Gender ideology activists claiming Matt Walsh gave them 'numerous nightmares and depression spirals'

gaara4158 · Jan 22, 2022

ThatRobGuy said:
View attachment 311420

One can argue shapes and sizes of the chair, but in a practical sense, if someone says "do you have an extra chair we can pull up to the table?" We all know what they mean.

If someone comes up with a personally redefined definition of "carrot" that means something completely different and they want to start using the term "carrot" to describe a potato, when they say "pass the carrots", they shouldn't be shocked when someone hands them something other than what they were wanting, and they don't get to insist that everyone else at the dinner has to participate in their redefinition, and then imply that "it's everyone that has a problem, why are you guys so obsessed with the color, taste, and texture of vegetables?" as to make it sound like it's everyone else being pedantic and petty.

So if I pull out a short wooden stump for you to sit on, is that a chair? If not, how many furnishings does it need before it passes? You’ll find that it’s impossible to craft a definition that maps perfectly on to objective reality, and this is because language is made by and for people, not the other way around. We don’t craft definitions and then look for things that match them, we make observations and give names to things based on the usefulness of grouping them together.
Carrots are a great example of this. Carrots come in a variety of shapes and sizes, some of which you might even mistake for a beet, sweet potato, or ginger root. Chances are, though, that when you think of a carrot, you’re thinking of the Danvers variety. Does that mean Lunar Whites aren’t also carrots? The Different Types of Carrots, Explained for Home Gardeners

ThatRobGuy · Jan 22, 2022

SilverBear said:
what accommodations are you personally being compelled to make?

Me, personally? None.

I don't particularly care about things like where people go to the bathroom and I don't use Twitter.

But parents are certainly being compelled to do things in some cases, and certain workplaces and colleges are certainly demanding some pretty unreasonable expectations of people in that regard.

Look at the guidance this college is releasing that they're expecting people to follow:
Gender Pronouns | Springfield College

Things like:

Keep in mind that people may change the pronouns they go by, so it is necessary to ask pronouns in go-arounds regularly.
Do say “the pronouns someone uses” or “their personal pronouns,” rather than “their preferred pronouns,” because the pronouns someone uses are not a preference.

So the expectation is that everyone does...what? Set monthly reminders to keep asking what a person's pronouns may be for that month? Or is that not frequent enough?

Apparently you can't say "preferred pronouns" either, because they're saying "pronouns are not a preference"

Yet, one of the examples they list are

The first known case of ze being used is in 1997, by Richard Creel, who proposed ze/zer/mer (reflexive form is not recorded).

Another version was possibly independently created by Kate Bornstein in the 1998 book My Gender Workbook. This version uses ze (sometimes zie or sie) and hir. The most popular variation of these pronouns are based on this version and were created in 2013.

(this school posts an even longer list Pronouns – SafeZone)

First off, if you can constantly keep changing them, and insist that people use inquire about it in order to make sure they're using the correct one, then that's a preference. In fact, it pretty much fits the exact definition of "preference" (d. a greater liking for one alternative over another or others.)

Second, some of these like Ze/Zir, how can one suggest that the pronoun designation "isn't a preference" when the variation that's currently being used for it wasn't even a thing before 2013 (and most people, including the ones who currently use it, probably didn't know about it until 2-3 years ago)

ThatRobGuy · Jan 22, 2022

gaara4158 said:
So if I pull out a short wooden stump for you to sit on, is that a chair? If not, how many furnishings does it need before it passes?

...with a quick 5 second google search, I realize that this particular question about defining chairs (you posted earlier) in response to gender debates is a heavily copy & pasted one out there on the web.

https://www.reddit.com/r/traaaaaaan...ou_define_a_chair_in_a_way_that_includes_all/

Seemingly derived from this Tweet:

Even down to the "stump-based follow up question", that doesn't appear to be an original one either... (as I see that as a common question #2 after people give a first answer similar to mine)

With some people responding:
"Is a tree stump a chair? Yes, if you can sit on it."

