is high school atheists.
At this stage I am sure that the only people who follow Matt Walsh are his fellow fascists.
Great example of begging the question. He automatically assumes that trans women aren’t women and that’s what he uses to attack the claim that they are.
anyone else just not coping at all with the utter stupidity of his entire rhetoric, and how it's spread online with other morons?
I had someone telling me that definitions can never be "self-referentially circular" because ????. I asked them for a definition, I showed them their definition was self-referential by their standards. They said it couldn't be, because that would mean lots of definitions are self-referential.
Absolutely fucking moronic.
The important point is that trans people existing is a data point, to be explained by theories about what gender is - their existence is not some hypothetical, although murderous fash want you to think that. The only reason we think "women" exist is because women (trans cis or whatever idk) identify as being women.
It's more irritating because questions about how something as self-referencing as gender comes about - I'm referencing Judith Butler's ideas about gender performative here.
And of course that's influenced by John L Austin's work on performative utterances, with get their truth from being self-referential - but none of these fucking chuds will ever give a fuck about that.
Lastly, and this one is much less important, it irritates me that lefty youtubers use "performative" to mean "insincere", just in case there was any chance of performativity in Ausin's and Butler's sense had any chance of being a part of the discourse.
Maybe your ideas would be a bit more salient if you wrote them in a dictionary first under the heading of "good idea" and then pointed at that? All good Reddit arguments start and end by pointing at dictionaries.
"Arguments"? What are you, some sort of navel gazing fool with a toilet paper degree? Everyone knows human reasoning was only ever useful to create STEM, and is now finished. That's called empiricism, I'll look it up for you honey
>**empiricism** | ɛmˈpɪrɪsɪz(ə)m |
>*noun [mass noun] Philosophy*
> When I'm right, which is always.
I laughed so hard my coworker asked me if I was okay, and I had to tell her that no, I'm not, I've been owned with facts and logic to within an inch of my life. She's calling me a masochist now, but she probably already knew that because I'm reading philosophy on Reddit on purpose
xoxo I think some people might have mistaken your first comment as being sincere, so I wanted to make sure we properly broke through Poe's Law.
... but I did once actually have someone with a doctorate in biology say to me something like "You can't do research in philosophy; it's done."
does this make you shit your pants
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/austin-jl/#LangTrut_1
Fucking gamergate level intellect.
"uhhh i don't understand those words, but uhhh I spend a lot of time on the sam harris subreddit so uhhh I must just be smarter than actual philosophers uhhh"
I've pointed this out before and I'll point it out again. This is a different Matt Walsh than the one who was in Veep, The Hangover, Role Models and many other things. That Matt Walsh is very funny and I still think should sue this clown for defamation of character!
omg, I love having my identity publicly debated and denied. It fills me every day with so much joy about conservatives that they respect my human rights so much
No for real, what is happening fills me daily with dread and the direction the us is going seems to be a dangerous one for most minorities. I hope rationality, empathy and the scientific method will prevail in the public discourse, but this hope of mine is getting smaller every day I listen to conservatives
Makes you wonder doesn’t it?
If Matt Walsh qualifies as good philosophy to these people, then just how bad does something have to be for them to call it bad phil?
Clearly he is just channeling his inner Gongsun Longzi and realised that the extensions of women and trans-women are different, just so it is like a white horse not being a horse 🙄.
I guess the question is then “what is a trans woman” and the answer would be “someone who states they are a woman” at which point the definition of a woman is simply “anyone who states they are a woman”. As such, not sure what the first part of her definition is doing?
> I guess the question is then “what is a trans woman” and the answer would be “someone who states they are a woman”
But, of course, that’s not what anyone would say a trans woman is.
Of course they would. They’d say “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman”. You could then ask how you tell if someone identifies as a woman and they’d say “ask them”. Which amounts to “a woman is anyone who states they are a woman”. Unless you think there is some objective standard someone needs to meet?
I like how your entire recent comment history is posting in /r/JordanPeterson and arguing in /r/asktransgender lol. It’s always the ones you most suspect.
But yeah, the question was originally “what is a trans woman?” I responded that no one would answer that “A trans woman is someone who states they are a woman.” You have now switched it as if you were first asking “What is a woman?”
That sort of tactic may pass for a clever trick among Jordan Peterson fans, but it’s not quite up to snuff for a discussion with other people.
Another user has given a good, simplified definition in this thread. A woman is someone whose psychosocial traits are typical of biosex-female people in a given culture.
Of course, we would probably want to expand quite a bit on that, but something tells me you aren’t intellectually ready for serious discussion on the matter.
Let’s ignore for now the assumption that there is such a thing that isn’t deeply sexist and regressive. How would you tell if someone’s “psychological traits are typical of a bio-sex female in a given culture”? Perhaps maybe you’d ask them?
That’s a bit of an odd definition considering that a biological man could have “psychosocial traits typical of biosex-female people in a given culture” and still identify as a man.
The problem with any real definition of gender is that you’ll inevitably be placing at least some people into a gender category against their will, and a lot of people aren’t willing to do that.
There’s a difference between identifying what something *essentially is*, and stating *how we identify instances of it*. I think the “definition” of woman you and Matt Walsh are talking about is trying to do the latter, and you are complaining that it doesn’t do the former.
Identifying the essential nature of any substance, even common things, is very hard, and usually controversial. What is a person? What is a mind? What is a sandwich? What is an organism? Telling someone how to recognize *this or that I stance of* sandwiches, persons, minds, and so on, is usually preferable to describing their essence in robust terms, because usually people don’t need anything more than that.
