That sentiment reminds me of KC's debate with (the horse-loving) Vaush. Vaush said something to the effect of "Trans women are women because it does the most social good." Well it might do me the most good to be addressed as "the handsome, wonderful ______" every time someone uses my name, but it doesn't make it *true*.
@@dante6985also the idea that 0.1% of males get to overrule the definition of woman for 100% of females is somehow socially best is absurd- unless you consider women to not be people.
@@lovelight2577 exactly. In the argument he's unilaterally deciding it's doing the *most* social good and that's impossible to measure. (And I feel like that's being generous.)
They don't even think that themselves because that conclusion undermines their whole ideology. If they really think woman doesn't mean anything at all, then the whole trans ideology is about literally nothing. Transition to what? To nothing? So why even bother?
The whole argument is just so disingenuous. They claim not to know the definition of female or sex, but then call themselves transwomen, and others cis women. Like.... so you are aware of the reality of sex, then.
They also don't seem to do this for any other animal despite humans being primates. We know what a female monkey is, so why don't we know what a female human is?
They do not claim not to know what female or sex means because they are talking about gender and not sex. You're being disingenuos or you're just clueless. You can disagree that gender and sex are different things but don't just strawman.
@@thevis5465 they pretend not to know when they ask a gender critical/sex realist person what a woman is and when they get the answer adult human female there is a lot of ‘oh, so you think an infertile female isn’t a woman then?’ Or ‘Oh, so what about a woman who has gone through menopause then?’ Or ‘oh, what about a female who has a high level of testosterone, then?’ They interrogate the response of adult human female as though it is something we have made up and pretend they don’t have an awareness of what makes a female or a male and biological sex is something to be negotiated as to what makes a female. I’m aware of the assertion that gender and sex are different, but I have yet to hear what a woman is based on this understanding of gender. If it’s a social construct, some characteristics should be able to be named. But they never are.
@@pdjinne65the fact academia gave ANY credibility to that PDF file John Money and his absolutely unhinged batshit insane "experiment" still pisses me off beyond words.
All definitions are exclusionary. Not just the definition of woman. By their very nature, words have to be exclusionary. If words did not have clear meaning, we could not use them to communicate. Which is what words are for.
When people start "defining animals", usually that means some very sick fetish is involved. Instead of looking at them trying to "philosophize" about things, just see what they want to achieve by their new "definitions". It usually is a fetish they are trying hard to justify.
The problem I see with TRAs is not that they can’t define “woman” but that they don’t know what it means. They try to be all philosophical by pointing out how definitions change based on what we intuitively count as a given thing and in response to counterevidence, like how Plato’s definition of human as “featherless biped” was invalidated by Diogenes, so they just added the clause “with broad flat nails”. But everyone knows what a human is in the conceptual sense, that is why we can even speak of there being competing and contradictory definitions of it, as opposed to there being different definitions for a series of unrelated things, all of which happen to be referred to as “human”. If there isn’t that conceptual unity, then we aren’t talking about the same thing. But TRAs don’t just say that the definition, that is, what gets counted as a “woman” and what doesn’t is malleable, rather, *they say that the MEANING of the IDEA of a woman is malleable* . How can anyone “affirm” a TIM’s gender identity if when people use the word “woman” they don’t have the same definitions, nor the same conceptual meaning? What if my “understanding” of what a woman is features me imagining a buff muscular male? Would that be “affirming”? After all, there is no conceptual unity for the IDEA of a woman so who’s to say that my idea can’t be that?
Definitions do need to be descriptive, not prescriptive. Any lexicographer would tell you that. But that's why "adult human female" is such a good definition for "woman." It lines up with how people use it.
The same reason we don't refer to seahorses as horses. Seahorses and horses are two completely different concepts even if they have the same word within them.@@Celestina0
Adult human female - A definition that is instantly understood by all people of all ages from all social classes and all levels of education all over the world without the slightest shadow of doubt ♀️💃
You are saying this is how it ought to be defined; fine, that's entirely up to you and defines how you convey your thoughts. Non-cis people aren't saying that it shouldn't be defined like that, we're saying that it ISN'T defined like that; as in, society does not behave as if it holds to that definition, which makes it inaccurate.
To be fair, they can just ask "WHAT IS FEMALE, HUH??!!" And then you tell them: "A living being which was born with a reproductive system that, under normal curcumstances, produces OVA."
@@Capybarrrraaaa That's just gaslighting and historical revisionism. Since you're under 15 years old, let me tell you that virtually all of society behaved that way until gender activists started promoting their dogma. Even now, most of the world behaves that way.
@@Capybarrrraaaa Dude out here insulting normal men and women thinking no one understands his underhanded slurs. God, and the postmodern language theory garbage... "It's all subjective hehe, but somehow we can communicate still but let's forget how that is even possible since everything is subjective". Do you have any actual arguments or is obfuscation and insult all you can offer?
@@Capybarrrraaaa Society does behave like it holds to that definition. How else do you think women and girls have been oppressed, exploited, violated and brutalized by boys and men for millenia, precisely because of our sex?
Lily says "woman" "means so many different things to so many different people". This is equivocation on the word "means" and "meaning." Words have meanings, or definitions. That is not the same as "what X means to me", which is things about X that resonate the most with me. Plenty of other words "mean so many different things to different people", like "courage", or "love", or "mother/parent", or "husband/spouse", or "teacher". These words, like "woman" and "man", also have definitions.
And it’s mostly a lie. In most cultures, women are the designated caregivers in some way. If by “means”, she’s talking about what women wear or how they style their hair, then sure. She could have a point. But the social roles associated with womanhood have often been illuminated by the biological reality of motherhood and the traditions of marriage (‘Woman’s Old English Origin=Wife Of Man). Back then, the word ‘wife’ was used for all women, married or single. But it doesn’t have very fluid origins. Historically, there were probably far more gender non-conforming males than females. Those people were always called something else and given their own social category. Providing those people with a status didn’t really involve re-defining womanhood.
it is for people who have only recently decided to "try it on". The rest of us just get to sit back and watch how brave they are for being us ("us" being: pink and in a dress with long long hair and a nasally voice, of course).
@@乙-f1s Whether Neanderthals were a subspecies of Homo Sapiens or their own species is still subject for debate, but other way we both belong to the same genus Homo, and inter-species hybridisation is neither rare nor necessarily leading to infertile offspring 🤷
The whole "if woman has a definition then they are all the same" argument is just what happens when you completely replace the concept of people having personalities with just a long list of micro identities. (asexual demiplatonic polyamory gamer etc.) They cannot imagine anyone being different than someone else outside of them belonging to a different identity group. It's actually essentialism run amok.
That's what cuts to one of the troubling implications of transgenderism: that people without such a label of "non-binary" or "trans-femme genderfluid" or "aporagender" or "agender" are innately less interesting than those with such labels.
Ironically it's actually the opposite, if a woman is an adult human female then that means the only thing all women have in common is that they are female.
Both good points. The concept of having a personality which isn't based on one's belonging to these categories and subcategories is just incomprehensible to these people. Their entire lives revolve around this baseless sense of identity.
In that same vein they’re confusing pronouns with names. We all have names. They’re not quite unique, but we generally don’t know more than one or two other people with our given names. They want neopronouns to play that same role, for some reason. Just let people have sexes, personalities and names.
@@abcdeshole Part of what's been frustrating to me - as someone who's been empathetic to trans / gender nonconforming people for decades - is just how much of 'trans linguistics' kind of falls apart. Like they need to restructure the terminology from the ground up (again). A lot of it seems pretty arbitrary. Example: Deadnames - considered deeply offensive, thoroughly taboo. Never to be uttered. That person is now always the new name and history is to be rewritten as if the 'old gendered' person never existed. Trans widow/er - based off deadnames: stemming from the fact that a person was married to someone who now goes by a new gender identity (and their old name, the name the person was married to, is now 'dead' and is written out of history.) Also considered deeply offensive and trans-misogynistic, never to be uttered.
Is it me but do all arguments for gender ideology boil down to 'nothing means anything' yet somehow their undefined unknown word women must include anyone that declares it?
It’s applied nihilism, albeit dishonestly because it’s pretending not to be. On the offense they’re all about how they really truly exist, on the defense nothing is actually real and definitions can mean anything, etc
They cant because the only definition they can give is either absurd, circular or sexist and they know that. They often use a long complicated circular definition, call to ethos or jump to insults and accusations..... yhea they cant separate the individual personalities and preferences from their genders, which is exactly what sexism is..... How do they not notice that?
Of course the definition we give is absurd, circular and sexist; that's why we criticise it. You lot seem to think, just because we're the ones willing to define how society functions around sex, that we're the ones saying it should be behaving like this. How do you not notice that almost all of us are gender-abolitionists? Doesn't that, even remotely, strike you as strange? Or is it that you only hear us through edited clips and railroaded "interviews", that set a level of presumption.
Exactly! It’s not like there are literal Australopithecines walking around. The closest living relatives of Homo sapiens are chimpanzees and bonobos, and they’re a different species in every sense. Even the most distantly related human populations are able to have healthy children together and learn each others languages.
The whole debate is pointless, because if you dare say anything that contradicts their opinion, you'll be banned from social spaces. There is no freedom of speech in this topic... Understand that they made people fear discussing this, fear interacting with anything to do with it, and overall, fear the whole situation. They actively made people phobic of the subject matter by making anyone who dares express their opinion pay a price. If interaction, definition and all else is held by people fearing punishment, the end result is that their entire cause, ideology and various definitions only work by coercion. They can't bend reality, but they can force people to bend to their whims. It's wrong on all accounts, and they don't care, they just want to get their self-centered goals and ignore the ramification of making everyone silent.
If you cared about freedom-of-speech, then you'd be rallying about the wave of disinformation that psychologically-preps people against what trans people claim. It's not a bad thing that those, unwilling to actually listen, are booted from polite places. That 'price' affects trans people far more than it does any cisgender person. No cis person is denied healthcare over this. If you want to speak, you have to be willing to listen. Hardly a big thing to ask, is it.
The part that gets me (and I'm actually pretty open minded about all this) is when one of the guests on *that* episode of Doctor Phil said they couldn't define woman because they didn't identify as one. I'm not a cat, but I'm pretty damn sure i know one when i see it.
I am a Schlurg. I know this because I am one. If you are not a Schlurg then you don't know what it means to be one and you cannot tell me that I am not one.
