At some point you just dont. The true radicals are a very small portion of society (thankfully). Most of the people who follow along with their philosophy are doing so out of fear, indifference or lies. It is these people we need to convince to turn away from post modernism and moral relativism. Ive found if you show them their logical fallacies, and how their wokeness leads to tyranny, you can get them rethinking the philosophy.
If you dialogue long enough, you'll find that the subjectivists will use logic to prove their position. They can't help it because that is the way God has made the universe.
We have now cut the branch off that we are sitting on . We now think that if you don’t agree with me you don’t love me universities was a place where you could debate with opposing views that’s not the case anymore , most universities now cancel anyone that don’t agree
Yep. However if we’re sending our kids to public schools it’s our own fault. A plan for home schooling and a 529 plan from day one was as essential as our baby’s first doctor’s appointment after leaving the hospital.
When I took a political test, I scored Democrat on all issues but the one I came the closest to Republican on was education... this is likely a combination of the fact that I went to Catholic school and saw public school as basically juvey that you could leave every day, and where I live this is pretty accurate. However, some public schools, like near Chicago, apparently do as good a job or perhaps a better job at education than my private schools in, so it's a mixed bag. For the most part, though, I think almost all public schools in America are likely very, very dangerous and inadequate. This is perhaps because no size fits all; a national education system may not be the best option, it probably only was in like the 1900s and this was only because it was the first ever education given nationally; something is better than nothing. Times have changed, education sucks.
Thank you so very much, Brian, for your clarity of thought and charity of expression. The tyranny of the individual insisting that a lie be adopted as the truth is wielded mercilessly. You brilliantly summed up the heart of the issue. Thank you!
Imagine the difficulty of conversing with someone in a supposed "rational dialogue" but the other person has grounded their truth's from their surrounded peers stating "Your voice matters, your feelings are valid" to the point of developed ruling that feelings are prioritized over what has been tried and is true. The younger generation is influencing the masses towards being so emotional and underdeveloped in the virtue of fortitude.
Really ? People shouldn’t have to deal with those who want to act like assholes just because. The issue is that people who have been asshats forever and upset when people say “Actually I don’t need to be attacked and berated because of so and so.”
It is undoubtable how dangerous subjective thought and action is. Why live if everything you live for isn't objectively true and is all about opinions and preferences instead of what is really true.
Be careful not to fall off the other side of the road into determinism or a cold rationalism. Look up critical realism. Unfettered subjective thought is what is dangerous really.
One of the reasons that I am moving out of teaching in a school environment is because I feel under pressure to tiptoe around the truth. Part of me wants to stay and uphold the standard flag of truth in this battle for the minds of our youngsters, but at 55 I am not the one to do it. I am worn out. God forgive me.
My mother is battling the same thing. It is not easy for her and I know it is taking a toll on her soul. She made the huge leap and decision that she could no longer work for such an evil entity that lies to children in this way. She is your age as well and leaving what she considers to be her calling, has nothing lined up for after at the moment but cannot stand being part of this any longer. This is a battle we are losing, as it doesn't begin and end with the education system but with despondent and negligent parents and our own society encouraging this behavior. Obviously this isn't all parents and kids, but it is a vast majority. I pray for all of the educators and our next generation. Only God can help us.
How are you 55 and can’t just call people what they want to be called. Old people are hiding behind religious values and the Flag ? When in fact it’s plan old homophobia and transphobia. Sex and Gender are two different things.
Have you even done research into why people feel this way and why my gen is saying “No people just deserve respect so we respect them and that’s it.” Is it really difficult to call someone by their name or a pronoun.
GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE! The world doesn’t revolve around your religion!!! Young people aren’t saying biological sex doesn’t matter, only pointing out the fact that gender is different.
We are dealing with this personally in our family. My brother’s 14 year old daughter is now their “son” and I have become the bigot in the family, because I refuse to play the game. The problem is, the rules of the game are constantly changing. She has changed her name twice in a year’s time! I choose to opt-out and if I am not allowed to opt-out, then it is just as you describe - tyranny.
Same in my family. And I do not play that game. Even if I am the only one left not using pronouns and made up names. If they can’t be around my, I understand. But we have to stand firm in rational traditional world, and not be bullied into changing our beliefs, conforming to someone’s delusion, or contributing to someone’s dysphoria and mental illness. Sad situation and certainly easier said than done.
To assert "Reality and truth are completely subjective" is a self-contradictory and self-refuting statement because once you assert it all I have to do is assume the premise (for the sake of argument) and then assert it back and say, "Reality and truth may be completely subjective to YOU but it isn't for ME. To ME reality and truth are objective" . If the person rejects my statement then they are rejecting the very premise upon which their statement about reality and truth is based.
What is crazy is that many of my fellow scientists agree with this subjective mindset. It completely undermines the philosophy underpinning the scientific method.
But ultimately, who am I to say what someone else should feel comfortable being called ? Not a hair off my ass for calling a person by their respected pronoun.
You are absolutely correct. The problem I have encountered is that those who espouse profound relativism simply refuse to listen to, much less provide a refutation to common sense facts. As our recently installed president said during the campaign that wasn’t: “We’re not gonna allow the facts to stand in the way of truth.” Such is the thought pattern.
Subjective truth is a fancy way of saying "chaos". This is excellently stated. Thank you. I hope millions see and understand. Facts are real. Feelings are illusions and always lead to the wrong path.
How do we bridge this divide? It seems impossible to stop people talking past each other. Modernists literally want to change the very way we define what a man and woman are objectively. When we respond saying we believe DNA is what matters, they're already off in a completely different dimension basically saying it's all down to personal choices and personality traits.
LGBT people biologically exist. Anyone denying that is simply denying objective reality. The question then becomes: how do we handle these topics in society?
"... the facts don't matter, what matters is their personal truth and their lived experience". and I keep hearing these phrases over and over again people say things like "this is my lived experience" or "this is my truth" and what I think they mean by that their own subjective perspective is more important than objective facts. "and this is the problem with insisting that your truth or your lived experience is what matters most because what happens when your lived experience doesn't corroborate with someone else's lived experience how do you find ways to get along and function as a society?" A very good question. Perhaps if we all realized this problem, one thing we could do is to not try to impose our lived experience or personal truth on others. I assume, then, that what you say in argument here about such things as agreed upon facts will not be based on your own lived experience and personal truth (i.e. your faith). "This is why objective reality objective truth something that is external to all of us is so desperately necessary if we are going to function as a society" One way of looking at it, I suppose. But how do we determine what qualifies as objective reality and objective truth? You say "what we do share is what is external to everyone which are the logically perceived facts and conclusions about what is true. Your doctor or philosophy is a poor analogy here. Having (or not having) a doctoral degree is an external fact about a person. Conversely, gender identity is with respect to a person's perception of who they actually are, surely this is internal to the person. I have never met anyone who I felt was oppressing me by forcing me to use the pronouns of their preference. They might, if the felt comfortable in doing so, mention their situation and their preferred pronouns. Being polite, I would try to remember to address them in the way they prefer to be addressed. Others might be less likely to do that, perhaps because "their reality" is that people are male or female. This should not, however, result in a conflict, and neither side need be educated by the other. So gender is grounded in "neutral objective facts", which is our biology and our sex which any reasonable person can perceive and assess. Interesting concept. I have seen a number of people and guessed their sex incorrectly from their outward appearance - and I'm not only talking about female impersonators. So, yeah, as you say, subjective perception is an extremely unreliable way to arrive at the truth. Certainly true when it is the truth about another person, but not so when it is about oneself.
@Brian Holdsworth - This video on The Tyranny of Pronouns has been very thought provoking, thank you. As you spoke it got me thinking about standing on a beach near the waters edge, when the sky is blue and the sun is shining. Say, you and I were standing there next to each other, both facing the sea. From my perspective, a "single ray" of sunshine (for lack of a better term) would be cast across the water directly towards me, I would not observe the ray go in another direction. However, from your perspective, the sun would cast a long single ray across the water towards you, and you would not see it go in any other direction. Standing beside each other, we would have a ray coming towards us but we would not be able to bare witness or observe each others ray. There could be a hundred people standing at the waters edge and each of us would see just a single ray. At this point, we would all just have to accept that from our own subjective perspective the sun travels across the water and appears to shine on us and us alone. We would also have to acknowledging the objective truth that the sun shines on each of us simultaneously. While I'm here, I wonder if there is a name for this phenomenon? It never fails to amaze me.
“Assertion of power” will resolve with conflict. People who have been too accommodating to this madness for over a decade: “your terms are acceptable.”
It’s VERY easy to call someone by their name or pronoun. If you’re transphobic just say that instead of claiming people shouldn’t be called what they want. I promise if the entire world called you a women/her/she or whatever is the opposite of what you identify as. YOU’D be upset with it
@@omnipotentlenny "Transphobic" implies fear. I am not afraid of someone who is cognitively confused and, for all medically defined purposes, suffering from a form of depression. I will not lie to a man who thinks he is a woman and call him a woman. He is a man.
@@augustvonmacksen2526 Sex and gender identity are two different things. You can have a dick and still identify as a woman. Transphobic also implies baseless hatred.
A difficult topic to navigate and you do so with clarity and calm - thank you. Things don't fit neatly together when diverse views meet but we need to find a way to engage more respectfully - even if this means agreement to differ.
While I see what you mean, there is a point where it is not a virtue anymore to "get along." When somebody claims that 2 + 2 = 5 (because that's his/her "personal reality"), there is no room for "respectful disagreement." And that is unfortunately the point that we have reached with a particular group of radical leftist ideologists.
Hi, Brian! Liked the way @ the beginning of the video you speculated on the guy who pretends to have a PhD and insists on being addressed as "Dr." I've sometimes joked how seriously would I be taken if I began to insist: "From now on, I'm to be addressed as Your Imperial Highness." After all, I IDENTIFY as being a member of royalty!
"I think" I'm glad you said this. It speaks to continued learning as opposed to "I know" speaking of certainty. There is the possibility of something missed in this particular talk (video). Counter culture once was christianity. Why? How is this answer applicable in this topic? What is the root of the reason we have honorifics? Why would someone feel the need to be referred to in this way? A discussion that includes these questions might offer a window of insight not mentioned in this talk.
At first I was worried, oh boy, here we go, can’t use proper pronouns. Glad I watched. We, as a civil society, MUST have a system of norms. If everyone is allowed to define for themselves what right vs wrong is, that he or she has the sole authority to insist they be treated based on their own version of reality based on their personal existence, imagine if EVERYone were allowed to do that. Pure chaos.
@@omnipotentlenny I have no issue, out of respect, calling someone whatever they want. The problem becomes when they INSIST on it or otherwise it’s a hate crime or claim it’s an act of violence. In other words, we can all “request” it. Doesn’t mean I have to do it.