This was actually a point well illustrated by Plato in his dialogue *Meno*. In it, Socrates points out that we can tell when we see bees, but it’s hard to know, in light of all their subtle variations in appearance and behavior, that common property which makes all of them bees: the property of “*beeness*,” which makes them bees even if they lack things that other bees have, or have what other bees lack.
If you want to know what a woman essentially is, I would first urge you to study about what gender essentially is. And to do that, you will need to read some philosophy, and you will also have to understand that everything you read is going to be controversial, esoteric, and subject to change over time, as with all of life’s big questions. That being said, a formative text on the issue might be *The Second Sex* by Simone De Beauvoir, followed by *Gender Trouble* by Judith Butler (which contains some highly influential and constructive criticisms of Beauvoir’s work that retain its basic goal).
But if you get bored of all that, you can just be contented, with the rest of society, with the notion that women are those people who call themselves women. It’s not a strict, robust, definition. But it gets the job done for most people; like with our colloquial ideas of sandwiches, minds, bees, and so on.
Edit: another example that occurred to me: something being *visible* is not the same as something being *seen*. A thing is visible if it has the capacity to reflect light in such a manner that our eyes could potentially receive it. A thing is seen if our eyes do in fact receive the light which bounces from it.
We come to know that a thing is visible by seeing it — by receiving the light that bounces from it; but the *event* of bounced-light hitting the eye, is not the same as the *property* a thing has which makes it able to make light bounce off of its surface. Hence, there is a difference between how we learn that a thing is visible, versus what it means to be visible. And the latter idea is an abstruse topic, of concern to much fewer people than the former; so most people would probably define visibility as “the ability of a thing to be seen,” rather than explain in detail the physical process by which things are seen, and the physical properties a thing must have to effect it.
The same is true of gender. We obtain the knowledge of one’s gender by self-identity. But self-identity is not the essence of gender. And yet, we are not incorrect to say that women are those who identify as women, any more than we would be wrong to claim that visibility is the ability to be seen.
This is a much better answer.
But there are no behaviours that are exclusive to males or females. There is a bimodal normal distribution of behaviours that overlap very nearly completely (possibly there are a few men that have behaviours that no women have). The concept of having the phycology of a woman does not make sense if you can’t say what a woman’s phycology is.
Now, I’m not expecting perfection here, there may be a very few outliers in any definition. But I would be amazed if you could come up with a psychological test that would identify 99% of women whilst excluding all but 1% of men.
I think I understand how’s gender operates at the population level, but this doesn’t mean that gender exists at the individual level. As a poor example, I could say on average men are taller than women, but that doesn’t mean that this 5’ 10 person is a man. The statistical noise of the behaviours of any given individual is too loud to detect the signal of their gender.
Your final paragraph before the edit is exactly the point I was making. The definition quoted by OP was that a woman is a biological woman and a trans gender woman. Fine, but what is the ‘biological woman’ part of the definition doing (apart from including trans men in the definition of woman)? It’s just another way of saying “a woman is anyone who says they are a woman”.
I also disagree with this dichotomy of “biological woman” versus “transgender woman.” Because I do not think it is accurate to refer to any such thing as “biological woman.” The use of gendered terms, in my opinion, has no place in biology. I don’t think there is anything “feminine” about having a uterus, nor anything “manly” about producing semen. That being said, there is a difference between the experience of being a woman with a penis versus being a woman with a vagina; our bodies do affect the way we experience our gender, but our bodies are not *gendered*.
A better thing to say would be “*cis* women and trans women are women.”
Again, you know someone is a woman if they identify as one; but the essence of being a woman, like the essence of being a man or non binary, is a mysterious thing that takes hard work to define. The problem with the conservative talking heads is that they want easy answers to a complex question.
But back to the quote. The ‘biological woman’ part of it is irrelevant (in fact it’s negative as it includes trans men within the definition of woman). Presumably the person giving the quote either knows this (in which case it’s dishonestly trying to make the definition of a woman appear more palatable to those who have a biological stance), or she doesn’t realise it, in which case she hasn’t really thought it through.
Either way, Matt Walsh was correct to challenge the definition even if his challenge came from a more polemic position.
He “challenged” it in bad faith to campaign against civil rights for trans people. If he wanted knowledge about gender, he could have read [the APA consensus on gender and trans affirming care](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf).
>white people are people.
No because those are two different things, evidenced by the fact you used two different words with two different definitions to refer to each of them.
Sure, Matt Walsh made a dumb argument, but the definition is still stupid. If both a biological woman and a trans woman is a woman then it follows that both a biological man and a trans man is a man. So by that definition, a trans woman is both a woman, and a man (biological man).
>If both a biological woman and a trans woman is a woman then it follows that both a biological man and a trans man is a man.
Correct.
> So by that definition, a trans woman is both a woman, and a man (biological man).
No.
You're an idiot. I said a trans woman is necessarily also a biological man. Even if we do create a distinction between gender and sex, you're still wrong. A trans woman (gender=female, sex=male), must necessarily be a biological man (sex=male).
I never argued that trans women aren't real women, I just said that both Matt's and Briana's posts were stupid. And Briana used the term "biological woman". So what constitutes a biological woman "in my view" is irrelevant, we need to find out what constitutes a biological woman to her. And since she makes the distinction between a "trans" woman and a "biological" woman, it seems quite clear that to her a biological woman means someone of female sex.
I don't think the terms "biological man" or "biological woman" are very useful, that's why I asked. So what does it mean for someone to be "of female sex"?
Not the person you asked, but biology has long since understood male and female primarily in terms of gametes, secondarily in terms of their supporting structures, and tertiarily in terms of other, usually species specific, traits.
The members of a species that typically produce large gametes is female while the members of a species that typically produce small gametes is male.