@@cortezchavez5891 No, but you did. I can tell you what you are, because private languages don't exist. If a word doesn't have a meaning, it doesn't have a referent, and therefore, does not refer to you. You're not a schlurg.
The argument “what is an adult, it’s too nebulous” rocked me. It’s such wrong and vile idea that the age 18 is arbitrary that I had to sit down. I recommend going to the channel inspiringPhilosophy he has been recently doing debates, videos and research against child marriage. There are so so many good reasons adulthood is set at 18 it’s not even funny. I hope this trans activist learns these facts and repents
Oh, Lily. Says that adult human female is as much as a circle definition as who identifies as such, then turns around and blames people with avoiding critical thinking. You don't even have an ounce of critical thinking. I once asked someone who said similar things how they are deciding in Afghanistan who is allowed to get an education or who needs to cover their faces. He pretended not to hear what I said.
When ‘gender’ is shorthand for ‘personality’, defining ‘woman’ will necessarily lead to all women being the same. That’s why I prefer ‘woman’ being shorthand for ‘adult human female.’ There’s plenty of room for different kinds of women, so we won’t all be the same!!
We aren't losing. The corporations are finally giving up trying to be "morally upstanding" now that they realized these people not only aren't customers but kowtowing to them leads only to bankruptcy. The tides are turning, but we cannot, must not ease up at all.
Show how some people suffer progeria, some people don't physically mature, some kids go to university, some people have the mental age of a child.... but it STILL doesn't mean that an adult gets to identify as a child. And newsflash, some unmistakable adults do, is that any more categorically wrong than other proclaims based identities that literally assert the counterfactual as true? When you think about it, age is less clear than biological sex, and even though the social role of age in edge cases can differ such as majority at 18 or 21, even then it doesn't allow a 40yo to identify as a baby, but some do! I think the age comparison helps show how stupid the DSD gambit is.
(1) One part of anti-aging is telomeres lengthening (2) I will assume if we start turning back the clock literally we will start questioning age (3) Trans people can take medication (4) That medication can change the output of DNA (5) That can replicate the desired sex to a large degree... (6) Scientifically it's not 100% transition because of the lower components (7) The problem apparently if we lengthen telomeres can lead to cancer (8) Cells get damaged over time (9) They are supposed to died (10) The best we can do is replace them with stem cells... appearently.
@@caffeinatedhuman4035 Trans people can take hormones and have surgeries. Those things never, ever make them produce gametes that are opposite of whatever their bodies formed to facilitate the production of. What they are changing is secondary sex characteristics (which are never absolute - overweight males can have gynecomastia, some females remain flat-chested after puberty, etc). They are never, ever changing their actual sex. Sex is defined by gamete production. An infertile female is one whose body had developed to produce the larger gamete, but fails to do so (either through disorder, age, surgery, whatever). An infertile male is one whose body had developed to produce the smaller gamete, but fails to do so (for whatever reason). Transwomen who take hormones and have had surgeries to superficially appear female have removed their testes but do not have ovaries. Therefore, they have failed to become female but simply rendered themselves infertile males.
@@ir8octopus (1) No body is saying that the DNA changes completely (2) But the output does (3) I think there's a bit more to it than gynaecomastia (4) Go look up androgen insensitivity syndrome (5) Hormones are a powerful thing.
@@caffeinatedhuman4035 DNA doesn't just not change completely, it doesn't change at all. But that doesn't matter anyway, because DNA is not how sex is defined. It's by having larger or smaller gametes (or having developed in that direction as a fetus, even if incompletely). A single flower can have male and female parts. Biologists label them that way because one part has small gametes, the other has larger gametes. It has nothing to do with the DNA of the flower - both of these parts on the flower presumably have the same DNA. There are some animals who have temperature-determined sex determination (if a turtle's eggs incubate at a certain temperature, it results in one sex, a different range results in the other sex). We can identify what sex the turtles are by what size of gametes the turtle developed towards producing, even though that turtle's DNA could easily have resulted in the opposite sex had it incubated at a different temperature. Not sure why you're obsessed with DNA. It's about the gametes, and no transwomen have spontaneously developed their own ovaries from hormones, so none of them are female, period. Of course hormones are powerful! But tattooing stripes on myself and getting a tail implant wouldn't make me any bit more a zebra, and what transwomen do doesn't make them any bit more female. Sex is not a spectrum of superficial traits - it's a binary about gamete size. What you're talking about are called secondary sex characteristics, which are strongly bimodal (though not binary), but are not sex (at all).
@@ir8octopus (1) Look I 100% get it (2) There are plenty of trans who are non passable at this point (3) Alot of them look like they spent $2 worth of money and 5 minutes of time. (4) I'm not talking about those ones... (5) To me they are more like prototypes (6) I understand why it would freak a person out seeing people act like that. (7) They look like their half baked and need to get back in the oven. (8) But there are a few that I can not tell the difference. (9) Humans in general are not just biology but psychology (10) Most of us know one language (11) But if you took us as children and placed us elsewhere... (12) We would speak a different language. (13) I speak English because I was brought up around english people (14) I would be speak a different language brought up in a different country. (15) There are males who get brought up in predominantly female environments (16) I'm not going to tell you they have a real uterus (17) If that's what you wish to hear. (18) It will make you happy to hear that alot of them call themselves trans women. (19) We live in 2024 not the year 3000 (20) I do not think this mindset is ever going to go away...like you want. (21) I think that over a course of time there will be more biological change. (22) Wait until we start redefining humans with crispr.
Sure, I may just be white skinned, blue eyed, and naturally blonde, but I'm still totally a Latina, because I say I am! As for how I define "Latina", exactly..? Who cares? Stop being such an awful party pooper! It does not have to be defined! I just know that I AM! I am also deaf, even though I'm currently listening to this with absolutely no issue, and how DARE you say I'm not??? Hereby demanding monthly disability payments, for my self-identified deafness! Plus obviously, deafness is a SPECTRUM! It could very well be that some people hear even LESS than me, but how dare they try to police me, and exclude me from their community? Such bigots! Plus when I attend meetings for deaf people..? There they come, with their totally awful, square and uncool, exclusionary insistence on having a set DEFINITION for what qualifies as deafness! Because they say, actually BEING deaf, the definition of deafness directly affects them, and MATTERS to them! But like, since I am basically just trying to opt in, here..? It obviously does not matter to me, and I just want the category to be MEANINGLESSLY broad, to the point that even perfectly hearing people can be considered deaf! Because then I feel super hecking validated, and I get to be INCLUDED! And if it harms real deaf people..? I don't care! Because why should I care about THEM, right..? Fake deaf people unite! :P Anyway, glad to see you're uploading again! Wish these people would actually watch your responses, although I somehow doubt it would make a difference, even if they did. They've got WAY too much invested in blatant lies being true, and they're gonna have an unshakeable interest in defending them, and maintaining them, at all cost. Plus you can't argue with faith, and all that.. But you can still argue for the sake of the people around them, that might be listening. ;)
yea latina is actually a geographically-bound identity and very much based around culture. not the best example. the only requirement to be latina is be either born in or closely related to someone from latin america.
Maria McLachlan`s version is also good „There is only one way to become a woman. You just have to be born female, make it through puberty and grow into adulthood. And Bob is your uncle…not your aunt.“
@@vibhumishra2609 “of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.” And don’t even bring up people with congenital disorders to “refute” this fact
“Women” in TRA use, in effect refers to a concept. It may never be defined as such, but that’s how it’s used. Unlike most words like “water” where the category “water” is identical to the things inside that category, such as H2O, the word woman is meant to confer some property upon the people included in that category, otherwise there would be no significance to putting TIMs in the “woman” category, and so the mistake TRAs often make is they define who gets to be a part of the category “women” without defining the category “woman” itself. In effect, “woman” refers to the concept of being female in some ontological sense, rather than being physically female. Such a concept cannot be completely described in words, just as you can’t describe the difference between right and left without a contingent reference point or just as you can’t describe what the color red looks like to a colorblind man, but psychologically, there is a difference between seeing someone as if they were a man in a dress, and seeing someone as if they were a woman in a dress. The word “transignification” almost perfectly describes this, but I’ve only seen this word be used in describing a fringe Christian theological belief that basically says that instead of the wine and bread being literally and metaphysically turned into the body and blood of God, it merely becomes imbued with the same significance, importance, and reality of being “literally” the blood and body of God. Since TRAs don’t often attach a metaphysical claim to someone changing their gender, I feel like the word “transignification” describes it almost perfectly.
I never heard that term before. Is that like, how Eucharist for Catholics believe in transubstantiation, transignification is the word for how Protestant Communion is symbolic ritual "Do this in remembrance of me?" I think I follow your point.
@@theresas740 Transignifcation doesn’t refer to how Protestants view Communion, it instead refers only to a very fringe theology within the Catholic Church created by Edward Schillebeeckx. Protestants have their own views on the Eucharist or Communion, but it’s not transignification 👍
Thank you I really enjoy your clear & precise explanations so don’t worry about trying to be ie ‘dramatic’ so called more interesting, when logic & intelligence shines through then tone isn’t noticeable. 👍 from a women, adult grandmother 😊
If woman doesn't mean a human female (female being the ones who if everything functions correctly bear the eggs) Then what does woman mean? What is a woman how can you be a trans woman what is the base, what is the rule. A bird is a bird means what, what is a bird.
It’s kinda funny that she completely brushes over the concerns of gender critical feminists as a nebulous “something bad,” rather than the specific concerns that there’s empirical evidence of (such as bad actors abusing trans identification to get into female-only spaces like women’s sports or women’s prisons).
No, woman can’t be whoever identifies as a woman, that would lead to an infinite regress. But suppose you define woman as whoever identifies as “woman” (the use-mention distinction). Now here are two other definitions: 女人 is whoever identifies as “女人”, 炒面 is whoever identifies as “炒面”. One of these Chinese words actually refers to women, the other refers to stir fried noodles. Can you tell? Exactly. That’s the amount of information the word “woman” will have if you define it this way. Which also lead us to the second problem. While women who speak English will identify as “woman”, those who speak French will identify as something else, namely “la femme”. But wait, these two words mean the same thing, I hear you say. No they don’t actually, not when you apply the simple identity definition. You can’t show that they have the same meaning when they don’t mean anything beyond a label, cos the label is different in different languages. This is simple semantics.
It's frustrating being left and fighting trans ideology. Because I think there are people like Matt Walsh who don't seem to care about gender nonconforming lives. And there are people on the left saying... "I sympathize with the plight but the language you're choosing doesn't really make sense."