And other's saying that the intent plays a factor (suggesting that if the person who's providing the stump intended for it to be used as a chair, than it is one, but if not, then it's not a chair)

What's the angle you're going for here? the "the definition of chair is meaningless, since so many things could be used as chairs that we don't call chairs" angle? Or the "how can you define chair if you can't identify the precise moment that the stump (which is being fashioned into a chair) goes from "stump" to "chair"?

Seems like this question is more or less just used a trap.

Absent a proper rebuttal to specific subject matter, I see people tossing out this loaded question as a means to turn it into a semantics debate about "the nature of how words are defined", by picking a particular object, in which, it's difficult to provide a semantic definition that meets the criteria of "including everything that is one" and "excluding everything that's not one"

ThatRobGuy · Jan 22, 2022

durangodawood said:
I agree. Its confusing.

But, I think thats normal and to be expected in a time of transition re long held norms. I would say: dont panic, things will work out. Meantime, there will be some fuss and awkwardness. Its not the end of the world.

Also. its probably not instructive to pick on the sillier people in the issue, unless the goal is just to dismiss the whole thing without challenging yourself.

I don't think he picked his particular debate opponents for that one.

Careful with calling them "sillier"...because remember, who are we to say what's "silly". That's a subjective term and if we don't define ourselves as silly, we're in no position to use our privilege to define anyone else that way

With regards to transitioning norms, I think there's nuance and distinctions in that, that need to be acknowledged.

For instance, there was a time when society frowned heavily on interracial couples and same sex couples... Getting society to be more accepting of those things (when it previously wasn't the norm) wasn't achieved by redefining what words mean, the words stayed the same, if was the shift on the mentality surrounding the concepts.

For instance:
If a White guy wanted to Marry a Black woman, the approach wasn't to redefine "what White and Black mean" order to claim "so see, we're not actually an interracial couple, we both identify as White, so it's all good"... the approach was to leave the meanings the same, and argue the case based on it's individual merits.

gaara4158 · Jan 22, 2022

ThatRobGuy said:
...with a quick 5 second google search, I realize that this particular question about defining chairs (you posted earlier) in response to gender debates is a heavily copy & pasted one out there on the web.

https://www.reddit.com/r/traaaaaaan...ou_define_a_chair_in_a_way_that_includes_all/

Seemingly derived from this Tweet:
View attachment 311423

Even down to the "stump-based follow up question", that doesn't appear to be an original one either... (as I see that as a common question #2 after people give a first answer similar to mine)

With some people responding:
"Is a tree stump a chair? Yes, if you can sit on it."

And other's saying that the intent plays a factor (suggesting that if the person who's providing the stump intended for it to be used as a chair, than it is one, but if not, then it's not a chair)

What's the angle you're going for here? the "the definition of chair is meaningless, since so many things could be used as chairs that we don't call chairs" angle? Or the "how can you define chair if you can't identify the precise moment that the stump (which is being fashioned into a chair) goes from "stump" to "chair"?

Seems like this question is more or less just used a trap.

Absent a proper rebuttal to specific subject matter, I see people tossing out this loaded question as a means to turn it into a semantics debate about "the nature of how words are defined", by picking a particular object, in which, it's difficult to provide a semantic definition that meets the criteria of "including everything that is one" and "excluding everything that's not one"

The denial of womanhood to trans women isn’t an original position either, so I’m not sure why you’re spending so much time harping on the fact that my argument isn’t mine alone. It’s clearly effective, since you admit you’re at a loss to come up with a proper rebuttal. If you’re going to say that trans women aren’t women, you’re going to have to do better than “because I define them as such.” The quality of a definition is measured by its utility. What utility is there in excluding trans women from the definition of “woman?”

ThatRobGuy · Jan 22, 2022

gaara4158 said:
The denial of womanhood to trans women isn’t an original position either, so I’m not sure why you’re spending so much time harping on the fact that my argument isn’t mine alone. It’s clearly effective, since you admit you’re at a loss to come up with a proper rebuttal. If you’re going to say that trans women aren’t women, you’re going to have to do better than “because I define them as such.” The quality of a definition is measured by its utility. What utility is there in excluding trans women from the definition of “woman?”

First off, an intentionally loaded "no-win" paradoxical philosophical brain-teaser about defining chairs is basically irrelevant, and doesn't prove anything.