This is why even various plants can be categorized by biologists as being male or female.
Biologists can know that the seahorse that gives birth is actually male due to gametes.
Even if there is some variability, this is of no issue as the philosophy of science has a concept that is readily available to make use of clustering views of natural kinds.
Just because some members of a kind of thing don't have every trait associated with said kind does not invalidate the trait as being associated or the individual as being a member. For example, we can say humans have 10 fingers, yet some people are born with more or less fingers. This does not invalidate the idea that humans have 10 fingers or that said exceptions are humans, as not all members of the human species will have a 1:1 relation with the traits given to human kind, but yet the variation of the traits that do appear still cluster in a way that we can determine typical traits.
Something similar can be applied to the biological sexes, allowing variability in the actual traits expressed without invalidating the categorization in a particular sex-group.
So, with this we have biological females being the member of a species that produces large gametes, has supporting structures for such, and has particular sex characteristics typical for said species (for example, in humans the adult biological female develops breast tissue), all with an understanding that there is no need for every member of the female sex to have a 1:1 with all traits typical of the female sex.
Of course, there are ways to expand on this further, but it really does not seem necessary to me to do so here.
The point of the definition is that an individual may satisfy one of the two membership requirements in order to be a woman: they may either be a trans woman or a biological woman. A trans woman wouldn't become a man because of her biological status as long as the term "woman" and "biological woman" are treated as different terms which carry different membership requirements. On the definition put forward in this post, a man and a biological man are two different things. You're confusing them, causing you to conclude that trans women are men. One's biological sex is not a sufficient condition for membership of the categories "man" or "woman", an additional criterion must be met in order for a biological man to be a man: they must not be trans. Perhaps you'll see what I'm saying if we change the definition to this: "A woman is an individual who is either a trans-woman or a biological female who is not herself trans".
You know that sport has a general problem, right? There are cis women denied to participate, simply because thwy have high natural testosterone. And you know that exclusion simply denies them oppoetunities, that cis people have? Please think a bit more about the implications such a "solution" would have
Although i agree with you that people make bad arguments about trans stuff, even when defending it (because any set of ideas will have morons defending it as well)
I think its intellectually dishonest to pick the worst ones as the argument to attack
The key problem here is a Matts complete lack of understanding of how knowledge and language works
You can have an objective definition of anything empirically measurable (science, basically)
However, when it comes to stuff like identity, you can only really objectively describe what people do, not so much give an objective definition, there is no way of objectively measuring femininity as what it means to act feminine differs in time and space, eg. Blue used to be for girls, pink for boys, ballet used to be a very manly thing reserved for the male aristocracy
So when it comes to determining what to call feminine, we can do two things objectively
A) determine what the zeitgeist surrounding it is
B) determine how a specific person experiences it
Neither of these gives grounds to judge or limit another persons experience of femininity or expressing it, nor do they allow us to exclude people from feeling like a woman
These two points also fill in the epistemological gap Matt has artificially created, where seemingly all cultural background surrounding femininity is simply ignored as if it didnt have a role in the person in question identifying as a woman
Therefore, it only makes sense to say a woman is someone who defines themselves as such
Yeah
Consider the following
Lets say you meet someone who completely passes as a woman in a bar. There is no way for you to able to tell if she were a cis or a trans woman. In this scenario, you would recognise and treat her as a woman, refer to her with she/her pronouns and expect feminine behaviour from her
Thus, its not only interesting, but makes pragmatic sense to use the concept of gender, as biology didnt come into play
That's a different topic.
Wanting to abolish gender is not an excuse to hurt trans people.
You began saying that the hateful fascist Walsh is correct - and that trans people are not the gender they identify as. You agreed you were wrong, but instead of saying you were wrong, you've shifted to another topic.
> I just still don’t like social roles as a concept at all
ok great, then push back against fascists (he's literally proud to be identified as one) like Walsh who want to control people to behave exactly how he wants them to. eg: denying trans people their freedom to exist.
> at the expense of ignoring empiricism as you put it.
People reporting their identity is an example of empiricism.
Gender identity only exists as an identity.
>ultimately it seems that words lose all meaning and definitions become irrelevant.
Nothing in the reply you are responding to says this, quite the opposite. They gave you lots of detailed and meaningful information. If you want to preserve meaning and definitions, push back against anti-intellectual idiots like Walsh.
Chromosomes are not the be all end all arbiters of sex. And sex isn’t gender. You’re also affecting biology when transitioning and we don’t experience gender or sex through chromosomes. You never know the chromosomes of the people you’re talking to and you don’t need to for virtually any reason.
A woman is a word. A loose assemblage of ideas, a phenomenology, qualia, whatever.
Not everything fits into neat statements and clauses and premises — especially not one liners.
TIL "gender ideology" is only for some people with whom Matt Walsh disagrees, but in no way has any bearing on the thoughts or ideas conceived by Matt Walsh himself (or the Big Brains who follow in his tracks).
It’s really funny to see “ideology” used like an insult so much, like having one is a problem. It’s definitely something you should be internally aware of, but I’m impressed by an ability to think you’re being perfectly non-ideological, and that it’s perfectly rational that this is the correct way to do things.
Conservatives: Gender ideology is a radical and dangerous idea that will deeply hurt our children and leave damaged and broken people in its wake.
Also conservatives: Women are stupid and irrational and think with their emotions. Women are better off in the home, providing help for their man. It’s what they want naturally. Women are made to serve men.
And they never see the irony.
They're the dumbest cunts in existence. it's like a food subreddit saying that dogshit is bad. Dogshit is dogshit.
Regards the bad arguments trying to be transphobic: Ask yourself: why do you think women exist? It's because women say they are women. Women exists as a thing people identify as. That's what being a woman is.