You can define anything quite easily. 'A woman is a three foot tall tree'. That's easy. What's hard is defining something in a way that includes all the things you want to call women, and excludes all that you don't. Which is, i think, impossible.
@@Celestina0 Woman - adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of bearing children. Man - adult human male, with "male" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of impregnating females. These would include those who due to aging, defects, etc. can't actually fulfill their respective reproductive role (e.g., so-called "intersex" people). But those who argue that gender is somehow different from sex typically end up giving definitions that are unworkable with the rest of their worldview (usually by confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms).
@@Celestina0 Wow, my reply was deleted. Figures. Anyway, a woman is an adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of bearing children. If my comment stays put, we can talk more about it. We'll see.
Anyone who argues that we shouldn't define a term is almost certainly trying to prevent any discussion surrounding it. After all, if we don't agree on what a relevant term means (and it _can_ take as little as a single term), we end up talking past each other.
Alexandre makes no sense whatsoever. Long Chu is a vulgar nasty person. 54:58 With regards to Native American history and culture, Alexandre is remarkably ignorant. There are MANY Native American cultures.
Yeah, and none of them were confused about the difference between men and women. People like Alexandre love to bring up these spurious accounts of how non-Europeans were all totally pro-trans.
@@soph1e That's true, but it also goes deeper than that. They want desperately to believe in a worldview that makes all social evils the fault of Europeans, and suggest that non-Europeans (especially colonized peoples) had a deeper, truer almost mystical sense of understanding that whites wish to eradicate for reasons of racial intolerance. It's essentially a modern version of the 'noble savage' concept. Any inconvenient evidence that suggests tribes in Africa or the Americas haven't had and don't have impeccably politically correct views on everything is either ignored, or it's all blamed on European colonialism.
Hey all! It's another old video that I never uploaded to this channel. I recorded this video after somebody told me I should try to be less monotonous, so I tried to really overperform the entire script. Personally, watching it back, I hate it, and was considering re-recording the whole video, but I figured that was a bit of a waste and I already warned you in my last video that I was probably going to be uploading an old video. Hope you enjoy!
Sure, I'd like to see KC talk about that debate. To be honest, though, there is almost nothing in that video that's not already addressed in this one...
@@KC_Streams , RR's statements are so confused that I think it would be a tedious analytic exercise to make any sense of them. He doesn't even know what he thinks. I think it would be nearly impossible to respond to any individual statement he makes in isolation. He's the classic undergrad who takes one philosophy course and thinks he's a philosopher.
@StormBringer5 Now that I thought about it some more, I agree. Even though I think Colin did a great job both trying to clarify and refuting most of Stephens points, there are some topics that I would love to see addressed. (1) That platypus thing - it seems to me that RR here is confusing definition and description. How could adding the word "typical" to a DEFINITION make any sense? Then everything - even a penguin - can be a mammal, just a less "typical" one? There must be some other defining feature that made necessary to add the platypus to the mammals and therefore change the DESCRIPTION? (2) What's a social construct - according to RR, even things that are just fuzzy concepts (castles) are "social constructs". (But even so, how do you get from "social construct" to "I can freely declare the group I belong to".) (3) It seems to me that RR not only thinks that "man" and "woman" are in some relevant sense social constructs, but that people are INTENTIONALLY referring to those social constructs when they use those words. I think, however, that those words were always INTENDED to primarily refer to the sexes (and, as Colin points out, they are actually very very good at that), just that cultures put more or less baggage - "gender" - on top.
Lilly uses this very long winded point just to say, I couldn’t bare the burden of the expectations the male genderrole thrusted upon me so I want to bend the definition of woman so I can escape from my own burden into your identity.
And instead of just owning himself and accepting himself for who he is, he takes the pathetic cowardly way out by bastardizing the class of people who usually tend to be more accepting of us gender nonconforming men. Lovely.
There does seem to be far less flexibility and willingness to expand male roles to match the reality of the diverse ways men actually are. Hence the appropriation of the opppsite sex.
@@Gingerblaze Supposedly overwhelmingly more young females are identifying as trans than males but it seems like all the ones making a fuss and taking up all the cultural space are males and it seems like trans rights means men's rights to women's privileges.
I waited in vain for an alternative term from Lily for a woman that does NOT include people of the opposite sex. Clear definitions are important not only for communication but also in medicine, for laws and in statistics. A member of the Canadian Parliament wondered why women suddenly commit crimes that had never been committed by women before. One example given was of a woman who broke into an old woman’s house and sexually assaulted her. The guy said that had never happened before in their crime records. Another example was a woman raping another women in a woman’s rape crisis shelter. Both cases turned out to be dudes identifying as women. When you can no longer even be sure whether the press is telling the truth or lying, we know that queer theory has found its way from the ivory tower of universities down to us peasants, which is a real shame. youtu.be/NCy1k8T
Excellent. except for one thing... I think the word Gender is being used incorrectly by all involved (this is no slight against King Critical's argumentation). Gender is a grammatical term by definition. other uses of the word to discuss other things is a misuse of the word. at best, it is being used euphemistically (or colloquially); but euphemistic use of the word does not equate to definition. as I said, Gender, by definition, is a grammatical term. all that said, I really enjoyed your take down of Lily Alexandre's video. Thank you for doing so.
2:10 If no one can tell you what a woman is, how does the inquiry control women? I thought we didn't know what a woman was. So, who is being controlled, and what does this mysterious group have in common?
I feel like the this circular argumentation around the definition of women and gender/sex, exists only to further complicate modern political discourse and even make living as a normie more difficult. Personally, we shouldn't try to play their game, they don't even know how to play it (nor do they care), we should focus on pacifying their destructive politics from the West. Being able to pay rent and maintain relationships are more important.
To use their definition of man or woman would make the definitions impossible to actually state because you cannot define a term by its own term, "A man is someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as...". It would go on forever with no conclusion.
Well, what I learned from the Olympics is that many men define a woman as "whatever we say a woman is, based on whatever criteria we feel like at the moment (which may be different from the criteria five minutes ago), and prioritizing a snap judgment over available concrete evidence" -- speaking of things that don't work...
Word salad the whole thing. A women is an adult female. Full stop. We are not defintions, we are one half of the whole of humanity. This crap is soooo draining.😢
Your live reactions are good, but I definitely enjoy the scripted ones more. Your videos are long, even when scripted, so I prefer having something more organized. Anyways, thanks for the content!
The fact that "what is a man" is NEVER asked is because at the heart of this movement is an attempt to strip women of their rights. It's always about trans women (biological men) demanding access to female-only spaces. You don't see the reverse happening.
Adult isn't only a term for humans. It applies to animals that have achieved sexual maturity, i.e. their bodies have matured to the point that they are able to participate in sexual reproduction. We use ages for legal purposes as a shorthand (assuming maturity is a function of age that is relatively predictable across the population). An adult human being is one that has passed through puberty.
Hey KC quick question. First off love the content, bingeing on it right now.... I'm looking for the philosophy tube video where you quoted Marge Simpson with a clip of her saying "all I need to do is stay one lesson ahead of the student!" Please link me to that video of yours. And was that the same video where you were having a chat with a gender critical woman? The title of the video was like "philosophy tube is neither philosophical nor tubular" (Im kidding but it was something like that). I want that vid link because I want to put a comment on it about PT's silly challenge "I don't see many gender critical people giving their answer saying what a cis woman is" Not only is this philosophy tube reply deliberately obtuse, since it's been simply answered if we grant the fact that the question actually is answered by the GC reply to "what is a woman," the extant answer perfectly suffices as an answer anyway, if only PT was willing to be honest and admit it wasn't GC's who foisted the silly concept of cis upon society. So why should GC's have to define this extra made up term ? It's like phrenologists saying to their critics "well they're asking us where's the evidence base for phrenology, but when will our critics admit that they've got the brainpan of a stage coach tilter!" The person you're targeting with unwelcome neopronouns doesn't have to engage in their use in order to reject them. Because cis is a bit silly. Imagine cis applied to anything outside of science. Like you've got a chair, and then you've got a cis chair. Then you ask oh, what sub-category is a cis chair? Well that's the type of chairs that are also actually chairs. They're just another sub category of chairs alongside all those other categorically non-chair things that are also chairs. Why on earth should GC's have to bandy around this silliness? And I'm not even someone who bristles at cis, I'm male though, but I think maybe "women" should embrace the supposed slight of being called cis and just say fine, call us whatever you want among yourselves, but we're cis women, fine, you labelled us well here we are getting politically organised for our own interests, which are not identical to non female bodied people. There's no reason to have a problem with that.
I would simply say that while a woman is an adult human female, a cis woman is an adult human female who does not suffer from gender dysphoria. And by that logic we can further extrapolate that a trans woman is an adult human male who suffers from gender dysphoria.
I realize a ton of these influencers talk similarly as this where the speak slowly and elongate their vowels at the end, especially Jeffery Marsh. It’s probably a sign of manipulative speaking, attempting to sound like they’re better than everyone else. It’s so annoying and even worse that people hear this pattern of speech and let it fool them into thinking it makes the speaker legitimate.
Wait, the release of the Snyder cut wasn't a feminist issue? But it is far more respectful of the Amazonian characters than the Whedon cut! That's true, I am not joking: Snyder's version is more respectful to women than Whedon's. Therefore, it could be argued that...
@@mrosskne It could be argued that releasing the Snyder cut was a feminist issue. I hope you understand that saying a thing can be argued is not to say that it is true but that if someone were to make such a claim there would be a rationale for them to do so.
30:40 - It also isn't relevant. This is called Bulvarism, the attempt to impute motives to disprove logic. The reality is that even IF what Lilly said was true, it wouldn't be relevant to whether or not the definition was the superior one.
The thing is they often put to much attachment and value on the word woman. Just because someone is not a woman doesn’t make you less valuable or something.
But "Descriptive" definition describes NOT what people use this word for, but it Describes the thing itself, what it is. So Descriptive definition of "woman" will be "adult human female". While prescriptive will be "it is whoever says they are woman". As Prescriptive defines what we decided this word will mean, while Descriptive just describes something real and it does not matter how we call it, but it will exist regardless.
She engages in sophistry. "Adult" in the definition "adult human female" dies not refer to being of legal age. It refers to biological adulthood as in secondary sex characteristict have fully developed.
