Matt Walsh (which we don't care about) came up with the idea i think after this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWtG...annel=USATODAY

If it isn't a gotcha question, that puts the tragicomical insanity of radical trans activism naked for all to see, why did a nominee for scotus fumble it's way to a non-answer to that very question?

Why is it so hard to answer it in a way the vast majority of the people would agree is obviously true, as it would have been for everyone from the left to the right 40 years ago?

because you cannot answer the question in a normal way without spitting upon gender theory OR upon normal people who don't care about gender theory.

If you answer biologically like normal people would, you deny trans women are women. If you answer "a woman is any person who identifies as a woman" normal people call the ambulance

no we don't? you do maybe, but we don't? the fact that gender is something different from biological sex and exists semi-independently from it is something a lot of us disagree with?

Why would be not be happy to extend the label man to a woman that feels he is a man... well for example so we don't have to say that men can be pregnant?

We use man and woman to identify who can carry a child and who can't which is a kinda relevant thing for human societies. We also accept women are weaker, less expendable, and deserving help more than men are, and legislate in that direction.

So extending the label of woman to men bypasses that attempt to help people who need that help as well.

The idea that we can "solve" women labor force participation rates if a lot of working men just self identify as women is... genuinely atrocious.

Lol. A short while ago I put Lucium on my ignore list (due to being annoying in the Canada thread). When you do this you still see that he HAS posted, but you have to click "view post" to see it. So I noticed that his posts kept showing up right after mine. Testing the theory, I just clicked the "view post" button, and yup the dude is still replying to me despite knowing he is on my ignore list.

What a great confirmation that the ignore list is precisely where he belongs. Anyways, now if people wonder why I'm not responding to his posts, now you know.

Yes because since very early on it has always been clear you aren't someone to engage with in order to have a useful debate about anything. You are like the stereotype technocratic moderate economic-wise, radical cultural leftist (maybe for show? because your marxist coscience requires you to be radical at least in something, and given you don't want to give up economic wellbeing, you jump into culture, many such cases) , who thinks he is fundamentally morally superior to everyone else.

Which is fine for me because your takes on stuff are very clearly the take of your tribe so i can comment on them for other people to read.

I think the best question here is... why do you care?

How does this affect your life on a personal level if women want to identify as men and vice versa?

It's interesting that when conservatives groups throughout the world were first trying to bring up trans rights issues as a wedge issue for their base, it just didn't poll very well on the whole and it didn't move the needle. They were really actively searching for a new bigoted position, because gay rights was slowly being accepted in conservative circles, so it just wasn't a very effective base wedge issue anymore.

When they applied the issue to sports, and this idea of "fairness in sports", that's when the issue started polling well and taking off. They found the justified bigoted position, and now it's somehow a big issue, even though it really doesn't affect anyone's life very much. Some people in your community have gender dysphoria... ok... so what?

As a taxpayer, if i have to pay for any care of something that science today doesn't consider illness, it affects me personally, especially in countries like Italy were care is rationed because of socialized public care.

For the rest as a man adult trans activism doesn't touch me too much, unless they want to legally force me to address people in the way they feel is proper, or they put quotas anywhere in favor of trans people (like it happened in my city) , or they legally mandate me to hire them even if i dislike the idea of being around a crossdresser (which i could previously discriminate against) and so on.

So with absolutely no taxpayer money ever spent toward trans-ness in any form, no legal mandate, no protected status from discrimination, it wouldn't bother me for adults, directly.

But i care about women rights, and trans activism destroys that. If my partner, my mother, my daughter or my sister or any of my actually biological female friends end up in jail (and in italy there is no bail, so it's common to end up in jail as innocent), i want to be sure no-one with a penis can be in a cell with them when the light goes off for example. Maybe you have never thought about it in this way, but for me it's so obvious it's painful to need to state it.

I also think about rape shelters, where victimized women should have a right not to be around, again, actual penises. And so on.