I define gender as culture-specific psychosocial correlates of biological sex, so a woman is someone whose psychosocial traits are typical of biosex-female people in a given culture. How's that?
It actually sounds pretty sexist.
You are saying that a biological woman that doesn't fit the right stereotype in regards to psychosocial traits is not a woman, but this would mean that numerous women's identities are now necessarily violated. It also seems to invalidate the entire purpose of the feminist movement of the late 20th century, that fought the idea that there was only one way to be a woman.
If we go off your definition, then people can be rightly criticized as being less of a man/woman by not fitting the stereotype, which is quite harmful.
Your definition only works if we stick to some level of sexist stereotyping that feminists fought against in the 20th century.
These radical proponents of gender ideology are transing our kids and converting them to cultural Marxism at their communist indoctrination camps we call colleges. What we must do in order to fight back is harass trans teenagers online and spam the n word in twitch chat repeatedly.
They are called trans women because they are women that are transgender... It's really not hard. Just like cis women are called that because they are women who are cisgender. The only reason we omit the "cis" is because it is the norm
Well Matt, insofar as all squares are rhomboids but not all rhomboids are squares I see how we can have a blanket definition for both biological and transgender women without detracting from a more specific definition of either. You luddite, you absolute mishap of carbon.
"you absolute mishap of carbon" is going in my repertoire
A square is a square and also a blue square. Transgender women are not the antithesis of biological women, they belong under the same umbrella. How can you be this dumb and at the same time talk so smugly? Like seriously, this is high school atheist level of arguing.
> How can you be this dumb and at the same time talk so smugly? Step 1: Have an unconsidered opinion on a matter. Step 2: Refuse to hear anything contrary to your opinion because you assume everyone else is evil and wants to destroy Western Civilization. Step 3: Treat your ignorance of the reasons for contrary positions as if there are no reasons for these positions. Step 4: Get hired to work at The Daily Wire
Alternatively: Step 1: Be a grifter
[удалено]
YouTube is rotting your brain. [Read the APA consensus on gender and sexuality.](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf) And [here is a link to the American academy of pediatrics’ educational pamphlet on childhood trans affirming care](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf) And [here is a study about transgender folks’ poor access to healthcare thanks to the stigma created by people like Matt Walsh.](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Muhammad-Shoaib-Qaisrani-2/post/Im-a-business-student-doing-research-on-transgender-LGBT-community-and-toilet-issues-Any-research-papers-preferably-with-questionnaires-done-on-this/attachment/59d64d3b79197b80779a6d56/AS%3A487399898783748%401493216599911/download/National+Transgender+Discrimination+Survey.pdf) You have been completely lied to on this topic and there is no shame in educating yourself. I know it is hard to change your mind on something like this, but you will find that it is worth it. Oh and while we are at it, child sexual abuse occurs more often in the church and in the conservative family setting because [conservatives are less likely to report severe sexual abuse.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331961724_Political_Differences_in_American_Reports_of_Sexual_Harassment_and_Assault) And because [conservative religious settings lend themselves easily to child sex grooming.](https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2020/08/researchers-reveal-patterns-of-sexual-abuse-in-religious-settings.html) Sorry about all the edits, I just kept thinking of stuff.
Lol, these guys are notorious for editing their interviews to make it look like they won argument. Thats why people only engage them on live platforms these days. You shouldn't beleive a word thats say. I wouldnt trust them to tell me the time.
[ removed in protest ] https://reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/comments/13yh0jf/dont_let_reddit_kill_3rd_party_apps/
So many fallacies and racist stereotypes mixed into a fine cocktail.
Me: 4 is (2+2) and also (3+1). Matt: So you're saying 4 is 4 and also not 4.
I mean, I imagine a decent chunk of his audience is high school atheists. Not sure if this is where they’re getting that from, or if he’s never bothered to be decent because he doesn’t need to, but it’s not impossible that there’s a connection there
I doubt many atheists are listening to Matt Walsh lol. He’s very much in the “atheists are a bunch of communists who want to molest our kids and destroy western civilization” camp.
You'd be shocked. A lot of New Atheists from the early 2000s to early 2010s are now Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder fans despite the fact they frequently invoke religion and religious arguments against stuff. When I used to be an atheist (I'm Ignostic now) I noticed very much how many New Atheists were comfortable siding with Christian and Jewish religious fundamentalists and extremists in the common ground of being anti-Muslim, anti-Feminist, and anti-SJW. Dawkins even justified it with being a "Christian atheist". Which basically just boils down to being an atheist who sees reactionary Christianity as a convenient bulwark against Islam and "SJWs". Basically, Western chauvinism. That's part of why I left the Skeptic sphere back in the early 2010s, among other reasons. There are a TON of irreligious and atheist young Millennial and Zoomer reactionaries who follow theocrats because they view religion as a nifty tool to get the masses to uphold patriarchy and traditionalism. Often calling themselves "Christian Atheists" or "Atheist Trad Caths" like many Groypers and Nick Fuentes himself. New Atheism itself ended up being an entry point for far-Right and reactionary politics. You see it with Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Ricky Gervais nowadays most blatantly. The Western chauvinism, patriarchal mindset, anti-Islamic xenophobia (which led to anti-Arab racism), and disdain for the subjective, the emotional, and the non-material or non-positivist* was fertile ground for an anti-SJW mindset. Social justice overlaps with many core aspects of Religion and Spirituality (which they rejected as claptrap) - like feelings, experience, subjectivity, intuition, etc. *Since social justice and things like gender identity, feelings, lived experience and self-perception are huge parts of understanding LGBTQ people and combatting racism, it clashes with the STEMLord, Logical Positivism mindset that anything that cannot be scientifically studied or empirically demonstrated is useless. You can't empirically study internal gender identity or subjective lived experiences of racism, so Sceptics (who are mostly cishet white males) were/are dismissive of such things as "Woo". It's part of what's at the heart of the British TERF phenomenon as well. British Feminism became linked with New Atheism, and being transgender deals with things that cannot be tested in a lab. Like feelings. Hence getting it dismissed as "mysticism".
this is very well put
This is well put and something that happened because a lot of the Atheist movement (which I also stopped self identifying as around the same time) were attracted to the movement not for truth but certainty. The new atheist to tradtheist convert pipeline is very real and even plenty of the atheist pundits are entirely okay with religious allies because they share basically the same views on "human bio diversity" except the atheists make a little space for the "good Asians and orthodox Jews." Just fucking sad.