That's just simply finding an largely unrelated question for which there's no possibility of a right answer.

It'd be like if I, as an Atheist, was debating a Christian/Muslim/Jewish person about aspects of morality and existence, and when confronted with a challenging concept, I resorted to the old trope of "Oh yeah, well can God create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it?".

Second,
Where did I say trans women aren't women? I don't recall using those words on here as that wasn't at the center of my critique. The two people he was debating against in the video didn't even identify as such.

I've actually come to the defense of transgender people here on CF for topics surrounding various things
Texas mom wins right to make her son her daughter

Let's talk about separate bathrooms

My concerns on the subject, for the most part, don't go any further than things like contact sports, and with regards to giving re-assignment procedures to young children.

But none of that is the crux of the argument here...

There are two basic assertions
1) Transwomen are women
2) Transwomen are not women

They're polar opposition assertions, yet, the commonality between them is that both require there to be a definition of "women" in the mind of the person espousing the assertion.

You can't say "I can't define what woman means", and make either assertion right afterwards...

It order assert a designation, one has to have a definition (even if their definition subjective, or one that other people may feel is faulty), there still has to be some standard one would be leveraging in order to make their assertion.

If I was going to say "This thing is a cat", I would still need to have some sort of internal definition of "what a cat is" in order to make that statement.

Ophiolite · Jan 22, 2022

gaara4158 said:
The denial of womanhood to trans women isn’t an original position either, so I’m not sure why you’re spending so much time harping on the fact that my argument isn’t mine alone. It’s clearly effective, since you admit you’re at a loss to come up with a proper rebuttal. If you’re going to say that trans women aren’t women, you’re going to have to do better than “because I define them as such.” The quality of a definition is measured by its utility. What utility is there in excluding trans women from the definition of “woman?”

In regard to @ThatRobGuy 's detective work on the origin of your argument, I just wondered if you identify as a plagiarist.

iluvatar5150 · Jan 22, 2022

I'm over here wondering why anybody would look to a "debate" on Dr Phil as being representative of the real substance of any position. This isn't a forum for thoughtful discussion. These people are cartoon characters designed to entertain and agitate folks sitting at home in the middle of the afternoon or in the waiting room of a car dealership listening to a tech upsell them on a $150 air filter replacement and an $800 brake job on top of the oil change they came in for.

variant · Jan 22, 2022

ThatRobGuy said:
Seems like they should have done a little research before going on the show. If people have those kinds of mental health concerns (like anxiety & depression), perhaps going on the Dr. Phil show in front of a large audience isn't the best move.

Indeed. Dr. Phil is an ambush show where the representatives of middle class conservative values get to put anyone who doesn't conform to them on trial in front of a disapproving public.

He has treated many guests this way over the years so no one should go on uninformed.

The actual mental health of anyone involved is an afterthought.

variant · Jan 22, 2022

durangodawood said:
Wait, before you said they called it a "social construct". Now youre claim theyre saying its a personal construct. I'm a bit lost.

For sure it does follow from a construct being social that its meaningless.

Overall, I'd say the construct of gender is evolving, and part of the process is some confusion and figuring things out. Nothing to freak out over. I do get how some people are made uncomfortable by shifting norms tho, and we ought to have some compassion for their predicament.

It's confusing because gender is at the same time a biological reality in terms of a physically determined set of traits, a social construct in terms of how society has dealt with that biological reality and how it informs rolls, activities and attitudes in groups, and a mental reality in how the person themselves deals with those as they relate to themselves.

If anyone tells you they understand how that should all work for everyone involved they are probably just wrong.

RDKirk · Jan 22, 2022

ThatRobGuy said:
'What is a woman?': Controversy after Dr. Phil puts non-binary guests against conservative

"Since the taping, Ethan and I have been experiencing a heightened level of anxiety to the point that we've had numerous nightmares and depression spirals over the last month"

Seems like they should have done a little research before going on the show. If people have those kinds of mental health concerns (like anxiety & depression), perhaps going on the Dr. Phil show in front of a large audience isn't the best move.

Also, if someone is that sensitive to criticism, perhaps going toe to toe in a debate environment with a guy, for which, there are probably hundreds of "this person owns XYZ" videos widely available on youtube probably isn't the best position to be putting themselves in.