Then there is all the part about minors which i think i explained well enough, but the tldr is that protecting even a single actually non-trans minor from sterilization is enough for me.

The usual suspects are trying that, but they aren't getting very far. Cass has changed the landscape. Labour's had to accept it (despite a previous self-ID policy), the Tories have had to accept it (despite a previous self-ID policy), the Lib Dems are reduced to incoherent mumbling and so are Stonewall. Even Labour backbencher Dawn Butler, who in 2020 tried to claim on live TV that 'children are born without sex', has had to apologise for misleading the House of Commons by quoting a Stonewall attempt to rebut Cass which turned out to be a lie.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...l-cass-review/

And the Scottish government at first said they were going to ignore Cass because England doesn't count, but now Sandyford, Scotland's gender clinic, equivalent to the now-closed Tavistock GIDS in London, has 'paused' the use of puberty blockers. (Fear of litigation is a hell of a kick up the arse.)

Even Private Eye, which for a long time, despite many promptings, has ignored what may be the largest medical scandal of recent times (because, as I have reason to know in another connection, Ian Hislop, though a decent and astute person, likes to 'have the audience on his side' and does not like to stick his neck out), is now publishing medical commentary in support of Cass and against the Orwellian thought-police stuff that the genderists have been getting up to.

I've never once seen nor read anything of matt walsh

asking what defines things is one of the very cores of logic and philosophy - something that anyone with an education would be very familiar with

ie you can't discuss if something is sublime, without first defining and discussing what sublime is

sadly, all of Plato's efforts were in vain, as we learned long after his time what the true definition of sublime is





but for real


he's using the most very basic concepts used in any logic or philosophical driven discussion - but because some random online personality also used it then it's off limits?

hitler loved eating breakfast, it was his favorite meal, does this mean anyone from this point out who eats breakfast wants to rekindle the third reich? or perhaps they just like breakfast?


but you ignore and discount his argument, just because someone else you don't like may have also used a similar argument, forgetting that it's not the "matt walsh method" but it's the socratic method because you just have tunnel vision of hate

what do you think the reason why they segregate sexes in sports is in the first place?

They're just cults. If you believe you're a woman then you're a woman. If you believe you're a man then you're a man. Not too much different than religions at all.

This was in response to uke's question, 'Do you think that gender is made up too?' And it is correct, because, if we may refer to Aristotle for a moment, gender is a noumenon (a thing of the mind) and not a phenomenon (a thing of objective, observable, empirical reality which exists in itself regardless of what anyone thinks about it). Sex, of course, is a phenomenon.

Let's put it this way, the "What is a Woman?" together with follow up responses is a tell. You don't give off the vibe of a Matt Walsh fanboy, though, so congrats, but it is fairly clear that hole in wan is playing the matt walsh wannabe card.

Plenty of "real" things we talk about without any issue are "a thing of the mind". I'm not impressed with this dichotomy, but why exactly should I care if gender is categorized as a noumenon.

Choose your own adventure social club.

Sounds like your powers of observation are adequate.

Most people don't care if you want to behave in a way that doesn't conform with typical societal gender norms, but they draw the line when you pretend that also means there is no inherent difference in the sexes and use your personal kink as justification to cross certain boundaries that are in place for good reasons.

What point do you think your post was making? It's not bigoted to disallow adults to beat up on children in sports. It's not bigoted to prevent a 260lb boxer from competing against 180lb opponents. It's a safety issue, among other things.

The irony of the gender discussion is that the gender advocates demand that gender be treated as real, but their very own ideology negates it.

Maybe re-framing would help, because if you live in a country w/ socialized medicine, you're going to pay for that person's care, whether it's transitioning, mental health, or otherwise. And sorry, but it's seen as valid health care in your country. You're probably talking about pennies of difference, if much at all.

I think rape shelters, and jail, since I'm sure that's high on your personal list of concerns, will be reasonable and not put anyone that's experiencing trauma in a bad situation. That's a bit silly honestly. The concern will be for the individual, and trans men aren't going to be in those situations, hoping they can take advantage of some woman. Come on.