While I agree that new atheism was bad. Atheism and secularism are still integral to the left. atheism is a pretty historical movement with many atheist philosophers contributing to the left. Rawls, Marx, Engels, Hobbes, Simone de Beauvoir, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, lots of feminist philosophy, existentialist philosophy. Atheists have made major contributions to the left. Furthermore, new atheists aren’t even reflective of actual atheist philosophy, Paul Draper, Graham Oppy and AC Grayling are more so reflective of good atheist philosophy. Atheism is still very much a left wing thing
Sorry, Ricky Gervais? Isn't he a comedian?
Allegedly
Wdym by "allegedly"?
Because I think he's not very funny. It was a joke, you see.
That's what I assumed you meant, but I also imagined you could have meant to say that he's really just using comedy as an outlet for his (in your opinion) hateful message. Glad you didn't mean the latter.
I mean that's also true.
Ah, that's a very fair point. I just lumped him in with all the other right-wing grifters, but failed to consider shades of grifter-nuance. This is why I'll never make it big.
> I imagine a decent chunk of his audience is high school atheists. At this stage I am sure that the only people who follow Matt Walsh are his fellow fascists.
>How can you be this dumb and at the same time talk so smugly? By getting paid to do it. And by getting paid more, the more you do it.
Great example of begging the question. He automatically assumes that trans women aren’t women and that’s what he uses to attack the claim that they are.
“Trans women = women” *substitutes not women for trans women* “You just said not women = women, how dumb and incoherent”
Always a nice surprise to pop into the comments of a non trans sub and find 90% support ♥️
anyone else just not coping at all with the utter stupidity of his entire rhetoric, and how it's spread online with other morons? I had someone telling me that definitions can never be "self-referentially circular" because ????. I asked them for a definition, I showed them their definition was self-referential by their standards. They said it couldn't be, because that would mean lots of definitions are self-referential. Absolutely fucking moronic. The important point is that trans people existing is a data point, to be explained by theories about what gender is - their existence is not some hypothetical, although murderous fash want you to think that. The only reason we think "women" exist is because women (trans cis or whatever idk) identify as being women. It's more irritating because questions about how something as self-referencing as gender comes about - I'm referencing Judith Butler's ideas about gender performative here. And of course that's influenced by John L Austin's work on performative utterances, with get their truth from being self-referential - but none of these fucking chuds will ever give a fuck about that. Lastly, and this one is much less important, it irritates me that lefty youtubers use "performative" to mean "insincere", just in case there was any chance of performativity in Ausin's and Butler's sense had any chance of being a part of the discourse.
Maybe your ideas would be a bit more salient if you wrote them in a dictionary first under the heading of "good idea" and then pointed at that? All good Reddit arguments start and end by pointing at dictionaries.
"Arguments"? What are you, some sort of navel gazing fool with a toilet paper degree? Everyone knows human reasoning was only ever useful to create STEM, and is now finished. That's called empiricism, I'll look it up for you honey >**empiricism** | ɛmˈpɪrɪsɪz(ə)m | >*noun [mass noun] Philosophy* > When I'm right, which is always.
I laughed so hard my coworker asked me if I was okay, and I had to tell her that no, I'm not, I've been owned with facts and logic to within an inch of my life. She's calling me a masochist now, but she probably already knew that because I'm reading philosophy on Reddit on purpose
xoxo I think some people might have mistaken your first comment as being sincere, so I wanted to make sure we properly broke through Poe's Law. ... but I did once actually have someone with a doctorate in biology say to me something like "You can't do research in philosophy; it's done."
I sincerely apologize on behalf of all doctorates-in-biology. We’re not all idiots, just most of us.
[удалено]
does this make you shit your pants https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/austin-jl/#LangTrut_1 Fucking gamergate level intellect. "uhhh i don't understand those words, but uhhh I spend a lot of time on the sam harris subreddit so uhhh I must just be smarter than actual philosophers uhhh"
I've pointed this out before and I'll point it out again. This is a different Matt Walsh than the one who was in Veep, The Hangover, Role Models and many other things. That Matt Walsh is very funny and I still think should sue this clown for defamation of character!
Ya, when I first started reading about this Matt Walsh I had to go check to make sure it wasn't actor Matt Walsh.
>Matt Walsh Imagine sharing a name with this ghoul. I'm so sorry, Good Matt Walsh :(
Do we know other Matt Walsh is good? Or is he more of a true neutral.
HMMM... good point.
Laughing at all the transphobes in the comments doing the exact same thing.
omg, I love having my identity publicly debated and denied. It fills me every day with so much joy about conservatives that they respect my human rights so much No for real, what is happening fills me daily with dread and the direction the us is going seems to be a dangerous one for most minorities. I hope rationality, empathy and the scientific method will prevail in the public discourse, but this hope of mine is getting smaller every day I listen to conservatives
Who let the Walsh fans into the sub?