It'd be kind of like a person saying "I'm a staunch vegan, and easily triggered by the sight of someone eating meat to the point it gives me nightmares" agreeing to be part of an event at a rib cook-off...

Matt Walsh fired back with:
"The emotional blackmail these frauds used after the fact, claiming that I caused nightmares and depression and simply by voicing my opinion, may seem funny because it's so ridiculous but it's also a bullying tactic used by bad people to control the conversation,"

Here's a video of the exchange:

They are playing a typical narcissist trick.

RDKirk · Jan 22, 2022

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:
Matt Walsh doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. Or is closet case. He's a bit obsessed over something that he knows nothing about. A transgender female isn't a transgender female just because they want to play with a girl toy. There's way more involved in being a transgender. Conservative Christians or people need to stay out, of something they know nothing about.

Even within the trans community, there are those who are firmly committed to the idea that gender is a real thing, indisputable and unignorable...which is why they have gone to great lengths to make their outward appearance match their inner orientation. Otherwise, as one has said, "Instead of going through all this surgery, I'd just have changed my clothes."

RDKirk · Jan 22, 2022

gaara4158 said:
The denial of womanhood to trans women isn’t an original position either, so I’m not sure why you’re spending so much time harping on the fact that my argument isn’t mine alone. It’s clearly effective, since you admit you’re at a loss to come up with a proper rebuttal. If you’re going to say that trans women aren’t women, you’re going to have to do better than “because I define them as such.” The quality of a definition is measured by its utility. What utility is there in excluding trans women from the definition of “woman?”

So what are people who are born with uteruses when you have done so?

SilverBear · Jan 22, 2022

ThatRobGuy said:
An argument can be made that certain aspects of race are a construct, but not in the same way as this topic.

The designation of race typically more used as "consolidation terms" to consolidate heritages or consolidate ethnicities, and is defined as “a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.”

For instance, on a survey when they ask for race, and give you the options of (White,Black,Asian,Hispanic/Latino,Other)

The term "White" would be what's used to describe me (being someone who's from Irish, Polish, and Swedish descent)

Despite the designation being a "high level construct", it still represents something that accurate.

what is the accurate designation for someone who is Irish and Japanese?

The designation of "Black" would be the same deal, but I certainly couldn't go around and start telling people "I identify as Black" and then try to defend it on the grounds that "it's just a social construct, so why does it matter?"

being a social construct doesn't make something less real just more difficult to pidgeonhole

So if a "White" person started referring to themselves as "Black" at the office, and everyone collectively said "Sorry, nope, I'm not playing along with that", does that person get to claim that they feel "attacked"? I guess they technically could, but I doubt it'd get very far.

you seem to be saying that being transgender is as frivolous as just announcing you are and those that do somehow deserve to be belittled and harassed.

SilverBear · Jan 22, 2022

ThatRobGuy said:
Me, personally? None.

so if you aren't being compelled to make accomidations then not everyone is being compelled that your statement " if nobody was trying to compel everyone else in society to make accommodations, it's likely most wouldn't have a strong opinion one way or the other." looses all meaning.

I don't particularly care about things like where people go to the bathroom and I don't use Twitter.

that's nice i guess

But parents are certainly being compelled to do things in some cases,

What things?

and certain workplaces and colleges are certainly demanding some pretty unreasonable expectations of people in that regard.

who is doing the demanding and what unreasonable things are they demanding and where is this happening?

I don't think demanding to not be belittled or harassed at work is an unreasonable expectation. DO you?

Look at the guidance this college is releasing that they're expecting people to follow:
Gender Pronouns | Springfield College

Things like:

Keep in mind that people may change the pronouns they go by, so it is necessary to ask pronouns in go-arounds regularly.

Do say “the pronouns someone uses” or “their personal pronouns,” rather than “their preferred pronouns,” because the pronouns someone uses are not a preference.

asking people to be polite....what a horrible thing to ask!!!

So the expectation is that everyone does...what? Set monthly reminders to keep asking what a person's pronouns may be for that month? Or is that not frequent enough?

if you can't figure it out maybe you shouldn't be in college.