Female=a body arranged for production of larege gametes. Whether those are produced ir not. Whether they are viable or not. Female is a completely uncomplicated term. Unless you are confused, wilfully confused, or very uneducated.
The age of adulthood can be ignored because I can then ask "what is a girl?" and get to the root of the same issue. Human and female are simple and rigid definitions in common use. Females are women, and they can be trans-men. Men, as in adult human males, are men and can also be trans-women. But trans-women are not women, and trying to calling them such because you want women to mean "anybody who calls themself a women" creates serious problems. That's why it matters. We can think critically and account for gender dysphoria and those who want to live differently, but that's no reason to throw language to the wind or ignore the very real differences. That's no reason to ignore biology and ask males if they are pregnant. The fact we are in opposition does not mean we can't think critically, nor does the fact that some things are simple to define. The reason we ask what a women is so much isn't because we want our mind changed, but because we want those pushing the trans agenda to allow males to compete with females in sport, to actually stake a flag in the ground and state what somebody is identifying as. What it means to identify as that. We ask because the treatment of the word makes it as nebulous as identifying as a fedvbyrddvhh, it's simply anybody who says they are one, duh.
"Females are women, and they can be trans-men. Men, as in adult human males, are men and can also be trans-women" No woman can be any kind of man. No man can be any kind of woman.
[Open Question]: Hi! I'm here over from my usual 'Gurl World' content (tangential to the body positivity and fat acceptance movements). I decided to let the algorithm take me down the rabbit hole on transgender issues and have watched a few of your videos. I can't say I agree with you on everything but I have enjoyed learning more about gender critical theory. I came across an author by the name Rebecca Jane Morgan who wrote Gender Heretics: Evangelicals, Feminists, and the Alliance against Trans Liberation. I don't know anything about the book at this point besides the name but am interested if you or anyone else have an opinion/video on the topic! (I'm a fan of seeing where ideals differ so I like to have the big arguments people have before going in lol) This question is definitely open to anyone that comes across this comment! (I won't click on links but I'll look recommendations up lol) Thank you and have a great day!
I personally haven't read that book. I've read a few books about trans ID, but yeah not that one. I'm happy to hear my videos have been useful for you in looking into this topic!
Hmm, I don't really like the term "Gender Critical," at this point communist double speak has coopted the term "Critical," to mean "engaging in the communist process of constant self-destruction in pursuit of being rebuilt better," and it just sounds too similar to things like "Critical Race Theory," for that reason.
I'm an adult human male. It is so unambiguous, easy to see, that even when I was trans identified out in a dress, I was still a sir. Excuse me, it's MAN!
Thank you for being so rational and welspoken. You really got the bull by the balls. Your definition of what a woman is is so so clear that it finally puts this whole queer theory to rest. Do you by any means have any luterature which defines the definition even further? Also,could you maybe make a video on why the queer theory believers movement has gained such traction? Because I personally believe that this theory and others like it like critical race theory are so nonsensical and hostile to critique because the people who invented these theories have something against rationality and critique itself, somehow associating these two concepts to 'Patriarchal' and 'oppressive', because for most of the history the majority of people involved in these pracitices were men. It is a proof of a form of hate against all straight european men for the injustices committed to minorities by a subgroup of these men, and I think it is important to raise the point that these injustices were for the most part a product of ignorance, not of some inherent hate. This i what makes me so sad. I study a humanities study, and a no moment in time are we instructed to make our work as a propagation of knowledge instead of the propagation of social strife. The causation relation between knowledge and emancipation seems to be lost in these vircles and it really is hurting and unfair.
The attempt to undermine *all three* components of the "adult human female" definition is doubly ludicrous because ultimately, only one of those is actually relevant to the trans question. "Adult" and "human" are pertinent to the value of the definition of "woman" as a whole, but those criteria function to differentiate women from girls (for the former) and females of other species (for the latter). Quibbling over those criteria is entirely tangential to the trans question, because *everyone*, whether trans-affirming or gender-critical, agrees those are features held in common by both transwomen and actual women. Even if the attempt to attack them didn't wind up making Lily look worse, it *could not possibly* have advanced their case.
Apparently the words "adult human female" are incredibly controlling and oppressive when used in that order and context. Some sort of magic spell, perhaps?
Legal adult changes with societal attitude, but biological adult is unchanging. Just because 14 year olds were getting married and considered adults hundreds of years ago doesnt change that they were biologically not an adult. If we dig up their bodies a scientist would say, "yep this is a child"
When will you make videos about mainline Feminism? You made a career addressing 0.2% of the population. Nobody says abandon this, but expand the variety.
This trash is believed by well over 0.2% of the population. It's mainstream. Try refering to a man in a dress as "he" and see how much time passes before you're called a bigot.
If a woman is someone who identifies as a woman, Then... A woman is someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who Identities as someone who Identifies as someone who Identifies as someone who...
@@Cahrssomething What people "identify as" does not necessarily correlate with what they actually are. A male, will always remain male, regardless of if they "identify as a trans woman" or not. It truly baffles my mind that so many people these days think identifying as something changes what you physically are.
"'Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. ' Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Words having an "essence" goes against their cult doctrine. You arn't coming at this on their level, you might aswell be shouting at a cloud.
I'm not a trans advocate. I am a cognitive linguist, so I know how categories based on words work. I'm willing to teach some of that, but first I have to do a cognitive linguistic analysis of how you in particular use the word _define._ I can only do that by asking you questions and then analyzing your responses. My first question is, "how do you define _mother?"_
i am of the opinion that adoption is human trafficking, and you would be surprised at how loosely that word is bandied about....when i truthfully state that only women who have given birth are mothers, and that they are only mothers to the children they themselves birthed, people get...pretty irrational.
@@alasshewasthehighwaywoman8886 That's a perspicacious response, but it doesn't tell me what @King Critical thinks. I do appreciate your stating your ideology, and it is important, because, unlike many, you freely admit your view is ideological and do not gaslight by pretending it is about science or linguistics. I consider this honest, and if honesty were the norm, I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of arguments over trans would be necessary or would even be likely. The entire mess is contaminated with extremely bad terms, including _gender_ and _cis,_ which I avoid whenever possible. I am not here to discuss, let alone argue about ideologies, however. I am here as a cognitive linguist.
@@deadman746 and *noticing and correctly identifying that adoption is human trafficking* is actually not an ideology. so no, i do not freely admit anything like that.
@@deadman746 i'm really not sure you understood anything i said to be honest, but just as with trans, the nitty gritty has to do with vaginas. cherche la femme eh
"A woman might as well not mean anything at all". This is what we mean by erasure. This is pure, unadulterated misogyny.
That sentiment reminds me of KC's debate with (the horse-loving) Vaush.
Vaush said something to the effect of "Trans women are women because it does the most social good."
Well it might do me the most good to be addressed as "the handsome, wonderful ______" every time someone uses
my name, but it doesn't make it *true*.
It's 100% misogyny and I'm getting sick of it
@@dante6985also the idea that 0.1% of males get to overrule the definition of woman for 100% of females is somehow socially best is absurd- unless you consider women to not be people.
@@lovelight2577 exactly. In the argument he's unilaterally deciding it's doing the *most* social good and that's impossible to measure. (And I feel like that's being generous.)
They don't even think that themselves because that conclusion undermines their whole ideology. If they really think woman doesn't mean anything at all, then the whole trans ideology is about literally nothing. Transition to what? To nothing? So why even bother?
The whole argument is just so disingenuous. They claim not to know the definition of female or sex, but then call themselves transwomen, and others cis women. Like.... so you are aware of the reality of sex, then.
They also don't seem to do this for any other animal despite humans being primates. We know what a female monkey is, so why don't we know what a female human is?
Lmao exactly!! 😂
Its almost as if its all political bullshit with no base in reality
They do not claim not to know what female or sex means because they are talking about gender and not sex. You're being disingenuos or you're just clueless. You can disagree that gender and sex are different things but don't just strawman.
@@thevis5465 they pretend not to know when they ask a gender critical/sex realist person what a woman is and when they get the answer adult human female there is a lot of ‘oh, so you think an infertile female isn’t a woman then?’ Or ‘Oh, so what about a woman who has gone through menopause then?’ Or ‘oh, what about a female who has a high level of testosterone, then?’
They interrogate the response of adult human female as though it is something we have made up and pretend they don’t have an awareness of what makes a female or a male and biological sex is something to be negotiated as to what makes a female.
I’m aware of the assertion that gender and sex are different, but I have yet to hear what a woman is based on this understanding of gender. If it’s a social construct, some characteristics should be able to be named. But they never are.
It's fascinating to me how far these people are willing to go with this absolute cope ideology
It's a cult-like set of beliefs. Heaven's gate was pretty absurd as well.
@@pdjinne65the fact academia gave ANY credibility to that PDF file John Money and his absolutely unhinged batshit insane "experiment" still pisses me off beyond words.
All definitions are exclusionary. Not just the definition of woman. By their very nature, words have to be exclusionary. If words did not have clear meaning, we could not use them to communicate. Which is what words are for.
Define cat. Define animal. Define life. "Well, are self-replicating androids life? See, cats don't exist."
I thought the exact same thing. Makes no sense to say a cat is anyone who identifies as such 😂
When people start "defining animals", usually that means some very sick fetish is involved.
Instead of looking at them trying to "philosophize" about things, just see what they want to achieve by their new "definitions".
It usually is a fetish they are trying hard to justify.
The problem I see with TRAs is not that they can’t define “woman” but that they don’t know what it means.
They try to be all philosophical by pointing out how definitions change based on what we intuitively count as a given thing and in response to counterevidence, like how Plato’s definition of human as “featherless biped” was invalidated by Diogenes, so they just added the clause “with broad flat nails”.
But everyone knows what a human is in the conceptual sense, that is why we can even speak of there being competing and contradictory definitions of it, as opposed to there being different definitions for a series of unrelated things, all of which happen to be referred to as “human”.
If there isn’t that conceptual unity, then we aren’t talking about the same thing. But TRAs don’t just say that the definition, that is, what gets counted as a “woman” and what doesn’t is malleable, rather, *they say that the MEANING of the IDEA of a woman is malleable* .
How can anyone “affirm” a TIM’s gender identity if when people use the word “woman” they don’t have the same definitions, nor the same conceptual meaning? What if my “understanding” of what a woman is features me imagining a buff muscular male? Would that be “affirming”? After all, there is no conceptual unity for the IDEA of a woman so who’s to say that my idea can’t be that?
Fire is life.