So in a nutshell, you don't want to recognize, that all throughout history, there's been gender dysphoria, and instead of accommodating people and helping people, you want to fight against them essentially. Because this small minority of people keep you up at night, typing away on forums about how transsexual people will ruin your world and maybe make you pay a penny more in taxes?

I think you need a new hobby brother.

Oh yeah, I'm still waiting for the Celebrity Death Match between the top Trans and Feminism activists.

Gender really is whatever we make of it, but it isn't non-males who are pushing gender roles. It's males with the patriarchy and all that stuff.

Like, women who are advocating for equal pay aren't the barrier between them and equal pay. It's the men in power who are. Women fighting back against catcalling, groping, and the like aren't the problem; sexually harrassing men are the problem. Women fighting for access to birth control and reproductive rights aren't the problem; allies of that patriarchy are the problem.

Victim blaming is the easy go-to with identity politics. It's usually (white) cis males who are the most ardent believers that ignoring identity politics will make them go away. Meanwhile, they use their identity almost all the time.

My point is simple... they are seeking out ways to exploit bigotry. It's not as if trans wedge issues weren't eliciting reactions from conservative bases, it's that it wasn't large enough.

You can list all the issues in society on trans rights, one by one, and I'd bet barely none of them actually affect you. But sports... don't ruin the sports, that's a line too far.

My personal opinion on trans issues in sports is that you should be required to compete based on your biological sex. At some point in the future, perhaps when the hormone drugs evolve to a point that testosterone is negligible, then perhaps we can revisit this issue.

I think working out these issues is part of society trying to find the balanced between acceptance and fairness, and there's nothing wrong with that. Both sides should look to compromise and find common sense positions.

Gender ideology is cult-like and that's been mentioned by myself and a few others itt. This brain buster of a question, "what is a woman?" makes it even more clear

I tell him gender ideology is made up nonsense. Then I ask him to define man or woman the most basic and easy question. None of them can answer. Instead of re-thinking their position, being extremely embarrassed, etc. they act like I did some magic trick like grandpa pulling a coin out of their ear

It's eyes glazed over hypnotized cultists reaction. Now their failure to even define what a woman is has been described as my anti trans hate or whatever. Absolutely preposterous people

Like I could go on and on about the incoherance and consequences but like where do you even start? It's all so ridiculous

You want everyone to affirm whatever gender someone can come up with but can't even define any genders? You can't even give a definition of a woman? What are some additional genders? You say they exist, tell me about them

Bonkers

Man and woman are legal categories with legal implications, it is much worse than a religion where you can believe your totem spirit is a wolf, and no one else in society outside of your religion ever has to give a **** nor it ever produces any legal effect.

It's a religion that wants to force society to legalize it's theological claims and use state violence to enforce them on every resident of every country.

So it's the worst possible kind of religion

even if this is the case, are we not allowed to define what a woman is because someone you don't like asked the same question?

I certainly don't think society should bend over to accomodate minorities in general no, it's already a lot to ask to vaguely tolerate minorities. Society should strive to be useful for normal people because that's hard enough to do and most societies fail horribly at that, minorities count less than majorities and I find it truly and deeply immoral to spend any effort toward minorities until majorities are fully ok. Leftism focus on minorities lately is truly morally horrifying, inimical to the core value of being forced to live togheter.

Absence of direct violence toward minorities, which is super common in world history, should be the goal. And we are there already.

Accomodation? Be thankful we don't damage them on purpose.

As for jail, men who think they are women (or say so to the police) raped a lot of women in various places where they were jailed together, until most places stopped that horrendous practice.

And yes a person with a penis raping a person with a vagina is not the same as man on man rape because there is a thing called pregnancy that can happen, and it did happen.

As for rape shelters teams activists sued association that managed rape shelters because they discriminated against men who said they were women in the UK. It's not an hypothetical