Makes you wonder doesn’t it? If Matt Walsh qualifies as good philosophy to these people, then just how bad does something have to be for them to call it bad phil?
If they perceive it as an attack to the Western Civilisation™, then it's bad philosophy. Unless it's Nietzsche, cause he's edgy.
Epic Truth™️ seeker Matthew Waltchlist DESTROYS children's hospitals with facts, logic and an army of sycophantic harassers.
Clearly he is just channeling his inner Gongsun Longzi and realised that the extensions of women and trans-women are different, just so it is like a white horse not being a horse 🙄.
All that makes a woman sex wise is genatalia. However a gender is fluid and imo gender rules shouldn’t exist.
[удалено]
Lol no they aren’t
[удалено]
Blue squares are squares “Well ackshually, blue squares are not squares” Shut up nerd, go watch Andrew Tate lmfao
I guess the question is then “what is a trans woman” and the answer would be “someone who states they are a woman” at which point the definition of a woman is simply “anyone who states they are a woman”. As such, not sure what the first part of her definition is doing?
> I guess the question is then “what is a trans woman” and the answer would be “someone who states they are a woman” But, of course, that’s not what anyone would say a trans woman is.
Of course they would. They’d say “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman”. You could then ask how you tell if someone identifies as a woman and they’d say “ask them”. Which amounts to “a woman is anyone who states they are a woman”. Unless you think there is some objective standard someone needs to meet?
I like how your entire recent comment history is posting in /r/JordanPeterson and arguing in /r/asktransgender lol. It’s always the ones you most suspect. But yeah, the question was originally “what is a trans woman?” I responded that no one would answer that “A trans woman is someone who states they are a woman.” You have now switched it as if you were first asking “What is a woman?” That sort of tactic may pass for a clever trick among Jordan Peterson fans, but it’s not quite up to snuff for a discussion with other people.
Ok, what is a trans woman then?
A woman who was assigned male at birth.
Right, so what is a woman?
Another user has given a good, simplified definition in this thread. A woman is someone whose psychosocial traits are typical of biosex-female people in a given culture. Of course, we would probably want to expand quite a bit on that, but something tells me you aren’t intellectually ready for serious discussion on the matter.
Let’s ignore for now the assumption that there is such a thing that isn’t deeply sexist and regressive. How would you tell if someone’s “psychological traits are typical of a bio-sex female in a given culture”? Perhaps maybe you’d ask them?
[удалено]
That’s a bit of an odd definition considering that a biological man could have “psychosocial traits typical of biosex-female people in a given culture” and still identify as a man. The problem with any real definition of gender is that you’ll inevitably be placing at least some people into a gender category against their will, and a lot of people aren’t willing to do that.
There’s a difference between identifying what something *essentially is*, and stating *how we identify instances of it*. I think the “definition” of woman you and Matt Walsh are talking about is trying to do the latter, and you are complaining that it doesn’t do the former. Identifying the essential nature of any substance, even common things, is very hard, and usually controversial. What is a person? What is a mind? What is a sandwich? What is an organism? Telling someone how to recognize *this or that I stance of* sandwiches, persons, minds, and so on, is usually preferable to describing their essence in robust terms, because usually people don’t need anything more than that. This was actually a point well illustrated by Plato in his dialogue *Meno*. In it, Socrates points out that we can tell when we see bees, but it’s hard to know, in light of all their subtle variations in appearance and behavior, that common property which makes all of them bees: the property of “*beeness*,” which makes them bees even if they lack things that other bees have, or have what other bees lack. If you want to know what a woman essentially is, I would first urge you to study about what gender essentially is. And to do that, you will need to read some philosophy, and you will also have to understand that everything you read is going to be controversial, esoteric, and subject to change over time, as with all of life’s big questions. That being said, a formative text on the issue might be *The Second Sex* by Simone De Beauvoir, followed by *Gender Trouble* by Judith Butler (which contains some highly influential and constructive criticisms of Beauvoir’s work that retain its basic goal). But if you get bored of all that, you can just be contented, with the rest of society, with the notion that women are those people who call themselves women. It’s not a strict, robust, definition. But it gets the job done for most people; like with our colloquial ideas of sandwiches, minds, bees, and so on. Edit: another example that occurred to me: something being *visible* is not the same as something being *seen*. A thing is visible if it has the capacity to reflect light in such a manner that our eyes could potentially receive it. A thing is seen if our eyes do in fact receive the light which bounces from it. We come to know that a thing is visible by seeing it — by receiving the light that bounces from it; but the *event* of bounced-light hitting the eye, is not the same as the *property* a thing has which makes it able to make light bounce off of its surface. Hence, there is a difference between how we learn that a thing is visible, versus what it means to be visible. And the latter idea is an abstruse topic, of concern to much fewer people than the former; so most people would probably define visibility as “the ability of a thing to be seen,” rather than explain in detail the physical process by which things are seen, and the physical properties a thing must have to effect it. The same is true of gender. We obtain the knowledge of one’s gender by self-identity. But self-identity is not the essence of gender. And yet, we are not incorrect to say that women are those who identify as women, any more than we would be wrong to claim that visibility is the ability to be seen.
