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

Status
Not open for further replies.

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
Sure, and I won’t defend someone who won’t define their own position. As others have said, the Dr. Phil interview is not indicative of the general attitudes of transgender people. I don’t find it useful to focus on outliers like this, so if that’s all you wish to discuss I’ll just bow out. The information I find important has been conveyed.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sorry, can't quote all of your post, it looks like your quote tags got messed up so it's not rendering right on my phone.

What things?

Like having to allow their young children to go through gender affirmation at ages as young as 5. Or having the courts threaten to take custody away if they won't allow their child to get altering hormone therapy.

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?

I posted the links, certain colleges are incorporating the aforementioned ideas into their school policy.

It has nothing to do with harassment, it has to do with the imposition. Do you start every conversation with "What are you pronouns?" Or could you ever imagine doing that?

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



i doubt it will ever catch on.

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

How far does something have to go before it's officially "caught on"? The conversation is being made the subject of major talk shows and being incorporated into college handbooks.

If they're following that one college's handbook (the one I linked earlier), then that would be pretty inconvenient. As I said, having to start every single conversation with asking someone what their pronouns are, and then not even being able to refer to someone else in that conversation without first checking on their pronouns seems like it would be pretty exhausting.

Is that how you conduct all of your discourse. If you were going to tell a story about what happened at the grocery store involving a guy dropping some eggs, would you go out of your way to use a gender-neutral designation for him since you didn't know for sure which pronouns they had?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sure, and I won’t defend someone who won’t define their own position. As others have said, the Dr. Phil interview is not indicative of the general attitudes of transgender people. I don’t find it useful to focus on outliers like this, so if that’s all you wish to discuss I’ll just bow out. The information I find important has been conveyed.

Correct, it's not indicative of the attitudes of transgender people as a whole.

But it's been my experience in talking with people and observing, that the "gender non-binary" movement is something totally different.

In large, the transgender advocates typically just want transmen to be treated like men, and transwomen to be treated like women, but they still acknowledge the biological binary. There's a reason why (despite the rationale that there's a difference between biological sex and gender), transmen go for a look that's common in biological males and transwomen target a look that's typically associated with biological females
(like Shawn Stinson who was born female but identifies as a man...clearly he had a definition of "man" in his mind when going through the process, thus the reason he's worked so hard to cultivate the kind of look that other men would be envious of)
hiyz2wkzd8q21.png



Blaire White (a Transgender woman) actually covered the topic of Non-binary pretty well in this video in my opinion, her take on it has a good balance of accommodation vs. practicality, and explains some of the key differences between the two.

The one statement she makes hits the nail on the head with summarizing the difference
"The non-binary movement wants to normalize the concept of having to make 'what are your pronouns' as common of an introduction as 'hi, how are you doing', as where we trans people do everything in our power to be able to walk into a room and have you knowing how we identify without you having to ask"
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.

Ironically enough, on this particular one, it seems to be the side opposite of Matt Walsh that was getting the "crowd pop".

But I've seen clips of it going both ways.

...however, I'd agree though, going into certain environments isn't for "the fragile".

On the opposite end, if someone is an "easily upset" conservative, going on The View isn't going to a pleasant experience for them.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.

Normally I'd be inclined to agree...but per one of my previous posts, there are some college campuses and some clinical psychologists advocating for some of the wacky ideas being espoused by both sets of "cartoon characters" on the panel. Some of the more "zany" ideas have become more mainstream over the past 5-7 years.

Whether it be the ones who want to allow children to take gender-affirming hormones while they're still so young that you need to pretend the spoon is an airplane to get them to eat vegetables...or the people who think that pastoral "religious counseling" and "conversion therapy" is appropriate to try on a 18 year old.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
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.

So what exactly are these social roles, wardrobe, and mannerisms that precisely define what a woman is as opposed to a man, and what is a "feminine end" as opposed to a "masculine end"?

Walsh's definition is very objectively clear and to the point and has been used and easily understood and agreed upon for practically all of human history by human beings everywhere.

