It's my understanding that this kind of self destructive infighting was the downfall of the feminist movement back in the 1970s. Let's hope that this is the beginning of the end of this nonsense, as society has suffered their childish behaviour long enough. Calling these people "Academics" is like putting lipstick on a postmodernist pig.
When i first saw fiamengo's content i felt incredibly supported and it woke me up to some stuff that i had not even been aware off. Now, i really like the ironic smile she has while presenting. Exposing yourself to these levels of weirdness.... one can only cry or laugh. Or as, Isaiah Berlin once said: some arguments need no refutiation.... but medicine.
These people are just hustlers. Women are frequently used to lying and getting away with it, or simply saying and doing ridiculous things with little or no consequences. And that's essentially what all of this is, especially in its most bizarro manifestations. With plenty of male liberal opportunists and careerists getting in on the act. And the motivation is socioeconomic. These things advance people's careers in academia and sell books, and are not pursued in anything like intellectual earnest. Liberal parasites are forever on the make for different sources of revenue streams, and what better place to generate income and self-perpetuate than through the sprawling thicket of their own relentless virtue signaling and moral posturing. The gift that keeps on giving....
I reached out to feminist academics before publishing something, twice, submitting my work to them before I published it. There was no response of any kind either time.
It sounds as if the argument lurking under the article runs something like: (1) If the same arguments that show people can change gender also show that people can change race, then (for consistency's sake) if we believe people can change gender then we should also believe people can change race. (2) The same arguments that show people can change gender _do_ also show that people can change race. So (3) either we don't believe people can change gender, or we should also believe people can change race. This seems plausible. Either transgenderism (or whatever we call it) implies transracialism, or transracialism is the _reductio ad absurdum_ of transgenderism.
Your entire argument is wrong, because your premises are wrong. You are assuming that "gender" and "race" refer to describable traits that a person or people have. In actuality, when these people use these words they refer to ideological tools to achieve and maintain political dominance over others. It is entirely logical for "Tool G" to operate one way while "Tool R" operates another, regardless of what superficial similarities those tools may have to the layperson.
@@mylesleggette7520 The way I see things, the problem with denying that gender and race are 'describable traits that a person or people have' is that, if they aren't, then we've got to explain away how language users have always managed to agree in using gender and race words in what seem to be non-arbitrary ways. For most of the history of English, 'woman' and synonyms have picked out people who, on closer inspection, usually turn out to have cervixes. If it's true that these words in fact _don't_ map on to 'describable traits' then either (i) this is a baffling coincidence, or (ii) cervixes are indescribable. Likewise race words. If these words _don't_ pick out 'describable traits', then it's unclear how language users manage to agree on how to use them. Saying that these words are 'ideological tools' is all very well, but - unless the words pick out 'describable traits' too (and it's not obvious why 'describable trait' and 'ideological tool' should be mutually exclusive) - this doesn't explain how people seem uncannily able to concur, without conferring, that Thomas Sowell is black while John Maynard Keynes wasn't. For argument's sake let's agree that gender and race words are 'ideological tools' to 'achieve and maintain political dominance'. Sure. Now you say the above argument is 'wrong', but it's deductively valid regardless of what gender and race words mean, if they mean anything. So if there's a problem it must be that one of its premises is untrue, or both are, or that there's an informal fallacy lurking in one or the other (or both). Granting that gender and race words are ideological tools, how does this make either (1) or (2) (or both) untrue? If there's an informal fallacy, what is it? Take your layman, me. Let's say I'm told that gender words are 'ideological tools', and also that it's perfectly possible to change gender. Now I'm told that race words are 'ideological tools' too. So why should I doubt that I can change race? What's the difference between these 'tools' that makes the difference?