Cat is a member of a feline species
Definitions do need to be descriptive, not prescriptive. Any lexicographer would tell you that. But that's why "adult human female" is such a good definition for "woman." It lines up with how people use it.
But if they're not prescriptive, by what justification do you refuse to refer to trans-women as women?
@@Celestina0 because they're not women, they're men
@@Celestina0 no need for justification, it's because they're men
The same reason we don't refer to seahorses as horses. Seahorses and horses are two completely different concepts even if they have the same word within them.@@Celestina0
@@Celestina0 the fact that trans women are men
Adult human female - A definition that is instantly understood by all people of all ages from all social classes and all levels of education all over the world without
the slightest shadow of doubt ♀️💃
You are saying this is how it ought to be defined; fine, that's entirely up to you and defines how you convey your thoughts.
Non-cis people aren't saying that it shouldn't be defined like that, we're saying that it ISN'T defined like that; as in, society does not behave as if it holds to that definition, which makes it inaccurate.
To be fair, they can just ask "WHAT IS FEMALE, HUH??!!" And then you tell them: "A living being which was born with a reproductive system that, under normal curcumstances, produces OVA."
@@Capybarrrraaaa That's just gaslighting and historical revisionism. Since you're under 15 years old, let me tell you that virtually all of society behaved that way until gender activists started promoting their dogma. Even now, most of the world behaves that way.
@@Capybarrrraaaa Dude out here insulting normal men and women thinking no one understands his underhanded slurs. God, and the postmodern language theory garbage... "It's all subjective hehe, but somehow we can communicate still but let's forget how that is even possible since everything is subjective". Do you have any actual arguments or is obfuscation and insult all you can offer?
@@Capybarrrraaaa Society does behave like it holds to that definition. How else do you think women and girls have been oppressed, exploited, violated and brutalized by boys and men for millenia, precisely because of our sex?
Lily says "woman" "means so many different things to so many different people". This is equivocation on the word "means" and "meaning." Words have meanings, or definitions. That is not the same as "what X means to me", which is things about X that resonate the most with me. Plenty of other words "mean so many different things to different people", like "courage", or "love", or "mother/parent", or "husband/spouse", or "teacher". These words, like "woman" and "man", also have definitions.
And it’s mostly a lie. In most cultures, women are the designated caregivers in some way. If by “means”, she’s talking about what women wear or how they style their hair, then sure. She could have a point. But the social roles associated with womanhood have often been illuminated by the biological reality of motherhood and the traditions of marriage (‘Woman’s Old English Origin=Wife Of Man). Back then, the word ‘wife’ was used for all women, married or single. But it doesn’t have very fluid origins.
Historically, there were probably far more gender non-conforming males than females. Those people were always called something else and given their own social category. Providing those people with a status didn’t really involve re-defining womanhood.
There isn't any such thing as "means to me". Private languages don't exist.
Lily is just countlessly trying to justify things so things can go his way. "Means to me" has no merrit in factual reality. Not sorry to say
Being a woman is not a movement tho 😒
it is for people who have only recently decided to "try it on". The rest of us just get to sit back and watch how brave they are for being us ("us" being: pink and in a dress with long long hair and a nasally voice, of course).
@@aprilmeowmeowgirl what!! I’m telling you!! They have lost their minds👏🏾 👏🏾 👏🏾
I just about lost it when Lily started questioning the definition of human🤣
Is a neanderthal human?
no?
How come we can breed with them then?
Hmm. biology is complex.
@@乙-f1s Whether Neanderthals were a subspecies of Homo Sapiens or their own species is still subject for debate, but other way we both belong to the same genus Homo, and inter-species hybridisation is neither rare nor necessarily leading to infertile offspring 🤷
@@Alina-dw3ct that was the point.
You missed it.
Behold, a man 🐔
@@乙-f1s yes, we're cousins
I don't know how you can tolerate this disengenuous, insufferable, bloviating narccicist for more than five minutes.
Maybe he's gotten used to it, since they're all that way.
He exposed himself to the venom enough to build immunity
The whole "if woman has a definition then they are all the same" argument is just what happens when you completely replace the concept of people having personalities with just a long list of micro identities. (asexual demiplatonic polyamory gamer etc.)
They cannot imagine anyone being different than someone else outside of them belonging to a different identity group. It's actually essentialism run amok.
That's what cuts to one of the troubling implications of transgenderism:
that people without such a label of "non-binary" or "trans-femme genderfluid"
or "aporagender" or "agender" are innately less interesting than those with such labels.
Ironically it's actually the opposite, if a woman is an adult human female then that means the only thing all women have in common is that they are female.
Both good points. The concept of having a personality which isn't based on one's belonging to these categories and subcategories is just incomprehensible to these people. Their entire lives revolve around this baseless sense of identity.
In that same vein they’re confusing pronouns with names. We all have names. They’re not quite unique, but we generally don’t know more than one or two other people with our given names. They want neopronouns to play that same role, for some reason. Just let people have sexes, personalities and names.
@@abcdeshole Part of what's been frustrating to me - as someone who's been empathetic to trans / gender nonconforming people for decades - is just how much of 'trans linguistics' kind of falls apart. Like they need to restructure the terminology from the ground up (again). A lot of it seems pretty arbitrary.
Example: Deadnames - considered deeply offensive, thoroughly taboo. Never to be uttered. That person is now always the new name and history is to be rewritten as if the 'old gendered' person never existed.
Trans widow/er - based off deadnames: stemming from the fact that a person was married to someone who now goes by a new gender identity (and their old name, the name the person was married to, is now 'dead' and is written out of history.) Also considered deeply offensive and trans-misogynistic, never to be uttered.
Lily Alexandre is extremely talented at speaking at length without saying anything.
Dude so true it’s like if tv static was words
most breadtubers are
She's getting ready to run for President.
Is it me but do all arguments for gender ideology boil down to 'nothing means anything' yet somehow their undefined unknown word women must include anyone that declares it?
It’s applied nihilism, albeit dishonestly because it’s pretending not to be. On the offense they’re all about how they really truly exist, on the defense nothing is actually real and definitions can mean anything, etc
They cant because the only definition they can give is either absurd, circular or sexist and they know that. They often use a long complicated circular definition, call to ethos or jump to insults and accusations..... yhea they cant separate the individual personalities and preferences from their genders, which is exactly what sexism is..... How do they not notice that?
The entire reason they give these evasive, circular, nonsense answers is to avoid saying the blatant sexism out loud.
Or the description means that they have to accept they're getting scammed or participating IN a scam.
Of course the definition we give is absurd, circular and sexist; that's why we criticise it. You lot seem to think, just because we're the ones willing to define how society functions around sex, that we're the ones saying it should be behaving like this.
How do you not notice that almost all of us are gender-abolitionists? Doesn't that, even remotely, strike you as strange? Or is it that you only hear us through edited clips and railroaded "interviews", that set a level of presumption.
The human bit js the most insidiously racist, nearly Neo-Nazi thing I’ve ever heard.
Agreed.
"Historically, this group has been widely dehumanized, so it wasn't _actually_ murder!"
Exactly! It’s not like there are literal Australopithecines walking around. The closest living relatives of Homo sapiens are chimpanzees and bonobos, and they’re a different species in every sense. Even the most distantly related human populations are able to have healthy children together and learn each others languages.
Wow, Lily sounds so reasonable because of the tone of her voice, but basically what she is saying is sophistry.
she didn't sound reasonable at all lol
The whole debate is pointless, because if you dare say anything that contradicts their opinion, you'll be banned from social spaces.
There is no freedom of speech in this topic... Understand that they made people fear discussing this, fear interacting with anything to do with it, and overall, fear the whole situation.
They actively made people phobic of the subject matter by making anyone who dares express their opinion pay a price.
If interaction, definition and all else is held by people fearing punishment, the end result is that their entire cause, ideology and various definitions only work by coercion.
They can't bend reality, but they can force people to bend to their whims.
It's wrong on all accounts, and they don't care, they just want to get their self-centered goals and ignore the ramification of making everyone silent.
That's what makes it so hysterical that they're always calling everybody fascists
@@TheLonelyCamgirlHey the commies did that too.
If you cared about freedom-of-speech, then you'd be rallying about the wave of disinformation that psychologically-preps people against what trans people claim. It's not a bad thing that those, unwilling to actually listen, are booted from polite places. That 'price' affects trans people far more than it does any cisgender person. No cis person is denied healthcare over this.
If you want to speak, you have to be willing to listen. Hardly a big thing to ask, is it.
'One does not simply step into the post-modern word-soup and emerge unscathed.' - Boromir at the council of Elrond (probably)
The part that gets me (and I'm actually pretty open minded about all this) is when one of the guests on *that* episode of Doctor Phil said they couldn't define woman because they didn't identify as one.
I'm not a cat, but I'm pretty damn sure i know one when i see it.
Or as KJK put it, “I’m not a vet but I still know a dog when I see one.”
I am a Schlurg. I know this because I am one. If you are not a Schlurg then you don't know what it means to be one and you cannot tell me that I am not one.
@@neandrewthalYes I can. You're not a schlurg.
@@mrosskne Are you playing along with the joke, or did you miss the point😅.
@@cortezchavez5891 No, but you did. I can tell you what you are, because private languages don't exist. If a word doesn't have a meaning, it doesn't have a referent, and therefore, does not refer to you. You're not a schlurg.
This was a comprehensive take down, Thank you I was very engaged by your presentation.
The argument “what is an adult, it’s too nebulous” rocked me. It’s such wrong and vile idea that the age 18 is arbitrary that I had to sit down.
I recommend going to the channel inspiringPhilosophy he has been recently doing debates, videos and research against child marriage. There are so so many good reasons adulthood is set at 18 it’s not even funny.
I hope this trans activist learns these facts and repents
Oh, Lily. Says that adult human female is as much as a circle definition as who identifies as such, then turns around and blames people with avoiding critical thinking. You don't even have an ounce of critical thinking.
I once asked someone who said similar things how they are deciding in Afghanistan who is allowed to get an education or who needs to cover their faces. He pretended not to hear what I said.
yeah, or which people identify to go through the female genital mutilation or get drafted...strange, huh...
No-one denies that people can agree on who is male and female most of the time
@@skeliton11211Lily does.
@@mrosskne I do not think she does with the caveat "most of the time". Most people are cis with no real intersexuality.
@@skeliton11211 She does.
When ‘gender’ is shorthand for ‘personality’, defining ‘woman’ will necessarily lead to all women being the same.
