d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > What Is A Woman?
Prev1789101117Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 1957Replies: 161Track Topic
Member
Posts: 19,309
Joined: Feb 24 2018
Gold: 9,765.50
#81
Oct 27 2022 01:36am
People who ask that question won't have kids I hope.
Member
Posts: 3,908
Joined: Jun 20 2022
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
#82
Oct 27 2022 02:10am
Quote (Modulok2405 @ Oct 27 2022 02:34am)
Pretty stupid "answer", because it doesnt answer the question in the slightest.

If someone identifies as something or someone, he should be able to explain WHAT tf that even is, that he identifies as.

How should anyone want to identify as someone, he or she cant even put a label on?



Winky face emoji

This post was edited by YeeHaw on Oct 27 2022 02:11am
Member
Posts: 23,970
Joined: Feb 28 2007
Gold: 35,554.14
Warn: 10%
#83
Oct 27 2022 03:36am
Quote (babun1024 @ Oct 27 2022 02:36am)
People who ask that question won't have kids I hope.


That is exactly the point.
They are subtlety setting up our demise.
We have already gone from 13% of global pop to 8% in just a few decades.
And that was before people started mutilating their genitals.
Member
Posts: 97,983
Joined: Feb 19 2017
Gold: 128,689.00
#84
Oct 27 2022 04:10pm
Quote (Malignanttumor666 @ Oct 11 2022 07:53am)
it has breasts, vagina, ovaries, wide hips, xx chromosome.
It also bleeds and is annoying.

wasezq


rofl
Member
Posts: 18,211
Joined: Jul 15 2014
Gold: 107.77
#85
Nov 10 2022 11:13am
Member
Posts: 22,264
Joined: Aug 17 2021
Gold: 1,546.83
Warn: 30%
#86
Nov 10 2022 11:40am
Quote (sirthom @ Oct 27 2022 01:36am)
That is exactly the point.
They are subtlety setting up our demise.
We have already gone from 13% of global pop to 8% in just a few decades.
And that was before people started mutilating their genitals.


White people are too superior and good-looking that everybody else is insanely jealous and actively tries to destroy them. Especially Js.

Don't lose heart, sirthom. I stand right by you.
Member
Posts: 8,883
Joined: Nov 8 2006
Gold: 12,280.22
#87
Nov 22 2022 05:19pm
Watched it, cant say I'm overly impressed. Some of it is surprisingly thought provoking but him walking around asking "What is a woman" ad naseum is such a waste of everyone's time. I think in his mind it's some kind of 'gotcha' question but it roadblocks most of the interactions.

There's just too many scenes where he's clearly being an obtuse douche rather than really looking for answers. At least he didnt cut the footage where people call him out on it. Sometimes he pushes for answers to questions that are hard to answer and confronting people when the situation calls for it. Other times he's just asking questions in bad faith or being purposefully annoying and it's badly masked and annoying to watch. Maybe if I were hyper conservative I'd be cheering him on but it just seems like a waste of time and a missed opportunity at mature dialogue. Shockingly, he's gotten people from a community that's perceived as being giga hostile to sit down with him which is a major win but then pisses it away by behaving like an immature teenager in a sex ed class asking intentionally stupid questions.

Scene by scene breakdown:

Gert Comfrey (3:20) - First impressions: young, too happy/smiley, naive. First time I've ever encountered the wordage "assigned male/female at birth." Never heard that terminology until this movie. Missed opportunity when she/they? talks about gender being assigned at birth to talk about people who are intersex (i.e. Klinefelter Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome ). Maybe she/they? did talk about it but it was excluded. Kinda doubt it tho. She/they? kinda cops out at the what is a woman question and deflects by saying she/they? is not a woman. I appreciated that she didnt get defensive to his question "how do I know if I'm a woman" tho she kept it respectful.


NYC Interviews (6:50) - He does some interviews with random people in NYC. Best answer to his question in the whole movie by far @7:20 "A woman is someone that likes to be pretty and think of themself as a delicate creature." Honestly a pretty based response.


Marci Bowers (8:35) - Honestly seems like a cunt, started it off extremely defensively. He opens by saying she's a "trans woman" and she corrects him saying that she's a woman with a trans history. Honestly go fuck yourself he's obviously not one of your own. His question about people regretting their surgeries is pretty bad faith and her answer is equally bad faith "We dont know that they do" lmao... Conversation seems so petty. His anecdote about people wanting limbs removed as a parallel to transgenderism is lowbrow and weak imo and brings no value to the conversation. Sure they could talk about the fringe of the fringe and talk about people who want limbs removed but it's a waste of everyone's time.