@@GhostofFHBradley Very thoughtful and apt response. You've just encountered a fascinating example of what tends to culminate from the red-washing of education. Personally, I went to a university to become a better writer as I enjoyed it. The lions share of both curriculum focus and reading, however, sought to steep me in ideas such as "everything is a social construct" and "language is violence" (not in the exact way radical types use this now, although I believe it set the framework for it). Having encountered this environment, it always fascinates me to see products of it managing to survive in the wild like the one to whom you responded. In leftist dominated academia the ecosystem is set for one to eventually replace their reasoning power with "the dialectic". Grades incentivize it, professors behave as though it's foolish to view the world any other way, and eventually the wholesale acceptance of peers in the same environment proves too overwhelming for most to hang onto true reason. The irony is that these students do need to be somewhat intelligent to wrap their minds around the purposefully reductive but very academic sounding concepts. I recognize immediately the elitism and unjustified arrogance mingled into the response to you. They never seem prepared to actually defend their assertions with much more than hyperbole. Coming from environments where everyone accepts this absurd way of viewing the world often seems to leave them with a sense that anyone who doesnt is so obviously wrong and stupid that things like elaboration, sourcing, and generally evidence are unnecessary and beneath their effort in a conversation with the likes of a "layperson". Notice how you were supposedly proceeding from a false premise despite attempting to reason how centuries of lingual precedent are suddenly nullified. Meanwhile the premise that underpinned the reply to you was: "In actuality, when these people use these words they refer to ideological tools to achieve and maintain political dominance over others." Literal mind-reading, but the fact that one would have to possess some sort of infallible clairvoyance to make an assertion like the above never seems to occur to those making it. It's a very common assertion though, it sums up a large part of the post modern leftist position. For them, anything that appears objectively or observably true must still give way to the dialectic. They've accepted long ago that the dialectic is truer than what one can observe because supposedly everything one can observe has been curated by those in power to seem true. This means even what we define as evidence is biased on the basis of "power" to them. So they have to rely on it being absolutely true. They base their entire worldview thus identity on a sort of faith that this post modern leftism is absolutely correct about everything despite any countervailing evidence that crosses their purview. They must because to entertain even one contradiction in this case is to essentially cripple the whole thing. Ultimately it's quite sad. I had a sibling at the same university who succumbed fully to the machine it had become. In the years since it has become her entire identity and cognitive dissonance only seems to get worse. At different times shes berated the men in our family (obviously raised with manners to any sane observer) about rape culture because she was fresh out of a course that convinced her all men were predators despite what they say or do (that mind reading again). She fully buys into and espouses the notion that one could only want to regulate things like public spending, border security, and voter Id out of "racism". During "metoo" she believed all women, except the swedish girls reporting a higher instance of SA from migrants, that was just "right wing propaganda" (not even logically consistent much like what you were commenting on). Of course all Republicans are also "fascist" according to her despite not really being able to define the term when pressed ("religious","racist", and "nationalistic" were the best should could come up with in her word salad). The positive for those like us is that the people attempting to impose the dialectic on reality itself (force the rest of us to go along) are losing credibility by the day. The rot runs deep unfortunately though. The machine these people have been run through is thoroughly honed for what it does.
@@JMuscleMoves_Official Funny old world, isn't it? I went to university - a while ago! - and enjoyed it, although I don't think I'd recommend it now. Even then there was a whiff of 'Everything is a social construct' Foucauldian bollocks in the air. I'm English, and I think we're in much the same predicament as the US. Higher education here looks a lot like a Ponzi scheme that takes good people and makes them worse. I'm sorry to hear about your sister. I suppose you've got to hold family members by the handle that won't break. _...except the swedish girls reporting a higher instance of SA from migrants..._ Ain't that the truth! One of my favourite quotes from the past few years is 'Somebody's doing the raping'. I hope you're right that this stuff is running its course, although it's amazing that the world contains grown-ups who can't define 'woman' without begging the question, who claim to be harmed by mean words, and who see no connection between infinite immigrants and increased housing costs. It'll get worse before it gets better. The silver lining is that, though it's not the best, safest, most admirable time to be alive, it's starting - if we ignore fears for the future - to be one of the most entertaining.
Great musings on this thread you created, thanks. I’ve long asserted that this ideological trend, the supremacy of the dialectic, will run its course. Tired of waiting for that eventuality, but I suppose there is educative value in the experience.
you identify with another race and everyone MUST validate this feeling or they will 'cause great harm'. . .I dno about that; I know 'wake up to yourself' works well in other areas of human interaction
If a 250 pound boxer self identifies as a welterweight, is would be akin to fat shaming to deny his desire to box in the welterweight division. Similarly, if a horse psychologist declares that his horse truly believes that he is human, why not let the horse compete in the 1500 meters in the Olympics. Down with human privilege!