That’s why I prefer ‘woman’ being shorthand for ‘adult human female.’ There’s plenty of room for different kinds of women, so we won’t all be the same!!
I can’t believe we are losing to people with this level of reasoning skill.
We aren't losing. The corporations are finally giving up trying to be "morally upstanding" now that they realized these people not only aren't customers but kowtowing to them leads only to bankruptcy.
The tides are turning, but we cannot, must not ease up at all.
Show how some people suffer progeria, some people don't physically mature, some kids go to university, some people have the mental age of a child.... but it STILL doesn't mean that an adult gets to identify as a child. And newsflash, some unmistakable adults do, is that any more categorically wrong than other proclaims based identities that literally assert the counterfactual as true? When you think about it, age is less clear than biological sex, and even though the social role of age in edge cases can differ such as majority at 18 or 21, even then it doesn't allow a 40yo to identify as a baby, but some do!
I think the age comparison helps show how stupid the DSD gambit is.
(1) One part of anti-aging is telomeres lengthening
(2) I will assume if we start turning back the clock literally we will start questioning age
(3) Trans people can take medication
(4) That medication can change the output of DNA
(5) That can replicate the desired sex to a large degree...
(6) Scientifically it's not 100% transition because of the lower components
(7) The problem apparently if we lengthen telomeres can lead to cancer
(8) Cells get damaged over time
(9) They are supposed to died
(10) The best we can do is replace them with stem cells... appearently.
@@caffeinatedhuman4035 Trans people can take hormones and have surgeries. Those things never, ever make them produce gametes that are opposite of whatever their bodies formed to facilitate the production of. What they are changing is secondary sex characteristics (which are never absolute - overweight males can have gynecomastia, some females remain flat-chested after puberty, etc). They are never, ever changing their actual sex. Sex is defined by gamete production. An infertile female is one whose body had developed to produce the larger gamete, but fails to do so (either through disorder, age, surgery, whatever). An infertile male is one whose body had developed to produce the smaller gamete, but fails to do so (for whatever reason). Transwomen who take hormones and have had surgeries to superficially appear female have removed their testes but do not have ovaries. Therefore, they have failed to become female but simply rendered themselves infertile males.
@@ir8octopus
(1) No body is saying that the DNA changes completely
(2) But the output does
(3) I think there's a bit more to it than gynaecomastia
(4) Go look up androgen insensitivity syndrome
(5) Hormones are a powerful thing.
@@caffeinatedhuman4035 DNA doesn't just not change completely, it doesn't change at all. But that doesn't matter anyway, because DNA is not how sex is defined. It's by having larger or smaller gametes (or having developed in that direction as a fetus, even if incompletely). A single flower can have male and female parts. Biologists label them that way because one part has small gametes, the other has larger gametes. It has nothing to do with the DNA of the flower - both of these parts on the flower presumably have the same DNA. There are some animals who have temperature-determined sex determination (if a turtle's eggs incubate at a certain temperature, it results in one sex, a different range results in the other sex). We can identify what sex the turtles are by what size of gametes the turtle developed towards producing, even though that turtle's DNA could easily have resulted in the opposite sex had it incubated at a different temperature. Not sure why you're obsessed with DNA. It's about the gametes, and no transwomen have spontaneously developed their own ovaries from hormones, so none of them are female, period. Of course hormones are powerful! But tattooing stripes on myself and getting a tail implant wouldn't make me any bit more a zebra, and what transwomen do doesn't make them any bit more female. Sex is not a spectrum of superficial traits - it's a binary about gamete size. What you're talking about are called secondary sex characteristics, which are strongly bimodal (though not binary), but are not sex (at all).
@@ir8octopus
(1) Look I 100% get it
(2) There are plenty of trans who are non passable at this point
(3) Alot of them look like they spent $2 worth of money and 5 minutes of time.
(4) I'm not talking about those ones...
(5) To me they are more like prototypes
(6) I understand why it would freak a person out seeing people act like that.
(7) They look like their half baked and need to get back in the oven.
(8) But there are a few that I can not tell the difference.
(9) Humans in general are not just biology but psychology
(10) Most of us know one language
(11) But if you took us as children and placed us elsewhere...
(12) We would speak a different language.
(13) I speak English because I was brought up around english people
(14) I would be speak a different language brought up in a different country.
(15) There are males who get brought up in predominantly female environments
(16) I'm not going to tell you they have a real uterus
(17) If that's what you wish to hear.
(18) It will make you happy to hear that alot of them call themselves trans women.
(19) We live in 2024 not the year 3000
(20) I do not think this mindset is ever going to go away...like you want.
(21) I think that over a course of time there will be more biological change.
(22) Wait until we start redefining humans with crispr.
Sure, I may just be white skinned, blue eyed, and naturally blonde, but I'm still totally a Latina, because I say I am! As for how I define "Latina", exactly..? Who cares? Stop being such an awful party pooper! It does not have to be defined! I just know that I AM!
I am also deaf, even though I'm currently listening to this with absolutely no issue, and how DARE you say I'm not??? Hereby demanding monthly disability payments, for my self-identified deafness! Plus obviously, deafness is a SPECTRUM! It could very well be that some people hear even LESS than me, but how dare they try to police me, and exclude me from their community? Such bigots! Plus when I attend meetings for deaf people..? There they come, with their totally awful, square and uncool, exclusionary insistence on having a set DEFINITION for what qualifies as deafness! Because they say, actually BEING deaf, the definition of deafness directly affects them, and MATTERS to them! But like, since I am basically just trying to opt in, here..? It obviously does not matter to me, and I just want the category to be MEANINGLESSLY broad, to the point that even perfectly hearing people can be considered deaf! Because then I feel super hecking validated, and I get to be INCLUDED! And if it harms real deaf people..? I don't care! Because why should I care about THEM, right..? Fake deaf people unite! :P
Anyway, glad to see you're uploading again! Wish these people would actually watch your responses, although I somehow doubt it would make a difference, even if they did. They've got WAY too much invested in blatant lies being true, and they're gonna have an unshakeable interest in defending them, and maintaining them, at all cost. Plus you can't argue with faith, and all that.. But you can still argue for the sake of the people around them, that might be listening. ;)
Just identify as another race and watch their heads explode from the cognitive dissonance, because race is more of a social construct than sex.
There are millions of Latinos that are white skinned, blue eyed, and naturally blonde. Latino isn't a race, it's a culture.
White Latinas actually do exist 😅 Latin America is incredibly genetically diverse. Just a minor point to say that’s not the best example.
yea latina is actually a geographically-bound identity and very much based around culture. not the best example. the only requirement to be latina is be either born in or closely related to someone from latin america.
I define woman as any person (human) who is of the female sex who has attained sexual maturity.
How transphobic of you! Lol, kidding.
So a 13 year old child that has started puberty and thus able to become pregnant is a woman to you
Maria McLachlan`s version is also good
„There is only one way to become a woman.
You just have to be born female, make it through puberty and grow into adulthood.
And Bob is your uncle…not your aunt.“
And how do you define female ?
@@vibhumishra2609 “of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.”
And don’t even bring up people with congenital disorders to “refute” this fact
I was taught in 3rd grade that a definition cant conatain the word its defining
“Women” in TRA use, in effect refers to a concept. It may never be defined as such, but that’s how it’s used. Unlike most words like “water” where the category “water” is identical to the things inside that category, such as H2O, the word woman is meant to confer some property upon the people included in that category, otherwise there would be no significance to putting TIMs in the “woman” category, and so the mistake TRAs often make is they define who gets to be a part of the category “women” without defining the category “woman” itself.
In effect, “woman” refers to the concept of being female in some ontological sense, rather than being physically female. Such a concept cannot be completely described in words, just as you can’t describe the difference between right and left without a contingent reference point or just as you can’t describe what the color red looks like to a colorblind man, but psychologically, there is a difference between seeing someone as if they were a man in a dress, and seeing someone as if they were a woman in a dress.
The word “transignification” almost perfectly describes this, but I’ve only seen this word be used in describing a fringe Christian theological belief that basically says that instead of the wine and bread being literally and metaphysically turned into the body and blood of God, it merely becomes imbued with the same significance, importance, and reality of being “literally” the blood and body of God. Since TRAs don’t often attach a metaphysical claim to someone changing their gender, I feel like the word “transignification” describes it almost perfectly.
I never heard that term before. Is that like, how Eucharist for Catholics believe in transubstantiation, transignification is the word for how Protestant Communion is symbolic ritual "Do this in remembrance of me?" I think I follow your point.
@@theresas740 Transignifcation doesn’t refer to how Protestants view Communion, it instead refers only to a very fringe theology within the Catholic Church created by Edward Schillebeeckx.
Protestants have their own views on the Eucharist or Communion, but it’s not transignification 👍
Thank you I really enjoy your clear & precise explanations so don’t worry about trying to be ie ‘dramatic’ so called more interesting, when logic & intelligence shines through then tone isn’t noticeable. 👍 from a women, adult grandmother 😊
If woman doesn't mean a human female (female being the ones who if everything functions correctly bear the eggs)
Then what does woman mean? What is a woman how can you be a trans woman what is the base, what is the rule.
A bird is a bird means what, what is a bird.
It’s kinda funny that she completely brushes over the concerns of gender critical feminists as a nebulous “something bad,” rather than the specific concerns that there’s empirical evidence of (such as bad actors abusing trans identification to get into female-only spaces like women’s sports or women’s prisons).
No, woman can’t be whoever identifies as a woman, that would lead to an infinite regress. But suppose you define woman as whoever identifies as “woman” (the use-mention distinction). Now here are two other definitions: 女人 is whoever identifies as “女人”, 炒面 is whoever identifies as “炒面”. One of these Chinese words actually refers to women, the other refers to stir fried noodles. Can you tell? Exactly. That’s the amount of information the word “woman” will have if you define it this way.
Which also lead us to the second problem. While women who speak English will identify as “woman”, those who speak French will identify as something else, namely “la femme”. But wait, these two words mean the same thing, I hear you say. No they don’t actually, not when you apply the simple identity definition. You can’t show that they have the same meaning when they don’t mean anything beyond a label, cos the label is different in different languages. This is simple semantics.
Its all sophistry
great video! i'm glad that there are left leaning people fighting this nonsense
It's frustrating being left and fighting trans ideology.
Because I think there are people like Matt Walsh who don't seem to care about gender nonconforming lives.