Your attempt is very unclear and confusing and based on other terms that are also vague and subjective, an unproven idea imagined into existence by queer theory academics in the latter part of the 20th century for particular cultural and political agendas.

And yet somehow, rational people are supposed to reject the tried and true definitions of woman and man for something that is so far "off the rocker" that it only sounds less than laughable to those who have been programmed or hypnotized into believing it.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Sorry, can't quote all of your post, it looks like your quote tags got messed up so it's not rendering right on my phone.



Like having to allow their young children to go through gender affirmation at ages as young as 5.
I'm, a parent and no one is compelling or even suggesting things like this to my family

Or having the courts threaten to take custody away if they won't allow their child to get altering hormone therapy.
good thing this isn't actually happeneing


I posted the links, certain colleges are incorporating the aforementioned ideas into their school policy.

It has nothing to do with harassment, it has to do with the imposition. Do you start every conversation with "What are you pronouns?" Or could you ever imagine doing that?
I don't start or end any conversation with derogatory nicknames and that is harassment.






How far does something have to go before it's officially "caught on"?
do you see anyone actually using these newly minted pronouns?


I don't

The conversation is being made the subject of major talk shows and being incorporated into college handbooks.
and thats....bad?


If they're following that one college's handbook (the one I linked earlier), then that would be pretty inconvenient. As I said, having to start every single conversation with asking someone what their pronouns are, and then not even being able to refer to someone else in that conversation without first checking on their pronouns seems like it would be pretty exhausting.
its good that you and no one else is being forced to do this....but you already knew that.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm, a parent and no one is compelling or even suggesting things like this to my family

Just because "something's not happening to me" doesn't mean it's not happening
Judge gives grandparents custody of Ohio transgender teen | CNN

That's sort of like when the GOP senator came in holding a snowball and used that as "see, there's snow here so global warming must not be real"

good thing this isn't actually happeneing

What do you mean it's not actually happening? I posted two links from two separate colleges showing that it's happening.

I don't start or end any conversation with derogatory nicknames and that is harassment.

This isn't about derogatory nicknames, this is about the concept of "misgendering" or "using the wrong pronouns". If that's the problem, then the only solution is for me to start every conversation with asking someone what their pronouns are...which is asking me to do something.

There's a stark difference between using an intentionally derogatory term for a trans person, and seeing someone who clearly looks closer to one gender or the other, and calling them "he/him" instead of their preferred "ze/zir"

do you see anyone actually using these newly minted pronouns?

preferred gender pronoun

Attention Everyone: That Manhole Is Now a Maintenance Hole

No More Manholes in Berkeley as City Writes Gender Out of Codes (Published 2019)

Yes...in the town for which the college is named, they pushed to have a "manhole cover" now be referred to as a "maintenance hole cover" in order to be "gender neutral" to appease the woke kids attending that university.

In addition:
upload_2022-1-22_20-41-56.png


and thats....bad?
its good that you and no one else is being forced to do this....but you already knew that.

If schools are putting it in their handbooks, and cities are writing it into their city code, then people are being compelled to do that.

And they're not coy about their efforts to expand the idea... Per the New York Times article
The law would apply to traffic, health and safety regulations, garbage collection, environmental rules, construction permits — all of the business of a city.

What happens in California has often made its way across the country, whether it was banning smoking in restaurants, enacting strict tailpipe emission standards or allowing right turns at red lights.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So what exactly are these social roles, wardrobe, and mannerisms that precisely define what a woman is as opposed to a man, and what is a "feminine end" as opposed to a "masculine end"?

Walsh's definition is very objectively clear and to the point and has been used and easily understood and agreed upon for practically all of human history by human beings everywhere.

Your attempt is very unclear and confusing and based on other terms that are also vague and subjective, an unproven idea imagined into existence by queer theory academics in the latter part of the 20th century for particular cultural and political agendas.