Don Sucher (11:56) - I mean on one hand Don's kinda based in the Gran Torino sorta way and on the other hand he's just some rando boomer running a shitbox Star Wars collectible store. He makes the claim that he's never had a problem with anyone in the 25 years he's been in business but I'd say putting up a sign that's blatantly antagonistic is inviting trouble to your doorstep. You cant put up a sign that says "New Dr Seuss book out: 'Black people are and always will be 3/5ths of a person'" and then make the claim you dont have an issue with black people. "Dont come into my store and try to shove that shit down my throat" ya idk bro nobody asked you to shove your shit down their throat when they stepped into your store either. Hypocritical. Watching him grimace when Matt theorizes about a Star Wars universe where Jar Jar Binks is trans was pretty worthwhile tho, coulda thrown out the rest of it and just kept that lmao.


Michelle Forcier (14:20) - This conversation is pretty sloppy at the start because again theyre talking about two different things intertwined: biological sex and gender identity. He's talking about biological sex and she's talking about gender identity. It's pretty clear he either doesnt get the concept, doesnt want to get the concept, or is just being obtuse for the sake of appearances. I dont think he'd lose face engaging in the conversation and meeting her half way even if he doesnt believe in her beliefs. It becomes a circular conversation that's again, a waste of everyone's time. Instead of asking genuinely difficult questions he pulls out some lowbrow shit like a 4 year old believing in Santa. Yeah man I think any sane person would agree, a 4 year old is not fit to make legitimate claims about their identity. A 4 year old would be a model hedonist if left to make all their own decisions. But why are we talking about a 4 year old? Wouldnt it be more interesting to have a conversation about the process? Does she ever encounter someone that thinks they may be trans but through the process finds out that they are just a tomboy? What kinds of answers does she get when she asks about their gender identity? There just wasnt enough substance to this interview.


More random people interviews (17:35) - I think he expected to get more shocking answers but the first four people he talks to are as normal as it gets. The two black ladies are super chill - he asks "If I feel a certain way obviously you cant tell me not to feel that way, but just cuz I feel that way does that make it true?" and they just hit him with "If that's your reality, it's none of my business" and his response is "So... we all have our own realities?" and sounds genuinely confused like he's on the verge of a breakthrough where he'll finally be allowed to graduate from the kid's table. The next two look like a couple and they seem pretty indifferent towards him/the topic "I honestly dont care, whatever makes you happy." The last two shouldnt have even made it into the final cut.


Patrick Grzanka (18:53) - Arguably the most interesting person he interviewed, seems like a real shame that he put "wrap it up" music over his explanation of gender vs sex and chopped it into oblivion. I like that he's willing to admit that gender and sex are intertwined rather than throwing entire traditional definitions/concepts out. This is a perfect example of what I talked about before where he's just a douche for no reason. Maybe it's the way it's edited but it seems like the dude explains the difference between sex and gender and he asks an incredibly stupid question like "Soooo if a person has all male parts then we can safely say that um... that person is a male?" Like dawg do you have a learning disability or are you just playing sped to piss this guy off??? Patrick gets upset that Matt repeatedly states he's "Trying to get to the truth" which gives me philosophy 101 vibes. It's so low level that it's hard to take him seriously. Idk man maybe the truth is that we're in a computer simulation or that we're not even significant enough to be a blip on a cosmic scale as a species or a planet or a solar system, let alone as an individual? It's pretty obvious that your "truth" is that a woman has a vagina and men have penises, why are you abstaining from stating your beliefs? Another weak anecdote with the "What if I believe I'm African American" and the guy responds "That doesnt seem like a genuine statement" which it obviously isnt. The sad shit is most of these arguments I've seen on 4chan rehashed for years and every time he uses them he expects it to be some kind of slam dunk but they just arent. It's sad to watch someone that's clearly intellectually capable be so disgusted by Matt, this could have been the best section of the whole documentary. Matt had someone with brains, an open mind, and an impressive tolerance for bullshit in front of him and he fuckin squandered it. Patrick's on point when he calls Matt out for how he acts during these interviews. The question, the demeanor, the tone of voice, and the body language would all lead anyone to believe theyre being disrespected. What a shame.