And there are people on the left saying... "I sympathize with the plight but the language you're choosing doesn't really make sense."
If you question gender ideology, you cannot be a leftist. You're just a right winger larping as a leftist for social credit.
There is no such thing as gender nonconforming. You don't have a gender, you have a sex. If you're born male, you're a man. End of.
Leftist and gay here.
They can't define "woman", or "man", or "gender", you know. Just the things they're experts about.
You can define anything quite easily. 'A woman is a three foot tall tree'. That's easy. What's hard is defining something in a way that includes all the things you want to call women, and excludes all that you don't. Which is, i think, impossible.
@@Celestina0 Woman - adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of bearing children.
Man - adult human male, with "male" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of impregnating females.
These would include those who due to aging, defects, etc. can't actually fulfill their respective reproductive role (e.g., so-called "intersex" people).
But those who argue that gender is somehow different from sex typically end up giving definitions that are unworkable with the rest of their worldview (usually by confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms).
Adult human female 🥱 and we're not things.
You are confusing 'defining' with 'saying' and not for the first time, young man.
@@Celestina0 Wow, my reply was deleted. Figures. Anyway, a woman is an adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of bearing children. If my comment stays put, we can talk more about it. We'll see.
Anyone who argues that we shouldn't define a term is almost certainly trying to prevent any discussion surrounding it.
After all, if we don't agree on what a relevant term means (and it _can_ take as little as a single term), we end up talking past each other.
If you do a quick word swap, change WOMAN for HUMAN and all the arguments look childish without having to point out any of the problems.
Alexandre makes no sense whatsoever.
Long Chu is a vulgar nasty person.
54:58 With regards to Native American history and culture, Alexandre is remarkably ignorant. There are MANY Native American cultures.
Yeah, and none of them were confused about the difference between men and women. People like Alexandre love to bring up these spurious accounts of how non-Europeans were all totally pro-trans.
@@patavinity1262Because having examples of non-white people that agree with you is the ultimate trump card
@@soph1e That's true, but it also goes deeper than that. They want desperately to believe in a worldview that makes all social evils the fault of Europeans, and suggest that non-Europeans (especially colonized peoples) had a deeper, truer almost mystical sense of understanding that whites wish to eradicate for reasons of racial intolerance. It's essentially a modern version of the 'noble savage' concept. Any inconvenient evidence that suggests tribes in Africa or the Americas haven't had and don't have impeccably politically correct views on everything is either ignored, or it's all blamed on European colonialism.
Hey all! It's another old video that I never uploaded to this channel. I recorded this video after somebody told me I should try to be less monotonous, so I tried to really overperform the entire script. Personally, watching it back, I hate it, and was considering re-recording the whole video, but I figured that was a bit of a waste and I already warned you in my last video that I was probably going to be uploading an old video. Hope you enjoy!
Please will you consider responding to my question I have asked you in your last video?..
The delivery is a little ... I'm still glad you uploaded it and thanks for explaining. I was a little confused about your hair at first.
Re-post with your question, so he doesn't have to go looking for it. GL.@@blackrainbow6126
I like your monotony lol. Sometimes it's good to have a calmer voice, even when women's identities are being erased by the delusional.
Don’t worry about the monotony or try to “perform.” As long as it’s on topic, we like it.
You should do a video on the recent debate between Colin Wright and Rationality Rules!
I wasn't even aware of that! I'll check it out!
Sure, I'd like to see KC talk about that debate. To be honest, though, there is almost nothing in that video that's not already addressed in this one...
@@KC_Streams , RR's statements are so confused that I think it would be a tedious analytic exercise to make any sense of them. He doesn't even know what he thinks. I think it would be nearly impossible to respond to any individual statement he makes in isolation. He's the classic undergrad who takes one philosophy course and thinks he's a philosopher.
Yes, I’m seeing lots of parallels between that debate and this video in particular. Would love to hear KC’s take on it!
@StormBringer5 Now that I thought about it some more, I agree. Even though I think Colin did a great job both trying to clarify and refuting most of Stephens points, there are some topics that I would love to see addressed.
(1) That platypus thing - it seems to me that RR here is confusing definition and description. How could adding the word "typical" to a DEFINITION make any sense? Then everything - even a penguin - can be a mammal, just a less "typical" one? There must be some other defining feature that made necessary to add the platypus to the mammals and therefore change the DESCRIPTION?
(2) What's a social construct - according to RR, even things that are just fuzzy concepts (castles) are "social constructs". (But even so, how do you get from "social construct" to "I can freely declare the group I belong to".)
(3) It seems to me that RR not only thinks that "man" and "woman" are in some relevant sense social constructs, but that people are INTENTIONALLY referring to those social constructs when they use those words. I think, however, that those words were always INTENDED to primarily refer to the sexes (and, as Colin points out, they are actually very very good at that), just that cultures put more or less baggage - "gender" - on top.
Lilly uses this very long winded point just to say, I couldn’t bare the burden of the expectations the male genderrole thrusted upon me so I want to bend the definition of woman so I can escape from my own burden into your identity.
And instead of just owning himself and accepting himself for who he is, he takes the pathetic cowardly way out by bastardizing the class of people who usually tend to be more accepting of us gender nonconforming men. Lovely.
There does seem to be far less flexibility and willingness to expand male roles to match the reality of the diverse ways men actually are. Hence the appropriation of the opppsite sex.
@@Gingerblaze Supposedly overwhelmingly more young females are identifying as trans than males but it seems like all the ones making a fuss and taking up all the cultural space are males and it seems like trans rights means men's rights to women's privileges.
Analyze the Stephen Woodford & Colin Wright debate
I waited in vain for an alternative term from Lily for a woman that does NOT include people of the opposite sex. Clear definitions are important not only for communication but also in medicine, for laws and in statistics. A member of the Canadian Parliament wondered why women suddenly commit crimes that had never been committed by women before. One example given was of a woman who broke into an old woman’s house and sexually assaulted her. The guy said that had never happened before in their crime records. Another example was a woman raping another women in a woman’s rape crisis shelter. Both cases turned out to be dudes identifying as women. When you can no longer even be sure whether the press is telling the truth or lying, we know that queer theory has found its way from the ivory tower of universities down to us peasants, which is a real shame.
youtu.be/NCy1k8T
lesbians rape and abuse each other all the time, actually
Interesting to see that even from a socialist/marxist perspective "transwoman are woman" also doesn't fly.
Tr@ns is just wrong altogether, doesn't matter what angle you view it from.
They can, but they choose not to.
Excellent. except for one thing... I think the word Gender is being used incorrectly by all involved (this is no slight against King Critical's argumentation). Gender is a grammatical term by definition. other uses of the word to discuss other things is a misuse of the word. at best, it is being used euphemistically (or colloquially); but euphemistic use of the word does not equate to definition. as I said, Gender, by definition, is a grammatical term. all that said, I really enjoyed your take down of Lily Alexandre's video. Thank you for doing so.
2:10 If no one can tell you what a woman is, how does the inquiry control women? I thought we didn't know what a woman was. So, who is being controlled, and what does this mysterious group have in common?
I feel like the this circular argumentation around the definition of women and gender/sex, exists only to further complicate modern political discourse and even make living as a normie more difficult. Personally, we shouldn't try to play their game, they don't even know how to play it (nor do they care), we should focus on pacifying their destructive politics from the West. Being able to pay rent and maintain relationships are more important.
To use their definition of man or woman would make the definitions impossible to actually state because you cannot define a term by its own term, "A man is someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as...". It would go on forever with no conclusion.
Well, what I learned from the Olympics is that many men define a woman as "whatever we say a woman is, based on whatever criteria we feel like at the moment (which may be different from the criteria five minutes ago), and prioritizing a snap judgment over available concrete evidence" -- speaking of things that don't work...
Word salad the whole thing. A women is an adult female. Full stop. We are not defintions, we are one half of the whole of humanity. This crap is soooo draining.😢
Your live reactions are good, but I definitely enjoy the scripted ones more. Your videos are long, even when scripted, so I prefer having something more organized. Anyways, thanks for the content!
Woman = XX, Man = XY, simple, objective, empirically provable.
Only for mammals. The gamete size difference is universal. It even applies to plants.
Exactly it's all absolutely insane. Correct.
how does she define or label men?. This is never asked.
The fact that "what is a man" is NEVER asked is because at the heart of this movement is an attempt to strip women of their rights. It's always about trans women (biological men) demanding access to female-only spaces. You don't see the reverse happening.
Adult isn't only a term for humans. It applies to animals that have achieved sexual maturity, i.e. their bodies have matured to the point that they are able to participate in sexual reproduction. We use ages for legal purposes as a shorthand (assuming maturity is a function of age that is relatively predictable across the population).
An adult human being is one that has passed through puberty.
Hey KC quick question. First off love the content, bingeing on it right now....
I'm looking for the philosophy tube video where you quoted Marge Simpson with a clip of her saying "all I need to do is stay one lesson ahead of the student!"
Please link me to that video of yours. And was that the same video where you were having a chat with a gender critical woman? The title of the video was like "philosophy tube is neither philosophical nor tubular" (Im kidding but it was something like that).
I want that vid link because I want to put a comment on it about PT's silly challenge "I don't see many gender critical people giving their answer saying what a cis woman is"
Not only is this philosophy tube reply deliberately obtuse, since it's been simply answered if we grant the fact that the question actually is answered by the GC reply to "what is a woman," the extant answer perfectly suffices as an answer anyway, if only PT was willing to be honest and admit it wasn't GC's who foisted the silly concept of cis upon society. So why should GC's have to define this extra made up term ? It's like phrenologists saying to their critics "well they're asking us where's the evidence base for phrenology, but when will our critics admit that they've got the brainpan of a stage coach tilter!" The person you're targeting with unwelcome neopronouns doesn't have to engage in their use in order to reject them.
Because cis is a bit silly. Imagine cis applied to anything outside of science. Like you've got a chair, and then you've got a cis chair.
Then you ask oh, what sub-category is a cis chair? Well that's the type of chairs that are also actually chairs. They're just another sub category of chairs alongside all those other categorically non-chair things that are also chairs.
Why on earth should GC's have to bandy around this silliness? And I'm not even someone who bristles at cis, I'm male though, but I think maybe "women" should embrace the supposed slight of being called cis and just say fine, call us whatever you want among yourselves, but we're cis women, fine, you labelled us well here we are getting politically organised for our own interests, which are not identical to non female bodied people. There's no reason to have a problem with that.