@@gvndual84 idk about making it a crime, that’s crazy. ( Send me the link that shows people who want that ) But no one is insisting trans people are the bio equivalent of the sex. But they want to be called a pronoun that fits their specific gender identity.
@@omnipotentlenny ruclips.net/video/WtftZPL-k7Y/видео.html. She calls using the undesired pronoun an act of violence, and the follow-up to this, the second in the transgender series, also has individuals calling to criminalize it. So again, we live under the 1st Amendment. You can “request” to be called whatever you want. Doesn’t mean I have to it since I have the same 1st amendment protection to call you whatever I want.
Even though I'm Christian, I think I would call someone by their pronouns (but I won't say words that don't exist though). Not bc I believe them but bc it won't bother me as much as it would them if their subjective reality is broken. And I wouldn't like to waste time arguing if I got it "wrong". I know it sounds like agreeing with a child just so you don't have to hear them throwing a fit, but they should know that that's the logical result of all this. You can force people to say certain words but you can't force them to believe it.
@@BrianHoldsworth YOU ANSWERED ME WHAAAAT 🤣🤣🤣 Well I haven't thought of that. I just see things regarding their practicality. A transgender person won't listen to me if I explain why I'm misgendering them & I believe there are better situations where you can try to open their minds instead of "I'm actually a she." "Oh. I don't believe you, so I won't call you that ever." and then a scandal happens. It's a fruitless, unnecessary conversation. I don't think any bearing of false witness occurs when I give someone an incorrect pronoun according to their biology since whatever happens, those who believe in transgenderism will continue believing in it, and those who don't, won't. No one's mind changes because of pronouns. I guess that's my whole point.. the only ones these people are fooling are themselves.
I'm glad you mention that freedom of speech is downstream from though; many act as though they too wield the creative power of God and imagine that what they say is true merely because it is said.
@@williamrizzardi2157 The thing is, though, having multiple personality disorder doesn't actually make you multiple people. It means you have multiple stable personality states, almost always (90% of cases) arising as a defence mechanism against physical and/or sexual abuse during childhood. They have different personas, but these aren't different people any more than the public "face" you put on to the outside world is literally a different person. The fact that memories are often segregated off between personas can give that impression, but a person is not just a set of character traits and memories.
@Belén Ayelén Marlén Maulén Indeed. Every human being is either male or female, though in a few hard cases it can be difficult to know which one without combing down to the genetic level.
I used to be a teacher. If I were employed as a teacher today with this pronoun tyranny, I would have to quit or be fired, because I simply will not cooperate with a forced fake reality (i.e. lies). I will only ever use pronouns to refer to a person's biological sex (excepting individuals who have Turner's or Klinfelter's Syndrome).
Just argue like this. To them, Diversity equals strength, right. Diverse is random soup differences, right. So, in the case of an objective goal, the opposite would be focused objectivism. Then show them the Jamaican 400m team winning Gold and ask if they would get better with diversifying. If not that team is rhcist
The opinion of the atheist Sam Harris is that "Society cannot impose a Positive Injunction, like 'people should pick-up all the trash they see'. Only a Negative Injunction is logical - 'do not litter'." So a law on "pronouns" is actually oppressive and even foolish, as aptly highlighted by Brian's ananlogy on having a PhD.
@@jimpeschke3435 googling with your suggestion took me to this page from the CBC: www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained As I read it, the bill deals principally with enshrining "the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians". This suggests that people in those groups have been subject to discrimination on the basis of being in that group. It is not hard to imagine that being the case based on comments one reads on social media, including the current discussion. More discussion on how gender pronoun use is seen by the law and the Ontario Human Rights Commission: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns Ot seems fairly clear to me that pronoun misuse needs to be accompanied by other aggravating factors before prosecution will take place.
Post modern subjectivism? You think it didn't exist before? LOL. The thing about the age we're living in, for better and worse, is that the subjective observations of the past are being uncovered from their pretence at being 'objective'. A classic case is captured by the adage that history is 'written by the victors'. This is widely attributed to that icon of the post-modern world, Winston Churchill. He may or may not have been the source of it, but clearly there was then, as there is now, a caution about treating history as 'objective'. I think your point about 'power' being a substitute for analysing and sharing common truths is a good one. Unfortunately that notion, as good as it is, doesn't help when we come to discussing religion. To be religious is to be motivated by both the subjective and the objective. Even then the 'objective' is problematic in religion. No matter how we try to be objective about religion, it's not 'provable', it's not 'logical', it's not 'demonstrable' and it's not 'rational'. We can't grasp it in the same way as other shared objective truths. I don't think the 'Dr Holdsworth' analogy is that helpful. Having agreed-upon qualifications is very reliable. When you get to gender your benchmark is 'any reasonable person'. A member of our congregation -- a group of very reasonable people -- has 'transitioned' from male to female. He was and she is a 'very reasonable person'. Unlike a doctor of philosophy, a 'very reasonable person' is not shared or objective. Many, perhaps, most 'reasonable people' would not have experience of a person who has some form of gender dysphoria, so how can they make a 'reasonable' judgement? My subjective response to this person ranges from disgust, disdain and confusion all the way to acceptance and admiration. When I step back a little and try to be objective, I can see this is not a whim. This person has been, and continues to be, through hell and back and now that he has transitioned into a she, I can see a person who is now on a path to relative happiness and self acceptance. So who are the 'victors' that tell the story of gender? IMO, they are the ones who are comfortable with their own gender and have very little experience of people who are not. Beyond that, we live in a world where realities we may have taken for granted are now up for negotiation and that the 'tyranny of reasonable people' is every bit as problematic as the 'tyranny of pronouns'. The point, as you have said, is that this must be a negotion of logic and reason and equality so that we do avoid the more frightening 'logic' of power.
So in the rare case of an intersex (hermaphrodite) individual what do we do? If we look towards objective truth then that individual doesn't fit the Male/Female. I know this is a rare case but it does demonstrate a challenge to the argument of objective truth with regards to pronouns. I guess what I hope for is mixture of both objective and subjective. I've had the honor of encountering people of other cultures who don't use pronouns in their languages. I know that is a different society then you and I appear to live in but in their society what is objective is different from ours. I guess I find the hard stance of objective/subjective challenging because I'm not sure it can withstand different languages/cultures. And in an ever increasing global society that poses challenges. That said I really appreciated how you said we need to have honest conversations. I think honesty and vulnerability will help us understand each other better. Thanks for taking on challenging topics. I hope my struggles with this topic are helpful to others. I really am just trying to come from a place of compassion and understanding. Thank you.
While I agree with your conclusion, I feel like you do simplify the matter a bit. You are correct to affirm that some thinkers who propose individual truth are idealists, but not exclusively so. It is possible to affirm that people have objective genders which do not correlate to their biological sex. As such, the argument would follow that this claim is objectively true, even if it cannot be clearly demonstrated as such. For example, I like Chex Mix. My subjective experience is objectively true, even if it would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to demonstrate it outside just my statement of it. It would be false to say that I do not like Chex Mix. What is the best way to learn this truth about me? Simply by asking me and believing me when I tell you. Of course, this method is not full-proof (I could lie, misunderstand you, or be confused about how I actually feel about Chex Mix), but it is arguably the best we can do. Again, I disagree with this sentiment because I disagree with the main premise (that gender and sex can be separated). However, your argument focuses primarily on rebutting subjective experience. If this main premise was true, then your argument would be problematic.
@@soulfuzz368 Fair question. There is a lot of room to interpret your comment. First, we must be clear about what we mean when we say gender and sex. If we simply say that gender includes all of the attributes which fall under one particular sex (even if they do overlap), then there is no way that they could be separated. However, I imagine that most people would disagree with this definition for some sort of substance identity. As such, gender is a substance identity that appears to follow one sex in particular (whether or not it actually does is a different question). If you disagree with this definition, then you would need to supply one that does allow for gender to be related to sex in some way, otherwise, the male/female distinction is just equivocation when referring to gender. However, if you take this definition (or something like it) I would argue that the burden of proof rests on demonstrating that sex and gender do not share a relationship that is necessarily corollary (or causal) since it is built into the definition that they often correlate. I can't think of such a reason. Perhaps I am mistaken, though, and my definition is off or there is a good reason to separate these two ideas. Any thoughts?
When you call for an ambulance and the driver looks at you and decides he doesn’t want to treat you because you don’t conform to his perception of who you ought to be, and drives off and leaves you to die, then come back and tell me about how bullied you are.
If you're concern is that people are discriminated against or their rights are violated, I'll stand right next to you when it comes to advocating for the dignity of every human being. But that's a different topic. I'm discussing a philosophic ethic advocating extreme self-determinism and how it begins to contradict itself when it expects all subjective perspectives to be protected but also imposed. That's a logical and ethical problem that I'm objecting to. The pronouns thing is just a high level implementation of that underlying, very flawed, philosophy.
@@BrianHoldsworth If you call me "sir" and I correct you, I am not bullying you, I am correcting you. If I call you "mam" and after being corrected, insist on calling you "mam" because I insist you are female, I am the one at fault, not you for wanting to be called by the correct pronouns. That you refuse to accept that someone is the gender they tell you they are is not "extreme self determinism." It's just who they are.
@@GodlessGranny Because if I were to call someone ma'am, it would be because of external objective facts which communicate their sex, not their gender.
I didn't watch the last upload. It didn't apply to the subject matter of my doctoral program. This topic however, does, Mr. Holdsworth. Getting along is a challenge in any environment. Domestic Violence can occur anywhere. The important part is preventing the violence: silence sometimes is golden....
How might you respond to someone who might say “enforcing pronouns isn’t oppressive because gender non-conforming individuals have themselves been oppressed all throughout history, so this isn’t oppression but bringing about the right order of things, one could say it’s a sort of retribution, never mind if dissenters feel oppressed.” I do not endorse this view, I’m just trying to steel man their position.
They certainly have the right to describe themselves and others however they want, but they don't have the right to determine how other people describe the world around them. The only limits are if someone is actually telling people to go harass or hurt someone.
I don't use trans pronouns. Never have. Never will. The simple fact is you are a certain sex at birth and even though you go through surgery it still doesn't change the fact that at the cellular level you are still the sex you were born as.
There's a few issues with your reasoning: 1. Pronouns don't need to be based on sex, and often aren't. Rather, most people go by apparent sex. 2. Some people have indetermine sexual characteristics which can make it hard to cleanly categorize into a binary system. IE intersex people. Trans people also have mixed sex characteristics. Claiming one sex or the other would be wrong for various reasons if you're trying to draw clear lines. 3. Actually meeting real trans people IRL would reveal why your insistence on your view would *immediately* make things awkward. Imagine you meet a group of people who appear to be female. IE women. You chat with them, and then need to refer to one. What do you do? Do you go "excuse me, are you actually female?" or do you just *assume* the sex and say "she" or "her"? Most people do the latter. And in that case, you'd be referring to trans women (born male) as "she" despite your own claim of not doing this. It gets worse if you *know* that someone is trans, and then insist that one among the group of women must be referred to as "he" which would instantly cause conflict in the group. The reality is that your view is a disruptive one that would consistently cause problems in society. 4. Trans people don't deny our biological status. I'm well aware that some parts of my body are undeniably male. And some are undeniably female. That's just reality. That said, people are free to speak as they please and be wrong about things if they want to. But objective reality is what it is. Transsexualism is a real sex-based medical disorder, and trans people live comfortably as the opposite sex and blend in fine, regardless of what mistaken beliefs people may have.