Miriam Grossman (26:00) - I really dig her professionalism she's extremely careful with her words. Kinda cringe that when he's presented with the same information a second time his behavior is so different. Totally different demeanor with this lady vs Patrick perfectly frames my point about being disingenuous. I think Patrick would have conceded that on a biological cellular level a man who has transitioned still carries male chromosomes. Paraphrasing her words, biological flags are objective and gender identity is subjective. He follows up with the same question about a biological male who identifies as female "It sounds like what youre saying is that if a man is a male but thinks of himself as a woman he's not actually a woman...?" and she confirms "That's correct." There's no way he needed that explained so thoroughly and there's no way he didnt understand it the first time when he heard it from Patrick in the previous segment.


Michelle Forcier (27:50) - Jumps back to this blue haired chick, really awkwardly edited to open with him stating that his sperm makes him a male. He again harps on being in search of "the truth". He brings up a chicken laying eggs and her counter argument is that chickens arent as complicated as humans, "Does a chicken cry? Does a chicken commit suicide?" and he seems genuinely confused by why she would ask those questions. Human beings are complex and for some reason he understands gender identity vs sex when Miriam explained it but didnt understand it when Michelle explained it xD


Miriam Grossman (28:40) - Bounces back to Miriam and he states that people who dont believe in transgenderism are considered dinosaurs and she refutes it. "I'm not bigoted and I'm not a dinosaur, I'm rooted in reality and in science." You know this dude was fully bricked up hearing those words lmfao.


Selina Soule (29:15) - This is one of the strangest parts of the trans movement to me. It's pretty obvious that in the pursuit of "fairness" trans women can sometimes be at a tremendous advantage. I dont think the solution is to prevent them from competing entirely but there needs to be a much more common sense approach to these things. There's another missed opportunity tho, I would love to see some of the data like how much better the trans athletes were. Was it every race? Did they crush their opponents as badly as she claims? I'm not disputing her story in any way but I want to see the stats on exactly how unfair the outcomes were. I guess it really doesnt matter but data driven arguments are a lot stronger imo.


Rodrigo-Heng Lehtinen(30:35) - Such an off-putting argument from this dude. Basically claims that the winners among trans athletes are fringe examples and the norm is that trans athletes dont win at a meaningfully higher rate. Also a short clip from Marci Bowers affirming this perspective. I just dont get how either of them could make such a ridiculous claim. The entire reason that men and women's sports are segregated is because pinnacle examples of men and women are asymmetrical. At the top of their game men can achieve greater things than women can at the top of their game. That's exactly the problem "Well these are just fringe examples..." Of course the fringe examples are the issue, theyre competing at a level that a biological female cannot achieve and the stakes are real when it comes to these events where money is on the line. There are other examples that could come into play like Laurel Hubbard who got destroyed at the Olympics but she's 43 years old way out of her prime losing to an athlete less than half her age.


Lia Thomas's teammate (trans swimmer that absolutely annihilated everyone @33:05) - I've gotta say this is a pretty fascinating look at the inner workings of the bureaucratic aspect of academia. Lia helps them win and it's a sensitive as fuck issue in the public mind so all the teammates are told to just deal with it lol. Basically their wins feel tainted by Lia's presence and if they were to question the fairness of it all they were told to shut the fuck up and given access to psychologists to be more accepting and understanding. Idk this is where I start to tap out. I'm down with the idea that anyone should be able to compete but the idea that a trans athlete has no inherent biological advantages is just so objectively false.


More NYC interviews (34:30) - This part is about trans people using the same locker rooms or bath houses. I think it's pretty common sense that most people are uncomfortable with the idea but then again I dont want to see dick when I'm in a gym locker room either so I guess it's a moot point. Idk how people feel so comfortable walking around butt naked around strangers in locker rooms but let's start by stopping that if we wanna make some progress rofl. There's a news clip about a trans person (MtF) at a spa walking around naked in the women's locker room and then it comes out that theyre a registered sex offender.. Cherry picked example of a near-worst case scenario but it's valid point. I think to counterbalance the segment it's wise to remind ourselves that for every deviant trans person there's probably 100+ that arent like that. They just need a place to change but dont feel totally comfortable in either locker room and cover themselves and behave as discretely as they can. It's also important to remember that just because some guy presents as a man and uses the mens locker room doesnt mean he's not a fucking weirdo, he could be just as much of a creep walkin around with his dick out.