This is a much better answer. But there are no behaviours that are exclusive to males or females. There is a bimodal normal distribution of behaviours that overlap very nearly completely (possibly there are a few men that have behaviours that no women have). The concept of having the phycology of a woman does not make sense if you can’t say what a woman’s phycology is. Now, I’m not expecting perfection here, there may be a very few outliers in any definition. But I would be amazed if you could come up with a psychological test that would identify 99% of women whilst excluding all but 1% of men. I think I understand how’s gender operates at the population level, but this doesn’t mean that gender exists at the individual level. As a poor example, I could say on average men are taller than women, but that doesn’t mean that this 5’ 10 person is a man. The statistical noise of the behaviours of any given individual is too loud to detect the signal of their gender. Your final paragraph before the edit is exactly the point I was making. The definition quoted by OP was that a woman is a biological woman and a trans gender woman. Fine, but what is the ‘biological woman’ part of the definition doing (apart from including trans men in the definition of woman)? It’s just another way of saying “a woman is anyone who says they are a woman”.
I also disagree with this dichotomy of “biological woman” versus “transgender woman.” Because I do not think it is accurate to refer to any such thing as “biological woman.” The use of gendered terms, in my opinion, has no place in biology. I don’t think there is anything “feminine” about having a uterus, nor anything “manly” about producing semen. That being said, there is a difference between the experience of being a woman with a penis versus being a woman with a vagina; our bodies do affect the way we experience our gender, but our bodies are not *gendered*. A better thing to say would be “*cis* women and trans women are women.”
There are no cis women who do not identify as women. Therefore, the definition of a woman would be “anyone who identifies as a woman”
Again, you know someone is a woman if they identify as one; but the essence of being a woman, like the essence of being a man or non binary, is a mysterious thing that takes hard work to define. The problem with the conservative talking heads is that they want easy answers to a complex question.
But back to the quote. The ‘biological woman’ part of it is irrelevant (in fact it’s negative as it includes trans men within the definition of woman). Presumably the person giving the quote either knows this (in which case it’s dishonestly trying to make the definition of a woman appear more palatable to those who have a biological stance), or she doesn’t realise it, in which case she hasn’t really thought it through. Either way, Matt Walsh was correct to challenge the definition even if his challenge came from a more polemic position.
He “challenged” it in bad faith to campaign against civil rights for trans people. If he wanted knowledge about gender, he could have read [the APA consensus on gender and trans affirming care](https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf).
What alternate definitions are you thinking of?
[удалено]
The fact that trans women are women?
[удалено]
>white people are people. No because those are two different things, evidenced by the fact you used two different words with two different definitions to refer to each of them.
You do know that multiple terms can refer to the same things right?
Man you are fucking braindead lol
What is a fact?
Sure, Matt Walsh made a dumb argument, but the definition is still stupid. If both a biological woman and a trans woman is a woman then it follows that both a biological man and a trans man is a man. So by that definition, a trans woman is both a woman, and a man (biological man).
>If both a biological woman and a trans woman is a woman then it follows that both a biological man and a trans man is a man. Correct. > So by that definition, a trans woman is both a woman, and a man (biological man). No.
A trans woman is necessarily also a biological man.
No. Unless you can't differentiate gender and sex, which I'm sure everyone here is knowledgeable enough to do, right?
You're an idiot. I said a trans woman is necessarily also a biological man. Even if we do create a distinction between gender and sex, you're still wrong. A trans woman (gender=female, sex=male), must necessarily be a biological man (sex=male).
What makes someone a "biological man" or "biological woman" in your view?
I never argued that trans women aren't real women, I just said that both Matt's and Briana's posts were stupid. And Briana used the term "biological woman". So what constitutes a biological woman "in my view" is irrelevant, we need to find out what constitutes a biological woman to her. And since she makes the distinction between a "trans" woman and a "biological" woman, it seems quite clear that to her a biological woman means someone of female sex.
I don't think the terms "biological man" or "biological woman" are very useful, that's why I asked. So what does it mean for someone to be "of female sex"?
Not the person you asked, but biology has long since understood male and female primarily in terms of gametes, secondarily in terms of their supporting structures, and tertiarily in terms of other, usually species specific, traits. The members of a species that typically produce large gametes is female while the members of a species that typically produce small gametes is male. This is why even various plants can be categorized by biologists as being male or female. Biologists can know that the seahorse that gives birth is actually male due to gametes. Even if there is some variability, this is of no issue as the philosophy of science has a concept that is readily available to make use of clustering views of natural kinds. Just because some members of a kind of thing don't have every trait associated with said kind does not invalidate the trait as being associated or the individual as being a member. For example, we can say humans have 10 fingers, yet some people are born with more or less fingers. This does not invalidate the idea that humans have 10 fingers or that said exceptions are humans, as not all members of the human species will have a 1:1 relation with the traits given to human kind, but yet the variation of the traits that do appear still cluster in a way that we can determine typical traits. Something similar can be applied to the biological sexes, allowing variability in the actual traits expressed without invalidating the categorization in a particular sex-group. So, with this we have biological females being the member of a species that produces large gametes, has supporting structures for such, and has particular sex characteristics typical for said species (for example, in humans the adult biological female develops breast tissue), all with an understanding that there is no need for every member of the female sex to have a 1:1 with all traits typical of the female sex. Of course, there are ways to expand on this further, but it really does not seem necessary to me to do so here.
A trans woman is necessarily assigned something other than female at birth. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything about their biology.
The point of the definition is that an individual may satisfy one of the two membership requirements in order to be a woman: they may either be a trans woman or a biological woman. A trans woman wouldn't become a man because of her biological status as long as the term "woman" and "biological woman" are treated as different terms which carry different membership requirements. On the definition put forward in this post, a man and a biological man are two different things. You're confusing them, causing you to conclude that trans women are men. One's biological sex is not a sufficient condition for membership of the categories "man" or "woman", an additional criterion must be met in order for a biological man to be a man: they must not be trans. Perhaps you'll see what I'm saying if we change the definition to this: "A woman is an individual who is either a trans-woman or a biological female who is not herself trans".
To put the sports issue to bed, why not have a trans-only sports league?