@@Otome_chan311 If you are honest with yourself you will go with the sex you were born with. Now you may say you feel like a woman in a man's body, but you are really siding with the stereotypes of what a woman is. You will never have a period, give birth, and a multitude of other realities a woman goes through in her life. There have been many, many cases of the trans people getting surgeries and after it is done they truely regret going through with it to begin with. Of course, since the media is trying to push an agenda you never hear these stories. Ultimately, it's a head issue not a physical issue. If you are having thoughts I urge you to go see a psychologist and work through any issues you may be having.
@Jackson The fact that you don't even understand that trans people *don't* have gender dysphoria shows how little I'd consider your views on the topic. You aren't a doctor, and you clearly have no idea what transsexualism is. So I'd recommend *not* giving advice. The reality is that counseling or therapy cannot change one's sex. So such a treatment is entirely useless for transsexuals. As for language, I genuinely don't care what people use to refer to me, as long as they speak clearly, coherently, and don't cause problems. I blend in better with women, and as I noted, it'd be *very* disruptive to interrupt things and try to insist that I'm a man. There's problems with either categorization but jesus christ I'm just trying to live my life, not debate with strangers about "what I actually am". You declare I'm a man but then ignore my biology? Really?
@@Penfold8 I've never claimed to "feel like a woman in a man's body" nor have I ever claimed to have "a man's body". You've stated it's a "head issue and not a physical issue" but that's incorrect. I've had a hormone imbalance even prior to any medical treatment. The most accurate look is honestly the historical/biblical one. Transsexuals are a third social group, that's not like men, and not like women, but are more like women than men, despite having more male-like reproductive organs than female. It's a unique situation which we don't have good english terminology for. To declare that I'm a man is just as wrong as declaring that I'm a woman. But in the modern day, living as a woman is far more convenient and easier in terms of social cohesion, than attempting to live as a man.
@Jackson You're still confused. Transsexualism isn't about claiming to identify as the opposite sex. Despite the popular misconception. Many transsexuals recognize that we're not quite either male nor female but something else entirely. And yes, we don't have gender dysphoria at all, whatsoever. Gender dysphoria is a symptom of transvestism, not of transsexualism. Likewise, people who claim to be the opposite sex, often aren't even transsexual, but instead are doing it as a trend or fad, and often have transvestism-related disorders. Most people don't give a fuck about the actual science, and tends to ignore the actual reality of what's going on. Most people who are medically transitioning absolutely shouldn't. There's a ton of people regretting transitioning *due to* this mistreatment and misdiagnosis. Huge problem. If someone's claiming to actually *be* the opposite sex, then they're misguided. Transsexualism is about having inverted sexual behaviors and sexuality, and related instincts. Not about claiming to be something you aren't. So many people get that wrong. Saying that trans women are "men who identify as women" is wrong in both that we are not men, nor do we identify as women (though the latter may be true for some people). Instead it's more like "people who behave as women, but have some male reproductive organs". In many languages and cultures there's a separate term besides man or woman to apply to such people. Hijra, kathooey, otokonoko, etc. Even in the bible we were called "eunuchs" and Jesus said it's fine that we are separate from both men and women. In modern western society, we end up among women, since on a surface level glance that's what we're very similar to. But some people indeed just look at genitals and go "well if there's a dick that's a dude' even though that's a really naive and ignorant way of looking at things. You reject the reality of sexed biology in the brain, in preference of genitals. You reject hormone levels, body structure and build, behaviors, instincts, sexual attraction, etc. In reality when you meet an actual transsexual, you'd just think of us as women. It's only online, where you go with your misconceptions, that you declare us to be men. The actual reality is that neither label is quite adequate.
Yes, but as pope Benedict said: peace is above all a gift of God. Brian, would you have been as reasonable if you weren't inspired by God? So don't we need most of all to refind God rather than to reason? If reason is needed, it coms secondly, and rarily even christians are really wise in a lot of things. I believe less and less that reasoning will get us out of the problems for it coms with the Holy Spirit, unknown of most, even if that is not always the problem.
No, the Church affirms faith and reason as both legitimate forms of knowledge, but that reason is subordinate to faith. Faith is a higher knowledge and faith offers grace, which perfects our nature (which reason is a part of).
@@BrianHoldsworth That is not the point. If God doesn't inspire humain intellect, as in morals, it get's out of tune most certainly. Moreover one will not be helped in thinking. That one can find truth trough reasoning is evident, but you wouldn't have had Thomas of Aquinas as philosopher. To see the humain mind as not needing help from grâce, not neccessarily sanctifying, doesn't seem very realistic.
So then religion is also subjective truth and many religious people use their religious beliefs (again, their truth...not objective truth) as arguments for why things should be a certain way.
Gender and sex are two completely different matters. Gender identity is a matter concerning culture and language, not scientific validity. The biological make up of a person does not necessarily correlate with their social presentation and their social roles.
@@crosselsmith776 True. In my opinion, the only way to impose equality is totalitarian repressions. But even in this case one would fail, for it is natural for society to have different kinds of hierarchy
Thanks Brian ! Go for it I am praying 🙏 for you and yes the truth set is free , and anyone’s ideology of their personalized truth is just a lie and lies slaves us. ♥️ Glory to you Lord Jesuschrist!
With all due respect sir, I think you're full of balogna. As an ex-Jew/atheist, I like to watch your channel to get a different perspective on things, but I think you're wrong on this one. Folks on the right-wing often conflate sex and gender. Sex is the set of physical/objective characteristics about our bodies (like for me, XY chromosomes, my beard, and my male privates) that usually group together in men and women, but gender is the role we've created for those sexes to play, which comes down to culture. Nobody denies they have the chromosomes that they have, be it XY, XX, or an irregular variation of that like people with Klinefelter's Syndrome (XXY), but what trans people try to articulate is that the role they play in society and how that makes them perceived makes them feel uncomfortable. The existence of this psychological phenomenon is why third gender people like the hijra in India, the Waria in Indonesia, and the f'afafene in Samoa (I definitely spelled that wrong) have existed in a whole bunch of different pre-Abrahamic cultures. I agree that nobody should be forced to call anybody anything else, but just like we don't particularly like it if people call us the wrong name, everyone likes to be called what they like. If anyone wants a counterargument to what the presenter is saying, check out Abigail Thorn's video on social constructs. ruclips.net/video/koud7hgGyQ8/видео.html Thank you very much for reading all this and enjoy the rest of your day :)
Is external reality a neutral plain? I don't think it is. All facts are interpreted facts. There is no neutrality. The question is which interpretation is correct? I would say the Christian one. The scriptural one.
@@tayh.6235 Who said nothing existed? I said what exists isn't neutral. God created the world with meaning and purpose. His interpretation of that is correct.
Jesus must be so gratified to see that we, Catholics--the meek, the merciful the peacemakers, the yadda, yadda, yadda--have so successfully fed the hungry, hydrated the thirsty, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, yadda, yadda, yadda, that we have time now to focus on the important things like policing pronouns and fighting for our right not to extend what mostly seems to be a courtesy to a tiny minority of the human population. It's sad to see that, after 2000 years, we have never found a way to balance the Beatitudes and the Apocalypse. Not that anyone seems to have been trying very hard.
@@marklizama5560 Oh, yes! They are quite good, life -changing, even. If you're interested, they can be found here: Matt.5:3-12. Since i was only using the term synecdochically for the whole Sermon on the Mount (parallelism is a cruel mistress), I highly recommend that you read on (Matt. 5: 13-7: 27). You might also want to check out these other gems: Matt. 16: 24-7, 19:16-22, 20: 22-37, 22: 16-21, 25: 34-46; Luke 10: 25-37; John 8: 1-11. While I wouldn't want to presume to know for certain, the overall message seemsto be that treating others with basic human dignity and consideration trumps the Law (of Grammar), that some acts of kindness and respect (like using Ms or wearing a mask) require us to accept some inconvenience and go out of our way a little or a lot--you know, sacrifice--and that, in ln light of the cross, to call using a transgendered person's preferred pronoun "persecution" is kind of petty and embarrassing and ultimately quite cruel. Besides, when you think about it, wasn't Christ crucified for wanting to be called He instead of he?
@@fgnnc7747 Alright then, I’ll address the passages you’ve referred to first and what you have asserted; and then address the Beatitudes as there’s more to them than meets the eye, the Traditional Catholic moral teaching is that you should strive to master the Ten Commandments first, and then aim for the Beatitudes, not that you shouldn’t strive to live by the Beatitudes as you strive against sin. In St. Matthew 5:13-7, Our Lord calls us “the salt of the earth,” as well as “a city on a hill,” and a light that shouldn’t be hidden under a bushel. Salt, in those times was very important, it was what preserved food back than. The Romans relied on salt to preserved the food supplies of their armies needed as they marched throughout the frontiers of their empire. When Our Lord calls us “salt of the earth,” He’s saying that we’re that which empires, kingdoms, and nation states are dependent on for their survival and wellbeing; our moral and saintly conduct, our living the Gospel is what upholds, improves and optimizes civilization. Same thing with being a City on a Hill, and a light that shouldn’t be hidden under a bushel; the light refers to our moral conduct, a lamp or candle doesn’t make an effort to shine, it shines by its very nature, so too with us, we don’t try to show-off our good works like the scribes and Pharisees, nor do we shy-away from acting virtuous in situations where it may be frowned upon but rather, we live the lives God calls us to live, without concern about the views of others, that’s not hiding our light under a bushel. Now by living the life of virtue, we show ourselves to be the City of God, “a city upon a hill.” By showing ourselves as the City of God, we attract others to the Faith, by presenting that good life, but the reason why that life attracts people is because it appeals to our human nature, God made us with a specific nature that we have to live by in order to be happy and fulfilled; since the fall, recognizing that nature has been very heard for us to do, let alone live by it, but with Our Lord coming and establishing His Church, that nature can now easily be shown, and Our Lord’s grace enables us to strive to live by it and go even further. That is the light of the city upon the hill and you too can see it if you look closely for it. (Especially among the Lives of the Saints) Sorry I’ve run-out of time here, I’ll have to come back later to address your other passages and arguments, for now I need to go; also I’m sorry I couldn’t understand what you meant when you referred to 27 when you said, “(Matt. 5: 13-7: *27*) maybe it was a typo or something? I’ll be back later.