Mark Takano (35:50) - Talks about the Equality Act, says that it's an extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include things like gender and sexual orientation. I seriously dont understand how he gets an audience with a congressman and then pisses the opportunity away by saying things like "There are people who have seriously bought into the rumor that having a penis makes you a male." It's so fucking cringe. Mark tries to rise above the conversation about bathrooms specifically and talk more broadly about people's rights and Matt seems largely disinterested. He prods one too many times and Mark ends the interview abruptly. He gets to talk to someone and instead of letting them dig themselves into a hole with poor logic after asking good questions he griefs himself by being a dunce. "Uh uh uh, I just wanted to ask what is a woman." It could have been a genuinely interesting interview but it doesnt go anywhere because he sits down with such an obviously disrespectful demeanor and it ruins it completely.


San Fransisco with some nudist guy (40:00) - Does an interview with a guy just walking around with nothing on but a dick sock? Another example of a person whose "personal identity" is just too outlandish for me to take seriously. Cool man you dont wanna wear clothes. Righteous. But it seems really unnecessary to the guy's existence. You dont wanna wear clothes that's fine but most people dont want to deal with you. It's just a selfish approach to living in a community imo. Then there's an interview with a trans gay man who Matt asks "What is a woman." Deflects with "I'm not a woman why are you asking me" and the conversation goes nowhere. He asks him if he's a cat, and then "What is a cat?" which, even tho it provokes the end of the interview, brings up a good point. What is a cat? Surely there are specific traits that make a cat a cat but it's in some ways a difficult question to answer. A furry thing with a tail and sharp teeth and is good at hunting? There's a more scientific answer but in a way it proves that most people dont consider these questions ever. A cat is just a cat. A man is just a man. Things just are what they are and to put specific labels or attributes on them is a difficult task to the layman.


Women's March (41:40) - Again just comes across as a trolling douche which probably entertains the hell out of the usual right wing crowd. I'm sure they ate this shit right up. To someone like me that's genuinely interested in exploring these topics fully and intelligently this is another example of him just wasting everyone's time. All he did was show up to be an asshole and get footage.

This post was edited by BrianPeppers on Nov 22 2022 05:24pm
Member
Posts: 8,883
Joined: Nov 8 2006
Gold: 12,280.22
#88
Nov 22 2022 05:20pm
African Tribe (44:00) - Opens with "What is a man" He explains that your job is to provide - you have kids, you feed them, and if you fail at these things then you are not a man. Asks some other questions that I doubt translate well and gets some pretty predictable answers. Once he got to the question about "What if a person has a penis and a vagina" and they answer "There's no such thing" I was fully checked out. These people are so isolated that they dont even know intersex animals (including humans) are a thing. I understand why he would do this interview but it's just not that compelling. There are other cultures we can look to who didnt/dont have binary gender identifications. https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/two-spirits-one-heart-five-genders This is a pretty good article explaining that Native American cultures had/have widespread acceptance of people who didnt fit into either male or female gender identities perfectly. I mean if you want to use a culture that's throwing spears and living in mud huts in 2022 as your benchmark for what's correct on anything then be my guest but it's a pathetically weak stance imo. Worse than that it's so dishonest when he makes the claim that transgenderism is strictly a western ideology when there's well established and conflicting history in other cultures. An interesting point that grows out of this interview though is the privilege of comfort. Maybe these ideas are so foreign to that tribe because survival is such a raw priority that there's no time to think about or consider the ideas of a gender identity. Once your basic human needs are met then new priorities of living arise like gender identity. We live in exceptionally privileged times which gives us the freedom to care about stuff like this. Once upon a time knowing where your next meal was going to come from was more important than how comfortable you feel as a man or a woman.