I would simply say that while a woman is an adult human female, a cis woman is an adult human female who does not suffer from gender dysphoria. And by that logic we can further extrapolate that a trans woman is an adult human male who suffers from gender dysphoria.
Type transalpine gaul into google.
Type cisalpine gaul into google.
Wonderful critique. I watched Lily's video quite some time ago and found it very unsettling.
Is a baby an adult? Is a 5 year old an adult?
Excellent job
What’s with breadtuber’s and always returning to the “colonialism bad!” Rhetoric every time.
I realize a ton of these influencers talk similarly as this where the speak slowly and elongate their vowels at the end, especially Jeffery Marsh. It’s probably a sign of manipulative speaking, attempting to sound like they’re better than everyone else. It’s so annoying and even worse that people hear this pattern of speech and let it fool them into thinking it makes the speaker legitimate.
Wait, the release of the Snyder cut wasn't a feminist issue? But it is far more respectful of the Amazonian characters than the Whedon cut! That's true, I am not joking: Snyder's version is more respectful to women than Whedon's. Therefore, it could be argued that...
what could be argued?
@@mrosskne
It could be argued that releasing the Snyder cut was a feminist issue.
I hope you understand that saying a thing can be argued is not to say that it is true but that if someone were to make such a claim there would be a rationale for them to do so.
@@markpostgate2551 so why did you cut off your comment?
30:40 - It also isn't relevant. This is called Bulvarism, the attempt to impute motives to disprove logic. The reality is that even IF what Lilly said was true, it wouldn't be relevant to whether or not the definition was the superior one.
The thing is they often put to much attachment and value on the word woman. Just because someone is not a woman doesn’t make you less valuable or something.
LOL! Li'l Boy Lily gave the impression he was going to at least boysplain what a woman is. He didn't even do that. 😂
But "Descriptive" definition describes NOT what people use this word for, but it Describes the thing itself, what it is. So Descriptive definition of "woman" will be "adult human female". While prescriptive will be "it is whoever says they are woman". As Prescriptive defines what we decided this word will mean, while Descriptive just describes something real and it does not matter how we call it, but it will exist regardless.
Did you check out the Colin Wright vs Rationality Rules debate?
It's a circular argument.
That was quite a "that's about all peace out" look.
Have some money for saying something logical and coherent in a world rapidly losing logical coherence.
She engages in sophistry. "Adult" in the definition "adult human female" dies not refer to being of legal age. It refers to biological adulthood as in secondary sex characteristict have fully developed.
Female=a body arranged for production of larege gametes. Whether those are produced ir not. Whether they are viable or not. Female is a completely uncomplicated term. Unless you are confused, wilfully confused, or very uneducated.
A main tenet of post modernism is the manipulation of language for power
The age of adulthood can be ignored because I can then ask "what is a girl?" and get to the root of the same issue. Human and female are simple and rigid definitions in common use. Females are women, and they can be trans-men. Men, as in adult human males, are men and can also be trans-women.
But trans-women are not women, and trying to calling them such because you want women to mean "anybody who calls themself a women" creates serious problems. That's why it matters. We can think critically and account for gender dysphoria and those who want to live differently, but that's no reason to throw language to the wind or ignore the very real differences. That's no reason to ignore biology and ask males if they are pregnant.
The fact we are in opposition does not mean we can't think critically, nor does the fact that some things are simple to define. The reason we ask what a women is so much isn't because we want our mind changed, but because we want those pushing the trans agenda to allow males to compete with females in sport, to actually stake a flag in the ground and state what somebody is identifying as. What it means to identify as that. We ask because the treatment of the word makes it as nebulous as identifying as a fedvbyrddvhh, it's simply anybody who says they are one, duh.
"Females are women, and they can be trans-men. Men, as in adult human males, are men and can also be trans-women"
No woman can be any kind of man. No man can be any kind of woman.
[Open Question]:
Hi! I'm here over from my usual 'Gurl World' content (tangential to the body positivity and fat acceptance movements). I decided to let the algorithm take me down the rabbit hole on transgender issues and have watched a few of your videos. I can't say I agree with you on everything but I have enjoyed learning more about gender critical theory.
I came across an author by the name Rebecca Jane Morgan who wrote Gender Heretics: Evangelicals, Feminists, and the Alliance against Trans Liberation. I don't know anything about the book at this point besides the name but am interested if you or anyone else have an opinion/video on the topic! (I'm a fan of seeing where ideals differ so I like to have the big arguments people have before going in lol)
This question is definitely open to anyone that comes across this comment! (I won't click on links but I'll look recommendations up lol) Thank you and have a great day!
There’s an alliance?
All of Magdalen Berns’ youtube videos are favorites of mine.
@@goobydoot thanks for the recommendation! I'll check it out!
I personally haven't read that book. I've read a few books about trans ID, but yeah not that one. I'm happy to hear my videos have been useful for you in looking into this topic!
@@KC_Streams just though I'd ask! Great video by the way and thanks for the response!
Hmm, I don't really like the term "Gender Critical," at this point communist double speak has coopted the term "Critical," to mean "engaging in the communist process of constant self-destruction in pursuit of being rebuilt better," and it just sounds too similar to things like "Critical Race Theory," for that reason.
Hey KC. I thought about a good argument against the DSD gambit
I'd love to hear it!
I'm an adult human male. It is so unambiguous, easy to see, that even when I was trans identified out in a dress, I was still a sir. Excuse me, it's MAN!
Man your new haircut is stellar compared to your old one. Major glowup dude!
@@Seirra72 cheers!
Thank you for being so rational and welspoken. You really got the bull by the balls. Your definition of what a woman is is so so clear that it finally puts this whole queer theory to rest. Do you by any means have any luterature which defines the definition even further? Also,could you maybe make a video on why the queer theory believers movement has gained such traction? Because I personally believe that this theory and others like it like critical race theory are so nonsensical and hostile to critique because the people who invented these theories have something against rationality and critique itself, somehow associating these two concepts to 'Patriarchal' and 'oppressive', because for most of the history the majority of people involved in these pracitices were men. It is a proof of a form of hate against all straight european men for the injustices committed to minorities by a subgroup of these men, and I think it is important to raise the point that these injustices were for the most part a product of ignorance, not of some inherent hate. This i what makes me so sad. I study a humanities study, and a no moment in time are we instructed to make our work as a propagation of knowledge instead of the propagation of social strife. The causation relation between knowledge and emancipation seems to be lost in these vircles and it really is hurting and unfair.
The attempt to undermine *all three* components of the "adult human female" definition is doubly ludicrous because ultimately, only one of those is actually relevant to the trans question. "Adult" and "human" are pertinent to the value of the definition of "woman" as a whole, but those criteria function to differentiate women from girls (for the former) and females of other species (for the latter). Quibbling over those criteria is entirely tangential to the trans question, because *everyone*, whether trans-affirming or gender-critical, agrees those are features held in common by both transwomen and actual women. Even if the attempt to attack them didn't wind up making Lily look worse, it *could not possibly* have advanced their case.
Apparently the words "adult human female" are incredibly controlling and oppressive when used in that order and context. Some sort of magic spell, perhaps?
only one way to be certain, we'll have to keep using it and observe the results
Legal adult changes with societal attitude, but biological adult is unchanging. Just because 14 year olds were getting married and considered adults hundreds of years ago doesnt change that they were biologically not an adult. If we dig up their bodies a scientist would say, "yep this is a child"
Woman literally means "human with womb".
...no? It's from old English 'wife human'.
Of course Lily won’t condemn societies that blur the line of what a human is. She(?) is part of a society that does exactly this with abortion.
What were the books you highlighted?
You need to have a convo with PF Jung about the trans topic
Thank you.
A Woman is an adult human that has at no point had actively translating SRY genes, and posses female gamates, its really not that hard.
You just earned a subscriber.
When will you make videos about mainline Feminism?
You made a career addressing 0.2% of the population. Nobody says abandon this, but expand the variety.
This trash is believed by well over 0.2% of the population. It's mainstream. Try refering to a man in a dress as "he" and see how much time passes before you're called a bigot.
7:06 aged quite well lmao
If a woman is someone who identifies as a woman,
Then...
A woman is someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who
Identities as someone who
Identifies as someone who
Identifies as someone who...
I mean yeah im pretty sure that makes up most people. Do you not identify as someone?
@@Cahrssomething What people "identify as" does not necessarily correlate with what they actually are. A male, will always remain male, regardless of if they "identify as a trans woman" or not. It truly baffles my mind that so many people these days think identifying as something changes what you physically are.
@@ambientjohnny dude I said most people identify as someone
I’m not a trans activist but I don’t see why “one with predominantly female traits” is wrong or conflicts with trans ideology
How can a male have female traits?
What is a fish
"'Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. ' Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography.
Words having an "essence" goes against their cult doctrine. You arn't coming at this on their level, you might aswell be shouting at a cloud.
What's wrong with terms not having an essence?
The hair
Wouldn't it be funny if I actually was rapidly growing and cutting my hair!
I'm not a trans advocate. I am a cognitive linguist, so I know how categories based on words work. I'm willing to teach some of that, but first I have to do a cognitive linguistic analysis of how you in particular use the word _define._ I can only do that by asking you questions and then analyzing your responses.
My first question is, "how do you define _mother?"_
i am of the opinion that adoption is human trafficking, and you would be surprised at how loosely that word is bandied about....when i truthfully state that only women who have given birth are mothers, and that they are only mothers to the children they themselves birthed, people get...pretty irrational.
@@alasshewasthehighwaywoman8886 That's a perspicacious response, but it doesn't tell me what @King Critical thinks. I do appreciate your stating your ideology, and it is important, because, unlike many, you freely admit your view is ideological and do not gaslight by pretending it is about science or linguistics. I consider this honest, and if honesty were the norm, I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of arguments over trans would be necessary or would even be likely. The entire mess is contaminated with extremely bad terms, including _gender_ and _cis,_ which I avoid whenever possible.
I am not here to discuss, let alone argue about ideologies, however. I am here as a cognitive linguist.
@@deadman746 ...i think you'll find it is the scientific view, to be fair.
@@deadman746 and *noticing and correctly identifying that adoption is human trafficking* is actually not an ideology. so no, i do not freely admit anything like that.
@@deadman746 i'm really not sure you understood anything i said to be honest, but just as with trans, the nitty gritty has to do with vaginas. cherche la femme eh
5:30 are you a socialist?