@@marklizama5560 Oh my. I see what has happened. At first, I was puzzled about the laser-focus on and elaborate exegesis of Matt. 5: 13-7, since it seemed that, of all the passages mentioned, it was relatively beside the point we were discussing, and therefore, the beginning of multi-volume commentary. But, it turns out that it was I at fault--my typo does indeed suggest that that passage required that much attention. What I had meant to indicate was the entire Sermon on the Mount. that is, The Beatitudes plus Matt. 5:13 through Matt. 7: 27. (It seems that both my eyes and my monitor are losing their salinity together.) However, judging by your good faith-in more ways than one--and lengthy response and by your apparent identification as a Traditionalist, I thought it might be worthwhile--for me at least--just to go ahead and explain the background of my original point but without the rhetorical choreography. I have been apostate since I was 12, but, as it is with Catholics, I never strayed far from the Church--the crucifix tends to be tattooed on the inside of the eyelids. Fifty years later, I decided to dip my toe into the (holy) water again, but what I found was, as they say, a hot mess, a house divided between following Jesus and worshipping Christ. One side seems to believe that hell should be empty; the other seems to hope that it is full to capacity (waiting in line for SRO in hell--how truly infernal!) I have been to a church that has removed its kneelers in the pews in the name, I guess,, of community and dignity, and some others that treat Earth Day as a holy day of obligation. At the same time, I've watched far too may RUclips channels that mock social justice outright and treat love and mercy as heresies that can only be suppressed via the Latin Mass and Communion on the tongue. (Before I wrote my original message, I glanced through Mr. Holdsworth's videos, for instance, and there seems to be exacly none on the topic of a single Corporal Work of Mercy). And the whole notion of pronominal persecution seems, as noted, pathetic and mean-spirited, as if the miniscule number of transgender people weren't persecuted enough--insulted, abused, beaten, killed--on a daily basis. Natural law or no, no one deserves that, and it really doesn't seem as if the Church needs to join in on the side of the persecutors. I guess it boils down to a question or two: What the hell happened to the Church while I was away? How did it revolve into two opposed political camps (quite literally during the last election) each espousing one half of the Gospel message, and not realizing that it needs to be whole to live? (No wonder the kids are running away from home, their parents do nothing but fight.) Granted, I confess that I am left-leaning, but not so far that I don't understand that form and content are meaningless apart from or at odds with one another. (Besides, I like kneeling! It makes it a little harder to overlook the beam in my own eye.) So. I would be most grateful for some insight. Thank you
@@fgnnc7747 I see, sorry it took me so long to respond. I am interested in having a discussion like this, and am disturbed by some of the things that people are saying on both sides; so if you’re for it please let me know and we’ll see where we can start; my on calling actually revolves a lot around trusting in God and thus, I do have a devotion to Divine Mercy, and other devotions and practices that emphasize mercy.
There were points in this video that made sense. Like the PhD example. I generally agree with that element. But mostly the video seemed like the author's opinion, emotionally disconnected from the human family and stated as fact. I didn't hear any words of validation and empathy for the "other" side and I found that deflating. Not at all unusual and it's been the battle cry of marginalized groups for a long time, and yet here we are. I expect it from many...indeed we are called to speak the truth. But speak the truth In LOVE. We are commanded to *love one another*. I didn't get that sense at all from the video. I mostly got the impression that the author didn't even consider putting himself in the "other's" shoes. And *that* ...white men in the role of power, articulating their opinions as fact, feels really awful to many and I venture to think that a lot of what is going on is a result of the lack in that area. 🤷♀️
That's not the logical conclusion, just the nihilistic one. I hold that neither atheism or God's existence can be empirically proven, but rather we choose a system: the objective system of truth and stability, or the subjective one of chaos.
Hey I've only watched two of your videos so perhaps this comment is slightly premature. You seem to be I'm favor of objective shared experience and the process of logical reasoning only up until we arrive at religion. In another video the message comes across loud and clear that the atheists are missing the mark because they're sticklers for reason. Let me know where/if you think I'm off. Cheers.
I don't think atheists are sticklers for reason at all. I think they narrow the scope of reason to a fundamentalist degree by insisting that only empirical facts can be known by reason. I think reason can access far more than that.
@@BrianHoldsworth As on previous occasions, what I hear in this video is surface-level, self-referential, un-nuanced thinking combined, I am sorry to say, with a lack of irony that astonishes me. There is so much I could say. Fortunately, I do not need to as Godless Granny has done a gentle, in-depth and thoughtful response to which I hope you will listen carefully. She is a kind and reasonable person and it would do you good to engage with her, in my humble opinion. I am interested in this, however: "[atheists insist] that only empirical facts can be know by reason. I think reason can access far more than that." - What do you think can be accessed by reason that does not itself have to be founded on fact in order to be held as true or convincing? I think you will find that the answer is "imagination" or "invention". At least, that is what I come up with when I try to answer the question. I would be most interested in understanding what YOU are getting at and how you DEMONSTRATE the dependability of the outcomes of your non-empirical reasoning. EDIT: On further exploration of this comment section, I see that GG has already been in touch with you.
I would have respect for trad caths if they actually lived ascetic and private religious lives, thus leaving the rest of us alone, but instead they are on youtube and social media with crusader avis and claymores in the background
I didn't get the vaccine, but I identify as someone who did get vaccinated, so you're discriminating against me if you don't allow me into vaccinated-only spaces
Hi. I'm trans. Gender Identity objectively does not exist. Most people are objectively incorrect about trans people and transsexualism. Many people are *incorrectly* applying science, terminology, etc. and *appropriate* studies, history, etc. But in the same breath, *language* is subjective. As a result, pronouns are subjective. Trying to say there's an objective way of using language is just wrong and silly. So to *demand* a label, or a pronoun, or whatever, ends up being pointless. If they're forced to use it, then they aren't using it to mean what you want, but rather because they're required to use that phrasing. Transsexualism exists, biologically. Gender identity is pseudoscience. Most people claiming to be transsexual are actually transvestites. Anyone who's well read on the history and literature could tell you this, but no one actually cares about the science. They care about pushing agendas: whether that be pro-gender identity, or conservatives against transsexuals. While language and categorization will always be tricky with trans people, most of the obvious questions are resolved as soon as you look at the actual science. Kinda frustrating that so many people don't.
I’ve been trying to understand what you mean here, perhaps you could help me. If I may rephrase, are you saying, in short, that male and female identities are unprovable, language is subjective, and that, biologically, transsexualism exists? If I may touch on just one of those - language as a merely subjective reality - I have to ask, how do you navigate the reality of communication? Two people speaking the same language can only share ideas if their vocabulary is consistent between the two of them - in other words, at least within their conversation, there has to be a certain objective standard they both agree to in order even to disagree with each other. This is why establishing terms is essential in any debate. I thought Brian’s point about how language can be tyrannical was very interesting. What would your take be on that specifically? Can there be any hope of achieving equal ground in a conversation? Or otherwise - whose subjective reality deserves to be dominant? And is a reality where one subjective claim dominates another reality a welcome thought? And most relevantly, when it comes down to it - in what ways would you say is a claim about gender different from a claim about a title (as with his example of being called a Doctor)?
Here, I'll give you a better argument that people actually knowledgeable on the topic actually make: gender and sex are two different things. Sex, a person's biological nature, is something no one is questioning. Gender is a social construct. Because it is a social construct, we can change it, just like I can change my name from Fred to Mike. The great thing is that you don't need to worry about this too much. All you really need to do is to keep on talking with people the same way you do. Smile, say hello, and love others the way Jesus loved us and if what you call this person is not what they want, they'll correct you. No "personal" truth. No feelings. Just the name of of the person you're talking to.
I will not participate in this new insanity of calling people CIS, or them/ they, or whatever their delusion is. I am done and we need to stop participating in this social delusion we are not helping anyone.
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
Very logically put! The only problem is: how can we communicate with post modernist thinkers if they deny the importance of logic?
At some point you just dont. The true radicals are a very small portion of society (thankfully). Most of the people who follow along with their philosophy are doing so out of fear, indifference or lies. It is these people we need to convince to turn away from post modernism and moral relativism. Ive found if you show them their logical fallacies, and how their wokeness leads to tyranny, you can get them rethinking the philosophy.
Strength and power
You can't communicate with post modernists if you get all your knowledge about them from Jordan Peterson
If you dialogue long enough, you'll find that the subjectivists will use logic to prove their position. They can't help it because that is the way God has made the universe.
Criticisms against nominalism may be a good place to start. Somewhere in the ballpark at least. Essentially prove categories are real.
We have now cut the branch off that we are sitting on . We now think that if you don’t agree with me you don’t love me universities was a place where you could debate with opposing views that’s not the case anymore , most universities now cancel anyone that don’t agree
Education has fallen into disarray in past and present decades in my opinion
Yep. However if we’re sending our kids to public schools it’s our own fault. A plan for home schooling and a 529 plan from day one was as essential as our baby’s first doctor’s appointment after leaving the hospital.
When I took a political test, I scored Democrat on all issues but the one I came the closest to Republican on was education... this is likely a combination of the fact that I went to Catholic school and saw public school as basically juvey that you could leave every day, and where I live this is pretty accurate. However, some public schools, like near Chicago, apparently do as good a job or perhaps a better job at education than my private schools in, so it's a mixed bag. For the most part, though, I think almost all public schools in America are likely very, very dangerous and inadequate. This is perhaps because no size fits all; a national education system may not be the best option, it probably only was in like the 1900s and this was only because it was the first ever education given nationally; something is better than nothing. Times have changed, education sucks.
Brian, I absolutely love the way you walk your way through the logic. Thank you.
He has a gift
"Personal truth" is an oxymoron
Not really, as Truth _is_ a Person. All truth is personal, but it flows from the objective Trascendent Reality that is our Triune God.
@@gambinalvarezjesusdavid3454 What he means is people think they have their own different truth but there is only one truth.
Thank you so very much, Brian, for your clarity of thought and charity of expression. The tyranny of the individual insisting that a lie be adopted as the truth is wielded mercilessly. You brilliantly summed up the heart of the issue. Thank you!
Imagine the difficulty of conversing with someone in a supposed "rational dialogue" but the other person has grounded their truth's from their surrounded peers stating "Your voice matters, your feelings are valid" to the point of developed ruling that feelings are prioritized over what has been tried and is true.
The younger generation is influencing the masses towards being so emotional and underdeveloped in the virtue of fortitude.
Really ? People shouldn’t have to deal with those who want to act like assholes just because. The issue is that people who have been asshats forever and upset when people say “Actually I don’t need to be attacked and berated because of so and so.”
To put it simply. Don’t be a dick.
@@omnipotentlenny unfortunately we live in a fallen world.
@@jacobitewiseman3696 Yea, people put their religion before human decency.