Apparently you can't say "preferred pronouns" either, because they're saying "pronouns are not a preference"

you can say anything you like. some might consider you to be a jerk though

Yet, one of the examples they list are
View attachment 311421
The first known case of ze being used is in 1997, by Richard Creel, who proposed ze/zer/mer (reflexive form is not recorded).

Another version was possibly independently created by Kate Bornstein in the 1998 book My Gender Workbook. This version uses ze (sometimes zie or sie) and hir. The most popular variation of these pronouns are based on this version and were created in 2013.

(this school posts an even longer list Pronouns – SafeZone)

i doubt it will ever catch on.

is anyone actually being inconvenienced by this or do you just want to complain about something?

First off, if you can constantly keep changing them, and insist that people use inquire about it in order to make sure they're using the correct one, then that's a preference. In fact, it pretty much fits the exact definition of "preference" (d. a greater liking for one alternative over another or others.)

Second, some of these like Ze/Zir, how can one suggest that the pronoun designation "isn't a preference" when the variation that's currently being used for it wasn't even a thing before 2013 (and most people, including the ones who currently use it, probably didn't know about it until 2-3 years ago)[/QUOTE]well that answers my question

SilverBear · Jan 22, 2022

ThatRobGuy said:
...with a quick 5 second google search, I realize that this particular question about defining chairs (you posted earlier) in response to gender debates is a heavily copy & pasted one out there on the web.

https://www.reddit.com/r/traaaaaaan...ou_define_a_chair_in_a_way_that_includes_all/

Seemingly derived from this Tweet:
View attachment 311423

Even down to the "stump-based follow up question", that doesn't appear to be an original one either... (as I see that as a common question #2 after people give a first answer similar to mine)

With some people responding:
"Is a tree stump a chair? Yes, if you can sit on it."

And other's saying that the intent plays a factor (suggesting that if the person who's providing the stump intended for it to be used as a chair, than it is one, but if not, then it's not a chair)

What's the angle you're going for here? the "the definition of chair is meaningless, since so many things could be used as chairs that we don't call chairs" angle? Or the "how can you define chair if you can't identify the precise moment that the stump (which is being fashioned into a chair) goes from "stump" to "chair"?

Seems like this question is more or less just used a trap.

Absent a proper rebuttal to specific subject matter, I see people tossing out this loaded question as a means to turn it into a semantics debate about "the nature of how words are defined", by picking a particular object, in which, it's difficult to provide a semantic definition that meets the criteria of "including everything that is one" and "excluding everything that's not one"

it took less than 5 seconds to figure out you just didn't want to actually answer the questions

gaara4158 · Jan 22, 2022

ThatRobGuy said:
First off, an intentionally loaded "no-win" paradoxical philosophical brain-teaser about defining chairs is basically irrelevant, and doesn't prove anything.

That's just simply finding an largely unrelated question for which there's no possibility of a right answer.

It'd be like if I, as an Atheist, was debating a Christian/Muslim/Jewish person about aspects of morality and existence, and when confronted with a challenging concept, I resorted to the old trope of "Oh yeah, well can God create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it?".

Second,
Where did I say trans women aren't women? I don't recall using those words on here as that wasn't at the center of my critique. The two people he was debating against in the video didn't even identify as such.

I've actually come to the defense of transgender people here on CF for topics surrounding various things
Texas mom wins right to make her son her daughter

Let's talk about separate bathrooms

My concerns on the subject, for the most part, don't go any further than things like contact sports, and with regards to giving re-assignment procedures to young children.

But none of that is the crux of the argument here...

There are two basic assertions
1) Transwomen are women
2) Transwomen are not women

They're polar opposition assertions, yet, the commonality between them is that both require there to be a definition of "women" in the mind of the person espousing the assertion.

You can't say "I can't define what woman means", and make either assertion right afterwards...

It order assert a designation, one has to have a definition (even if their definition subjective, or one that other people may feel is faulty), there still has to be some standard one would be leveraging in order to make their assertion.

If I was going to say "This thing is a cat", I would still need to have some sort of internal definition of "what a cat is" in order to make that statement.

