Ben Shapiro DESTROYED in Trans Debate w/College Student
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 мар 2024
- Ben Burgis and guest Matthew Whalan break down all the flaws in Shapiro's logic when smugly responding to a good question from a student from the University of Wisconsin.
Follow Matthew on Twitter: @VernonWhalan
Follow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgis
Follow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_Show
Become a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:
patreon.com/benburgis
Read the weekly philosophy Substack:
benburgis.substack.com
As someone who was raised by a loving stepdad, this is my favorite argument for respecting the terms put forward by trans people. It’s great watching conservatives contradict themselves in real time
Is your stepdad a crossdressing female?
He has never opened a dictionary if he thinks that the definitions of words aren't frequently self referential.
Also, how much you wanna bet he's used the word literally to mean figuratively, aka the complete opposite meaning, which I find infinitely more offensive than a non-traditional use of the word woman.
He's obviously so familiar with Frege, Russell, early Wittgenstein et al
Not.
I literally bet a million Lira
I'm sure Shapiro is "thinking" much of anything here. He sounds like someone who's mind is just on autopilot. He's generating a grammatically valid stream of words and the tone sounds right but he isn't _saying_ anything. He just keeps repeating that we need to enforce these definitions that exclude transpeople or else... reality will collapse??? lol. When the millionth trans person is respected, does a blackhole suddenly swallow us all up?
(Personally, I'm a huge enjoyer of the figurative "literally". It's funny. And ok sure, if someone is using it in every other sentence then it gets obnoxious, but that's true for any word.)
You have a problem with women gatekeeping the word? You think males should be included? What else? Do we need to be nice to males no matter their demand and fetish? Do you think a "woman" is someone whgo acts like Dylan Mulvaney? ReallY? lol
@@mattgilbert7347 Are they crossdressing males? Do they shop at Victoria's Secret too? Do they like exposing their shenis to little girls at the YWCA? WOW I never knew that.
Foucault, in his book The History of Sexuality, pointed out that sexuality is a discourse which can only be 'deployed', not a scientific discipline with the power to exhume hitherto hidden truth. For Foucault the problem is much more to exhume ourselves from the rabbit hole of sexuality in preference for pursuit of the problem of how to make ourselves more susceptible to sexual pleasure. In his debate with Chomsky, Foucault goes so far as to generalize his take on sexuality - arguing that human nature itself is a construction, a produced effect of culture rather than a fixed and fundamental characteristic. In Foucault's take on sexuality there is the suggestion that an entirely different set of relations is possible. Interestingly not so long after Foucault's departure, exactly such set of relations was discovered by anthropologist Clifford Geertz. Geertz describes a society 'without husbands or fathers', the matrilineal society of the Mosuo of South West China. Among the Mosuo monogamy is forbidden while it is polyamory which is 'normalized'. The story is that among the Mosuo both homosexuality and masturbation are rare while pornography and rape are unknown. More data is needed but we can begin to see the contours of the way in which Mosuo practice informs our own: The complex, baroque gender tree of sexuality with its thousand and one branches begins to appear to constitute a kind of resistance which has formed in response to the deployed 'patriarchal' incarnation of 'sexuality'. Since among the Mosuo there is no such patriarchal sexuality, there is no resistance which has formed against it. In the West, sexuality appears to have now devolved entirely to a site of political power which, as political power is wont to do, has provoked a bitter struggle for its control. There is no such militancy to be found among the Mosuo apparently because of their de-politicized ars erotica alternative to 'sexuality'.
mosuo society isn’t polygamous, it is matriarchal but children are raised by extended families, with women’s brothers usually taking on a fatherly role (uncle-wise). Few Mosuo women have more than one partner at a time.
@@adrianbarraza7303 matrilineal I think
If Shapiro wants definitive boundaries, then he should be able to tell us the exact moment he became an adult - or at least when he hopes to become one.
Just stay our of female only spaces, ok?
@@vivienneb6199
I will. I'm not a woman.
@@bengreen171 Good, and that goes for all males. Thanks! if you have or have ever had a p*nis, stay out of female only spaces. Thanks!
@@bengreen171 Looks like Ben is blocking my comments. By males, I include the TIMS. Just stay out of female spaces.
@@vivienneb6199
who put you in charge?
Can you define adult in a way that creates an exclusive, non-overlapping set?
If not then why should anyone accept your rigid definitions of gender?
No two dictionaries have the same definitions, they're copyrighted by each individual dictionary. So you can have multiple ways to define the same word.
The term biological female/woman (notice this issue is never framed around male/men) is of course not inherently offensive to trans people and is even useful or necessary in certain contexts. What is frequently objectionable is the intent behind its use, see "all lives matter." An adopted child would most definitely take issue with its parent making a point to clarify in every situation, regardless of relevancy, that they are an *adopted* child. I imagine that an adoptive or step parent would feel similarly belittled.
But facts don’t care about your feelings! :p
Your argument rests on the fact that an adopted child should feel as if they are a true member of their adoptive family. But you don’t offer an argument about why they should feel that way
@@givepeaceachance940 Pffff 😂😂😂
Being a female is a necessary and sufficient condition of being a woman. It is not the case that some women have a penis. "Transwomen" are males cosplaying as women. Transwomen are a subset of males.
There I helped you.
Now drop the misogyny, and stop denying women and girls their civil rights.
100%. Someone for whom a distinction is consistently and constantly used for the purpose of exclusion isn't really *just* a distinction. The adopted child is absolutely going to bristle at "adopted" if it's always brought up to contrast them with their peers. Ben Shapiro knows this. He's just stonewalling because she got the better of him.
@@willtor No, sorry. It is not the case that some women have a penis, and your misogyny on this will not be tolerated by women who are not self-hating. Our sex based rights do not include males. "TIMS" are a subset of male. No D*cks in female only spaces.
End of story.
Another point I think needs addressing is Ben saying that gender identity is not verifiable in objective reality. But we have lots of things that are not verifiable in objective reality that we nevertheless infer to be real. My go-to example is usually depression. The way we determine if a person is experiencing depression is by asking them what they are feeling. We might also infer it from their behaviour. There is no objective infallible measure.
We cant even define sandwich...every had a hot dog?😊
Ayo, just wanna give a quick shout-out to Mr Renee Descartes! Cogito ergo sum brah!
Instead of being perpetrators and victims of language violence we all should be champions of language innovation and accuracy. Clearly, English is ill-equipped to provide satisfactorily precise identifiers for that small cross section of the population that doesn't fit neatly into the male/female binary. The conservative religious community exploits this lexical vacuum by asserting that because there are only the words male/female, this means that a person can be only one of the two. Thus, by conveniently overlooking the growing body of scientific evidence, historical societal traditions, and present-day real life examples, the right wing simple rejects it all as "delusional", "mentally deranged", or "demonically-possessed", and requiring shunning, institutionalization, or outright annihilation.
I long for the day we get to see a Ben vs Ben debate
even if you don't agree, in what universe is Shapiro being destroyed? Are we watching the same debate?
It's tongue in cheek since destroying your opponent is part of BS's brand
Hoisted by his own petard. Shapiro depends on talking fast, confidently, and against college students. And even then it doesn't always work.
is he inside a scattergories box
How pedantic. Not to mention, Ben seems to think definitions are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Some people really think when something is written down, it cannot be changed.
You think males can become females? ReallY/. Do you also endorse a male lactation fetish when he is cosplaying "mommy?"
i used the chair analogy in my own video on the 'what is a transwoman; debate: ruclips.net/video/1lnXCvSkwpw/видео.html
however, like you, i neglected to mention the very important issue of self-identity, which i will address in a future video on this topic. you both did an very good job of dismantling shapiro here, well done. he also should not get away with his false accusation of trans people wanting to be identified as *biological* women (or men if talking about transmen), as a coverup to his religious lens view of not acknowledging transgender people whatsoever.
so funny when he realizes the fallacies in his own arguments he starts to interrupt...as usual the preemptive strike tactic...
Shapiro: "I'm going to need you to explain what a woman is"
Doctor: "Don't worry Mr. Shapiro. It's never going to come up."
Is Ben channeling Matt Walsh or is Walsh channeling Ben?
@@brentwalker8596 sounds lurid
Definitions are in flux subject to innovation and the emancipation of desire.
But is not 'desire' the product of scarcity rather than of repression ??? Is not our problem that of how to multiply opportunity for sexual pleasure rather than to liberate our desire ?
@@robertcarpenter8077 I’m not sure. If a human was to disabuse themselves of phenotypic traits, what form would desire even take?
Translation: nothing means anything.
Whose desire? The desire of a small group o=f AGPs? You demand women participate in their fantasy? Hell No!
@@vivienneb6199 Exactly right. MTFs who couldn't get anywhere with women in the straight world are pursuing the 'double negative' strategy of being a lesbian trapped in a man;s body.
Words are defined by the way in which they are commonly used. They can have multiple definitions. If trans women are called commonly called women then that is one of the definitions of woman. It’s pretty basic stuff.
Shapiro seemed to attempt to reply with the argument that a step mother is still biologically a woman- even if not biologically connected to the child. But its true this doesnt address the actual analogy. But the exclusionary argument has more bite, you can at least have an argument about where you draw the boundary, and you might make the case that the biological element of womanhood is the minimal condition for being a woman, and for being a mother- so therefore, it is legitimate to extend from biological womanhood to motherhood, but not from biological womanhood to its antonym. Though its true this doesnt provide the crucial reasons WHY we need to take biology as the minimal condition.
Shapiro is low hanging fruit. Shapiro did, in fact, concede on this point when talking with Blaire White. And this is an inconsistency. However, contextually, the stretching of demands among some very vocal trans women on the basis of establishing a new normativity has spilled out to domains outside of this initial concern, and yet initially based on it. For instance, the example of Veronica Ivy's assertion that "biological woman" means that you only need "f" to appear on your ID's and that you are verified as a biological being, per their appearance on the Trevor Noah show, which was a strange rationale for justifying men in female sports. Right now in Australia, sex-rights is being debated per the case of Tickle v Giggle, and this will set serious precedent in international law for whether gender-rights supersede sex-based rights. These implications help to establish the context of our arguments, and so our arguments must consider them. The case of non-offensive language for mothers is decidedly different, and I'm sure in some ways the same, since parental rights are not necessarily compromised on the basis of non-biological parenthood, or, in the case of adoption.
Nevertheless, the implications of language, the legal and linguistic definitions and the basis of rights that may be adjusted by them, or vice versa, is important, and is even important in a normative context, since as referenced above, the normative can and has spilled into other domains. I may refer to a "female" or "male" electrical outlet or adapter, and this may be just as valid for referencing the ambiguity of language, since it utilizes the aspect of the definition that says "of or denoting the sex," and provides us an example for where something can be referred to as "female" without referring to anything sexed at all (an object), but it is also completely invalid as a comparison since it does not engage with the full range of implications that it does for humans, and for human society. If adoptive parenting is a far more valid comparison for the implications of how we treat sex and gender, politeness, and norms, it can also be said to fall short, and unfortunately we cannot rely on these useful comparisons alone, but eventually have to seat the topic squarely within the universe of its own context and implications that are unique to it.
In terms of the full context of the situation, then, and although I appreciate the content, and I do not believe it is useless, we don't want to fall into the tendency of using people like Shapiro as our stand-in straw man in the flesh. There are far more important considerations to make, far more rational reasons for why changing our conceptions of sex and gender may be useful, or may be harmful, that are compelled by far more than bigotry or conservatism. I would start with Kathleen Stock, but that is just one suggestion.
Ben is so funny 😂😂😂
The argument BS made was that there is no intersection in the venn diagram between women and transwomen who he defines as men. He argued that biological mothers and adopting mothers at least share the intersection of womanhood in the venn diagram. At that point,
There are two routes i would have taken to respond to his position. 1) I would have taken gender out of it completely and demonstrated to BS that applying his strict contextual rules to the term parent should in his mind make it wrong for an adopting parent to use the more generic term parent. Sorry Angelina Jolie, you are not the parent of those children you adopted.
2) I would have challenged his position that transwomen are not intersectional with women from a gendered or sexual point of view. Transwomen can have all of the secondary sexual characteristics as women especially if they transition young which is why Ben would like to prevent that but that's another discussion
By "logic," Shapiro means strict dichotomy. Anything more nuanced hurts his brain.
Q: I'm confused. If words like "man" and "woman" are so ambiguous and subjective, then why would anyone get "offended" if someone refers to them as "he"?
It's not that the terms are "ambiguous" or "subjective" but that they don't fit into neat, either/or categories, but rather as socially constructed signifiers.
In other words they are ambiguous. You just said it a different way.
@@orphaotheseeker2770 you didn't answer the question.
Deliberately misgendering someone isn't just a word, it's a very hostile action. This is as ridiculous as asking why would anyone get "offended" if someone told them to "go fuck yourself" and spat in their face. oOoOh eVeRyThiNg iS sO aMbiGuOuS aNd sUbJeCtiVe sO wE cAn'T eVeN kNoW wHaT iT mEaNt! After all, in some cultures spitting is a blessing and friends use obscenities with each other all the time. 🤪
they're not ambiguous. a man is definitely a man, a woman is definitely a woman. in the old testament bats were birds and whales were fish because at that time it was meaningful to classify living things according to their way of living. today it's more meaningful to classify them based on their genetic similarities. what makes a man a man or a woman a woman has a lot of dimensions to it. we used to define the genders based on genitals. today they're defined based on the sex of the brain and part of what that looks like from the outside is the offense felt when someone else tries to dictate your identity to you
Jesus, otherwise smart people can make some garbage arguments on this topic… this is just weak.
ANNIHILATED DEVASTATED
I'll ask the question again...... What is a woman?
For the millionth time, a woman is a human person that identifies as a woman.
Debates like this are dumb because the issue is one of culture, and not objective science. You can't debate me out of believing in God, and Shabibo can't debate a trans person from being queer. Both of these are matters of faith as much as they are anything else. The debate is silly, and only serves to draw arbitrary lines between people of different cultures.
In your opinion, what is the science surrounding this issue? And in what sense is this a cultural debate? It's an interesting assertion to say that a person's "being queer" is a matter of 'faith". If I assert that I'm a straight man, is that a statement of faith or knowledge, or what? I'm pretty sure that faith is a belief in something without strong evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
@@brentwalker8596one person might call the act of self actualization just living their true self, but other people would call it faith. I believe x about myself, so I will do y. It's all the same thing. Different cultures value different things, and trying to insert objective science into an argument against another culture is kind of silly. That's my point.
Shapiro hasn't a freaking scooby what he's dribbling about. Define fish, go on define the word fish...
I think it's always easier to define what something isn't than what it exactly is.
a gilled vertebrate with a tail and fins and no toes
@@sidarthur8706 wrong, there is no scientific concensus that defines a fish.
@FireMoon42 that's right but you didn't specify that it had to be a scientific definition. fish is a useful word for lay people because it points to something that you know when you see it
Good stuff Ben. You DESTROYED his non-argument here
Shapiro did say that both biological mothers and adoptive mothers are both female. However, he also conflated the terms female and woman multiple times, despite his equal infatuation for “clear” distinctions.
That's because he, like most other people, see women and females as the same thing.
@@BobCassidy an appeal to popularity doesn’t make it true. A strong correlation does not imply a lack of nuance. That is the purpose of language and social constructs.
@@kimmyswan what do you mean an appeal to popularity? As if what he said isn't based on fact.
Where do you get your definition for woman?
@@BobCassidy I mean that just because most people conflate the terms woman and female, that doesn’t make them the same. Woman: someone who lives up to a social construction that is typically associated with phenotype, aesthetics and behaviors. And I would also argue that this is the definition we’ve used for the majority of human history.
@@kimmyswan
What definition are you using? You're saying he's basing his use of the words on popularity but I don't think that's true at all.
He's using the dictionary definition. I have no idea where your definition came from. Can you tell me?
Not a fan of Shapiro but just how sad he ‘destroyed’ here? Sounds like woke leftist wishful thinking.
"WOKE WOKE WOKE WOKE WOKE! ERRYTHING WOKE!"
Grrrrrrr.... i just hate hate hate those woke people, woke, woke, Woke, I hate this woke wokeness of woke people saying woke things woke woke woke woke woke..... help me I can only think in stable cliches that society has told me to use because i am a free thinker and definitely not repeating my progamming.....
@@daniel-zh4qc , I’m sure you’re likely full of hate, Danny, but not for ‘da woke.’
@@orphaotheseeker2770 , Woke is why the The Burgis Jacobin ‘Left’ is broke. Neocons, Neoliberals, and broke Social Dems like Ben pushing the same ole, same ole.
See the entire contents of the video you’re commenting on. Also, it’s clearly a humorous reference to the numerous videos where Shapiro is claimed to have destroyed a college student, which are largely Shapiro’s wishful thinking.
I would love to hear Ben try and define a tree.
Or distinguish between a fruit and a vegetable.
Whats a cucumber?
Or ya know, woke. That one seems to be perpetually in flux.
I think it makes more sense to say what it isn't than to perfectly define what it is.
@@luna-p You had Matt Walsh the other day just come right out and say that "woke" was just a generic buzzword that refers to anything of the left or that the right hates. The most honest description of it yet, frankly.
It is whatever he says they are.
@@Razoredge581 Yeah, I was gonna say: WOKE is whatever they don't like. But they can't just say they don't like it. That's not "facts." So they call it WOKE. And when "woke" stops working, they'll take another word.
Ben Shapeebo is truly a charleton.
5:23
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