@@omnipotentlenny decency like not using 💩 for art or emphasizing on deviancy
Thank you for reminding me that I’m one of the sane people who still believes in objective truth. This was not always the case. 🙈
When I was in the military they changed my identity. I went from.being me to being "Hey You!"
LOL!
You legend!
Very good argument, Brian. Thanks for sharing this.
It is undoubtable how dangerous subjective thought and action is.
Why live if everything you live for isn't objectively true and is all about opinions and preferences instead of what is really true.
Be careful not to fall off the other side of the road into determinism or a cold rationalism. Look up critical realism. Unfettered subjective thought is what is dangerous really.
One of the reasons that I am moving out of teaching in a school environment is because I feel under pressure to tiptoe around the truth. Part of me wants to stay and uphold the standard flag of truth in this battle for the minds of our youngsters, but at 55 I am not the one to do it. I am worn out. God forgive me.
@Brian Farley Thank you for your advice. I'm actually in England.
My mother is battling the same thing. It is not easy for her and I know it is taking a toll on her soul. She made the huge leap and decision that she could no longer work for such an evil entity that lies to children in this way. She is your age as well and leaving what she considers to be her calling, has nothing lined up for after at the moment but cannot stand being part of this any longer. This is a battle we are losing, as it doesn't begin and end with the education system but with despondent and negligent parents and our own society encouraging this behavior. Obviously this isn't all parents and kids, but it is a vast majority. I pray for all of the educators and our next generation. Only God can help us.
How are you 55 and can’t just call people what they want to be called. Old people are hiding behind religious values and the Flag ? When in fact it’s plan old homophobia and transphobia. Sex and Gender are two different things.
Have you even done research into why people feel this way and why my gen is saying “No people just deserve respect so we respect them and that’s it.” Is it really difficult to call someone by their name or a pronoun.
GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE! The world doesn’t revolve around your religion!!! Young people aren’t saying biological sex doesn’t matter, only pointing out the fact that gender is different.
100% agree with your reasoning and explanation. Thank you for sharing.
We are dealing with this personally in our family. My brother’s 14 year old daughter is now their “son” and I have become the bigot in the family, because I refuse to play the game. The problem is, the rules of the game are constantly changing. She has changed her name twice in a year’s time! I choose to opt-out and if I am not allowed to opt-out, then it is just as you describe - tyranny.
Same in my family. And I do not play that game. Even if I am the only one left not using pronouns and made up names. If they can’t be around my, I understand. But we have to stand firm in rational traditional world, and not be bullied into changing our beliefs, conforming to someone’s delusion, or contributing to someone’s dysphoria and mental illness. Sad situation and certainly easier said than done.
She will grow a beard and become a 'catholic influencer' maybe.
@@HAYAOLEONE Nice. But, highly doubtful.
@@Shua01 Why? It happened 'a lot' and it is happening 'a lot'..
@@HAYAOLEONE Name them.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" -- One of the guys from Mythbusters
Funny, back then he was making a joke; nowadays so many do just that completely seriously...
Sad but true. Thank you for this video.
Blessing from Poland 😊
"Than my truth is no one have their own truth." or "I don't believe in subjective truths"
To assert "Reality and truth are completely subjective" is a self-contradictory and self-refuting statement because once you assert it all I have to do is assume the premise (for the sake of argument) and then assert it back and say, "Reality and truth may be completely subjective to YOU but it isn't for ME. To ME reality and truth are objective" . If the person rejects my statement then they are rejecting the very premise upon which their statement about reality and truth is based.
What is crazy is that many of my fellow scientists agree with this subjective mindset. It completely undermines the philosophy underpinning the scientific method.
Everything's getting infected with it.
@Belén Ayelén Marlén Maulén it ain't just the humanities that are infected with it anymore.
They are not scientists if they agree with subjective shits. Science is purely objective and if anyone disagree with that he is a moron.
I don’t think anyone is arguing whether or not biological men/women are in fact that. But whether gender corresponds with sex.
But ultimately, who am I to say what someone else should feel comfortable being called ? Not a hair off my ass for calling a person by their respected pronoun.
You are absolutely correct. The problem I have encountered is that those who espouse profound relativism simply refuse to listen to, much less provide a refutation to common sense facts. As our recently installed president said during the campaign that wasn’t: “We’re not gonna allow the facts to stand in the way of truth.” Such is the thought pattern.
Subjective truth is a fancy way of saying "chaos".
This is excellently stated. Thank you. I hope millions see and understand. Facts are real. Feelings are illusions and always lead to the wrong path.
How do we bridge this divide? It seems impossible to stop people talking past each other. Modernists literally want to change the very way we define what a man and woman are objectively. When we respond saying we believe DNA is what matters, they're already off in a completely different dimension basically saying it's all down to personal choices and personality traits.
Look up intersex people if you want to talk about DNA. We're not just male and female.
What a brilliant mind!
What got us here is the legalization of same sex marriage in America. After that happened, the focus went to the T of the LGBT.
LGBT people biologically exist. Anyone denying that is simply denying objective reality. The question then becomes: how do we handle these topics in society?
@@Otome_chan311 how is sexual orientation biological? As far as I know that has yet to be proven.
Didn’t Cardinal Ratzinger warn about this? He called it the dictatorship of relativism.
So well articulated Brian. Thank you .
You are 100% right! Good video!!!
You are correct.
"... the facts don't matter, what matters is their personal truth and their lived experience". and I keep hearing these phrases over and over again people say things like "this is my lived experience" or "this is my truth" and what I think they mean by that their own subjective perspective is more important than objective facts.
"and this is the problem with insisting that your truth or your lived experience is what matters most because what happens when your lived experience doesn't corroborate with someone else's lived experience how do you find ways to get along and function as a society?"
A very good question. Perhaps if we all realized this problem, one thing we could do is to not try to impose our lived experience or personal truth on others. I assume, then, that what you say in argument here about such things as agreed upon facts will not be based on your own lived experience and personal truth (i.e. your faith).
"This is why objective reality objective truth something that is external to all of us is so desperately necessary if we are going to function as a society"
One way of looking at it, I suppose. But how do we determine what qualifies as objective reality and objective truth? You say "what we do share is what is external to everyone which are the logically perceived facts and conclusions about what is true.
Your doctor or philosophy is a poor analogy here. Having (or not having) a doctoral degree is an external fact about a person. Conversely, gender identity is with respect to a person's perception of who they actually are, surely this is internal to the person.
I have never met anyone who I felt was oppressing me by forcing me to use the pronouns of their preference. They might, if the felt comfortable in doing so, mention their situation and their preferred pronouns. Being polite, I would try to remember to address them in the way they prefer to be addressed. Others might be less likely to do that, perhaps because "their reality" is that people are male or female. This should not, however, result in a conflict, and neither side need be educated by the other.
So gender is grounded in "neutral objective facts", which is our biology and our sex which any reasonable person can perceive and assess. Interesting concept. I have seen a number of people and guessed their sex incorrectly from their outward appearance - and I'm not only talking about female impersonators. So, yeah, as you say, subjective perception is an extremely unreliable way to arrive at the truth. Certainly true when it is the truth about another person, but not so when it is about oneself.
I forgot to mention that there are people who have both male and female sex organs. Where do they fit into our society?
P
Excellent
@Brian Holdsworth - This video on The Tyranny of Pronouns has been very thought provoking, thank you.
As you spoke it got me thinking about standing on a beach near the waters edge, when the sky is blue and the sun is shining. Say, you and I were standing there next to each other, both facing the sea. From my perspective, a "single ray" of sunshine (for lack of a better term) would be cast across the water directly towards me, I would not observe the ray go in another direction. However, from your perspective, the sun would cast a long single ray across the water towards you, and you would not see it go in any other direction. Standing beside each other, we would have a ray coming towards us but we would not be able to bare witness or observe each others ray. There could be a hundred people standing at the waters edge and each of us would see just a single ray. At this point, we would all just have to accept that from our own subjective perspective the sun travels across the water and appears to shine on us and us alone. We would also have to acknowledging the objective truth that the sun shines on each of us simultaneously.
While I'm here, I wonder if there is a name for this phenomenon? It never fails to amaze me.
BRILLIANT!!!!!!
“Assertion of power” will resolve with conflict.
People who have been too accommodating to this madness for over a decade: “your terms are acceptable.”
But what’s the issue with wanting to be called by a certain pronoun when sex and gender are two DIFFERENT THINGS ?
It’s VERY easy to call someone by their name or pronoun. If you’re transphobic just say that instead of claiming people shouldn’t be called what they want. I promise if the entire world called you a women/her/she or whatever is the opposite of what you identify as. YOU’D be upset with it
@@omnipotentlenny "Transphobic" implies fear. I am not afraid of someone who is cognitively confused and, for all medically defined purposes, suffering from a form of depression. I will not lie to a man who thinks he is a woman and call him a woman. He is a man.
@@augustvonmacksen2526 Sex and gender identity are two different things. You can have a dick and still identify as a woman. Transphobic also implies baseless hatred.
If our self perception is always correct, then what is therapy for?
Excellent video!
Great job addressing this tyranny! God bless
A difficult topic to navigate and you do so with clarity and calm - thank you. Things don't fit neatly together when diverse views meet but we need to find a way to engage more respectfully - even if this means agreement to differ.
While I see what you mean, there is a point where it is not a virtue anymore to "get along." When somebody claims that 2 + 2 = 5 (because that's his/her "personal reality"), there is no room for "respectful disagreement." And that is unfortunately the point that we have reached with a particular group of radical leftist ideologists.
Bravo!
Hi, Brian! Liked the way @ the beginning of the video you speculated on the guy who pretends to have a PhD and insists on being addressed as "Dr." I've sometimes joked how seriously would I be taken if I began to insist: "From now on, I'm to be addressed as Your Imperial Highness." After all, I IDENTIFY as being a member of royalty!
"I think" I'm glad you said this. It speaks to continued learning as opposed to "I know" speaking of certainty.
There is the possibility of something missed in this particular talk (video).
Counter culture once was christianity. Why? How is this answer applicable in this topic?
What is the root of the reason we have honorifics?
Why would someone feel the need to be referred to in this way?
A discussion that includes these questions might offer a window of insight not mentioned in this talk.
Thank you very much
At first I was worried, oh boy, here we go, can’t use proper pronouns. Glad I watched.
We, as a civil society, MUST have a system of norms. If everyone is allowed to define for themselves what right vs wrong is, that he or she has the sole authority to insist they be treated based on their own version of reality based on their personal existence, imagine if EVERYone were allowed to do that. Pure chaos.
Imagine calling people the pronouns they want to be called, like the world wouldn’t shatter into a billion pieces. Couldn’t be me
@@omnipotentlenny I have no issue, out of respect, calling someone whatever they want. The problem becomes when they INSIST on it or otherwise it’s a hate crime or claim it’s an act of violence. In other words, we can all “request” it. Doesn’t mean I have to do it.