I knew it was bad out there in that area of "academia" but it's worse than I thought. I am interested to hear about recommended content that opposes this universe of ridiculousness.
Every identity comes with privileges, and with adversities either unique to or disproportionately applicable to that identity. Some of them more generally important than others.
In Greek it's pronounced differently, and in English one may pronounce a Greek word in manner to approximate the original pronunciation. That's typical of English.
@@tangledspeechdurovic907 We simply don't know if aresmars put forth the correction in order to criticize the content of the video. They may have done it to be helpful. I, myself, deal with Greek and Nahuatl (along with Spanish) in my content and so probably mispronounce words all the time. I would hope someone would be helpful enough to correct me when I get it wrong.
I have also heard people pronounce it hɑi ˈpʰɛi ʃə, but I think Janice's hɑi ˈpʰæ ti ɑ is legit too. While we're at it though, Americans from Washington like myself mostly call Spokane spʰoˈkænˌ not spoˈkɛin
Your channel is highly dedicated to securing viewership among hostile men obsessed with rightism frustrated with concepts set out to dismantle the oppressive patriarchy. Your rhetoric is brilliant in that it it appeals to a degree of academic rigor and objectivity on the surface, while arguing thoughts contrary to your own belief systems to protect oppressors. The language you employ catches the audience you hope to retain masterfully. Congratulations.
Your implication of her disingenuous argument is only rivalled by your own obvious disingenuousness. Women don’t really want “the patriarchy” dismantled. I hear them invoke the protection and privilege it provides every day.
I never used that word before. I am not trained in using it. I am unsure if it really means what i want to convey. I just give it a try. Please forgive me if i hurt you by using it: Simp
I am a Postmodernist and left wing in the economic and anti-imperialist sense. However. I see proletarians as people who have only their Labor Power to sell as Marx defined. But Women have Sex Power to sell as well, making them organically, petty bourgeois with typically petty bourgeois interests. However, a section of the petty bourgeoisie gives up its own interests for the interests of the proletariat. Though, Janice lacks class consciousness, she certainly addresses petty bourgeois lies etc. and is incredibly thorough and yes, a pleasure to listen to.
Pleasantly SHOCKED! YOU Are the Very FIRST person I've ever heard besides ME, Properly Pronounce SPOKANE! YES, its KANE & NOT KAN > SPOKANE as in SPO CANE YES! The people FROM Washington CAN'T even Pronounce it Correctly! SPOKAN Without the E does Spell & Should be Pronounced SPOKAN Only IF-IF-IF SPOKANE did NOT have an E at the end! Ah YES Finally, the proper pronunciation at last Spells RELIEF! Thank You!
The real Hypatia got lynched. It might be ironic, I can't tell anymore.
Really? Those must have been some savages who did that.
Same people hypatia claimed to love so much : humans.
Transironic
Lol, it hurts itself in confusion.
Catfight. A natural eventuality of dialectic materialism.
Let's protect the echo chamber, no matter what the cost
Let’s protect the echo chamber, no matter what the cost
🤣💀
Thank you, Janice. 🙏
Exactly. They don't love knowledge. They shut it down to do angry fringe politics.
Another outstanding video essay from the brilliant Janice Fiamengo - these videos should be getting far more views!
It's my understanding that this kind of self destructive infighting was the downfall of the feminist movement back in the 1970s. Let's hope that this is the beginning of the end of this nonsense, as society has suffered their childish behaviour long enough.
Calling these people "Academics" is like putting lipstick on a postmodernist pig.
When i first saw fiamengo's content i felt incredibly supported and it woke me up to some stuff that i had not even been aware off.
Now, i really like the ironic smile she has while presenting. Exposing yourself to these levels of weirdness.... one can only cry or laugh.
Or as, Isaiah Berlin once said: some arguments need no refutiation.... but medicine.