And yet somehow, rational people are supposed to reject the tried and true definitions of woman and man for something that is so far "off the rocker" that it only sounds less than laughable to those who have been programmed or hypnotized into believing it.

The fact that Walsh provided a definition (even if it wasn't one I'd 100% agree with) shows that he's a step ahead of his debate opponents.

For instance, Janet Mock...
janetmock-portrait.jpg


I would call Janet a woman, treat her as a woman, refer to her as "she/her".

Matt Walsh would disagree with me and say "that's just a confused man".

But at least he has a tangible and definitive stance I can debate against so I know where he stands.

His debate opponents being deliberately vague, and refusing to define their terms means that they're just basically trying to set up a "no-lose" situation, in which they can assert anything, and simply rely on the "you can't prove a negative" logic in order to have an "easy out" of actually debating an issue, an instead simply rely on the "intersectional hierarchy" to win public favor.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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 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.
See, I don’t like that you’ve responded in this way even after I’ve explained the purpose of my line of argumentation. Are you trying your luck with this other user after dodging the argument with me?
Correct, it's not indicative of the attitudes of transgender people as a whole.

But it's been my experience in talking with people and observing, that the "gender non-binary" movement is something totally different.

In large, the transgender advocates typically just want transmen to be treated like men, and transwomen to be treated like women, but they still acknowledge the biological binary. There's a reason why (despite the rationale that there's a difference between biological sex and gender), transmen go for a look that's common in biological males and transwomen target a look that's typically associated with biological females
(like Shawn Stinson who was born female but identifies as a man...clearly he had a definition of "man" in his mind when going through the process, thus the reason he's worked so hard to cultivate the kind of look that other men would be envious of)
hiyz2wkzd8q21.png



Blaire White (a Transgender woman) actually covered the topic of Non-binary pretty well in this video in my opinion, her take on it has a good balance of accommodation vs. practicality, and explains some of the key differences between the two.

The one statement she makes hits the nail on the head with summarizing the difference
"The non-binary movement wants to normalize the concept of having to make 'what are your pronouns' as common of an introduction as 'hi, how are you doing', as where we trans people do everything in our power to be able to walk into a room and have you knowing how we identify without you having to ask"
I’m not a fan of Blaire White, but I have to admit that’s a strong argument she’s making. While it’s a polite and accepted norm within certain circles to establish pronouns at the beginning of a conversation, I don’t think it’s something that needs to become universal. I’m inclined to respect whatever pronouns people tell me they use, and if it’s something other than he/she or they’re not physically transitioned, I’d expect them to tell me upfront if they prefer to be referred to by other pronouns.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
The fact that Walsh provided a definition (even if it wasn't one I'd 100% agree with) shows that he's a step ahead of his debate opponents.

For instance, Janet Mock...
janetmock-portrait.jpg


I would call Janet a woman, treat her as a woman, refer to her as "she/her".

Matt Walsh would disagree with me and say "that's just a confused man".

But at least he has a tangible and definitive stance I can debate against so I know where he stands.

Did you see the interview that Ben Shapiro did with Blair White? They discuss this exact thing. Most reasonable people would probably be willing to treat Janet as a woman and not make a huge issue out of it even if they know that Janet is in reality a man identifying as a woman and not an actual woman.

His debate opponents being deliberately vague, and refusing to define their terms means that they're just basically trying to set up a "no-lose" situation, in which they can assert anything, and simply rely on the "you can't prove a negative" logic in order to have an "easy out" of actually debating an issue, an instead simply rely on the "intersectional hierarchy" to win public favor.

It's a deliberate tactic of critical pedagogy, which is one reason why I attempt to expose it as the poison it is when I see it.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
See, I don’t like that you’ve responded in this way even after I’ve explained the purpose of my line of argumentation. Are you trying your luck with this other user after dodging the argument with me?

I'm not dodging anything...I've already stated my position on that line of questioning.