@@gvndual84 idk about making it a crime, that’s crazy. ( Send me the link that shows people who want that ) But no one is insisting trans people are the bio equivalent of the sex. But they want to be called a pronoun that fits their specific gender identity.
@@omnipotentlenny ruclips.net/video/WtftZPL-k7Y/видео.html. She calls using the undesired pronoun an act of violence, and the follow-up to this, the second in the transgender series, also has individuals calling to criminalize it.
So again, we live under the 1st Amendment. You can “request” to be called whatever you want. Doesn’t mean I have to it since I have the same 1st amendment protection to call you whatever I want.
@@gvndual84 I agree.
Your in the right side of this!
Thank you for tackling the hard questions.
True bravery, thank you.
( hard because now controversial, and cancel culture.)
Thank you.
Pronouns are units of grammar taught in 1st grade
Exactly.
So tired of the 'critics' validating bastardized language..
Well spoken message.
Even though I'm Christian, I think I would call someone by their pronouns (but I won't say words that don't exist though). Not bc I believe them but bc it won't bother me as much as it would them if their subjective reality is broken. And I wouldn't like to waste time arguing if I got it "wrong".
I know it sounds like agreeing with a child just so you don't have to hear them throwing a fit, but they should know that that's the logical result of all this. You can force people to say certain words but you can't force them to believe it.
So you're saying, as a Christian, you would lend your voice to ideas you believe to be untrue (ie. bear false witness)?
@@BrianHoldsworth YOU ANSWERED ME WHAAAAT 🤣🤣🤣
Well I haven't thought of that. I just see things regarding their practicality. A transgender person won't listen to me if I explain why I'm misgendering them & I believe there are better situations where you can try to open their minds instead of "I'm actually a she." "Oh. I don't believe you, so I won't call you that ever." and then a scandal happens. It's a fruitless, unnecessary conversation.
I don't think any bearing of false witness occurs when I give someone an incorrect pronoun according to their biology since whatever happens, those who believe in transgenderism will continue believing in it, and those who don't, won't. No one's mind changes because of pronouns. I guess that's my whole point.. the only ones these people are fooling are themselves.
I like how you were more eye level at the very start lol
I'm glad you mention that freedom of speech is downstream from though; many act as though they too wield the creative power of God and imagine that what they say is true merely because it is said.
The whole "personal pronoun" nonsense is, and has, taken over Education. Home school your kids, folks.
@@williamrizzardi2157 The thing is, though, having multiple personality disorder doesn't actually make you multiple people. It means you have multiple stable personality states, almost always (90% of cases) arising as a defence mechanism against physical and/or sexual abuse during childhood. They have different personas, but these aren't different people any more than the public "face" you put on to the outside world is literally a different person. The fact that memories are often segregated off between personas can give that impression, but a person is not just a set of character traits and memories.
@Belén Ayelén Marlén Maulén Indeed. Every human being is either male or female, though in a few hard cases it can be difficult to know which one without combing down to the genetic level.
I used to be a teacher. If I were employed as a teacher today with this pronoun tyranny, I would have to quit or be fired, because I simply will not cooperate with a forced fake reality (i.e. lies). I will only ever use pronouns to refer to a person's biological sex (excepting individuals who have Turner's or Klinfelter's Syndrome).
Just argue like this. To them, Diversity equals strength, right. Diverse is random soup differences, right. So, in the case of an objective goal, the opposite would be focused objectivism. Then show them the Jamaican 400m team winning Gold and ask if they would get better with diversifying. If not that team is rhcist
Thank you, Brian! Need more voices like yours!
The opinion of the atheist Sam Harris is that "Society cannot impose a Positive Injunction, like 'people should pick-up all the trash they see'. Only a Negative Injunction is logical - 'do not litter'." So a law on "pronouns" is actually oppressive and even foolish, as aptly highlighted by Brian's ananlogy on having a PhD.
Very well articulated! Good job!
You're in Canada, no? Up there, they're more fascist about pronouns than we are here in the U.S., and that's saying a lot.
What ie fascism? Can you elaborate please?
@@klungkity Sure. Just look up "Canadian laws on preferred pronouns".
@@jimpeschke3435 they law didnt pass no? We arent legally penalizing people for not using the preferred pronouns, unless im misinformed
@@klungkity Actually, I don't think the matter has been settled. But frankly, that a national government would even consider this is bad enough.
@@jimpeschke3435 googling with your suggestion took me to this page from the CBC:
www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
As I read it, the bill deals principally with enshrining "the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians". This suggests that people in those groups have been subject to discrimination on the basis of being in that group. It is not hard to imagine that being the case based on comments one reads on social media, including the current discussion.
More discussion on how gender pronoun use is seen by the law and the Ontario Human Rights Commission:
www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns
Ot seems fairly clear to me that pronoun misuse needs to be accompanied by other aggravating factors before prosecution will take place.
You're an amazing man......a deep thinker......I very much enjoy your observations.
Post modern subjectivism? You think it didn't exist before? LOL. The thing about the age we're living in, for better and worse, is that the subjective observations of the past are being uncovered from their pretence at being 'objective'. A classic case is captured by the adage that history is 'written by the victors'. This is widely attributed to that icon of the post-modern world, Winston Churchill. He may or may not have been the source of it, but clearly there was then, as there is now, a caution about treating history as 'objective'.
I think your point about 'power' being a substitute for analysing and sharing common truths is a good one. Unfortunately that notion, as good as it is, doesn't help when we come to discussing religion. To be religious is to be motivated by both the subjective and the objective. Even then the 'objective' is problematic in religion. No matter how we try to be objective about religion, it's not 'provable', it's not 'logical', it's not 'demonstrable' and it's not 'rational'. We can't grasp it in the same way as other shared objective truths.
I don't think the 'Dr Holdsworth' analogy is that helpful. Having agreed-upon qualifications is very reliable.
When you get to gender your benchmark is 'any reasonable person'. A member of our congregation -- a group of very reasonable people -- has 'transitioned' from male to female. He was and she is a 'very reasonable person'. Unlike a doctor of philosophy, a 'very reasonable person' is not shared or objective. Many, perhaps, most 'reasonable people' would not have experience of a person who has some form of gender dysphoria, so how can they make a 'reasonable' judgement?
My subjective response to this person ranges from disgust, disdain and confusion all the way to acceptance and admiration. When I step back a little and try to be objective, I can see this is not a whim. This person has been, and continues to be, through hell and back and now that he has transitioned into a she, I can see a person who is now on a path to relative happiness and self acceptance.
So who are the 'victors' that tell the story of gender? IMO, they are the ones who are comfortable with their own gender and have very little experience of people who are not.
Beyond that, we live in a world where realities we may have taken for granted are now up for negotiation and that the 'tyranny of reasonable people' is every bit as problematic as the 'tyranny of pronouns'.
The point, as you have said, is that this must be a negotion of logic and reason and equality so that we do avoid the more frightening 'logic' of power.
Someone took the Artaudpill and ran with it.
Is the same true for a politician or any person who believes themselves a Catholic but who does not live according to Catholic doctrine.
So in the rare case of an intersex (hermaphrodite) individual what do we do? If we look towards objective truth then that individual doesn't fit the Male/Female. I know this is a rare case but it does demonstrate a challenge to the argument of objective truth with regards to pronouns. I guess what I hope for is mixture of both objective and subjective. I've had the honor of encountering people of other cultures who don't use pronouns in their languages. I know that is a different society then you and I appear to live in but in their society what is objective is different from ours. I guess I find the hard stance of objective/subjective challenging because I'm not sure it can withstand different languages/cultures. And in an ever increasing global society that poses challenges. That said I really appreciated how you said we need to have honest conversations. I think honesty and vulnerability will help us understand each other better. Thanks for taking on challenging topics. I hope my struggles with this topic are helpful to others. I really am just trying to come from a place of compassion and understanding. Thank you.
Love the intro music
While I agree with your conclusion, I feel like you do simplify the matter a bit. You are correct to affirm that some thinkers who propose individual truth are idealists, but not exclusively so. It is possible to affirm that people have objective genders which do not correlate to their biological sex. As such, the argument would follow that this claim is objectively true, even if it cannot be clearly demonstrated as such.
For example, I like Chex Mix. My subjective experience is objectively true, even if it would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to demonstrate it outside just my statement of it. It would be false to say that I do not like Chex Mix. What is the best way to learn this truth about me? Simply by asking me and believing me when I tell you. Of course, this method is not full-proof (I could lie, misunderstand you, or be confused about how I actually feel about Chex Mix), but it is arguably the best we can do.
Again, I disagree with this sentiment because I disagree with the main premise (that gender and sex can be separated). However, your argument focuses primarily on rebutting subjective experience. If this main premise was true, then your argument would be problematic.
Why do you have a problem separating sex and gender? Seems really easy to me.
@@soulfuzz368 Fair question. There is a lot of room to interpret your comment. First, we must be clear about what we mean when we say gender and sex. If we simply say that gender includes all of the attributes which fall under one particular sex (even if they do overlap), then there is no way that they could be separated. However, I imagine that most people would disagree with this definition for some sort of substance identity. As such, gender is a substance identity that appears to follow one sex in particular (whether or not it actually does is a different question). If you disagree with this definition, then you would need to supply one that does allow for gender to be related to sex in some way, otherwise, the male/female distinction is just equivocation when referring to gender. However, if you take this definition (or something like it) I would argue that the burden of proof rests on demonstrating that sex and gender do not share a relationship that is necessarily corollary (or causal) since it is built into the definition that they often correlate. I can't think of such a reason. Perhaps I am mistaken, though, and my definition is off or there is a good reason to separate these two ideas. Any thoughts?
@@cw6544 this is the official governmental definitions where I live.
cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html
well said
When you call for an ambulance and the driver looks at you and decides he doesn’t want to treat you because you don’t conform to his perception of who you ought to be, and drives off and leaves you to die, then come back and tell me about how bullied you are.
If you're concern is that people are discriminated against or their rights are violated, I'll stand right next to you when it comes to advocating for the dignity of every human being. But that's a different topic. I'm discussing a philosophic ethic advocating extreme self-determinism and how it begins to contradict itself when it expects all subjective perspectives to be protected but also imposed. That's a logical and ethical problem that I'm objecting to. The pronouns thing is just a high level implementation of that underlying, very flawed, philosophy.
@@BrianHoldsworth If you call me "sir" and I correct you, I am not bullying you, I am correcting you. If I call you "mam" and after being corrected, insist on calling you "mam" because I insist you are female, I am the one at fault, not you for wanting to be called by the correct pronouns. That you refuse to accept that someone is the gender they tell you they are is not "extreme self determinism." It's just who they are.
@@GodlessGranny Define gender and tell me why I should believe it exists.
@@GodlessGranny Because if I were to call someone ma'am, it would be because of external objective facts which communicate their sex, not their gender.