First, it’s not a loaded, paradoxical brain teaser. It’s a demonstration of the function and limitations of language to describe reality. By excluding trans women from the category of women, you would not be championing any objective biological reality. You would be fighting for a trans exclusionary definition of gender. You would need to justify that.

Second, if you’re not taking that position, that’s great. There were others in this thread mocking the concept of socially constructed definitions, so the above is directed at them. That said, your dissatisfaction with the lack of a perfect, concrete definition of “woman” coming from either side of the aisle hotly debating who qualifies is understandable. However, as stated above, that’s just a limitation of language. It’s not something that’s ever going to be “solved” for good; rather, language will continue to evolve alongside society as we see fit, and that’s going to mean expanding and restricting the uses of words as necessary.

Now, all of this may seem legerdemain to you, since in all of this I have not attempted to define “woman” at all, nor defend the inclusion of trans women in that category. The first two points were necessary preamble so that this can be made clear. The term “woman” refers to the feminine end of the bimodal distribution of gender expressions, opposite “man” on the masculine end. Gender expression manifests in many ways, including assumed social roles, wardrobe, and mannerisms, but what the recent controversy is about — and the point of contention in this thread — is the performative aspect of gender expression. That is to say, part of being a woman is saying you’re a woman. It’s not what defines womanhood, but it indicates it.

gaara4158 · Jan 22, 2022

RDKirk said:
So what are people who are born with uteruses when you have done so?

Females, generally.

ThatRobGuy · Jan 22, 2022

gaara4158 said:
That said, your dissatisfaction with the lack of a perfect, concrete definition of “woman” coming from either side of the aisle hotly debating who qualifies is understandable. However, as stated above, that’s just a limitation of language. It’s not something that’s ever going to be “solved” for good; rather, language will continue to evolve alongside society as we see fit, and that’s going to mean expanding and restricting the uses of words as necessary.

I don't think the definition has to be perfect...it can be partially subjective if that's how people want to look at it, but there has to be some definition or some standard for even subjectivity to make sense.

For instance, one person can say "this bread tastes too sweet", another can say "this bread isn't sweet enough"

Neither are "right" or "wrong", but there at least has to be a commonality in terms of what "sweet" is meant to convey in order for the conversation to have any meaning or context.

If one person is saying it, using the commonly long-held definition of "taste characteristic of sugar or honey", and the other has repurposed the term (for them) to mean "resembling the taste of garlic"...or even less productive "I can't define it" or "It's whatever I decide it means today, could change tomorrow", then a debate about the flavor of the bread is meaningless.

My critique wasn't that they were using a "imperfect definition", it's that they were unwilling to provide any definition at all.

Walsh was able to provide a quick & ready definition, which was "An adult human female" People can agree or disagree with his standard on that, but at least you know what you're debating against. How do you debate against a person making an assertion, and isn't even willing to make an attempt to define what standard they're basing it on?

If you and I were having an economic debate, and I said "I think social spending is too high" and you asked the reasonable follow-up question "what are you defining as social spending and what limits are you setting to designate 'too high'?", and I said "I can't define it", that economic exchange isn't going to get very far.

ThatRobGuy · Jan 22, 2022

SilverBear said:
it took less than 5 seconds to figure out you just didn't want to actually answer the questions

Which question, the chair question? There is no correct answer. But I did answer it, I posted the websters definition of it.

I've seen how it plays out
If you post the websters definition of it, the canned response is to eventually post a picture of a horse because "that's something you can sit on that has 4 legs"

If you say "I guess I can't define chair", then the canned response is "so now you see why you can't define gender"

It's loaded in such a way that no matter how you answer, it makes you look "wrong"

Like I said, it's sort of like that question "Can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it", it's intentionally designed in such a way that no matter how the person answers, the other side can claim they "won". That's typically the hack rebuttal I see my fellow atheists use in debates after they've tapped all of the memorized quotes they had from a Richard Dawkins book, and are ready to go to bed.

Gender ideology activists claiming Matt Walsh gave them 'numerous nightmares and depression spirals'

Gen Alpha Dad

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Gen Alpha Dad

Part of the IT crowd

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Happy Cat

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Gen Alpha Dad

Gen Alpha Dad

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads