My wife/student is a bjj blackbelt & winning pro mma fighter. She weighs 120-125 & fights at 115. My amateur mma fighter male teen students she mostly spars with would murder her if they went 100%. My wife’s punches hurt but don’t damage me. If I went even 50% my punches would seriously hurt her. This topic is idiotic and insults female athletes when they are compared to men.
Well they aren't better at giving birth and everything that comes with it. I don't mean that as in woman are only good for giving birth (as a man I think that process should be considered honorable).
@@DigitalGnosisYes, but that is an incredibly broad statement and means nothing for the sotuation at hand and does not negate the fact that it remains a factor for observed disparities between women and trans-women (men), specially in self-selecting samples, such as the pool of contestants in sports competitions.
A self-described "woke person" saying "facts don't care about your feelings" has to be one of the most ridiculously hypocritical things I have ever seen.
Only if you aren't willing to take a troll from the other side dude. Let them get their hits in where they earn them. The guy handled himself well and unlike Chris didn't resort to nasty attacks.
So is this guy saying that if he had a young daughter, and she got her nose busted open by a boy in BJJ, he'd just go "chin up love, you really entertained us there!"
I hope your videos keep getting more traction, support, attention and more subs! I hope this format of street epistemology catches on in schools around the globe!
To do proper street epistemology though, you should be unbiased. It's been mentioned that Billboard Chris had a 1 on 1 interview where Nathan did not. In addition, Billboard Chris is in tons of Peter's videos. So how is it unbiased if you constantly have a recurring view in your video and someone the audience knows? Clearly there is bias when you present the same idea from the same person over and over again. What you're doing is conditioning someone.
Thank you to the wonderful Billboard Chris for all that you do. Let kids be kids! Always. Childhood is so brief and so precious and all children are unique. Also for standing up so movingly for women in sport here. It's really frightening to me that any man can ignore the obvious dangers to the women and girls who are/feel compelled to compete against men with magical laydee feelings.
Why should men care if women get hurt??women don't care if men get hurt or killed. Take granite kitchen tops as an example. Women love them in their kitchens but thousands of men who make them die of lung diseases. Do women limit their desires so men can stay safe? I don't think so! Same with crab fishing, truck driving, diamond mining etc! So why should men care?
Not magical. Is this what anti trans people think being trans is no wonder they dint want to talk to you. You think think the pain, suffering and trauma they go through is some sort of mental illness it isn’t
@@realSAPERE_AUDE People indoctrinating them and telling them they can be either male or female and should take puberty blockers if they're not sure. People attempting to have conversations with children about sex, gender, sexuality, gender identity and sexual and romantic attraction when they still believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and that reindeer can fly.
Are they also upset that we are less racist and don’t own people as property anymore? Would they like how we dress or the music we enjoy? Why should we care what previous generations would think about the ways we live today?
I actually really appreciate men who will practice with me, but not annihilate me so I can practice more, but I would never want to go into a competition against a man thats crazy
@@DigitalGnosis except the language evolved naturally to comport to reality. The language we see today regarding gender is being created by activists and enforced by the State. They also do not have definitions for the terms and it creates more confusion as opposed to clarifying reality.
@@DigitalGnosis how is it question begging? If you have language being changed under the circumstances I talked about and you can’t even define the words you use then it isn’t doing a good job of explaining reality nor is it occurring naturally as language always has. What hard to understand about that?
no, he didn't. He said it WOULDN'T change reality, but it surely would change definitions. Imagine the biology society suddenly gets so woke they change their definition of gender..
1:00 There's a distinction between "hot" decision making and "cold" decision making. If it's a choice between different types of asthma medication inhalers, for example, yes, children can make decisions. But these are trivial and have low risk, and importantly, aren't made in the heat of anxiety and distress. By its very nature, gender medicalization is _not_ a cold decision.
Well that took a wild turn. Thought the guy was actually really reasonable until he stopped lending his reason to considering the actual issue of fairness in sports.
Because he thinks sports are merely about entertainment (both participating in them and watching them) which is a perfectly reasonable view. Also, we just arbitrarily draw boundaries and they certainly aren't fair. Is it fair that 4'5" men are basically excluded from the NBA because they were born short? Nobody seems to care about that lack of "fairness".
Yes, was desperate to find out who he was as he really knows his way round the issues, was great when Chris alluded to what he does and finally realised!
If we’re having a conversation about the moon, everyone has to share the same definition of what the moon is otherwise we’ll all be talking about different objects. Definitions are identifiers.
I believe Chris got emotional because he used an example of his daughters and diving and the other guy gave a trolling response. If he didn’t give an example using his daughters and get that response I don’t think he would’ve got emotional because that was uncharacteristic of him.
It was smart though because he proved that when you give them an example that aligns perfectly with their entire communist agenda (women's rights) they just devolve into trolling because they are true fascists at heart. They don't care about any of the things they constantly virtue signaling about, they just want to spite the people they don't like
If you have a child with ADHD which I do, and the doctor asked him to consent to the medication rather than the parents, that would be a huge red flag for nearly every parent, I don't know why there is even a debate here
I really, really like and admire Billboard Chris, but I'm a little disappointed that he let his anger get the best of him here. I disagreed with a lot of what the woke guy was saying, but he's obviously intelligent, and he was very civil and well- mannered. He didn't deserve to be insulted like that. And he was a gentleman about being personally insulted (credit where it's due). It's usually the other way around, but this time, the woke person was the more civilized. Also the gentleman in the blue hoodie was very well-mannered, too.
I'm also disappointed in Peter. He should be keeping everyone in check, and ensuring that all follow the game rules. By allowing Chris to interrupt and insult a person who disagrees (with Peter himself), Peter's entire SE project loses credibility.
Agree. He lost the argument with that, unfortunately. I broadly agree with what the young gentleman was saying about sport ultimately being entertainment and we can set up categories however we want. I would have made the argument that the historic categories (well over 100 years) have been setup around differences in biology (sex, age, weight) and experience (novice, intermediate, professional). The issue now is that administrators are arbitrarily deciding that those who do not meet one of the criteria for inclusion (sex) are being allowed to compete (and receive any financial or other renumeration set aside for the winners in that sport) by using a specific definition of the word 'woman' that is at odds with the original usage of those setting up the categories. That is what is unfair - females are losing rewards and opportunities intended for them at the whim of a governing body without any public discussion or agreement to change the classifications.
@@mamabug4629 Chris reflexively argued that sport is not entertainment. It seemed obvious that he was simply taking the opposite position to a person he framed as an antagonist. Consequently, his arguments against sport being entertainment were ad hoc and weak. It was a textbook example of how bad faith discourse leads to terrible, pointless reasoning.
I think Chris’s response was appropriate given the subject matter and this individual’s flippant attitude. You can see how frustrated Chris is with people who don’t argue in good faith and would readily trample woman’s rights in order to hold the woke line. Those who would do harm to women should make men angry.
Francis Aaron is such a hero for me because his music is probably the only way to get young people to listen and then realise this ideology is bogus. Great work also Chris so brave.
Thank you to Billboard Chris and to Peter for their unrelenting and important work on gender ideology. And words don't change reality. You can call an elephant a smurf, but the elephant never stops being an elephant. The young "woke" person is thoroughly confused. How does he know what a tree is? What a chair is? What a table is? Poor chap. I will also add that his stance re: males in female sports is angering and insane.
@@rosemaryalles6043 He does know what a tree is. He merely pointed out that most people don't have thouroughly developed definitions of the words they use. Don't take pity on him, take pity on yourself, you're embarrassingly dumb.
He was just trying to weasel out of losing an argument. Notice how, anytime he might be forced to pick a side in a black-and-white delineation, he finds a way to muddy the waters and give himself an out.
29:30 The injuries Fallon Fox's opponent sustained were not unlike those *found in cases of domestic abuse* which Fox *has a history of.* This "oH. WoMaN gEt iNjuRed in MMA all the TImE!" is a mot and bailey argument, as James Lindsay would say. Why can't these people just be honest and admit that they hate real women.
@@whatsMyNameAgainAgain No accurate. Male and female skulls are different. Male skulls are thicker on the forehead region that has evolved to be used in fighting. Female skulls do not have this. This is why one hit from a male can kill a female. The opposite cannot be said to be true.
So, kiddo there says sports are just for the entertainment of the viewer. Apparently nothing to do with competition. Just amusement for the viewer. if that were the case, sports should be scripted and choreographed. Like an action scene in a movie. For the entertainment of the viewer. That kid is so far gone from common sense and reality on all his answers I have to wonder if he's just trolling. Edit: Now I know he's trolling. Because he's laughing at the situation. The boy is a little bunghole. And a troll.
@@ryangibson7126 Yeah...he said mainly (or mostly...whatever, not rewatching the video)...and that is still SO FAR OFF the actual truth on the matter that is not even funny...
@@dimercampariniare you saying a person can't consider sport mainly something that exists for their entertainment? Talk to any football fan at the pub and you'll have a minor revelation
@@ryangibson7126 you can consider (individually and with your selfish interest only in mind) sport whatever you want... That DOESNT mean that the actual scope and purposes and meaning of sports (and for the ppl who DO that, not simply watch it) are an entirely different thing in actual reality... So, to paraphrase: "Sport doesnt care about your feelings" :DDDDDD
I love seeing you come to visit London, Peter. As always It was great to see your street epistemology play out here. If you get the chance or opportunity, please consider coming up to the Middlands & the North of England, where (IMPO) we haven't had as much wokeism capture yet (outside of the Uni's) certainly amongst millennials & above anyway.
@@drpeterboghossian I work at the University of Nottingham (as a sound engineer) & would highly recommend you visiting Old Market Square (central Nottingham). It is the largest public space in the UK after London's Trafalgar Square & I think an interesting place to consider using for your videos, if you do travel North. Just a suggestion!
Thank you Billboard Chris! There are people in the comments saying they're disappointed in Chris for 'losing his temper' or for 'not being open minded' near the end. I disagree with those people. Children are being ruined for life, and women are being violated in many ways including physical injury and sexual assault. And people are enjoying a pleasant debate on why the think it's okay for children and women to be routinely harmed as a new societal norm for the benefit of men that call themselves women. It's disgusting and dystopian. And I'm happy to see Chris give a strong opinion and stand by it. Would love to see many more do the same. There are some things we should not be 'open minded' about. Child abuse is one of them. Denying half the population any right to safety boundaries and basic human dignity is another. So again, thank you #BillboardChris.
i know, so the "woke" guy thinks it might be 'entertaining' for people to see girls get beaten at sport and not even have a fair chance. entertaining for who? misogynists? that should outrage any sensible person. chris is a lovely guy.
@@robyn2628 Hearing that made my blood boil. I'm a female professional fighter and he believes I should be harmed for entertainment?! I never even considered the entertainment aspect. I fight to compete. I want to know if I can be the best out of women. It's not to get permanently injured so people can be entertained for a brief period.
I agree pretty much 100% with Chris on these issues. But Damn!! I’ve got to say that guy held the woke line quite admirably compared to a lot of his peers.
@@The1Waiter-gk4szwhy do you think that? He did say at least one thing that he explicitly said was trolling but I’m not sure much else was insincere or trolling at all.
He’s a smart guy but like so many others he works backwards from conclusions on this particular topic… whether it be womens in sports, sex being a “spectrum”, what have you… he starts with the approved conclusion and works backwards looking for ways (never really arguments) to make it seem less idiotic. I find it so fascinating to watch a certain segment of the atheist community work so hard to back such a dubious ideology with seemingly zero self awareness…. Really makes me sympathetic to the notion that most ppl need religion and we might be best served promoting a benign, helpful one.
@aldovaneyk agreed. It's a shame that Billboard got emotional and hurled those ad hominems, I also almost entirely agree with Billboard but the other guy made some good points about how language is actually used and that it's possible to have a different perspective on the purpose of sport, all whilst staying calm and listening. If most people we disagreed with acted like that we'd be able to come to mutual understanding much easier
@@DigitalGnosis you made some great points, mate. I was frustrated by their lack of understanding of some of your arguments, but I do believe they were easily refutable 😃. Also, just quickly checked out your page and disappointed by the titles, such as “brain rot” and “Darth Dawkins”; I’ve just been defending you elsewhere for your ability to not resort to insults! But maybe that’s just because it’s RUclips and easier to get hits that way
@@DigitalGnosis I’m not sure Peter’s audience is radicalised. I think it’s more a case of people simply being attracted to things that reflect what we already think. You may begin to find the same happens with your audience, too, and with that, you become in danger of “audience capture”.
Actually I get why BillBoard Chris got mad. Why should he waste his energy trying to have a dialogue? The young man wasn't even able to listen. You would need a long term set of deprogramming to get to this guy. His "defense" or rather his brainwashing involved his having been "conditioned" to parse EVERY word down to finer and finer and finer points. He is, at this point, unable to think in any sort of coherent fashion. He speaks as if he were in a cult ... Which, sadly he is.
@@DigitalGnosis I suppose you didn't repeat his arguments, that would by why. Maybe try watching the video, rather then deluding yourself by imagining things you didn't do.
@@DigitalGnosis is this what we've come to? Billboard Chris, and his associate and I and MAYBE Peter think you don't get it. I am just a random person who is stating what he saw. YOU cannot force your version of reality on others. Delude yourself if you must, but society will not and should not be forced to bend to your self-delusion. More importantly, I would politely argue that the public school teacher and college professors who have sold you this bill of good are NOT doing you any good. They are your enemy. They are enemies to all young people. I would politely ask you to read Johnathan Haidt's book 'The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.' I think it will enlighten you as to how you teachers and professors have been harming you (and many of your peers) with lies about your fragility, your alleged guilt, and you being the subject of never ending attacks that you must always call out. This is very simply mind control. I hope you find a good therapist, one who had NOT been hijacked by ideological dogma.
@@DigitalGnosisAfter just now seeing in the video that you identify as "bi-sexual," it seems clear that you are simply confused and haven't sorted yourself out just yet. Your stance, in the video, appears to be one that is trying to fight the title of simply being gay, which is fine. But it appears that you may have an internal struggle with accepting that. And so you are latching on to this insane notion that men can be women so as to remove yourself from having to admit that you are gay.
@DigitalGnosis, if you like the cock, rock the cock. I'm not gay, but I don't care who you fuck, so long as you are consenting adults. No one cares, man.
Holy moly, that guy is so frustrating. Doesn't commit to anything, swerves everything. If my aunty had bollocks she'd be my uncle. Can you imagine the utter chaos of a world if it only had people like that in it... I do t think he's actually thought through any of his positions to conclusion.
It's impossible to see in this one sentence each format. Nathan has a channel @DigitalGnosis, he is incredibly well thought through philosophy graduate as you'll be able to see in the long form. He also you can join his live steams and chat and see what you think face to face!
The woke person revealed all at the end. HE is the determiner of when things should be fair and not and his entertainment is the only thing that matters.
The (jokingly) self-proclaimed woke person is a nihilist. Which I suppose is fine for himself, but I hope he never holds any power of decision-making where he can negatively project his disturbing views on children and women to harm them.
It’s strange that the one dude was basically saying everything is subjective and then saying “facts don’t care about your feelings” seems like a total contradiction of all his prior arguments he made.
@@DigitalGnosis "In my opinion "facts" are parasitic on "beliefs" which are subjective." Yeah sure dude...actual reality is "parasitic" on the things that are inside your mind...sure...not crazy and ridiculous at all... Create a world with that main view...preach the gospel of wokism...and see what happens (well actually already happening; hope we can reverse it)... (can we get back the asylums for ppl who feel "inner voices" or believe that they can create/shape reality just because they think about it in a certain way? Please...) :DDDDD
@@DigitalGnosis but your point basically demolishes all form of category and protection of women’s rights. If the end goal is entertainment, you could extend that to the workplace. Why bother hiring women? If the end goal is profit, why bother hiring women who have their periods or who may take maternity leave. The entertainment of sport comes from the inspiration you get from watching peak human performance. It shows you what we’re capable of. It’s also a form of war play, for ultra competitive humans to channel that energy into sport. Categories help to create competition so that everyone has a chance to compete and entertain. Women and men are fundamentally different, which is why they need their own categories. A woman unknowingly competing against a man and getting her skull bashed in is completely against the integrity of the sport. I also don’t know who you’re calling alt-right, I didn’t see any alt-right opinions here.
@@DigitalGnosisI agreed with on everything up until you claimed that purpose of sports is entertainment and said we should organize our sporting systems around maximizing entertainment value from sports. imo sports are for competing…entertainment is just a byproduct. but you are awesome, way to go. ignore the comments on here, peters fan base are all like the sign guy, hyper confident in their opinions yet somehow enjoy watching others have the confidence of their opinions tested?
@@patricko9129 I've made this point to others also. I'm a big fan of Chris, but he it himself down in the one towards the end over a rather easy point he could counter (the entertainment one).
I'm confused. Has everyone lost their minds? What Chris said wasn't "ad hom" or "emotional". If someone repeatedly demonstrates themselves as morally impassive to suffering, ambivalent on the nature of truth, to find "freak shows" of men beating woman as "entertaining", it's both permissible and good to judge them as "disgusting". This is the BASIS of society. People don't dispassionately abstain from judgement forever, we have an ENTIRE legal system set up in this basis - to hear people out and then pass judgement. We have emotions tempered by reason. And so does Chris. Chris heard him out, and when he heard enough he passed judgement. Completely fine in my view, completely in line with how society, morality and belief, law and how everything works.
that guy was very disingenuous in his responses. saying that people don't know the definitions of what they're saying was a load of crock. they just blurt things out without trying to create meaning? nonsense. he was twisting himself in knots to support an irrational ideological position.
The fact that people call it "care" and say things like "puberty blockers are fully reversable" shows there is little understanding of what these operations/"treatments" entail. Thats to not even mention ppl's awareness of the age that this is happening as well as how long and to what degree gender dysphoria is even taking place before operations and drugs are prescribed.
@@DigitalGnosis If we all have different meanings for different words then conversation isn't even possible. We stop at definitions and can get no further. Language becomes a weapon against reason.
@@DigitalGnosis You commented on my question which assumes you accepted it's premises implicitly. My question wasn't about your views specifically but we can definitely discuss them. It doesn't seem that your view says anything the elephant in the room which is the manipulation of meaning. The way you speak I think you may be using AI though. Which is altogether interesting and relevant it's own way. LOL
I want to say thanks to this guy putting his arguments here because without people who are prepared to present opposing views these videos would be pretty boring. It made me a little sad when Chris started making emotional arguments and calling the guy immoral. That's not appropriate in my opinion.
Yeah, I'd have liked for Peter to ask Chris how he knows what the other guy's feelings are. Does he have direct access to them? No. Is it possible that he has misinterpreted them? Yes.
The young bisexual guy- who seems like a nice guy, with confused reasoning- is very much like many people I know, and where I say confused, I mean things like comparing class to sex in the case of sports- while it's certainly true that someone who is wealthy would have more access to resources than someone who is poor, it's not the same gap as upper body strength between men and women, not is it anywhere near as relevant. If you have a rich boys team and a poor boys team who would you bet on? Probably depends on other factors. If you had a rich girls team and a poor boys team, who would you bet on? Lastly many of his own arguments are qualified by his horizon. Most people- in the world- know exactly what a man is and exactly what a woman is because the ability to recognise someone's sex is an evolved trait, and this is reflected in language.
@@DigitalGnosis"Before evolution" - what on earth do you mean by this? Evolution is a concept and name for what is now known to be a biological and (at its core) mathematical process of adaptation through replication. If you're pinning your arguments on something that is literally pre-genesis like this that's extremely bad faith. And yes clearly animals and pre-humans (whatever those were) could identify the salient concepts of what biological sex was, the proof is in the teeming life in the animal kingdom. My goodness. This is like level infinite deconstructionism.
@@DigitalGnosis What? You didn't even mention semantic drift. You said "What a woman is", that doesn't entail any "semantic drift" at all within, or outside, of the context of language. The concept vastly predates language - so what? Either that or you're making a sophomoric point about use/mention distinction which isn't in contention and it is frankly irrelevant. This is just evasive sophistry. I know you think you're being clever, but you've just cemented yourself in my mind as a 1st year Phil student at best. This is what philosophy degrees hammer out of your head by 2nd year, either that or I can just go back to my original statement - bad faith - i.e. repeated and aggressive misconstruing and legalistic arguments. Either way, waste of time.
@@DigitalGnosis Ok, I was wrong on that, you're well educated. So I am now basically baffled that you're concerning yourself with what I perceive to be this sort of 1st year Phil nonsense. What are these theories on linguistics that you subscribe to and why should I pick them up, what use do they have, in the broad, cultural and political landscape we find ourselves in? I'm afraid your views are simply coming across as a form of esotericism to me. Direct quotes, both from you: "Did people know what a woman is before evolution or modern biology? " "The irrelevant way you mention "what a woman is" when the point at issue is more plainly just "woman"" So I guess I'm whatever you deem to be "bad faith" for saying... erm... exactly what you said. Good job man, totally not a waste of my time. You're at best an exercise in sophistry and pedantry and I stand by that. The OP is clearly pointing to whatever "concept" people had in their heads that was relative to material reality. You can call it question begging but if you're going to appeal to pregenesis in order to radically shift the context, then man, you do you.
@@DigitalGnosis I'll just refer you back to the OP again. "Most people- in the world- know exactly what a man is and exactly what a woman is because the ability to recognise someone's sex is an evolved trait, and this is reflected in language." Since you're not staking a position other than some vague appeals to esotericism and trivial philosophy such as semantic drift - if I'm being charitable I'd just say we're interested in very different aspects of knowledge. You don't even seem to understand heuristic thinking, or if you do, you want to deconstruct it. Being uncharitable: waste of time sophistry, I'll admit my interest was piqued, but this sort of nonsense gets no more of my time. Goodbye.
It's amazing how this guy is so far gone that he seriously cannot say what a woman is; and thinks that it is perfectly normal to not be able to define it.
@@naparzanieklawiatury4908Pretty much anyone can to a reasonably consistent degree, yeah. I’d say a food or dish that’s mostly liquid as opposed to solid. If you wanted to make it against the law to define soup in that common way because it offends some people who disagree or excludes certain dishes others want to call soups, I’d say you’re an idiot, but that’s where we are in society.
@@hairyott3rr what do you mean by "reasonably consistent"? Surely your definition here is much too broad. Includes a myriad of dishes that aren't soups. Do you know why giving necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be a soup is a famous problem in philosophy? Do you know any theories of meaning? This isn't by any means easy or obvious, the commenter here is just clueless. Nothing wrong about not giving a definition, Nathan actually is well informed on these topic as he majored in philosophy. No need to call me an idiot yet, the situation with soup isn't analogous. The situation on the table (hehe) is more akin to excluding some people from the definition of a person, as has been done with minorities when it was politically convenient. Demonizing and stigmatizing comes along, the modern day right thrives on anti-trans propaganda. Some people just can't swallow any nuance being introduced to their worldview
Thanks Peter and Chris. People with awful views usually can't see how awful their views are. Its sad. That young man is tremendously bright. He should be able to see all the contradictions in his reasoning, but my guess is his teachers and his peers have clouded his judgement. Also, if you're reading this I'd like you to think about one piece of your argumentation. You suggested that most people don't think about the meaning of words when they use them. The problem with that reasoning is the word woman is a rudimentary word. It's a word like dog, or ball, or da-da or ma-ma. It is so basic that people "see" an image of a woman in their mind's eye. When you think of these basic words you "see" them. We do all know what woman means. Here is where your argument would work. It would work with a large word that people hardly ever use in common speech. I remember Jordan Peterson was on a talk show and he said something about "egalitarian society". I had no idea what that meant, I saw the people in the discussion panel sat there as if they knew what he meant. I've watched that discussion a few times when RUclips has offered it to me, and I can tell that folks in the audience and some on the panel had no idea what it meant. As I said, I had to look it up and I think most people would. Even people who had taken college level courses years before would likely have forgotten such a word. The word woman is NOT such an obscure example. You're simply lying to yourself.
With utmost respect to your and everyones views here, i would like to point out that i agree with what the guy was saying. And this is coming from the fact that i have some background in datascience, and some knowledge on neural networks (which is a artificial effort to replicate how humans brain works). Trying to keep it brief, we do not have a set algorithm for the process we do in our daily life/ what and how we say things. Thats why we do not readily have definitions of words we use, unless you have to really think about it and are involved in the subject. Our brain uses the same technique to do everything, from speak to drive to recognize faces etc etc. and that is rudimentarily mapping input to output. And you learn by practice, eg. repeating same input (to your brain) again n again with slight variations and recognizing the output it delivers. Thats why you often hear yourself saying its intutive, its basic, it comes naturally, etc. Same is with speaking, our brain tries to identify (categorize) intent and end result instead of going into algorithm/ details of individual words. An example would be : You go to a random female n say : "Woman", her brain might interpret it as "Woman ?" -> "Is he asking me if i am a woman ?" and might respond "yes" Another person, might interpret it as "Woman !!" -> "Is he catcalling me" and might walk away. Basically brain tries to categorize intent, and if the confidence of intent is low she might respond with a question "excuse me ?" And all of this is very dependent on individual circumstances but the point that immediately brain will try to interpret intent instead of focusing on what the word used means. So basically, when you say "We do all know what woman means" in-fact not woman but anything else too a man, chair, tree etc, most of the times we do not know the definition of it but we know how to convey or understand the intent of it. And how to use it to convey an outcome.
Context does not matter for objective biological realities, being a woman is quantifiable within strict specifications of criteria, they will all pass that test. You are talking about interpretation as if 'my truth' matters@@honeyaulakh1
This man is not arguing in good faith. This is not a conversation, this is not a debate, the issue is not the issue, revolution is the issue. Nevertheless, it cannot failed to have revealed how weak and disingenuous the areguements against objective epistemology were. So not a complete waste of time. This guy will have very few friends because it is not possible to trust he will not use wvery relationship to grandstand his contrarianship. He is a dud in the society of human beings.
@@warptens5652height doesn’t guarantee success in basketball. 5’6” Spud Webb was way more talented than 7’6” Shawn Bradley. The greatest basketball player ever was only 6’6”. You don’t know anything about basketball. How does height make you a better dribbler or better shooter, or better passer?
What I most admire about Chris is his courage. Beyond that, he posits the argument in extremely simple, concise language that almost anyone can access. I think debunking the performative aspect and stressing that the ideology depends on regressive stereotypes is a great way to approach the issue. The clueless young man is a poster child for the postmodernist corruption of language, the relationships between words and the real-world realities they denote, whether he realizes it or not. Kudos to Peter.
@@DigitalGnosisyou are wilfully clueless, people like you get really good at ignoring their conscience which is basically a moral map and in return you get to both practice and enjoy your perversions. We see right through you bud.
@@DigitalGnosis I'm not dismissing you, i am challenging your falsehoods lol. You believe anyone can become a woman.. don't chat to me about cognitive dissonance. How about having some intellectual honesty with the rest of the world you hypocritical coward.
@@DigitalGnosis I've said plenty, in fact i exposed the process in which you engage in order to justify or rationalize your evil deeds. Woman's sports will remain solely for biological woman and the abuse of children will become illegal again once the right people get into power. Although here in America we are already seeing bills and laws that are being passed to protect woman and children from wokie cowards like you.
@@DigitalGnosis I'm i talking in code here or should i draw it in cartoons so that your intellect can catch up? You are a coward for the evil that you advocate for by putting woman and children in harm's way.
The empty and vacuous nature of pretending to be virtuous by allowing children to harm themselves permanently without any idea of what they are doing, is one of the most evil things someone can do.
I have never seen Chris lose his cool like that. It wasn’t a big lapse, but I guess he’s very protective of his girls as that is when it came up. All woke people are disgusting but the sad part is that this dude was not even the worst of them
"They're disgusting" what a great argument. Sounds like they have different subjective views about the value they place on sports. I don't see why that's disgusting.
@@user-pn8ke3kf5f We don't support adults hitting children, we don't support hitting of the elderly and MOST people wouldn't consider a male hitting a female. There is a reason for all of that and if you don't see it, or someone condone it then yes, that's disgusting.
@@Kojwills if science discovers a way to transition from one gender to another and "remain fertile" (able to reproduce), would you have any problems with transitioning?
The guy who does BJJ(I also do this) should know better. Biology is a huge factor in a fighting environment, especially hand to hand combat. Can everyone train together? Sure, but competitive fight sports should be separate categories based on genetic characteristics is vital to everyone’s safety and ability to actually be able to compete properly in combat sports.
Bro really said the main reason for sport is for entertainment. Er, what? Not at hobby level and I'd argue not even at professional level. Yes there is an element of entertainment around watching sport, but the primary reason for those that undertake it, I would have thought, is for their own enjoyment and development...the last thing they're thinking of is to "entertain people". I would have liked to expand on this thought because it's a strange claim to make.
@@mattswain552 When you're undertaking a hobby you are entertaining yourself. You literally said for "your own enjoyment" - if enjoying something isn't being entertained by it, then what is enjoyment? Most recreational things we do is so we are entertained in our down-time. At a professional level you are undeniably entertaining others. Entertainment is baked into most people's definition of "sport".
@ryangibson7126 Ah, yes, a poorly worded comment by myself in my haste during my lunch break 😊 I was referring to the idea of entertaining others rather than the self. Perhaps he was referring to the self, but then that is ignorant of numerous individual women (for the most part) - and men - that have shared their experiences explicitly stating the unfairness of mixing genders in sport. And I don't disagree that professional sport has entertainment for others as I mentioned initially, but it's not the main reason, as was the original claim.
@@mattswain552 As Nathan alludes to - a consideration for the opinions of partakers of gender-siloed sports is not negated by considering sports entertainment. If everybody would like to see a heavy, well-built woman fight an average man, and both parties consent, then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that. Nathan points out there are some sports where it makes sense to divide by gender -that may well be the best solution for a great many sports. There are many sports where gender is completely irrelevant, or not the primary overriding factor - darts, competitive poker, and equestrian sports for example do not necessarily grant an advantage to one sex (and are, in fact, played true mixed-gender). There are also alternate solutions to sport-segregation, some of which are already in play, such as weight classes. If we're just going to say the only valid division is men/women, then this creates a whole slew of alternate forms of "unfairness". Success at sport is often a potlock of biological advantage, environmental advantage, financial advantage, among other factors. Obviously dedication and practice are massive and we celebrate those factors above others, usually, but it's difficult to circumnavigate past the inherent "unfairness" of sport in general. There is a huge amount of cross-over in ability between men and women, and while there are huge gulfs too, it isn't immediately obvious that sex divisions are the best way to go about things. Really, this is only tangential to trans issues - its just highlighting some of the inherent pre-existing unfairnesses that exist in sports. I would favour divisions based on ability and independently tested weight, strength and resilence (etc), but I can see why it's easy to not think too hard about it and just say "man stronger than woman" and call it a day.
As soon as he said people don't think of the definitions of words, the only logical response is to ask him another question. When he answers, ask him the definition of every single word he responds with. How do you know how to speak if you do not know what the words you are using mean? It is so preposterous.
"regardless of objective facts" objective facts have nothing to do with how we use words If we'd picked the word "potato" to refer to strawberries, it wouldn't be objectively factually right or wrong. It would just be the word we use.
@@warptens5652 We use words to describe objective facts and objective facts are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Many languages have a different word for a potato but we refer to a potato's objective characteristics , but we only call a potato a potato .If you call a potato a strawberry you would have to call a strawberry something else , or you'll end up very very confused .
@@gravitheist5431 So if we used "potato" to mean strawberry, while this would be unpractical, it wouldn't be objectively or factually wrong. Correct? if you say yes, I replace "potato" with "women" and "strawberry" with "transwomen" and ask the question again if you say no, I ask, how?
@@warptens5652 You're over complicating it and over simplifying it at the same time .Both Potatoes and strawberries have their own objective facts and are not the same things ,I'm sure you'll agree .It would be objectively and factually wrong to say strawberries and potatoes are the same thing . If you ordered strawberries and cream and you were served a raw potato with cream ,I'm sure you'd send it back , right? I'll need you to tell me if you agree with any of the following : Women are all female ? Men are all Male ? Transwomen are female ? Transmen are Male ? Transwomen are Women and Male? Transwomen are Women and female? Transwomen are Men and Male ?
@@gravitheist5431 If I go to the place where they call potatoes "strawberries", and I order "strawberries", it's because I want potatoes, so I have no reason to send the potatoes back. I got what I asked for, everything is working fine, we're just using words in a way that you're not used to. There's nothing objectively or factually wrong about how we used word in this scenario. Correct? I answer no to each question, because medical transition puts you in intersex, so anytime you ask "all X are (fe)male?", the answer is no
How dare he say that sports is just about entertainment and laughs about it! The people in the competition aren't primarily doing it for fun, they are doing it to win
Omg! The guy at 2 minutes is just so afraid to say anything. That's true that he is just if equivocating about anything to make sure that his friends and neighbors don't see him as non-inclusive. It's just a perfect reflection of how sick society is these days that you can't say that mutilating young children is wrong. You just have to say well. There are some circumstances where mutilating children is probably find because they blah blah blah.
"I don't think people go around with definitions in their head when they use words" ,he sounds like a passenger in his own head . Did people say this kind of stuff before the jabs ? serious question
The "woke person" was a legit psychopath. He basically implied that it's okay for women or lower weight class men, to get utterly destroyed by significantly more powerful opponents, because he might find that entertaining to watch.
@@GBGB000 There are all sorts of things people can theoretically consent to in exchange for money, but the people paying for it, the people who find it entertaining to watch someone who doesn't have a chance of winning get beaten to a bloody pulp are not normal people with human empathy. That's my point. We separate male and female sports for a very good reason, and there is no good reason to change that. "It's entertaining to watch women get pulverized" is the rationale of a psychopath.
@@warptens5652 Because males and females are biologically different and if we didn't separate male and female sports women wouldn't be able to participate in almost any competitive sport.
There are zero women that would not get abliterated by that guy. The overlap of women who are stronger than men is vanishingly small, and it's only for the weakest men and the strongest women. That man is not a weak man, so there are zero women that could beat him.
Homie's RUclips channel is Digital Gnosis and he has a video titled "What is a Woman?" which is phenomenal. And by phenomenal I mean that it's horse shit.
I love how Billboard Chris didn't understand a single point Nathan made, he was far too focused on what he felt was right and his own feelings. I bet he couldn't steelman Nathan's position even if he was given notes in big bold font.
Oh...the wokie dude made some actual points sometimes? (instead o staying on the "neutral" and keep saying: "well, it could be this, but also that, and everything inbetween...all is valid from a relativistic point of view") I wasnt aware...tnx for pointing that out... :DDDDDD
@@ryangibson7126 Or maybe you are just a fanboy that is reading into it way more than what's actually being said... (because if more was actually being said it could have being destroyed easily by many logic counterarguments, and proven completely false...a thing that the dude doesnt want...) PS: well, I see now that you actually ARE a fanboy...being an ACTIVE MEMBER of this dude's own channel...another "friend" coming to the rescue I guess... :DDDD
I strongly support the idea that a Woman is an adult human female, but the animal comparison to humans followed immediately by the clownfish thing and saying "humans aren't clownfish" was extremely painful.
They and others are moving the needle. As a liberal, I'm disgusted with what has been shoved in our faces, making us look like a bunch of lunatics. We all should be doing whatever we can to straighten this mess out. Learn as much as you can and engage in the best way you know how.
He said it depends on where "we" want to draw the lines, but the people who advocate for including TW never gave us the arguments, proof or anything otherwise to explain why WE need to change what already existed and was created for a particular purpose...and instead align it with something totally different. The onus is on them to explain why we should deconstruct things instead of making us argue for how/why we should keep things already in place that belong to us. To come along and think you can just take places that already belong to a group of people is wildly entitled....and worse.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st He also claimed that the word "woman" would only mean "adult human female" if most people used the term that way. Then he said most people use the word to mean "adult human female", but because they don't hold a literal dictionary definition of the word in their head each time they use it, it somehow doesn't count. Or something.
Didn't know digital gnosis but i think he made great points. That people are trying to misconstrue his words here just shows that being anti woke doesnt mean you are a critical thinker.
@@MegaSilverbirchi agree. I also wouldn't call myself woke as i disagree with a lot of what is referred as woke. I also think "adult human female" is a useful definition for woman. That doesn't mean that there is any truth in that statement, as the same term could be used to refer to something else. It just depends on how a linguistic community wants to use a term.
@DigitalGnosis culture war is at play but it is always at play. I would argue it is just heigtened due to the internet which has brought more competition of ideas to the field of play. The competition is fierce and those who have values or see values on a hierarchy will fight vigorously for those highest values. People are making arguments for a lower set of values or ideas, many of them who don't care for the consequences of those ideas. If that is your aim I think it is a fools errand.
This was great to watch. I disagree with the self-described "woke" person on almost everything, but he did raise a good point at the end: Billboard Chris descended into insulting language and ad hominem attacks at the end. He didn't need to do that to make his point and should not have done that, as it makes him look immature and unreasonable. I think it's unreasonable to make a claim that men are women, but that's why I care that the reasonable, logical side doesn't resort to mud-slinging: I want that side's arguments at maximum strength.
Agree although it was weird to witness someone "trolling" in real life. I assume it's a young person thing. People my age would desribe it as "winding someone up".
Knowing what a word means - comes down to - knowing how to use a word. Thats all that is needed to form a coherent sentence (afterall what else does "coherent" here mean, rather than following syntactic and semantic conventions when formulating the sentence). As the young man stated you dont need to hold precise definitions for the words in a sentence. Consequently no lying involved on his part.
@@DigitalGnosis "my views are supported by our best theories in contemporary linguistics" Are they all members of the wokie cult as you are, by chance? :DDDDD
Wow, the left wing guy really showcased his amygdala malformation in that one. When Billboard Chris is describing bottom surgery, everyone around is tetering on the edge of disgust, the woke guy was as emotionless as Hannibal Lecter through that part.... amazing to watch these people is action. If his amygdala was any smaller he'd be verging on saying children can consent to you know what.
I may be in the minority for this chat, but I am disapointed in Billboard Chris for not being able to understand and address the perspective of the stranger. I personally think that the stranger had a much better understanding of Chris's possition than the other way around. He was not saying that there are not advantages for men competing against women (even explicitly said so), however he was saying that there are different reasons for sport, one main reason from his perspective (in professional/commercial sport) is for the entertainment of the viewers / ticket-buyers. There may be some sports where allowing trans-women may make the sport more entertaining and as long as all competitors are aware, there may be a valid reason to include trans-women. Please note that although there may be a valid reason to include trans-women, there are also valid reasons to exclude trans-women, and that balance and decision will need to be made
He became a bit aggressive, but I think he was getting tired of the ideologue pretending to be unbias when the guy just deconstructs every boundary that provides any basic protection and existence of women. That guy seems too smart to not know the implications. It's just that he's prioritized different things, like men in dhrag's BS "feelings" that they're aware have no basis in reality, but push forward full throttle anyway.
I’ve said similar things in my comment above (we seem to have written ours at roughly the same time). I always like to use Paul Graham’s hierarchy of refutation as a guide, and using that, Chris was right at the bottom, with insults, some ad hominem, and maybe contradicting Nathan’s argument, but he rarely (if ever) explicitly refuted any of the central points Nathan made.
@@ncorp2668I didn’t get that impression at all, and I broadly agreed with the positions Chris was taking - I just didn’t think he made his points well at all, whereas Nathan did. Good truth seeking is about being open and honest and responding directly to the other person, whereas Chris seemed to have a bunch of pre-packaged ideas in his head, and wasn’t able to respond to Nathan at all. Nathan didn’t come across like an ideologue at all, precisely because he was responding to Chris’s points directly, and not regurgitating arguments from a doctrine like they usually do. He was actually really impressive, intellectually.
@@jayuk83He is intelligent, yes. He presented the arguments as best as he could. But I'm afraid the premise of his arguments are not the conclusions one reaches when the main goal is truth. He seems to admit that most people don't think TWAW, which goes against his initial argument for changing definitions. If the concepts we refer to stay the same, regardless of labels, then any logical person is aware the motivation of changing the labels is not in pursuit of truth. The function is obfuscating dynamics and muddying of waters. He's inflexible and immovable on the right of society to be as fluid and flexible as possible. That doesn't seem to be a cohesive set of beliefs... so it appears he's given special treatment for something he wants to believe, and he's working backwards to justify it in ways that don't truly align with his actual understanding of the world.
A sporting event will be held regardless of if he watches it or not. Entertainment is an aspect of sport but sport is for competition. Logic flaw. He is doing this on purpose. Not engaging in honest debate.
Although I agree with Chris, it is not constructive to become emotional in conversation. He should have focused on implications of having no categories in sports. Every fighting sport would converge into having just big/strong guy vs other big guy and every sport would converge to guy vs guy. I would ask him what does he think will happen to all female athletes if categories are removed?
At 26:46 Peter asked you about weight classes and you said "you could potentially take that away and I'll be fine with it" Taking away mandatory "you compete with females/males" or "you compete with other man in your weight class" would remove those classes, because lower performing man would fight women, because they can beat them. I don't want to put words in your mouth or take things out of context if that is not what you meant, but what is important is to focus on the meat of the disagreement and that is that biological woman perform worse in 99% of the sports (strength, agility, etc.). If there were no male/female sport categories (meaning you can't be in a female contest if you are a biological man) then professional female athletes would not exist. Don't you agree?@@DigitalGnosis
@@DigitalGnosis OK...not "no categories"...so what EXACTLY would be the "categories" you propose instead of the classic male/female? (DIRECT answer pls dude...no deflecting, dodging, misdirecting, etc....we already saw plenty of that by you in the video and in this comment section, and would be nice to have a change of pace, TNX in advance) :DDD Ill even make it very simple for you...ONE sport...ONE speciality: athletics, 100mt run (also not a "contact sport"...lets eliminate the strawman that this issue is a "safety issue"...I dont even care about that...it's a minor, almost irrelevant, addition to a far major problem)
@@DigitalGnosis Damn you certainly like to hear the sound of your voice...or in this case to watch your fancy but almost meaningless wall of txt written in a YT comment... :DDDD Anyway...only about this one of yours: "With respect to whether or not there would be more or less female athletes if there were only unisex divisions. Im not sure in total" And, on the contrary, I am absolutely sure that women in sports (99.9%) would be litterally ERADICATED by those kind of "unisx" policies...simply due to the FACT (proven by any statistical records) that for every "top" woman there are about 1.000-5.000 (or even sometimes many more) "top" men that can counter her...in almost every physical sport in existance...and you almost never have single sport events that have 1000s partecipants in them...sooooo...
@@DigitalGnosis "No one asked you" And yet we are still living in a free society where I am allowed to say something to you or commenting on something you said (with receipts, not just fancy empty words, BTW), even if not specifically "asked" (well at least for now...dunno in the future if your "kind" will prevail in the main discourse and in places of power)... Get a helmet and deal with it, dude... :DDDD
"so what EXACTLY would be the "categories" you propose instead of the classic male/female?" I will never get an actual direct answer to this simple question above...right dude? (I guess you are more interested in just calling me "lunatic" and "erratic skizo" around here...LOL...)
I can agree with the woke guy that we decide the meaning of words as a community of speakers. But the fact is that we can start calling a tree “ball” but this will not make it a spherical object. So basically he is saying that “trans women are women” is just a play of words. Even if we accept that definition the reality will remain that traditional women and trans women will be two different things. It’s just a big play on words basically.
"traditional women and trans women will be two different things" sure. nobody disagress with this. Just like adoptive parents and bio parents are two different things, but they're both parents
@@brandotheone "Are you sure?" yes if they weren't different things then we wouldn't have made up the word "trans woman" "Why we have men in women’s sports?" do you know how tall women and short women are different? and yet we're ok having both in the same sports category? well trans women and bio women are different, and woke people are ok having both in the same sports cagtegory
@@warptens5652 so you are saying that their position is that they are two separate things but the intra variability of the biological women set is so high that is less than the inter variability between transwomen and women? It’s surely a strange position to have.
@@brandotheone "the intra variability of the biological women set is so high that is LESS than the inter variability between transwomen and women" I think you meant more? (or larger) Why is it a strange position? Also while I do think it is a common position, you can also believe that trans women have a large advantage and still be ok with them competing in the women category, if you judge that the upside of inclusivity outweighs the downside of less fairness. There's a somewhat viral clip of emma from the majority report screaming this point at a caller
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
If you enjoyed this, watch this one next: ruclips.net/video/qLtd6NhxFbc/видео.html
I am quite familiar with Nathan Ormond of DIgital Gnosis.
He is a SIlly Socialist STOOGE.
My wife/student is a bjj blackbelt & winning pro mma fighter. She weighs 120-125 & fights at 115.
My amateur mma fighter male teen students she mostly spars with would murder her if they went 100%.
My wife’s punches hurt but don’t damage me. If I went even 50% my punches would seriously hurt her.
This topic is idiotic and insults female athletes when they are compared to men.
It's so obvious you are trying hard to insert your own political ideology in this.
@@BrendaCreatesscientific fact is not an ideology
@@ransakreject5221what does ideology mean?
Peter’s ability to remain calm is super important.
Especially compared to Chris being emotional
@@MultiAwesomeredone is arguing for a point, and the other is arguing all points?
Is questions give away his emotional involvement.
this is so strange. "some transwomen are better at certain things than biological women" - yes my man, that's because they're men
Well they aren't better at giving birth and everything that comes with it. I don't mean that as in woman are only good for giving birth (as a man I think that process should be considered honorable).
@@DigitalGnosisYes, but that is an incredibly broad statement and means nothing for the sotuation at hand and does not negate the fact that it remains a factor for observed disparities between women and trans-women (men), specially in self-selecting samples, such as the pool of contestants in sports competitions.
@@DigitalGnosis No, because trans-women are not women, they are men. Also, that statement is not equivalent with your follow up statements.
trans women are men, and there is no such thing as "cis"women...women are women@@DigitalGnosis
I reject your term of Cis. Your terminology is abhorrent. @@DigitalGnosis
A self-described "woke person" saying "facts don't care about your feelings" has to be one of the most ridiculously hypocritical things I have ever seen.
Only if you aren't willing to take a troll from the other side dude. Let them get their hits in where they earn them. The guy handled himself well and unlike Chris didn't resort to nasty attacks.
He was joking. Good lord, idiots everywhere
Hypocritical ?????
It’s plain stup!d !!!!😂
@@markhooper6011 Yeah, that was out of character for Chris judging from his other content. But he went down in my estimation after that,
Yes, him pointing out that someone associated with the “facts don’t care about your feelings” crowd is using feelings makes *him* the hypocrite.
Wow! this is freaking brilliant! i nearly DIED when Peter asked if "Trans-women..make better women than real women!.." hilarious!
Wow! I am speechless, he really doesn't care about female sports. That's the patriarchy right there from the woke community 🤷♂️
Billboard Chris is a western hero.
Not all heroes wear capes. Some wear sandwich boards. 👍
And shiny white shoes
@@crominion6045
Nah.
@@enekaitzteixeira7010 yeah
So is this guy saying that if he had a young daughter, and she got her nose busted open by a boy in BJJ, he'd just go "chin up love, you really entertained us there!"
@@DigitalGnosis Lol of course it does.
This guy is full of shit, he probably never rolled with a woman to know that you have to go really easy on them, regardless of belt.
Yep that's exactly what he is saying,
Disgusting person had better never become a father!.
This person most likely won't have a daughter or family for that matter.
@@DigitalGnosiscompetition
I hope your videos keep getting more traction, support, attention and more subs! I hope this format of street epistemology catches on in schools around the globe!
To do proper street epistemology though, you should be unbiased. It's been mentioned that Billboard Chris had a 1 on 1 interview where Nathan did not. In addition, Billboard Chris is in tons of Peter's videos. So how is it unbiased if you constantly have a recurring view in your video and someone the audience knows?
Clearly there is bias when you present the same idea from the same person over and over again. What you're doing is conditioning someone.
There is no globe. Earth is a topographical, stationary plane.
Postmodernism at work. This was a great demonstration of the deconstruction of knowledge by the woke guy. He acted out the methodology well.
It is remarkable how much it resembles sociopathic gaslighting
Thank you to the wonderful Billboard Chris for all that you do. Let kids be kids! Always. Childhood is so brief and so precious and all children are unique. Also for standing up so movingly for women in sport here. It's really frightening to me that any man can ignore the obvious dangers to the women and girls who are/feel compelled to compete against men with magical laydee feelings.
Why should men care if women get hurt??women don't care if men get hurt or killed.
Take granite kitchen tops as an example. Women love them in their kitchens but thousands of men who make them die of lung diseases. Do women limit their desires so men can stay safe? I don't think so!
Same with crab fishing, truck driving, diamond mining etc!
So why should men care?
The guy with the bildboard was pathetic.
Not magical. Is this what anti trans people think being trans is no wonder they dint want to talk to you. You think think the pain, suffering and trauma they go through is some sort of mental illness it isn’t
Who is not letting kids be kids?
@@realSAPERE_AUDE People indoctrinating them and telling them they can be either male or female and should take puberty blockers if they're not sure.
People attempting to have conversations with children about sex, gender, sexuality, gender identity and sexual and romantic attraction when they still believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and that reindeer can fly.
Our grandparents are laughing hysterically.
That this is an actual conversation.
We are SO confused as a society (West).
they are crying
They are thoroughly disappointed
Even African tribes men were laughing. SMH, it’s absurd.
I think they’re weeping
Are they also upset that we are less racist and don’t own people as property anymore? Would they like how we dress or the music we enjoy? Why should we care what previous generations would think about the ways we live today?
I actually really appreciate men who will practice with me, but not annihilate me so I can practice more, but I would never want to go into a competition against a man thats crazy
That guy said he would think about biological realities differently if experts changed the meaning of existing terms. What.
@@DigitalGnosis except the language evolved naturally to comport to reality. The language we see today regarding gender is being created by activists and enforced by the State. They also do not have definitions for the terms and it creates more confusion as opposed to clarifying reality.
@@DigitalGnosis how is it question begging? If you have language being changed under the circumstances I talked about and you can’t even define the words you use then it isn’t doing a good job of explaining reality nor is it occurring naturally as language always has. What hard to understand about that?
He a relativist. There is no object truth in his warped reality.
no, he didn't. He said it WOULDN'T change reality, but it surely would change definitions. Imagine the biology society suddenly gets so woke they change their definition of gender..
1:00 There's a distinction between "hot" decision making and "cold" decision making. If it's a choice between different types of asthma medication inhalers, for example, yes, children can make decisions. But these are trivial and have low risk, and importantly, aren't made in the heat of anxiety and distress. By its very nature, gender medicalization is _not_ a cold decision.
Billboard Chris is a force for good in a woke world gone mad.
How dare that young man say that woman has no meaning just what people use the word as, misogynist ignorance
Well that took a wild turn. Thought the guy was actually really reasonable until he stopped lending his reason to considering the actual issue of fairness in sports.
Because he thinks sports are merely about entertainment (both participating in them and watching them) which is a perfectly reasonable view. Also, we just arbitrarily draw boundaries and they certainly aren't fair. Is it fair that 4'5" men are basically excluded from the NBA because they were born short? Nobody seems to care about that lack of "fairness".
Why are all the speed and strength records held by men even when the men and women are in the same weight category?
This young man needs to form his own ideas instead of outsourcing his thinking to others
Wow Francis Aaron an amazing musician didn't expect to see him on here, but it's really cool that he is.
Yes, was desperate to find out who he was as he really knows his way round the issues, was great when Chris alluded to what he does and finally realised!
Hello Aaron Francis, how nice to see you talking your point of view…..I’m a great admirer of your work!
The woke guy is cute. It’s too bad he doesn’t care about women. Moral relativism sucks.
Relativism is untenable.
If we’re having a conversation about the moon, everyone has to share the same definition of what the moon is otherwise we’ll all be talking about different objects. Definitions are identifiers.
I believe Chris got emotional because he used an example of his daughters and diving and the other guy gave a trolling response. If he didn’t give an example using his daughters and get that response I don’t think he would’ve got emotional because that was uncharacteristic of him.
The woke dickhead even admitted to trolling Chris, which showed his true colours.
It was smart though because he proved that when you give them an example that aligns perfectly with their entire communist agenda (women's rights) they just devolve into trolling because they are true fascists at heart. They don't care about any of the things they constantly virtue signaling about, they just want to spite the people they don't like
Also an extremely accurate description of the sociopathy displayed by the jujitsu guy.
If you have a child with ADHD which I do, and the doctor asked him to consent to the medication rather than the parents, that would be a huge red flag for nearly every parent, I don't know why there is even a debate here
I really, really like and admire Billboard Chris, but I'm a little disappointed that he let his anger get the best of him here. I disagreed with a lot of what the woke guy was saying, but he's obviously intelligent, and he was very civil and well- mannered. He didn't deserve to be insulted like that. And he was a gentleman about being personally insulted (credit where it's due). It's usually the other way around, but this time, the woke person was the more civilized. Also the gentleman in the blue hoodie was very well-mannered, too.
i agree and was about to write something like this. Personal insults have never changed anyone's mind,
I'm also disappointed in Peter. He should be keeping everyone in check, and ensuring that all follow the game rules. By allowing Chris to interrupt and insult a person who disagrees (with Peter himself), Peter's entire SE project loses credibility.
Agree. He lost the argument with that, unfortunately. I broadly agree with what the young gentleman was saying about sport ultimately being entertainment and we can set up categories however we want. I would have made the argument that the historic categories (well over 100 years) have been setup around differences in biology (sex, age, weight) and experience (novice, intermediate, professional). The issue now is that administrators are arbitrarily deciding that those who do not meet one of the criteria for inclusion (sex) are being allowed to compete (and receive any financial or other renumeration set aside for the winners in that sport) by using a specific definition of the word 'woman' that is at odds with the original usage of those setting up the categories. That is what is unfair - females are losing rewards and opportunities intended for them at the whim of a governing body without any public discussion or agreement to change the classifications.
@@mamabug4629 Chris reflexively argued that sport is not entertainment. It seemed obvious that he was simply taking the opposite position to a person he framed as an antagonist. Consequently, his arguments against sport being entertainment were ad hoc and weak. It was a textbook example of how bad faith discourse leads to terrible, pointless reasoning.
I think Chris’s response was appropriate given the subject matter and this individual’s flippant attitude. You can see how frustrated Chris is with people who don’t argue in good faith and would readily trample woman’s rights in order to hold the woke line. Those who would do harm to women should make men angry.
Francis Aaron is such a hero for me because his music is probably the only way to get young people to listen and then realise this ideology is bogus.
Great work also Chris so brave.
Thanks for the head's up, he's pretty good.
Thank you to Billboard Chris and to Peter for their unrelenting and important work on gender ideology.
And words don't change reality. You can call an elephant a smurf, but the elephant never stops being an elephant.
The young "woke" person is thoroughly confused. How does he know what a tree is? What a chair is? What a table is? Poor chap.
I will also add that his stance re: males in female sports is angering and insane.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st You may be right.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st You're so dumb.
@@rosemaryalles6043 He does know what a tree is. He merely pointed out that most people don't have thouroughly developed definitions of the words they use. Don't take pity on him, take pity on yourself, you're embarrassingly dumb.
He was just trying to weasel out of losing an argument.
Notice how, anytime he might be forced to pick a side in a black-and-white delineation, he finds a way to muddy the waters and give himself an out.
29:30 The injuries Fallon Fox's opponent sustained were not unlike those *found in cases of domestic abuse* which Fox *has a history of.*
This "oH. WoMaN gEt iNjuRed in MMA all the TImE!" is a mot and bailey argument, as James Lindsay would say.
Why can't these people just be honest and admit that they hate real women.
@@whatsMyNameAgainAgain No accurate. Male and female skulls are different. Male skulls are thicker on the forehead region that has evolved to be used in fighting. Female skulls do not have this. This is why one hit from a male can kill a female. The opposite cannot be said to be true.
@@whatsMyNameAgainAgain " they could vary well hurt and injure the man quite considerably"
No.
Until Chris mentioned the Clownfish song, I didn’t realize that was Francis Aaron. He makes great songs
So, kiddo there says sports are just for the entertainment of the viewer. Apparently nothing to do with competition. Just amusement for the viewer.
if that were the case, sports should be scripted and choreographed. Like an action scene in a movie. For the entertainment of the viewer.
That kid is so far gone from common sense and reality on all his answers I have to wonder if he's just trolling.
Edit:
Now I know he's trolling. Because he's laughing at the situation. The boy is a little bunghole. And a troll.
"if that were the case, sports should be scripted and choreographed."
would you find that more entertaining?
I sure wouldn't
He didn't say "just".
@@ryangibson7126 Yeah...he said mainly (or mostly...whatever, not rewatching the video)...and that is still SO FAR OFF the actual truth on the matter that is not even funny...
@@dimercampariniare you saying a person can't consider sport mainly something that exists for their entertainment? Talk to any football fan at the pub and you'll have a minor revelation
@@ryangibson7126 you can consider (individually and with your selfish interest only in mind) sport whatever you want...
That DOESNT mean that the actual scope and purposes and meaning of sports (and for the ppl who DO that, not simply watch it) are an entirely different thing in actual reality...
So, to paraphrase: "Sport doesnt care about your feelings" :DDDDDD
I love seeing you come to visit London, Peter. As always It was great to see your street epistemology play out here.
If you get the chance or opportunity, please consider coming up to the Middlands & the North of England, where (IMPO) we haven't had as much wokeism capture yet (outside of the Uni's) certainly amongst millennials & above anyway.
Absolutely. They’re on our list!
@@drpeterboghossian I work at the University of Nottingham (as a sound engineer) & would highly recommend you visiting Old Market Square (central Nottingham). It is the largest public space in the UK after London's Trafalgar Square & I think an interesting place to consider using for your videos, if you do travel North. Just a suggestion!
Boomers are the wokest of the woke. Boomers are the creators and enforcers of woke.
@@TrebleSumthanks
Oh sweet! Peter with Billboard Chris. Nice. This is going to be a good one.
facts do not care about feelings but he doesn't provide facts
Thank you Billboard Chris!
There are people in the comments saying they're disappointed in Chris for 'losing his temper' or for 'not being open minded' near the end. I disagree with those people.
Children are being ruined for life, and women are being violated in many ways including physical injury and sexual assault. And people are enjoying a pleasant debate on why the think it's okay for children and women to be routinely harmed as a new societal norm for the benefit of men that call themselves women. It's disgusting and dystopian. And I'm happy to see Chris give a strong opinion and stand by it. Would love to see many more do the same.
There are some things we should not be 'open minded' about. Child abuse is one of them. Denying half the population any right to safety boundaries and basic human dignity is another.
So again, thank you #BillboardChris.
i know, so the "woke" guy thinks it might be 'entertaining' for people to see girls get beaten at sport and not even have a fair chance. entertaining for who? misogynists? that should outrage any sensible person. chris is a lovely guy.
@@robyn2628 Hearing that made my blood boil. I'm a female professional fighter and he believes I should be harmed for entertainment?! I never even considered the entertainment aspect. I fight to compete. I want to know if I can be the best out of women. It's not to get permanently injured so people can be entertained for a brief period.
I agree pretty much 100% with Chris on these issues. But Damn!! I’ve got to say that guy held the woke line quite admirably compared to a lot of his peers.
@@The1Waiter-gk4szwhy do you think that? He did say at least one thing that he explicitly said was trolling but I’m not sure much else was insincere or trolling at all.
He’s a smart guy but like so many others he works backwards from conclusions on this particular topic… whether it be womens in sports, sex being a “spectrum”, what have you… he starts with the approved conclusion and works backwards looking for ways (never really arguments) to make it seem less
idiotic.
I find it so fascinating to watch a certain segment of the atheist community work so hard to back such a dubious ideology with seemingly zero self awareness…. Really makes me sympathetic to the notion that most ppl need religion and we might be best served promoting a benign, helpful one.
@aldovaneyk agreed. It's a shame that Billboard got emotional and hurled those ad hominems, I also almost entirely agree with Billboard but the other guy made some good points about how language is actually used and that it's possible to have a different perspective on the purpose of sport, all whilst staying calm and listening. If most people we disagreed with acted like that we'd be able to come to mutual understanding much easier
@@DigitalGnosis you made some great points, mate. I was frustrated by their lack of understanding of some of your arguments, but I do believe they were easily refutable 😃. Also, just quickly checked out your page and disappointed by the titles, such as “brain rot” and “Darth Dawkins”; I’ve just been defending you elsewhere for your ability to not resort to insults! But maybe that’s just because it’s RUclips and easier to get hits that way
@@DigitalGnosis I’m not sure Peter’s audience is radicalised. I think it’s more a case of people simply being attracted to things that reflect what we already think. You may begin to find the same happens with your audience, too, and with that, you become in danger of “audience capture”.
Actually I get why BillBoard Chris got mad. Why should he waste his energy trying to have a dialogue? The young man wasn't even able to listen. You would need a long term set of deprogramming to get to this guy. His "defense" or rather his brainwashing involved his having been "conditioned" to parse EVERY word down to finer and finer and finer points. He is, at this point, unable to think in any sort of coherent fashion. He speaks as if he were in a cult ... Which, sadly he is.
@@DigitalGnosis I suppose you didn't repeat his arguments, that would by why. Maybe try watching the video, rather then deluding yourself by imagining things you didn't do.
@@DigitalGnosis is this what we've come to? Billboard Chris, and his associate and I and MAYBE Peter think you don't get it. I am just a random person who is stating what he saw. YOU cannot force your version of reality on others. Delude yourself if you must, but society will not and should not be forced to bend to your self-delusion.
More importantly, I would politely argue that the public school teacher and college professors who have sold you this bill of good are NOT doing you any good. They are your enemy. They are enemies to all young people.
I would politely ask you to read Johnathan Haidt's book 'The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.' I think it will enlighten you as to how you teachers and professors have been harming you (and many of your peers) with lies about your fragility, your alleged guilt, and you being the subject of never ending attacks that you must always call out. This is very simply mind control.
I hope you find a good therapist, one who had NOT been hijacked by ideological dogma.
@@DigitalGnosisAfter just now seeing in the video that you identify as "bi-sexual," it seems clear that you are simply confused and haven't sorted yourself out just yet. Your stance, in the video, appears to be one that is trying to fight the title of simply being gay, which is fine. But it appears that you may have an internal struggle with accepting that. And so you are latching on to this insane notion that men can be women so as to remove yourself from having to admit that you are gay.
@DigitalGnosis, if you like the cock, rock the cock. I'm not gay, but I don't care who you fuck, so long as you are consenting adults. No one cares, man.
This is such a great way to have people who disagree have a civil conversation
Thank you Chris! I think he is amoral, as well! Glad you said it. Guy thinks he's so smart. Embarrassing.
Holy moly, that guy is so frustrating. Doesn't commit to anything, swerves everything.
If my aunty had bollocks she'd be my uncle.
Can you imagine the utter chaos of a world if it only had people like that in it... I do t think he's actually thought through any of his positions to conclusion.
This is a materialization of social conformity.
Postmodernists do be like that.
It's impossible to see in this one sentence each format.
Nathan has a channel @DigitalGnosis, he is incredibly well thought through philosophy graduate as you'll be able to see in the long form. He also you can join his live steams and chat and see what you think face to face!
Would you prefer him to be an ideologist?
@@JK_EU that’s what he is
The woke person revealed all at the end. HE is the determiner of when things should be fair and not and his entertainment is the only thing that matters.
The (jokingly) self-proclaimed woke person is a nihilist. Which I suppose is fine for himself, but I hope he never holds any power of decision-making where he can negatively project his disturbing views on children and women to harm them.
He’s a relativists, and he doesn’t see how relativism is untenable when allowed to play out to its logical conclusion.
@@33greenleaf explain further?
@@willrea9 explain relativism?
Everything is relative, nothing is objective.
I’m confused what more you need explained.
WOW.
This is what embracing subjectivism does to a person.
He wasn't even being irrational, he just didn't believe in objective truth.
Believing in general objective truth and recognizing that langue is not objectively true or false are two diffrent things.
It’s strange that the one dude was basically saying everything is subjective and then saying “facts don’t care about your feelings” seems like a total contradiction of all his prior arguments he made.
@@DigitalGnosis "In my opinion "facts" are parasitic on "beliefs" which are subjective."
Yeah sure dude...actual reality is "parasitic" on the things that are inside your mind...sure...not crazy and ridiculous at all...
Create a world with that main view...preach the gospel of wokism...and see what happens (well actually already happening; hope we can reverse it)...
(can we get back the asylums for ppl who feel "inner voices" or believe that they can create/shape reality just because they think about it in a certain way? Please...) :DDDDD
@@DigitalGnosis but your point basically demolishes all form of category and protection of women’s rights. If the end goal is entertainment, you could extend that to the workplace. Why bother hiring women? If the end goal is profit, why bother hiring women who have their periods or who may take maternity leave. The entertainment of sport comes from the inspiration you get from watching peak human performance. It shows you what we’re capable of. It’s also a form of war play, for ultra competitive humans to channel that energy into sport. Categories help to create competition so that everyone has a chance to compete and entertain. Women and men are fundamentally different, which is why they need their own categories. A woman unknowingly competing against a man and getting her skull bashed in is completely against the integrity of the sport. I also don’t know who you’re calling alt-right, I didn’t see any alt-right opinions here.
@@DigitalGnosisI agreed with on everything up until you claimed that purpose of sports is entertainment and said we should organize our sporting systems around maximizing entertainment value from sports. imo sports are for competing…entertainment is just a byproduct. but you are awesome, way to go. ignore the comments on here, peters fan base are all like the sign guy, hyper confident in their opinions yet somehow enjoy watching others have the confidence of their opinions tested?
@@patricko9129 I've made this point to others also. I'm a big fan of Chris, but he it himself down in the one towards the end over a rather easy point he could counter (the entertainment one).
It was a sarcastic response because he was personally attacked.
I'm confused. Has everyone lost their minds?
What Chris said wasn't "ad hom" or "emotional". If someone repeatedly demonstrates themselves as morally impassive to suffering, ambivalent on the nature of truth, to find "freak shows" of men beating woman as "entertaining", it's both permissible and good to judge them as "disgusting".
This is the BASIS of society. People don't dispassionately abstain from judgement forever, we have an ENTIRE legal system set up in this basis - to hear people out and then pass judgement. We have emotions tempered by reason. And so does Chris.
Chris heard him out, and when he heard enough he passed judgement. Completely fine in my view, completely in line with how society, morality and belief, law and how everything works.
Exactly!
The most alarming issue here is that we are even having this conversation in the first place .
Shutting down conversation is not the way to go.
Listening to the views of others and seeing where you disagree and sometimes agree is the way to go.
@@malirktheir entire argument is based on a lie though. Look up Dr John Money and his gender theory and experiments
that guy was very disingenuous in his responses. saying that people don't know the definitions of what they're saying was a load of crock. they just blurt things out without trying to create meaning? nonsense. he was twisting himself in knots to support an irrational ideological position.
Well done everyone! Thanks, Peter and team!
The fact that people call it "care" and say things like "puberty blockers are fully reversable" shows there is little understanding of what these operations/"treatments" entail. Thats to not even mention ppl's awareness of the age that this is happening as well as how long and to what degree gender dysphoria is even taking place before operations and drugs are prescribed.
Why have conversations if words can have any meaning any one person chooses?
@@DigitalGnosis If we all have different meanings for different words then conversation isn't even possible. We stop at definitions and can get no further. Language becomes a weapon against reason.
@@DigitalGnosis You commented on my question which assumes you accepted it's premises implicitly. My question wasn't about your views specifically but we can definitely discuss them. It doesn't seem that your view says anything the elephant in the room which is the manipulation of meaning. The way you speak I think you may be using AI though. Which is altogether interesting and relevant it's own way. LOL
@@DigitalGnosis There's no value in conversation if people can use language instrumentally to take advantage of other people.
@@DigitalGnosis "Given my view, of language as a kind of skill governed by certain norms"
Except those norms regarding how we treat sex, of course.
I want to say thanks to this guy putting his arguments here because without people who are prepared to present opposing views these videos would be pretty boring.
It made me a little sad when Chris started making emotional arguments and calling the guy immoral. That's not appropriate in my opinion.
Yeah, I'd have liked for Peter to ask Chris how he knows what the other guy's feelings are. Does he have direct access to them? No. Is it possible that he has misinterpreted them? Yes.
Cool seeing Billboard Chris in the conversation
You know, that's a pretty fitting place to do street epistemology. IDK how long you're in London, but I'm looking forward to more of these.
Lots more are on their way!
I would actually quite like to see an interview betwixt Peter and Nathan
The young bisexual guy- who seems like a nice guy, with confused reasoning- is very much like many people I know, and where I say confused, I mean things like comparing class to sex in the case of sports- while it's certainly true that someone who is wealthy would have more access to resources than someone who is poor, it's not the same gap as upper body strength between men and women, not is it anywhere near as relevant. If you have a rich boys team and a poor boys team who would you bet on? Probably depends on other factors. If you had a rich girls team and a poor boys team, who would you bet on? Lastly many of his own arguments are qualified by his horizon. Most people- in the world- know exactly what a man is and exactly what a woman is because the ability to recognise someone's sex is an evolved trait, and this is reflected in language.
@@DigitalGnosis"Before evolution" - what on earth do you mean by this? Evolution is a concept and name for what is now known to be a biological and (at its core) mathematical process of adaptation through replication.
If you're pinning your arguments on something that is literally pre-genesis like this that's extremely bad faith.
And yes clearly animals and pre-humans (whatever those were) could identify the salient concepts of what biological sex was, the proof is in the teeming life in the animal kingdom. My goodness. This is like level infinite deconstructionism.
@@DigitalGnosis Cavemen drew hips for the women. I'd say they knew
@@DigitalGnosis What? You didn't even mention semantic drift. You said "What a woman is", that doesn't entail any "semantic drift" at all within, or outside, of the context of language. The concept vastly predates language - so what?
Either that or you're making a sophomoric point about use/mention distinction which isn't in contention and it is frankly irrelevant.
This is just evasive sophistry. I know you think you're being clever, but you've just cemented yourself in my mind as a 1st year Phil student at best. This is what philosophy degrees hammer out of your head by 2nd year, either that or I can just go back to my original statement - bad faith - i.e. repeated and aggressive misconstruing and legalistic arguments. Either way, waste of time.
@@DigitalGnosis Ok, I was wrong on that, you're well educated. So I am now basically baffled that you're concerning yourself with what I perceive to be this sort of 1st year Phil nonsense. What are these theories on linguistics that you subscribe to and why should I pick them up, what use do they have, in the broad, cultural and political landscape we find ourselves in? I'm afraid your views are simply coming across as a form of esotericism to me.
Direct quotes, both from you:
"Did people know what a woman is before evolution or modern biology? "
"The irrelevant way you mention "what a woman is" when the point at issue is more plainly just "woman""
So I guess I'm whatever you deem to be "bad faith" for saying... erm... exactly what you said. Good job man, totally not a waste of my time. You're at best an exercise in sophistry and pedantry and I stand by that. The OP is clearly pointing to whatever "concept" people had in their heads that was relative to material reality. You can call it question begging but if you're going to appeal to pregenesis in order to radically shift the context, then man, you do you.
@@DigitalGnosis I'll just refer you back to the OP again.
"Most people- in the world- know exactly what a man is and exactly what a woman is because the ability to recognise someone's sex is an evolved trait, and this is reflected in language."
Since you're not staking a position other than some vague appeals to esotericism and trivial philosophy such as semantic drift - if I'm being charitable I'd just say we're interested in very different aspects of knowledge. You don't even seem to understand heuristic thinking, or if you do, you want to deconstruct it. Being uncharitable: waste of time sophistry, I'll admit my interest was piqued, but this sort of nonsense gets no more of my time. Goodbye.
It's amazing how this guy is so far gone that he seriously cannot say what a woman is; and thinks that it is perfectly normal to not be able to define it.
But then he is proudly bisexual. What two sexes is he attracted to again? How does his mind not just melt from the contradictions???
can you define soup?
@@naparzanieklawiatury4908Pretty much anyone can to a reasonably consistent degree, yeah. I’d say a food or dish that’s mostly liquid as opposed to solid. If you wanted to make it against the law to define soup in that common way because it offends some people who disagree or excludes certain dishes others want to call soups, I’d say you’re an idiot, but that’s where we are in society.
@@hairyott3rr what do you mean by "reasonably consistent"? Surely your definition here is much too broad. Includes a myriad of dishes that aren't soups.
Do you know why giving necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be a soup is a famous problem in philosophy? Do you know any theories of meaning? This isn't by any means easy or obvious, the commenter here is just clueless. Nothing wrong about not giving a definition, Nathan actually is well informed on these topic as he majored in philosophy.
No need to call me an idiot yet, the situation with soup isn't analogous. The situation on the table (hehe) is more akin to excluding some people from the definition of a person, as has been done with minorities when it was politically convenient. Demonizing and stigmatizing comes along, the modern day right thrives on anti-trans propaganda. Some people just can't swallow any nuance being introduced to their worldview
Thanks Peter and Chris. People with awful views usually can't see how awful their views are. Its sad. That young man is tremendously bright. He should be able to see all the contradictions in his reasoning, but my guess is his teachers and his peers have clouded his judgement. Also, if you're reading this I'd like you to think about one piece of your argumentation. You suggested that most people don't think about the meaning of words when they use them. The problem with that reasoning is the word woman is a rudimentary word. It's a word like dog, or ball, or da-da or ma-ma. It is so basic that people "see" an image of a woman in their mind's eye. When you think of these basic words you "see" them. We do all know what woman means.
Here is where your argument would work. It would work with a large word that people hardly ever use in common speech. I remember Jordan Peterson was on a talk show and he said something about "egalitarian society". I had no idea what that meant, I saw the people in the discussion panel sat there as if they knew what he meant. I've watched that discussion a few times when RUclips has offered it to me, and I can tell that folks in the audience and some on the panel had no idea what it meant. As I said, I had to look it up and I think most people would. Even people who had taken college level courses years before would likely have forgotten such a word. The word woman is NOT such an obscure example. You're simply lying to yourself.
Woke tend to lie to make their points, but when he said he hates women with a laugh I believe him
@@steveb9713 That really did feel genuine.
With utmost respect to your and everyones views here, i would like to point out that i agree with what the guy was saying.
And this is coming from the fact that i have some background in datascience, and some knowledge on neural networks (which is a artificial effort to replicate how humans brain works).
Trying to keep it brief,
we do not have a set algorithm for the process we do in our daily life/ what and how we say things. Thats why we do not readily have definitions of words we use, unless you have to really think about it and are involved in the subject. Our brain uses the same technique to do everything, from speak to drive to recognize faces etc etc. and that is rudimentarily mapping input to output. And you learn by practice, eg. repeating same input (to your brain) again n again with slight variations and recognizing the output it delivers.
Thats why you often hear yourself saying its intutive, its basic, it comes naturally, etc.
Same is with speaking, our brain tries to identify (categorize) intent and end result instead of going into algorithm/ details of individual words.
An example would be : You go to a random female n say : "Woman", her brain might interpret it as "Woman ?" -> "Is he asking me if i am a woman ?" and might respond "yes"
Another person, might interpret it as "Woman !!" -> "Is he catcalling me" and might walk away.
Basically brain tries to categorize intent, and if the confidence of intent is low she might respond with a question "excuse me ?"
And all of this is very dependent on individual circumstances but the point that immediately brain will try to interpret intent instead of focusing on what the word used means.
So basically, when you say "We do all know what woman means" in-fact not woman but anything else too a man, chair, tree etc, most of the times we do not know the definition of it but we know how to convey or understand the intent of it. And how to use it to convey an outcome.
Only when he was confronted about his character, the rest was genuine it seemed@@The1Waiter-gk4sz
Context does not matter for objective biological realities, being a woman is quantifiable within strict specifications of criteria, they will all pass that test. You are talking about interpretation as if 'my truth' matters@@honeyaulakh1
Bronze medallist in jujutsu. Gold medallist in mental gymnastics.
This man is not arguing in good faith.
This is not a conversation, this is not a debate, the issue is not the issue, revolution is the issue.
Nevertheless, it cannot failed to have revealed how weak and disingenuous the areguements against objective epistemology were. So not a complete waste of time.
This guy will have very few friends because it is not possible to trust he will not use wvery relationship to grandstand his contrarianship. He is a dud in the society of human beings.
@@DigitalGnosis A practice where people are capable of accepting premises.
For mens and womens mma there are divisions for a reason, it’s like saying should there be weight classes, of course
should there be height classes in baskeball?
should there be strength classes in arm wrestling?
@@warptens5652 these are really dumb questions, you do not watch or care about sports
@@steveb9713 can you try answering them?
@@warptens5652height doesn’t guarantee success in basketball. 5’6” Spud Webb was way more talented than 7’6” Shawn Bradley.
The greatest basketball player ever was only 6’6”.
You don’t know anything about basketball. How does height make you a better dribbler or better shooter, or better passer?
@@33greenleaf i'm not seeing an answer to the questions
What I most admire about Chris is his courage. Beyond that, he posits the argument in extremely simple, concise language that almost anyone can access. I think debunking the performative aspect and stressing that the ideology depends on regressive stereotypes is a great way to approach the issue. The clueless young man is a poster child for the postmodernist corruption of language, the relationships between words and the real-world realities they denote, whether he realizes it or not. Kudos to Peter.
@@DigitalGnosis Obviously!
@@DigitalGnosisyou are wilfully clueless, people like you get really good at ignoring their conscience which is basically a moral map and in return you get to both practice and enjoy your perversions.
We see right through you bud.
@@DigitalGnosis I'm not dismissing you, i am challenging your falsehoods lol.
You believe anyone can become a woman.. don't chat to me about cognitive dissonance. How about having some intellectual honesty with the rest of the world you hypocritical coward.
@@DigitalGnosis I've said plenty, in fact i exposed the process in which you engage in order to justify or rationalize your evil deeds.
Woman's sports will remain solely for biological woman and the abuse of children will become illegal again once the right people get into power.
Although here in America we are already seeing bills and laws that are being passed to protect woman and children from wokie cowards like you.
@@DigitalGnosis I'm i talking in code here or should i draw it in cartoons so that your intellect can catch up?
You are a coward for the evil that you advocate for by putting woman and children in harm's way.
This style of debate/conversation should be standard in all school systems. The fact that it's not is a travesty.
The empty and vacuous nature of pretending to be virtuous by allowing children to harm themselves permanently without any idea of what they are doing, is one of the most evil things someone can do.
I have never seen Chris lose his cool like that. It wasn’t a big lapse, but I guess he’s very protective of his girls as that is when it came up.
All woke people are disgusting but the sad part is that this dude was not even the worst of them
"They're disgusting" what a great argument. Sounds like they have different subjective views about the value they place on sports. I don't see why that's disgusting.
I also thinking sterilizing children while lying about the consequences is disgusting.
@@user-pn8ke3kf5f We don't support adults hitting children, we don't support hitting of the elderly and MOST people wouldn't consider a male hitting a female. There is a reason for all of that and if you don't see it, or someone condone it then yes, that's disgusting.
@@Kojwills if science discovers a way to transition from one gender to another and "remain fertile" (able to reproduce), would you have any problems with transitioning?
@@LittleMissPyeWacket Well good thing nobody here condoned hitting children. That's a nice looking straw man though.
The guy who does BJJ(I also do this) should know better. Biology is a huge factor in a fighting environment, especially hand to hand combat. Can everyone train together? Sure, but competitive fight sports should be separate categories based on genetic characteristics is vital to everyone’s safety and ability to actually be able to compete properly in combat sports.
Bro really said the main reason for sport is for entertainment. Er, what? Not at hobby level and I'd argue not even at professional level. Yes there is an element of entertainment around watching sport, but the primary reason for those that undertake it, I would have thought, is for their own enjoyment and development...the last thing they're thinking of is to "entertain people". I would have liked to expand on this thought because it's a strange claim to make.
Skill-based stratification would work just as well. Women would generally be in the very lowest strata, but that's fine.
@@mattswain552 When you're undertaking a hobby you are entertaining yourself. You literally said for "your own enjoyment" - if enjoying something isn't being entertained by it, then what is enjoyment? Most recreational things we do is so we are entertained in our down-time. At a professional level you are undeniably entertaining others. Entertainment is baked into most people's definition of "sport".
@ryangibson7126 Ah, yes, a poorly worded comment by myself in my haste during my lunch break 😊 I was referring to the idea of entertaining others rather than the self. Perhaps he was referring to the self, but then that is ignorant of numerous individual women (for the most part) - and men - that have shared their experiences explicitly stating the unfairness of mixing genders in sport. And I don't disagree that professional sport has entertainment for others as I mentioned initially, but it's not the main reason, as was the original claim.
@@mattswain552 As Nathan alludes to - a consideration for the opinions of partakers of gender-siloed sports is not negated by considering sports entertainment. If everybody would like to see a heavy, well-built woman fight an average man, and both parties consent, then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that. Nathan points out there are some sports where it makes sense to divide by gender -that may well be the best solution for a great many sports. There are many sports where gender is completely irrelevant, or not the primary overriding factor - darts, competitive poker, and equestrian sports for example do not necessarily grant an advantage to one sex (and are, in fact, played true mixed-gender). There are also alternate solutions to sport-segregation, some of which are already in play, such as weight classes. If we're just going to say the only valid division is men/women, then this creates a whole slew of alternate forms of "unfairness". Success at sport is often a potlock of biological advantage, environmental advantage, financial advantage, among other factors. Obviously dedication and practice are massive and we celebrate those factors above others, usually, but it's difficult to circumnavigate past the inherent "unfairness" of sport in general. There is a huge amount of cross-over in ability between men and women, and while there are huge gulfs too, it isn't immediately obvious that sex divisions are the best way to go about things. Really, this is only tangential to trans issues - its just highlighting some of the inherent pre-existing unfairnesses that exist in sports. I would favour divisions based on ability and independently tested weight, strength and resilence (etc), but I can see why it's easy to not think too hard about it and just say "man stronger than woman" and call it a day.
As soon as he said people don't think of the definitions of words, the only logical response is to ask him another question. When he answers, ask him the definition of every single word he responds with.
How do you know how to speak if you do not know what the words you are using mean? It is so preposterous.
That part was so annoying. I just kept thinking 'What an idiot!!'
I love the addition of the boards Peter! Very creative way to support conversion and listening to each other.
Blows my mind that words need to be changed to align with a feeling regardless of objective facts , Is that a thing ?
"regardless of objective facts"
objective facts have nothing to do with how we use words
If we'd picked the word "potato" to refer to strawberries, it wouldn't be objectively factually right or wrong. It would just be the word we use.
@@warptens5652 We use words to describe objective facts and objective facts are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Many languages have a different word for a potato but we refer to a potato's objective characteristics , but we only call a potato a potato .If you call a potato a strawberry you would have to call a strawberry something else , or you'll end up very very confused .
@@gravitheist5431 So if we used "potato" to mean strawberry, while this would be unpractical, it wouldn't be objectively or factually wrong. Correct?
if you say yes, I replace "potato" with "women" and "strawberry" with "transwomen" and ask the question again
if you say no, I ask, how?
@@warptens5652 You're over complicating it and over simplifying it at the same time .Both Potatoes and strawberries have their own objective facts and are not the same things ,I'm sure you'll agree .It would be objectively and factually wrong to say strawberries and potatoes are the same thing . If you ordered strawberries and cream and you were served a raw potato with cream ,I'm sure you'd send it back , right?
I'll need you to tell me if you agree with any of the following :
Women are all female ?
Men are all Male ?
Transwomen are female ?
Transmen are Male ?
Transwomen are Women and Male?
Transwomen are Women and female?
Transwomen are Men and Male ?
@@gravitheist5431
If I go to the place where they call potatoes "strawberries", and I order "strawberries", it's because I want potatoes, so I have no reason to send the potatoes back. I got what I asked for, everything is working fine, we're just using words in a way that you're not used to. There's nothing objectively or factually wrong about how we used word in this scenario. Correct?
I answer no to each question, because medical transition puts you in intersex, so anytime you ask "all X are (fe)male?", the answer is no
How dare he say that sports is just about entertainment and laughs about it! The people in the competition aren't primarily doing it for fun, they are doing it to win
@31:00. Those girls are often working hard for a scholarship not just for fun.
Omg! The guy at 2 minutes is just so afraid to say anything. That's true that he is just if equivocating about anything to make sure that his friends and neighbors don't see him as non-inclusive.
It's just a perfect reflection of how sick society is these days that you can't say that mutilating young children is wrong. You just have to say well. There are some circumstances where mutilating children is probably find because they blah blah blah.
The 'woke' person argues far above the average woke argument here, and credit to him for playing.
He only called himself woke after the other guy starting getting heated. I think he did it to make the guy keep going.
I disagree with woke guy, but he held his own well, not getting angry. Very well done.
He had some good points too, especially about children giving consent. Then again, I can't be sure he's not a woman. ;)
"I don't think people go around with definitions in their head when they use words" ,he sounds like a passenger in his own head .
Did people say this kind of stuff before the jabs ? serious question
Passenger in his own head. I like that phrase for the intellectual dishonesty in a lot of people.🍻
The "woke person" was a legit psychopath. He basically implied that it's okay for women or lower weight class men, to get utterly destroyed by significantly more powerful opponents, because he might find that entertaining to watch.
Boxers go up to fight in higher weight classes all the time, sometimes for money, sometimes for glory. If both parties consent, what's the issue?
@@GBGB000 There are all sorts of things people can theoretically consent to in exchange for money, but the people paying for it, the people who find it entertaining to watch someone who doesn't have a chance of winning get beaten to a bloody pulp are not normal people with human empathy. That's my point. We separate male and female sports for a very good reason, and there is no good reason to change that. "It's entertaining to watch women get pulverized" is the rationale of a psychopath.
@@bobsassistant5820 "We separate male and female sports for a very good reason" could you articulate it, please?
@@warptens5652 Because males and females are biologically different and if we didn't separate male and female sports women wouldn't be able to participate in almost any competitive sport.
@@bobsassistant5820 Are you for height categories in basketball?
Of course people have definitions of all the words in their heads. It's subconscious.
"Frogs make the best lions!"
Leftism in a nutshell 😂
If only all the "woke" I met were like him, I would argue every day.
There are zero women that would not get abliterated by that guy. The overlap of women who are stronger than men is vanishingly small, and it's only for the weakest men and the strongest women. That man is not a weak man, so there are zero women that could beat him.
Homie's RUclips channel is Digital Gnosis and he has a video titled "What is a Woman?" which is phenomenal. And by phenomenal I mean that it's horse shit.
This woke sh*t has it's root in Gnostisism(sp?).
Have you by any chance checked out James Lindsays podcasts? He's a colleage of Peters.
I love how Billboard Chris didn't understand a single point Nathan made, he was far too focused on what he felt was right and his own feelings. I bet he couldn't steelman Nathan's position even if he was given notes in big bold font.
Oh...the wokie dude made some actual points sometimes? (instead o staying on the "neutral" and keep saying: "well, it could be this, but also that, and everything inbetween...all is valid from a relativistic point of view")
I wasnt aware...tnx for pointing that out... :DDDDDD
@@dimercamparini It doesn't sound like you really understood what he said.
@@ryangibson7126 Or maybe you are just a fanboy that is reading into it way more than what's actually being said...
(because if more was actually being said it could have being destroyed easily by many logic counterarguments, and proven completely false...a thing that the dude doesnt want...)
PS: well, I see now that you actually ARE a fanboy...being an ACTIVE MEMBER of this dude's own channel...another "friend" coming to the rescue I guess... :DDDD
I strongly support the idea that a Woman is an adult human female, but the animal comparison to humans followed immediately by the clownfish thing and saying "humans aren't clownfish" was extremely painful.
Thanks, Peter and Chris, for doing your damnedest to make common sense common again.
Did you find anything to be sensible that the “woke” person said?
He would make a damn good politician as he said a lot without saying anything@@realSAPERE_AUDE
They and others are moving the needle. As a liberal, I'm disgusted with what has been shoved in our faces, making us look like a bunch of lunatics.
We all should be doing whatever we can to straighten this mess out. Learn as much as you can and engage in the best way you know how.
@@realSAPERE_AUDE not a single thing, did you?
@@JohnjOcampo yep. Pretty much all of it.
He said it depends on where "we" want to draw the lines, but the people who advocate for including TW never gave us the arguments, proof or anything otherwise to explain why WE need to change what already existed and was created for a particular purpose...and instead align it with something totally different. The onus is on them to explain why we should deconstruct things instead of making us argue for how/why we should keep things already in place that belong to us. To come along and think you can just take places that already belong to a group of people is wildly entitled....and worse.
The only reasons they always give to us is:"we have to be KIND!"
Well...I choose to "be kind" to actual biological women instead... :DDDD
@@beowulf_of_wall_st He also claimed that the word "woman" would only mean "adult human female" if most people used the term that way. Then he said most people use the word to mean "adult human female", but because they don't hold a literal dictionary definition of the word in their head each time they use it, it somehow doesn't count. Or something.
Didn't know digital gnosis but i think he made great points. That people are trying to misconstrue his words here just shows that being anti woke doesnt mean you are a critical thinker.
Neither does being woke mean you’re a critical thinker.
@@MegaSilverbirchi agree. I also wouldn't call myself woke as i disagree with a lot of what is referred as woke. I also think "adult human female" is a useful definition for woman. That doesn't mean that there is any truth in that statement, as the same term could be used to refer to something else.
It just depends on how a linguistic community wants to use a term.
@DigitalGnosis culture war is at play but it is always at play. I would argue it is just heigtened due to the internet which has brought more competition of ideas to the field of play. The competition is fierce and those who have values or see values on a hierarchy will fight vigorously for those highest values. People are making arguments for a lower set of values or ideas, many of them who don't care for the consequences of those ideas. If that is your aim I think it is a fools errand.
@@DigitalGnosis Why are you allergic to making bold moral claims?
This was great to watch. I disagree with the self-described "woke" person on almost everything, but he did raise a good point at the end: Billboard Chris descended into insulting language and ad hominem attacks at the end. He didn't need to do that to make his point and should not have done that, as it makes him look immature and unreasonable. I think it's unreasonable to make a claim that men are women, but that's why I care that the reasonable, logical side doesn't resort to mud-slinging: I want that side's arguments at maximum strength.
Agree💯
Agree although it was weird to witness someone "trolling" in real life. I assume it's a young person thing. People my age would desribe it as "winding someone up".
That young guy is just lying to himself! You couldn't even form a coherent thought without knowing what the words mean - wtf
Knowing what a word means - comes down to - knowing how to use a word. Thats all that is needed to form a coherent sentence (afterall what else does "coherent" here mean, rather than following syntactic and semantic conventions when formulating the sentence). As the young man stated you dont need to hold precise definitions for the words in a sentence. Consequently no lying involved on his part.
@@DigitalGnosis "my views are supported by our best theories in contemporary linguistics"
Are they all members of the wokie cult as you are, by chance? :DDDDD
Wow, the left wing guy really showcased his amygdala malformation in that one.
When Billboard Chris is describing bottom surgery, everyone around is tetering on the edge of disgust, the woke guy was as emotionless as Hannibal Lecter through that part.... amazing to watch these people is action. If his amygdala was any smaller he'd be verging on saying children can consent to you know what.
The guy in the black top is a disgrace. He made no interesting or relevant points.
I may be in the minority for this chat, but I am disapointed in Billboard Chris for not being able to understand and address the perspective of the stranger. I personally think that the stranger had a much better understanding of Chris's possition than the other way around.
He was not saying that there are not advantages for men competing against women (even explicitly said so), however he was saying that there are different reasons for sport, one main reason from his perspective (in professional/commercial sport) is for the entertainment of the viewers / ticket-buyers. There may be some sports where allowing trans-women may make the sport more entertaining and as long as all competitors are aware, there may be a valid reason to include trans-women. Please note that although there may be a valid reason to include trans-women, there are also valid reasons to exclude trans-women, and that balance and decision will need to be made
He became a bit aggressive, but I think he was getting tired of the ideologue pretending to be unbias when the guy just deconstructs every boundary that provides any basic protection and existence of women. That guy seems too smart to not know the implications. It's just that he's prioritized different things, like men in dhrag's BS "feelings" that they're aware have no basis in reality, but push forward full throttle anyway.
I’ve said similar things in my comment above (we seem to have written ours at roughly the same time). I always like to use Paul Graham’s hierarchy of refutation as a guide, and using that, Chris was right at the bottom, with insults, some ad hominem, and maybe contradicting Nathan’s argument, but he rarely (if ever) explicitly refuted any of the central points Nathan made.
@@ncorp2668I didn’t get that impression at all, and I broadly agreed with the positions Chris was taking - I just didn’t think he made his points well at all, whereas Nathan did. Good truth seeking is about being open and honest and responding directly to the other person, whereas Chris seemed to have a bunch of pre-packaged ideas in his head, and wasn’t able to respond to Nathan at all. Nathan didn’t come across like an ideologue at all, precisely because he was responding to Chris’s points directly, and not regurgitating arguments from a doctrine like they usually do. He was actually really impressive, intellectually.
Agree @BrendensComment, well said!
@@jayuk83He is intelligent, yes. He presented the arguments as best as he could. But I'm afraid the premise of his arguments are not the conclusions one reaches when the main goal is truth. He seems to admit that most people don't think TWAW, which goes against his initial argument for changing definitions. If the concepts we refer to stay the same, regardless of labels, then any logical person is aware the motivation of changing the labels is not in pursuit of truth. The function is obfuscating dynamics and muddying of waters. He's inflexible and immovable on the right of society to be as fluid and flexible as possible. That doesn't seem to be a cohesive set of beliefs... so it appears he's given special treatment for something he wants to believe, and he's working backwards to justify it in ways that don't truly align with his actual understanding of the world.
A sporting event will be held regardless of if he watches it or not. Entertainment is an aspect of sport but sport is for competition. Logic flaw. He is doing this on purpose. Not engaging in honest debate.
woke dude got under chris' skin... can't let them do that chris. tsk tsk.
Although I agree with Chris, it is not constructive to become emotional in conversation. He should have focused on implications of having no categories in sports.
Every fighting sport would converge into having just big/strong guy vs other big guy and every sport would converge to guy vs guy.
I would ask him what does he think will happen to all female athletes if categories are removed?
At 26:46 Peter asked you about weight classes and you said "you could potentially take that away and I'll be fine with it"
Taking away mandatory "you compete with females/males" or "you compete with other man in your weight class" would remove those classes, because lower performing man would fight women, because they can beat them.
I don't want to put words in your mouth or take things out of context if that is not what you meant, but what is important is to focus on the meat of the disagreement and that is that biological woman perform worse in 99% of the sports (strength, agility, etc.).
If there were no male/female sport categories (meaning you can't be in a female contest if you are a biological man) then professional female athletes would not exist. Don't you agree?@@DigitalGnosis
@@DigitalGnosis OK...not "no categories"...so what EXACTLY would be the "categories" you propose instead of the classic male/female?
(DIRECT answer pls dude...no deflecting, dodging, misdirecting, etc....we already saw plenty of that by you in the video and in this comment section, and would be nice to have a change of pace, TNX in advance) :DDD
Ill even make it very simple for you...ONE sport...ONE speciality: athletics, 100mt run
(also not a "contact sport"...lets eliminate the strawman that this issue is a "safety issue"...I dont even care about that...it's a minor, almost irrelevant, addition to a far major problem)
@@DigitalGnosis Damn you certainly like to hear the sound of your voice...or in this case to watch your fancy but almost meaningless wall of txt written in a YT comment... :DDDD
Anyway...only about this one of yours: "With respect to whether or not there would be more or less female athletes if there were only unisex divisions. Im not sure in total"
And, on the contrary, I am absolutely sure that women in sports (99.9%) would be litterally ERADICATED by those kind of "unisx" policies...simply due to the FACT (proven by any statistical records) that for every "top" woman there are about 1.000-5.000 (or even sometimes many more) "top" men that can counter her...in almost every physical sport in existance...and you almost never have single sport events that have 1000s partecipants in them...sooooo...
@@DigitalGnosis "No one asked you"
And yet we are still living in a free society where I am allowed to say something to you or commenting on something you said (with receipts, not just fancy empty words, BTW), even if not specifically "asked" (well at least for now...dunno in the future if your "kind" will prevail in the main discourse and in places of power)...
Get a helmet and deal with it, dude... :DDDD
"so what EXACTLY would be the "categories" you propose instead of the classic male/female?"
I will never get an actual direct answer to this simple question above...right dude?
(I guess you are more interested in just calling me "lunatic" and "erratic skizo" around here...LOL...)
There’s no point in having discussions involving women without first establishing definitions
He qualified that statement by saying he was just trolling.
The process you use is soothing to watch. Very minimal emotion, maximum assurance of understanding.
I feel like most folks know the definitions of the words they use. It's sad that a whole new generation can't define a woman 🤦🏻♀️
So he claims he is bisexual, which is admitting there are only 2 sexualities. Otherwise you would have to ask which sexualities do you mean.
@@DigitalGnosis it's a statement there are 2 sexualities, so anything else the person says regarding multiple genders is irrelevant
I can agree with the woke guy that we decide the meaning of words as a community of speakers. But the fact is that we can start calling a tree “ball” but this will not make it a spherical object. So basically he is saying that “trans women are women” is just a play of words. Even if we accept that definition the reality will remain that traditional women and trans women will be two different things. It’s just a big play on words basically.
"traditional women and trans women will be two different things"
sure. nobody disagress with this.
Just like adoptive parents and bio parents are two different things, but they're both parents
@@warptens5652 nobody disagrees with this? Are you sure? Why we have men in women’s sports?
@@brandotheone "Are you sure?"
yes
if they weren't different things then we wouldn't have made up the word "trans woman"
"Why we have men in women’s sports?"
do you know how tall women and short women are different? and yet we're ok having both in the same sports category?
well trans women and bio women are different, and woke people are ok having both in the same sports cagtegory
@@warptens5652 so you are saying that their position is that they are two separate things but the intra variability of the biological women set is so high that is less than the inter variability between transwomen and women? It’s surely a strange position to have.
@@brandotheone "the intra variability of the biological women set is so high that is LESS than the inter variability between transwomen and women"
I think you meant more? (or larger)
Why is it a strange position?
Also while I do think it is a common position, you can also believe that trans women have a large advantage and still be ok with them competing in the women category, if you judge that the upside of inclusivity outweighs the downside of less fairness. There's a somewhat viral clip of emma from the majority report screaming this point at a caller