Miram Grossman (51:45) - She shows off a book called "It's Perfectly Normal." Without ever having seen the book it's hard for me to make a true judgement but based on a few of the Amazon reviews it seems like it's mostly okay tbh. One person was critical of the drawings being too frequent or unnecessary to make the point of a section. Another said it was a useful tool to educate her kid beyond whatever would be taught in school from teachers or from her peers. 10 and up sounds like too low a number but out of curiosity I looked it up and puberty starts between the ages of 8-14 (girls tend to start younger than boys). There is no perfect age but the book seems to be focused on being educational rather than degenerate. Plus kids are experiencing changes around the age of 10 so it's not totally unthinkable to help them understand what's happening to them. You cant insulate your kids from reality forever, they will find out about sex and they will find out about gay people and there is nothing that a parent can do about it (unless you want your kid to grow up like Brendan Fraser in Blast to the Past - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhMQOb0tEmI ). If I were a parent I'd rather buy a book like this that sets them up with actual education versus letting them fend for themselves or resorting to scare tactics. The critical reviewer mentioned that they tore out the section on abortion. You know what? That's perfect, you bought this thing and if you disagree with a specific section then it's yours to edit. It's just such a tired tactic to nitpick a single picture on a single page and dial in on "ages 10 and up." It's like editing a video clip or social media post to manipulate the viewer. Is there really no value in this book? Is it all bad? What's a better alternative to the book if it's such a disgrace?


Kinsey and Mooney (51:22) - I've gotta admit a lot of this is pretty fucked up. He mentions the book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male which apparently used pre-pubescant males in studies about orgasms which would be giga fucked up. Couldnt find a full pdf version of the book and I dont feel like fucking around with a torrent or spending $50 just to see the pages I want to see. I wanted to figure out how the data was obtained which should be explained in the book. The chart is easily findable in a preview of the book (pg 179 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sexual_Behavior_in_the_Human_Male/_3SHCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover ) but doesnt explain how the data was gathered which I would imagine is on the omitted pages. I plan to watch Kinsey (2004) and the PBS Frontline on Kinsey as well to get a better idea of who he was and what his research was like. Money just seemed like a misguided idiot with the twins experiment. To put it bluntly he was wrong. You cant force people into a gender identity from birth, theyre not block of clay. In some way it speaks to the opposition's argument, forcing people to be something they dont want to be is unhealthy long term. Maybe Money "invented" the terminology about gender identity but conceptually it predates him so he's hardly to blame for the state of society or some bullshit like that. It's hard for me to imagine the trans community embracing someone that forced a gender identity on a person. Isnt the whole premise that you have an open dialogue with someone about how they feel and from there they can pick who they want to be? Couldnt some of his trauma have been avoided by walking this path? It could also be interpreted that you cant make a man into a woman but that seems like the lower IQ takeaway.


Scott (Kelli) Newgent (55:45) - FtM trans person. Opens talking about surgeries being a way of becoming more like a man but he will never be a man on a genetic level. Talks about all the surgeries he's had (even ones not related to being trans??) and he comes across as kinda schizo or mentally unstable or something? "Nobody would help me *tears in eyes* because I lost my insurance" what do you mean you lost your insurance? You mean you lost your job and couldnt afford to pay for COBRA? What??? Matt asks "Were there any discussions on the risks or side effects?" and Scott responds that there are not. Bro you went under anesthesia to get your body chopped up and you never ONCE asked about what this could do to you long term? What negative outcomes there might be? Lmfao seriously? Idk he just seems kinda retarded or playing the victim. There are some studies that get mentioned about suicide rates among post-surgery trans people but they never specify which studies are being talked about which is kinda a shame cuz I'd be interested in looking at them myself. On some level tho I agree with what's being said here, we cant just blindly charge into the dark. There should be some efficacy involved where we determine how much of a positive impact surgeries have, what's the quality of life like post surgery in terms of functionality, etc. If we're just transitioning people because it's fashionable without being honest about the process and the results then we're not doing these people any favors.