I provided an answer to your original question by posting the websters definition of "chair", and then explained the reasons why it's not applicable to this subject, and my reasons why simply asking the "other side" a no-win question is lazy debate tactics. I even went as far as highlighting an example of when my fellow atheists do it and I why I disagree with it when they do it as well.

Whether or not one can semantically define "chair" in a way that includes all chairs and exclude everything that's not a chair is irrelevant to the the fact that in common usage withing the English language, certain things are commonly understood terms and designations.

That doesn't change the fact that within our language, when people hear the word "chair" it has a commonly recognized connotation.

If you want to change that nature of how human languages function as a means of communications and conveying ideas, then that's a larger debate than just gender expression.

If I was in a room with someone with these two objects, and said hand me "the chair", which one would the overwhelming majority of the people hand me?

upload_2022-1-22_21-17-27.jpeg
upload_2022-1-22_21-17-43.jpeg


A word is a recognizable sound that conveys an idea...without that common understanding of "this sound conveys this idea" society is in trouble.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not dodging anything...I've already stated my position on that line of questioning.

I provided an answer to your original question by posting the websters definition of "chair", and then explained the reasons why it's not applicable to this subject, and my reasons why simply asking the "other side" a no-win question is lazy debate tactics. I even went as far as highlighting an example of when my fellow atheists do it and I why I disagree with it when they do it as well.

Whether or not one can semantically define "chair" in a way that includes all chairs and exclude everything that's not a chair is irrelevant to the the fact that in common usage withing the English language, certain things are commonly understood terms and designations.

That doesn't change the fact that within our language, when people hear the word "chair" it has a commonly recognized connotation.

If you want to change that nature of how human languages function as a means of communications and conveying ideas, then that's a larger debate than just gender expression.

If I was in a room with someone with these two objects, and said hand me "the chair", which one would the overwhelming majority of the people hand me?

View attachment 311448View attachment 311449

A word is a recognizable sound that conveys an idea...without that common understanding of "this sound conveys this idea" society is in trouble.
Oh, so you simply didn’t read my response when you said all that the first time. That’s disappointing. You seemed good-faith in your other replies to me. I have already explained the intent and point behind that line of argumentation, and yet you’re reverting back to your original critique as though no such explanation was given. And you had the audacity to suggest I’m on some kind of script? Seems to me you’re the one with a dialogue tree.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Oh, so you simply didn’t read my response when you said all that the first time. That’s disappointing. You seemed good-faith in your other replies to me.

Which response are you referencing? This one? Pretty sure I've responded to each of the times you quoted me, if there's one I missed I'd be happy to address it

You 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.

If that is the one you're referring to, what's being discussed is not a symptom of "limitation of language".

People should be able to explain what the mean when they something is or isn't "XYZ"... Even if the language isn't "perfect", it's adequate enough to be able to convey an idea.

The people in question (in the original video) weren't even trying to explain their definitions.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Which response are you referencing? This one? Pretty sure I've responded to each of the times you quoted me, if there's one I missed I'd be happy to address it



If that is the one you're referring to, what's being discussed is not a symptom of "limitation of language".

People should be able to explain what the mean when they something is or isn't "XYZ"... Even if the language isn't "perfect", it's adequate enough to be able to convey an idea.

The people in question (in the original video) weren't even trying to explain their definitions.
I’m not talking about the people in the video, but rather trans people in general. The chair argument is a well-known and effective argument to use against anyone who challenges the concept of transgenderism, which… you’ve sent mixed signals about here. On one hand, you honor the pronouns of clearly passing trans women, but on the other, you seem averse to the concept of fluid and malleable definitions of the genders. What’s going on here?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I’m not talking about the people in the video, but rather trans people in general. The chair argument is a well-known and effective argument to use against anyone who challenges the concept of transgenderism, which… you’ve sent mixed signals about here. On one hand, you honor the pronouns of clearly passing trans women, but on the other, you seem averse to the concept of fluid and malleable definitions of the genders. What’s going on here?

"Clearly passing trans women" are also adverse to the concept of fluid and malleable definitions of the genders.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.