These people are just hustlers. Women are frequently used to lying and getting away with it, or simply saying and doing ridiculous things with little or no consequences. And that's essentially what all of this is, especially in its most bizarro manifestations. With plenty of male liberal opportunists and careerists getting in on the act. And the motivation is socioeconomic. These things advance people's careers in academia and sell books, and are not pursued in anything like intellectual earnest. Liberal parasites are forever on the make for different sources of revenue streams, and what better place to generate income and self-perpetuate than through the sprawling thicket of their own relentless virtue signaling and moral posturing. The gift that keeps on giving....
Hypatia is not the type of “scholarly source” that I would refer to.
It seems less like scholarly than propaganda.
they got the look, the font. . .the lingo
That whole overreaction is indicative, disgusting, and an excellent example of how far we have fallen.
As a trans-racial Masai, and ardent reader of Hypatia, I’m disgusted! I’ll never read that journal again!
Gay
Thank you 🙏
Thanks!
Thank-you for your support!
I reached out to feminist academics before publishing something, twice, submitting my work to them before I published it. There was no response of any kind either time.
It sounds as if the argument lurking under the article runs something like:
(1) If the same arguments that show people can change gender also show that people can change race, then (for consistency's sake) if we believe people can change gender then we should also believe people can change race.
(2) The same arguments that show people can change gender _do_ also show that people can change race.
So (3) either we don't believe people can change gender, or we should also believe people can change race.
This seems plausible. Either transgenderism (or whatever we call it) implies transracialism, or transracialism is the _reductio ad absurdum_ of transgenderism.
Your entire argument is wrong, because your premises are wrong. You are assuming that "gender" and "race" refer to describable traits that a person or people have. In actuality, when these people use these words they refer to ideological tools to achieve and maintain political dominance over others. It is entirely logical for "Tool G" to operate one way while "Tool R" operates another, regardless of what superficial similarities those tools may have to the layperson.
@@mylesleggette7520 The way I see things, the problem with denying that gender and race are 'describable traits that a person or people have' is that, if they aren't, then we've got to explain away how language users have always managed to agree in using gender and race words in what seem to be non-arbitrary ways.
For most of the history of English, 'woman' and synonyms have picked out people who, on closer inspection, usually turn out to have cervixes. If it's true that these words in fact _don't_ map on to 'describable traits' then either (i) this is a baffling coincidence, or (ii) cervixes are indescribable.
Likewise race words. If these words _don't_ pick out 'describable traits', then it's unclear how language users manage to agree on how to use them. Saying that these words are 'ideological tools' is all very well, but - unless the words pick out 'describable traits' too (and it's not obvious why 'describable trait' and 'ideological tool' should be mutually exclusive) - this doesn't explain how people seem uncannily able to concur, without conferring, that Thomas Sowell is black while John Maynard Keynes wasn't.
For argument's sake let's agree that gender and race words are 'ideological tools' to 'achieve and maintain political dominance'. Sure. Now you say the above argument is 'wrong', but it's deductively valid regardless of what gender and race words mean, if they mean anything. So if there's a problem it must be that one of its premises is untrue, or both are, or that there's an informal fallacy lurking in one or the other (or both). Granting that gender and race words are ideological tools, how does this make either (1) or (2) (or both) untrue? If there's an informal fallacy, what is it?
Take your layman, me. Let's say I'm told that gender words are 'ideological tools', and also that it's perfectly possible to change gender. Now I'm told that race words are 'ideological tools' too. So why should I doubt that I can change race? What's the difference between these 'tools' that makes the difference?
@@GhostofFHBradley Very thoughtful and apt response.
You've just encountered a fascinating example of what tends to culminate from the red-washing of education. Personally, I went to a university to become a better writer as I enjoyed it. The lions share of both curriculum focus and reading, however, sought to steep me in ideas such as "everything is a social construct" and "language is violence" (not in the exact way radical types use this now, although I believe it set the framework for it).
Having encountered this environment, it always fascinates me to see products of it managing to survive in the wild like the one to whom you responded. In leftist dominated academia the ecosystem is set for one to eventually replace their reasoning power with "the dialectic". Grades incentivize it, professors behave as though it's foolish to view the world any other way, and eventually the wholesale acceptance of peers in the same environment proves too overwhelming for most to hang onto true reason. The irony is that these students do need to be somewhat intelligent to wrap their minds around the purposefully reductive but very academic sounding concepts.