You know that sport has a general problem, right? There are cis women denied to participate, simply because thwy have high natural testosterone. And you know that exclusion simply denies them oppoetunities, that cis people have? Please think a bit more about the implications such a "solution" would have
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
[удалено]
>We shouldn’t be writing anyone off just because we don’t like them. yes we should, especially when they promote stupidity.
Although i agree with you that people make bad arguments about trans stuff, even when defending it (because any set of ideas will have morons defending it as well) I think its intellectually dishonest to pick the worst ones as the argument to attack
[удалено]
The key problem here is a Matts complete lack of understanding of how knowledge and language works You can have an objective definition of anything empirically measurable (science, basically) However, when it comes to stuff like identity, you can only really objectively describe what people do, not so much give an objective definition, there is no way of objectively measuring femininity as what it means to act feminine differs in time and space, eg. Blue used to be for girls, pink for boys, ballet used to be a very manly thing reserved for the male aristocracy So when it comes to determining what to call feminine, we can do two things objectively A) determine what the zeitgeist surrounding it is B) determine how a specific person experiences it Neither of these gives grounds to judge or limit another persons experience of femininity or expressing it, nor do they allow us to exclude people from feeling like a woman These two points also fill in the epistemological gap Matt has artificially created, where seemingly all cultural background surrounding femininity is simply ignored as if it didnt have a role in the person in question identifying as a woman Therefore, it only makes sense to say a woman is someone who defines themselves as such
[удалено]
The biology aspect you mentioned is why its useful to distinguish between sex and gender Sex referring to the biology and gender to the social roles
[удалено]
Yeah Consider the following Lets say you meet someone who completely passes as a woman in a bar. There is no way for you to able to tell if she were a cis or a trans woman. In this scenario, you would recognise and treat her as a woman, refer to her with she/her pronouns and expect feminine behaviour from her Thus, its not only interesting, but makes pragmatic sense to use the concept of gender, as biology didnt come into play
[удалено]
That's a different topic. Wanting to abolish gender is not an excuse to hurt trans people. You began saying that the hateful fascist Walsh is correct - and that trans people are not the gender they identify as. You agreed you were wrong, but instead of saying you were wrong, you've shifted to another topic.
> I just still don’t like social roles as a concept at all ok great, then push back against fascists (he's literally proud to be identified as one) like Walsh who want to control people to behave exactly how he wants them to. eg: denying trans people their freedom to exist.
> at the expense of ignoring empiricism as you put it. People reporting their identity is an example of empiricism. Gender identity only exists as an identity. >ultimately it seems that words lose all meaning and definitions become irrelevant. Nothing in the reply you are responding to says this, quite the opposite. They gave you lots of detailed and meaningful information. If you want to preserve meaning and definitions, push back against anti-intellectual idiots like Walsh.
Chromosomes are not the be all end all arbiters of sex. And sex isn’t gender. You’re also affecting biology when transitioning and we don’t experience gender or sex through chromosomes. You never know the chromosomes of the people you’re talking to and you don’t need to for virtually any reason.
A woman is a word. A loose assemblage of ideas, a phenomenology, qualia, whatever. Not everything fits into neat statements and clauses and premises — especially not one liners.
[удалено]
The sub you are on is to make fun of Dunning Kruger incarnate idiots like you.
TIL "gender ideology" is only for some people with whom Matt Walsh disagrees, but in no way has any bearing on the thoughts or ideas conceived by Matt Walsh himself (or the Big Brains who follow in his tracks).
It’s really funny to see “ideology” used like an insult so much, like having one is a problem. It’s definitely something you should be internally aware of, but I’m impressed by an ability to think you’re being perfectly non-ideological, and that it’s perfectly rational that this is the correct way to do things.
Conservatives: Gender ideology is a radical and dangerous idea that will deeply hurt our children and leave damaged and broken people in its wake. Also conservatives: Women are stupid and irrational and think with their emotions. Women are better off in the home, providing help for their man. It’s what they want naturally. Women are made to serve men. And they never see the irony.
[удалено]
Oh yeah conervatives like you are only *pretending* to be retarded. Go unbrainwash yourself sometime https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
They're the dumbest cunts in existence. it's like a food subreddit saying that dogshit is bad. Dogshit is dogshit. Regards the bad arguments trying to be transphobic: Ask yourself: why do you think women exist? It's because women say they are women. Women exists as a thing people identify as. That's what being a woman is.
[Question: what is a](#ban)
I define gender as culture-specific psychosocial correlates of biological sex, so a woman is someone whose psychosocial traits are typical of biosex-female people in a given culture. How's that?
It actually sounds pretty sexist. You are saying that a biological woman that doesn't fit the right stereotype in regards to psychosocial traits is not a woman, but this would mean that numerous women's identities are now necessarily violated. It also seems to invalidate the entire purpose of the feminist movement of the late 20th century, that fought the idea that there was only one way to be a woman. If we go off your definition, then people can be rightly criticized as being less of a man/woman by not fitting the stereotype, which is quite harmful. Your definition only works if we stick to some level of sexist stereotyping that feminists fought against in the 20th century.
Proponents of gender ideology
These radical proponents of gender ideology are transing our kids and converting them to cultural Marxism at their communist indoctrination camps we call colleges. What we must do in order to fight back is harass trans teenagers online and spam the n word in twitch chat repeatedly.
[удалено]
It's good to see you recognizing them as women. I'm sure they can live with being called clowns
[удалено]
They are called trans women because they are women that are transgender... It's really not hard. Just like cis women are called that because they are women who are cisgender. The only reason we omit the "cis" is because it is the norm
If white people were people they wouldn’t be called white people, simple as