@@GodlessGranny Still waiting on that definition.
I didn't watch the last upload. It didn't apply to the subject matter of my doctoral program. This topic however, does, Mr. Holdsworth. Getting along is a challenge in any environment. Domestic Violence can occur anywhere. The important part is preventing the violence: silence sometimes is golden....
What are you talking about?
Very well put! Thank You!
How might you respond to someone who might say “enforcing pronouns isn’t oppressive because gender non-conforming individuals have themselves been oppressed all throughout history, so this isn’t oppression but bringing about the right order of things, one could say it’s a sort of retribution, never mind if dissenters feel oppressed.”
I do not endorse this view, I’m just trying to steel man their position.
They certainly have the right to describe themselves and others however they want, but they don't have the right to determine how other people describe the world around them.
The only limits are if someone is actually telling people to go harass or hurt someone.
Good analogy, Dr Holdsworth!
What a great video! :o
Protestants are the Champions of subjectivism...:)
Sadly, it seems to be true. They have also been the most liberal too.
Yeah my dad claims to be christain but, he is a libertarian. Um the bible condemns that when god punishes a whole people in the old testament.
I don't use trans pronouns. Never have. Never will. The simple fact is you are a certain sex at birth and even though you go through surgery it still doesn't change the fact that at the cellular level you are still the sex you were born as.
There's a few issues with your reasoning:
1. Pronouns don't need to be based on sex, and often aren't. Rather, most people go by apparent sex.
2. Some people have indetermine sexual characteristics which can make it hard to cleanly categorize into a binary system. IE intersex people. Trans people also have mixed sex characteristics. Claiming one sex or the other would be wrong for various reasons if you're trying to draw clear lines.
3. Actually meeting real trans people IRL would reveal why your insistence on your view would *immediately* make things awkward. Imagine you meet a group of people who appear to be female. IE women. You chat with them, and then need to refer to one. What do you do? Do you go "excuse me, are you actually female?" or do you just *assume* the sex and say "she" or "her"? Most people do the latter. And in that case, you'd be referring to trans women (born male) as "she" despite your own claim of not doing this. It gets worse if you *know* that someone is trans, and then insist that one among the group of women must be referred to as "he" which would instantly cause conflict in the group. The reality is that your view is a disruptive one that would consistently cause problems in society.
4. Trans people don't deny our biological status. I'm well aware that some parts of my body are undeniably male. And some are undeniably female. That's just reality.
That said, people are free to speak as they please and be wrong about things if they want to. But objective reality is what it is. Transsexualism is a real sex-based medical disorder, and trans people live comfortably as the opposite sex and blend in fine, regardless of what mistaken beliefs people may have.
@@Otome_chan311 If you are honest with yourself you will go with the sex you were born with. Now you may say you feel like a woman in a man's body, but you are really siding with the stereotypes of what a woman is. You will never have a period, give birth, and a multitude of other realities a woman goes through in her life.
There have been many, many cases of the trans people getting surgeries and after it is done they truely regret going through with it to begin with. Of course, since the media is trying to push an agenda you never hear these stories.
Ultimately, it's a head issue not a physical issue. If you are having thoughts I urge you to go see a psychologist and work through any issues you may be having.
@Jackson The fact that you don't even understand that trans people *don't* have gender dysphoria shows how little I'd consider your views on the topic. You aren't a doctor, and you clearly have no idea what transsexualism is. So I'd recommend *not* giving advice. The reality is that counseling or therapy cannot change one's sex. So such a treatment is entirely useless for transsexuals. As for language, I genuinely don't care what people use to refer to me, as long as they speak clearly, coherently, and don't cause problems. I blend in better with women, and as I noted, it'd be *very* disruptive to interrupt things and try to insist that I'm a man. There's problems with either categorization but jesus christ I'm just trying to live my life, not debate with strangers about "what I actually am". You declare I'm a man but then ignore my biology? Really?
@@Penfold8 I've never claimed to "feel like a woman in a man's body" nor have I ever claimed to have "a man's body". You've stated it's a "head issue and not a physical issue" but that's incorrect. I've had a hormone imbalance even prior to any medical treatment. The most accurate look is honestly the historical/biblical one. Transsexuals are a third social group, that's not like men, and not like women, but are more like women than men, despite having more male-like reproductive organs than female. It's a unique situation which we don't have good english terminology for. To declare that I'm a man is just as wrong as declaring that I'm a woman. But in the modern day, living as a woman is far more convenient and easier in terms of social cohesion, than attempting to live as a man.
@Jackson You're still confused. Transsexualism isn't about claiming to identify as the opposite sex. Despite the popular misconception. Many transsexuals recognize that we're not quite either male nor female but something else entirely. And yes, we don't have gender dysphoria at all, whatsoever. Gender dysphoria is a symptom of transvestism, not of transsexualism. Likewise, people who claim to be the opposite sex, often aren't even transsexual, but instead are doing it as a trend or fad, and often have transvestism-related disorders. Most people don't give a fuck about the actual science, and tends to ignore the actual reality of what's going on. Most people who are medically transitioning absolutely shouldn't. There's a ton of people regretting transitioning *due to* this mistreatment and misdiagnosis. Huge problem. If someone's claiming to actually *be* the opposite sex, then they're misguided. Transsexualism is about having inverted sexual behaviors and sexuality, and related instincts. Not about claiming to be something you aren't. So many people get that wrong. Saying that trans women are "men who identify as women" is wrong in both that we are not men, nor do we identify as women (though the latter may be true for some people). Instead it's more like "people who behave as women, but have some male reproductive organs". In many languages and cultures there's a separate term besides man or woman to apply to such people. Hijra, kathooey, otokonoko, etc. Even in the bible we were called "eunuchs" and Jesus said it's fine that we are separate from both men and women. In modern western society, we end up among women, since on a surface level glance that's what we're very similar to. But some people indeed just look at genitals and go "well if there's a dick that's a dude' even though that's a really naive and ignorant way of looking at things. You reject the reality of sexed biology in the brain, in preference of genitals. You reject hormone levels, body structure and build, behaviors, instincts, sexual attraction, etc. In reality when you meet an actual transsexual, you'd just think of us as women. It's only online, where you go with your misconceptions, that you declare us to be men. The actual reality is that neither label is quite adequate.
Yes, but as pope Benedict said: peace is above all a gift of God. Brian, would you have been as reasonable if you weren't inspired by God? So don't we need most of all to refind God rather than to reason? If reason is needed, it coms secondly, and rarily even christians are really wise in a lot of things. I believe less and less that reasoning will get us out of the problems for it coms with the Holy Spirit, unknown of most, even if that is not always the problem.
No, the Church affirms faith and reason as both legitimate forms of knowledge, but that reason is subordinate to faith. Faith is a higher knowledge and faith offers grace, which perfects our nature (which reason is a part of).
@@BrianHoldsworth That is not the point. If God doesn't inspire humain intellect, as in morals, it get's out of tune most certainly. Moreover one will not be helped in thinking. That one can find truth trough reasoning is evident, but you wouldn't have had Thomas of Aquinas as philosopher. To see the humain mind as not needing help from grâce, not neccessarily sanctifying, doesn't seem very realistic.
So then religion is also subjective truth and many religious people use their religious beliefs (again, their truth...not objective truth) as arguments for why things should be a certain way.
Gender and sex are two completely different matters. Gender identity is a matter concerning culture and language, not scientific validity. The biological make up of a person does not necessarily correlate with their social presentation and their social roles.
We are not egalitarian society nor we should be.
I like a meritocracy. What is going on in the west is anti-meritocracy.
@@crosselsmith776 True. In my opinion, the only way to impose equality is totalitarian repressions. But even in this case one would fail, for it is natural for society to have different kinds of hierarchy
Thanks Brian ! Go for it I am praying 🙏 for you and yes the truth set is free , and anyone’s ideology of their personalized truth is just a lie and lies slaves us. ♥️ Glory to you Lord Jesuschrist!
Well said.
Quite a few stretches in your arguments there. The analogies don t work.
With all due respect sir, I think you're full of balogna. As an ex-Jew/atheist, I like to watch your channel to get a different perspective on things, but I think you're wrong on this one. Folks on the right-wing often conflate sex and gender. Sex is the set of physical/objective characteristics about our bodies (like for me, XY chromosomes, my beard, and my male privates) that usually group together in men and women, but gender is the role we've created for those sexes to play, which comes down to culture. Nobody denies they have the chromosomes that they have, be it XY, XX, or an irregular variation of that like people with Klinefelter's Syndrome (XXY), but what trans people try to articulate is that the role they play in society and how that makes them perceived makes them feel uncomfortable. The existence of this psychological phenomenon is why third gender people like the hijra in India, the Waria in Indonesia, and the f'afafene in Samoa (I definitely spelled that wrong) have existed in a whole bunch of different pre-Abrahamic cultures. I agree that nobody should be forced to call anybody anything else, but just like we don't particularly like it if people call us the wrong name, everyone likes to be called what they like. If anyone wants a counterargument to what the presenter is saying, check out Abigail Thorn's video on social constructs. ruclips.net/video/koud7hgGyQ8/видео.html
Thank you very much for reading all this and enjoy the rest of your day :)
Is external reality a neutral plain? I don't think it is. All facts are interpreted facts. There is no neutrality. The question is which interpretation is correct? I would say the Christian one. The scriptural one.
What are we interpreting if nothing exists beyond our subjective interpretations?
@@tayh.6235 Who said nothing existed? I said what exists isn't neutral. God created the world with meaning and purpose. His interpretation of that is correct.
Jesus must be so gratified to see that we, Catholics--the meek, the merciful the peacemakers, the yadda, yadda, yadda--have so successfully fed the hungry, hydrated the thirsty, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, yadda, yadda, yadda, that we have time now to focus on the important things like policing pronouns and fighting for our right not to extend what mostly seems to be a courtesy to a tiny minority of the human population. It's sad to see that, after 2000 years, we have never found a way to balance the Beatitudes and the Apocalypse. Not that anyone seems to have been trying very hard.
Do you know what the Beatitudes are, and what they mean?
@@marklizama5560 Oh, yes! They are quite good, life -changing, even. If you're interested, they can be found here: Matt.5:3-12. Since i was only using the term synecdochically for the whole Sermon on the Mount (parallelism is a cruel mistress), I highly recommend that you read on (Matt. 5: 13-7: 27). You might also want to check out these other gems: Matt. 16: 24-7, 19:16-22, 20: 22-37, 22: 16-21, 25: 34-46; Luke 10: 25-37; John 8: 1-11. While I wouldn't want to presume to know for certain, the overall message seemsto be that treating others with basic human dignity and consideration trumps the Law (of Grammar), that some acts of kindness and respect (like using Ms or wearing a mask) require us to accept some inconvenience and go out of our way a little or a lot--you know, sacrifice--and that, in ln light of the cross, to call using a transgendered person's preferred pronoun "persecution" is kind of petty and embarrassing and ultimately quite cruel. Besides, when you think about it, wasn't Christ crucified for wanting to be called He instead of he?