Marci Bowers/Miriam Grossman/Michelle Forcier/Scott (Kelli) Newgent (59:00) - Conversation moves to minors getting surgery. Apparently the youngest patient was 16 years old. He asks if she thinks kids maybe dont have a mature enough understanding of themselves or the world or of what theyre doing to their bodies with surgery. She disagrees. This is a classically difficult question to answer, at what age are people capable of making their own decisions? There is no perfect answer - we just do our best as a society or as parents to come up with a number that's as reasonable as possible. Bounces back to Miriam Grossman and she says that self identity when youre young is in flux and very inconsistent. Jumps to Michelle Forcier who he asks about puberty blockers and medication. She asserts that the ideal candidate is someone that's on the front end of puberty who is afraid of the changes happening and wants to put a pause on the process. She makes the claim that puberty blockers dont do anything negative and if they were to stop taking them then puberty would run its course as normal. Analogy made is that it's like pausing a song. Maybe there's some elements of truth to this claim but it sorta defies common sense to me. How long can you delay the effects before the pause is no longer a pause and it's a full stop? Are we sure ALL aspects of puberty restart if delayed? Idk there's probably just not nearly enough data out there to understand the long term effects and it's disheartening to see someone that's so close to this issue who is dismissive of this particular fear. Conversation moves to a specific drug called Lupron. Scott "And we're believing a pharmaceutical company, Lupron, which was deemed a criminal enterprise" etc etc. The drug is Lupron which was originally prescribed as a prostate cancer drug and the company was TAP Pharmaceuticals. They were fined because they were using unethical sales practices like buying TVs for doctors to use their drug over their competitors. It definitely shows their leadership was amoral but I just have a hard time listening to someone who doesnt even have the fundamentals correct. Maybe 20 years later the same shitty people are running the company and theyre using the trans movement to boost sales but it's hard to believe there are enough buyers out there it would massively impact their company. Next scene it goes back to Michelle Forcier who he asks about Lupron "Isnt this a drug that uh... is used to chemically castrate sex offenders?" which prompts her to end interview. This is the same kind of retarded logic people had about Ivermectin. Ya it can be used as a horse dewormer but it has also been used for lots of other things, why be hyper focused on one aspect of a drugs use and disregard all other uses? This is a perfect example of a bad faith question that's intentionally off-putting to his interviewees but probably plays well to people who are his target audience.


Anonymous Canadian dad with 13 year old trans daughter(1:03:40) - Daughter goes to the hospital for a gender eval, gets approved for hormone blockers, he disagrees, calls his daughter (who identifies as male) a she, gets fined $30k for not using his daughters preferred pronouns (he/him), daughter takes the hormone blockers anyways. Lmao. I mean I get not wanting your kid to take these drugs but the guy sounds like a total fuckwit. You know full well youre gonna get hit with this massive fine and you still keep at it? Alienating your kid just to prove a point? Idk once he mentioned his ex-wife I kinda winced. Any time divorce is involved it seems like kids can be used as pawns to strategically hurt the other parent. Instead of loving your kid and talking to them their identity and trying to love them irregardlessly you turn the whole thing into a pissing match with the ex. I'm not a parent myself so it's hard for me to speak about this kinda stuff but I think I'd want to make my kid as comfortable as possible without resorting to drugs or surgery. Maybe they would resent me but it's healthy for kids to not get everything they want imo. Interfering with a parent's ability to decide for their kid should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances and I dont think this is necessarily one of those situations.


Jordon Peterson (1:06:30) - Opens by nitpicking about the title "Gender affirming therapist" because he claims you dont go to a therapist to be affirmed in your viewpoints. You go to a therapist because you want to work things out and sometimes that means being challenged in your viewpoints and not just agreed with. To some degree he's right but it just seems like he's being petty. If someone sits down with one of these therapists and says "You know, I'm not sure where I fit in but I dont feel very much like a boy or a girl." They can use that information to dive deeper. I dont know what these people do but I think it's okay for people to not fit neatly into a category and for therapists to help them understand themselves better. Helping kids be more comfortable in their own skins and discovering who they are is tremendously important, getting caught up in the title seems uh... pedantic. But maybe I'm out of my depth, maybe these people really just tell them "Whoa you feel like a girl? Yep, you are a girl! Whoo! Great job everyone lets get you some hormone blockers yippee!!!" I really like the word "temperament" as an alternative to gender identity. It's a great way of standing outside the terms biological sex and gender identity which are easy to get hung up on. As an aside I've gotta say this is the most coherent version of Peterson I've seen in a while, after he got off benzos he wasnt the the same.


Debrah Soh (1:09:27) - Left academia because of the political climate. Claims that it's impossible to do honest research because if you find something contrary to the social meta then youre ostracized or labelled transphobic. I could see this being true. She says that you have to determine what you want to find before you begin the study and then do a study that affirms that idea. Idk that sounds pretty normal to me. If you measure things in good faith and are just strictly data driven I think it's easier to defend your position but if you start with a negative outlook then I could see how it would put a target on your back. As an example, doing a study on only the unhappy aspects of post-surgery trans life. "How often are you unhappy, do you ever feel depressed, do you ever regret the surgery" as the questions instead of it being a broader study that's not so specifically negative. Again another walk of life I've never been involved with so her accusations about academia could absolutely be true.