I recognize immediately the elitism and unjustified arrogance mingled into the response to you. They never seem prepared to actually defend their assertions with much more than hyperbole. Coming from environments where everyone accepts this absurd way of viewing the world often seems to leave them with a sense that anyone who doesnt is so obviously wrong and stupid that things like elaboration, sourcing, and generally evidence are unnecessary and beneath their effort in a conversation with the likes of a "layperson".
Notice how you were supposedly proceeding from a false premise despite attempting to reason how centuries of lingual precedent are suddenly nullified. Meanwhile the premise that underpinned the reply to you was:
"In actuality, when these people use these words they refer to ideological tools to achieve and maintain political dominance over others."
Literal mind-reading, but the fact that one would have to possess some sort of infallible clairvoyance to make an assertion like the above never seems to occur to those making it. It's a very common assertion though, it sums up a large part of the post modern leftist position.
For them, anything that appears objectively or observably true must still give way to the dialectic. They've accepted long ago that the dialectic is truer than what one can observe because supposedly everything one can observe has been curated by those in power to seem true. This means even what we define as evidence is biased on the basis of "power" to them. So they have to rely on it being absolutely true. They base their entire worldview thus identity on a sort of faith that this post modern leftism is absolutely correct about everything despite any countervailing evidence that crosses their purview. They must because to entertain even one contradiction in this case is to essentially cripple the whole thing.
Ultimately it's quite sad. I had a sibling at the same university who succumbed fully to the machine it had become. In the years since it has become her entire identity and cognitive dissonance only seems to get worse. At different times shes berated the men in our family (obviously raised with manners to any sane observer) about rape culture because she was fresh out of a course that convinced her all men were predators despite what they say or do (that mind reading again). She fully buys into and espouses the notion that one could only want to regulate things like public spending, border security, and voter Id out of "racism". During "metoo" she believed all women, except the swedish girls reporting a higher instance of SA from migrants, that was just "right wing propaganda" (not even logically consistent much like what you were commenting on). Of course all Republicans are also "fascist" according to her despite not really being able to define the term when pressed ("religious","racist", and "nationalistic" were the best should could come up with in her word salad).
The positive for those like us is that the people attempting to impose the dialectic on reality itself (force the rest of us to go along) are losing credibility by the day. The rot runs deep unfortunately though. The machine these people have been run through is thoroughly honed for what it does.
@@JMuscleMoves_Official Funny old world, isn't it?
I went to university - a while ago! - and enjoyed it, although I don't think I'd recommend it now. Even then there was a whiff of 'Everything is a social construct' Foucauldian bollocks in the air. I'm English, and I think we're in much the same predicament as the US. Higher education here looks a lot like a Ponzi scheme that takes good people and makes them worse.
I'm sorry to hear about your sister. I suppose you've got to hold family members by the handle that won't break.
_...except the swedish girls reporting a higher instance of SA from migrants..._
Ain't that the truth! One of my favourite quotes from the past few years is 'Somebody's doing the raping'.
I hope you're right that this stuff is running its course, although it's amazing that the world contains grown-ups who can't define 'woman' without begging the question, who claim to be harmed by mean words, and who see no connection between infinite immigrants and increased housing costs. It'll get worse before it gets better. The silver lining is that, though it's not the best, safest, most admirable time to be alive, it's starting - if we ignore fears for the future - to be one of the most entertaining.
Great musings on this thread you created, thanks.
I’ve long asserted that this ideological trend, the supremacy of the dialectic, will run its course. Tired of waiting for that eventuality, but I suppose there is educative value in the experience.
you identify with another race and everyone MUST validate this feeling or they will 'cause great harm'. . .I dno about that; I know 'wake up to yourself' works well in other areas of human interaction
A cool breeze, thank you.
Good to see a philosopher support the Trans-racial community. Catboy Kami will feel loved.
This is what happens to ANY organization that is led by women.