@@fgnnc7747 Alright then, I’ll address the passages you’ve referred to first and what you have asserted; and then address the Beatitudes as there’s more to them than meets the eye, the Traditional Catholic moral teaching is that you should strive to master the Ten Commandments first, and then aim for the Beatitudes, not that you shouldn’t strive to live by the Beatitudes as you strive against sin.
In St. Matthew 5:13-7, Our Lord calls us “the salt of the earth,” as well as “a city on a hill,” and a light that shouldn’t be hidden under a bushel. Salt, in those times was very important, it was what preserved food back than. The Romans relied on salt to preserved the food supplies of their armies needed as they marched throughout the frontiers of their empire. When Our Lord calls us “salt of the earth,” He’s saying that we’re that which empires, kingdoms, and nation states are dependent on for their survival and wellbeing; our moral and saintly conduct, our living the Gospel is what upholds, improves and optimizes civilization. Same thing with being a City on a Hill, and a light that shouldn’t be hidden under a bushel; the light refers to our moral conduct, a lamp or candle doesn’t make an effort to shine, it shines by its very nature, so too with us, we don’t try to show-off our good works like the scribes and Pharisees, nor do we shy-away from acting virtuous in situations where it may be frowned upon but rather, we live the lives God calls us to live, without concern about the views of others, that’s not hiding our light under a bushel. Now by living the life of virtue, we show ourselves to be the City of God, “a city upon a hill.” By showing ourselves as the City of God, we attract others to the Faith, by presenting that good life, but the reason why that life attracts people is because it appeals to our human nature, God made us with a specific nature that we have to live by in order to be happy and fulfilled; since the fall, recognizing that nature has been very heard for us to do, let alone live by it, but with Our Lord coming and establishing His Church, that nature can now easily be shown, and Our Lord’s grace enables us to strive to live by it and go even further. That is the light of the city upon the hill and you too can see it if you look closely for it. (Especially among the Lives of the Saints)
Sorry I’ve run-out of time here, I’ll have to come back later to address your other passages and arguments, for now I need to go; also I’m sorry I couldn’t understand what you meant when you referred to 27 when you said, “(Matt. 5: 13-7: *27*) maybe it was a typo or something?
I’ll be back later.
@@marklizama5560 Oh my. I see what has happened. At first, I was puzzled about the laser-focus on and elaborate exegesis of Matt. 5: 13-7, since it seemed that, of all the passages mentioned, it was relatively beside the point we were discussing, and therefore, the beginning of multi-volume commentary. But, it turns out that it was I at fault--my typo does indeed suggest that that passage required that much attention. What I had meant to indicate was the entire Sermon on the Mount. that is, The Beatitudes plus Matt. 5:13 through Matt. 7: 27. (It seems that both my eyes and my monitor are losing their salinity together.)
However, judging by your good faith-in more ways than one--and lengthy response and by your apparent identification as a Traditionalist, I thought it might be worthwhile--for me at least--just to go ahead and explain the background of my original point but without the rhetorical choreography. I have been apostate since I was 12, but, as it is with Catholics, I never strayed far from the Church--the crucifix tends to be tattooed on the inside of the eyelids. Fifty years later, I decided to dip my toe into the (holy) water again, but what I found was, as they say, a hot mess, a house divided between following Jesus and worshipping Christ. One side seems to believe that hell should be empty; the other seems to hope that it is full to capacity (waiting in line for SRO in hell--how truly infernal!) I have been to a church that has removed its kneelers in the pews in the name, I guess,, of community and dignity, and some others that treat Earth Day as a holy day of obligation. At the same time, I've watched far too may RUclips channels that mock social justice outright and treat love and mercy as heresies that can only be suppressed via the Latin Mass and Communion on the tongue. (Before I wrote my original message, I glanced through Mr. Holdsworth's videos, for instance, and there seems to be exacly none on the topic of a single Corporal Work of Mercy). And the whole notion of pronominal persecution seems, as noted, pathetic and mean-spirited, as if the miniscule number of transgender people weren't persecuted enough--insulted, abused, beaten, killed--on a daily basis. Natural law or no, no one deserves that, and it really doesn't seem as if the Church needs to join in on the side of the persecutors.
I guess it boils down to a question or two: What the hell happened to the Church while I was away? How did it revolve into two opposed political camps (quite literally during the last election) each espousing one half of the Gospel message, and not realizing that it needs to be whole to live? (No wonder the kids are running away from home, their parents do nothing but fight.)
Granted, I confess that I am left-leaning, but not so far that I don't understand that form and content are meaningless apart from or at odds with one another. (Besides, I like kneeling! It makes it a little harder to overlook the beam in my own eye.) So. I would be most grateful for some insight.
Thank you
@@fgnnc7747 I see, sorry it took me so long to respond. I am interested in having a discussion like this, and am disturbed by some of the things that people are saying on both sides; so if you’re for it please let me know and we’ll see where we can start; my on calling actually revolves a lot around trusting in God and thus, I do have a devotion to Divine Mercy, and other devotions and practices that emphasize mercy.
Great video!
Well said,!
"My Truth" is a funny way to spell "Lie".
If a car hits you, you can talk all you want about the car being a donkey in "your reality."
There were points in this video that made sense. Like the PhD example. I generally agree with that element.
But mostly the video seemed like the author's opinion, emotionally disconnected from the human family and stated as fact. I didn't hear any words of validation and empathy for the "other" side and I found that deflating. Not at all unusual and it's been the battle cry of marginalized groups for a long time, and yet here we are. I expect it from many...indeed we are called to speak the truth. But speak the truth In LOVE. We are commanded to *love one another*. I didn't get that sense at all from the video. I mostly got the impression that the author didn't even consider putting himself in the "other's" shoes. And *that* ...white men in the role of power, articulating their opinions as fact, feels really awful to many and I venture to think that a lot of what is going on is a result of the lack in that area. 🤷♀️
Logical reality when you're dead you are dead no afterlife no nothing
That's not the logical conclusion, just the nihilistic one. I hold that neither atheism or God's existence can be empirically proven, but rather we choose a system: the objective system of truth and stability, or the subjective one of chaos.
Hey I've only watched two of your videos so perhaps this comment is slightly premature. You seem to be I'm favor of objective shared experience and the process of logical reasoning only up until we arrive at religion. In another video the message comes across loud and clear that the atheists are missing the mark because they're sticklers for reason. Let me know where/if you think I'm off. Cheers.
I don't think atheists are sticklers for reason at all. I think they narrow the scope of reason to a fundamentalist degree by insisting that only empirical facts can be known by reason. I think reason can access far more than that.
@@BrianHoldsworth As on previous occasions, what I hear in this video is surface-level, self-referential, un-nuanced thinking combined, I am sorry to say, with a lack of irony that astonishes me. There is so much I could say. Fortunately, I do not need to as Godless Granny has done a gentle, in-depth and thoughtful response to which I hope you will listen carefully. She is a kind and reasonable person and it would do you good to engage with her, in my humble opinion.
I am interested in this, however: "[atheists insist] that only empirical facts can be know by reason. I think reason can access far more than that." - What do you think can be accessed by reason that does not itself have to be founded on fact in order to be held as true or convincing? I think you will find that the answer is "imagination" or "invention". At least, that is what I come up with when I try to answer the question. I would be most interested in understanding what YOU are getting at and how you DEMONSTRATE the dependability of the outcomes of your non-empirical reasoning.
EDIT: On further exploration of this comment section, I see that GG has already been in touch with you.
Not a big deal,our indifference to the plight of immigrants at the border is a much bigger problem.
I would have respect for trad caths if they actually lived ascetic and private religious lives, thus leaving the rest of us alone, but instead they are on youtube and social media with crusader avis and claymores in the background
I didn't get the vaccine, but I identify as someone who did get vaccinated, so you're discriminating against me if you don't allow me into vaccinated-only spaces
Hi. I'm trans. Gender Identity objectively does not exist. Most people are objectively incorrect about trans people and transsexualism. Many people are *incorrectly* applying science, terminology, etc. and *appropriate* studies, history, etc. But in the same breath, *language* is subjective. As a result, pronouns are subjective. Trying to say there's an objective way of using language is just wrong and silly. So to *demand* a label, or a pronoun, or whatever, ends up being pointless. If they're forced to use it, then they aren't using it to mean what you want, but rather because they're required to use that phrasing.
Transsexualism exists, biologically. Gender identity is pseudoscience. Most people claiming to be transsexual are actually transvestites. Anyone who's well read on the history and literature could tell you this, but no one actually cares about the science. They care about pushing agendas: whether that be pro-gender identity, or conservatives against transsexuals. While language and categorization will always be tricky with trans people, most of the obvious questions are resolved as soon as you look at the actual science. Kinda frustrating that so many people don't.
I’ve been trying to understand what you mean here, perhaps you could help me. If I may rephrase, are you saying, in short, that male and female identities are unprovable, language is subjective, and that, biologically, transsexualism exists?
If I may touch on just one of those - language as a merely subjective reality - I have to ask, how do you navigate the reality of communication? Two people speaking the same language can only share ideas if their vocabulary is consistent between the two of them - in other words, at least within their conversation, there has to be a certain objective standard they both agree to in order even to disagree with each other. This is why establishing terms is essential in any debate.
I thought Brian’s point about how language can be tyrannical was very interesting. What would your take be on that specifically? Can there be any hope of achieving equal ground in a conversation? Or otherwise - whose subjective reality deserves to be dominant? And is a reality where one subjective claim dominates another reality a welcome thought? And most relevantly, when it comes down to it - in what ways would you say is a claim about gender different from a claim about a title (as with his example of being called a Doctor)?
Here, I'll give you a better argument that people actually knowledgeable on the topic actually make: gender and sex are two different things.
Sex, a person's biological nature, is something no one is questioning.
Gender is a social construct. Because it is a social construct, we can change it, just like I can change my name from Fred to Mike.
The great thing is that you don't need to worry about this too much. All you really need to do is to keep on talking with people the same way you do. Smile, say hello, and love others the way Jesus loved us and if what you call this person is not what they want, they'll correct you. No "personal" truth. No feelings. Just the name of of the person you're talking to.
I will not participate in this new insanity of calling people CIS, or them/ they, or whatever their delusion is. I am done and we need to stop participating in this social delusion we are not helping anyone.
Je suis Napoleon Bonaparte, l'emperor d'France 🇫🇷
You are so brilliant I can not understand you
Do you practice HEMA? Noticed the arms in the corner...
The rejection of objectively confirmable reality for personally experienced subjectivity seems to be an American thing. Not good guys..
I love this dude.
My truth is that I don't believe your truth.