If a 250 pound boxer self identifies as a welterweight, is would be akin to fat shaming to deny his desire to box in the welterweight division. Similarly, if a horse psychologist declares that his horse truly believes that he is human, why not let the horse compete in the 1500 meters in the Olympics. Down with human privilege!
This sounds like some crazy people fighting over the color of gnomes only they can see, while everyone else is too scared to say anything.
I knew it was bad out there in that area of "academia" but it's worse than I thought. I am interested to hear about recommended content that opposes this universe of ridiculousness.
transmisogynoir's
written in the stars -
it's everywhere you look!
i read it in a book!
Every identity comes with privileges, and with adversities either unique to or disproportionately applicable to that identity. Some of them more generally important than others.
_"They eat their own "_
What's really hilarious is that race doesn't exist and transwomen don't exist. This is like a very elaborate SNL sketch.
Europeans, Africans, Asians, Americans and Oceanians are all genetically and ancestrally distinct groups. Out-of-Africa is bunk.
@mariussielcken Idk but your brain sure is bunk.
@@mariussielcken Yeah, keep trying to divide us, it's working out so well.
@@mariussielckenThere are varying human phenotypes due to environment and diet but there's only one race. The human race.
So is race a social construct, just like gender, or isn't it?🤣
How silly! 🙄
defending radical cult teachings is hazardous? whod a thunk it.
Trans.... trans-racialism?
That can't really be what the name suggests, can it?
Hypatia = High-PAY-sha.
In Greek it's pronounced differently, and in English one may pronounce a Greek word in manner to approximate the original pronunciation. That's typical of English.
After 22 minutes this is the only thing you critice?
Well. I think think in this case she did an outstanding job.
@@tangledspeechdurovic907 We simply don't know if aresmars put forth the correction in order to criticize the content of the video. They may have done it to be helpful. I, myself, deal with Greek and Nahuatl (along with Spanish) in my content and so probably mispronounce words all the time. I would hope someone would be helpful enough to correct me when I get it wrong.
I have also heard people pronounce it hɑi ˈpʰɛi ʃə, but I think Janice's hɑi ˈpʰæ ti ɑ is legit too.
While we're at it though, Americans from Washington like myself mostly call Spokane spʰoˈkænˌ not spoˈkɛin
Trans racialism makes more sense than transgenderism.
Just another purity spiraling cult purging dissenters.
Your channel is highly dedicated to securing viewership among hostile men obsessed with rightism frustrated with concepts set out to dismantle the oppressive patriarchy. Your rhetoric is brilliant in that it it appeals to a degree of academic rigor and objectivity on the surface, while arguing thoughts contrary to your own belief systems to protect oppressors. The language you employ catches the audience you hope to retain masterfully. Congratulations.
Your implication of her disingenuous argument is only rivalled by your own obvious disingenuousness.
Women don’t really want “the patriarchy” dismantled. I hear them invoke the protection and privilege it provides every day.
Explain more. Let each assertion be explained.
I never used that word before. I am not trained in using it.
I am unsure if it really means what i want to convey.
I just give it a try. Please forgive me if i hurt you by using it:
Simp
Lol.... You win dumbest comment of the month. Congratulations!
I am a Postmodernist and left wing in the economic and anti-imperialist sense. However. I see proletarians as people who have only their Labor Power to sell as Marx defined.
But Women have Sex Power to sell as well, making them organically, petty bourgeois with typically petty bourgeois interests. However, a section of the petty bourgeoisie gives up its own interests for the interests of the proletariat. Though, Janice lacks class consciousness, she certainly addresses petty bourgeois lies etc. and is incredibly thorough and yes, a pleasure to listen to.
Pleasantly SHOCKED!
YOU Are the Very FIRST person I've ever heard besides ME,
Properly Pronounce SPOKANE!
YES, its KANE & NOT KAN
> SPOKANE as in SPO CANE YES!
The people FROM Washington CAN'T even Pronounce it Correctly!
SPOKAN Without the E does Spell & Should be
Pronounced SPOKAN Only IF-IF-IF SPOKANE
did NOT have an E at the end!
Ah YES Finally,
the proper pronunciation at last Spells RELIEF!
Thank You!