Sara Stockton (1:11:05) - They throw her clips in a little earlier than this where she talks about her clients being mostly trans and the parents who want their kid to transition always winning over the other parent who doesnt want their kid to transition. However 1:11:xx is where she talks about kids who identify as animals and will answer questions in class with barks or meows LMFAO. Bro I'm all for people being who they want to be but how are you gonna order at a fast food restaurant? With a bark? No? Then shut the fuck up in class and behave yourself. Look to DMX as your role model there's a time for barkin with your dawgs and there's a time for words, learn the difference. Part of growing up is recognizing that there's a time and a place for things. Nobody cares that you spend your free time roleplaying as a cat or whatever but you cant do it all the time. Nobody gets that privilege, why would trans cat people be different? Am I a protected class as a gamer? I identify as a TRUE GAMER, I need to use my portable gaming device during class and if you ask me a question I'm gonna respond with my KDA? Lmao okay... I'll die on the hill that furries are not a protected class.


Naia Okami (1:11:35) - MtF trans woman/wolf person? "I was 10 or 11 when I was watching anime and saw a wolf on the screen and thought 'theyre just like me!'" lmfao. I mean why cant you just say you really like wolves and howling. Why does it need to be your identity and define you as a person. I'm not gonna go out of my way to shut you down but I dont feel the same level of obligation towards a theoretical wolf person as I would towards a trans person. It's important to differentiate needs vs wants.


Social media collage (1:13:42) - A long collage of clips from tv shows and movies and tiktok/twitter/ig/etc. all showing off the trans movement. I think there's a lot to be said about this aspect tbh. Social media is just so god damn powerful it terrifies me. People get wrapped up in this shit and it happens so quickly. The strength of influence is just unbelievable and on both sides there are people being indoctrinated to only think one way. Nobody is willing to make compromises which only further toxifies the social landscape. The more time you spend on social media the more indoctrinated you become and the less interactions you have with people of other opinions. I've spent time on 4chan and leftist twitter and I've had conversations with both groups and it's really forced me to evolve my own opinions. Without exposing myself to each side and hearing arguments from both of them I think my views would be only half baked. Always cracks me up when one side points at the other "Look? Dont you see how stupid they are? How easily tricked they were by social media? How simple it was to radicalize their beliefs?" as if it's not happening every day to both groups.


Louden county controversy (PE teacher refused to use correct pronouns and was fired, 1:18:10) - Starts with him in front of a schizo board like the one in Always Sunny in Philadelphia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nTpsv9PNqo where he hits it with a folding chair which is so painfully cringe. He talks with Tyler Louden who basically says he doesnt wanna lie to kids. More of the same. Idk the dude is a highschool PE teacher, maybe if he had a few more brain cells he wouldnt use pronouns at all and would just use people's names. "Tyler likes baseball, his favorite bat and glove are in his locker" vs "Tyler likes baseball and Tyler's favorite bat and glove are in Tyler's locker" which sounds retarded but you get to not comply and keep your job which sounds like a bigger to win me than being grammatically correct and unemployed. One segment talks about trans people who are abusive are a myth which I take issue with. We need to break the narrative that trans people are only saints or only sinners. PEOPLE commit crimes, not specific groups of people. It would be so nice to find the exact markers of an evil doer but they simply dont exist. Rather than pretend trans people cannot commit crimes or pretend that there the only ones who commit crimes we need to just be honest with ourselves: there's no good way to know who the bad guys are. It's always been that way and rather than try to prevent crimes with dubious methods we need to have the right outlets for people to speak up when wrongdoing does occur so it doesnt continue. Matt leases a basement so he can speak in front of the school board "They tried to muzzle me, and when that didnt work they tried to muzzle me with a mask :'( " LMAOOOOOO get a fucking grip dude it's not that serious. Finally we get to the bottom of his beliefs where he stands in front of them and accuses them all of being child abusers and shitty people etc etc. No wonder all the interviews went so sour so fast, his approach and perspective are already so hard locked that he's incapable of engaging in a sincere conversation/interview. He seems genuinely butthurt that they didnt want him to talk lol, bro you dont even live there.


Dr Phil segment with Matt as a guest (1:23:31) - I think Matt actually makes a good point at the start with the language barrier of a lot of the pronoun stuff. It's just flat out confusing and I dont think that we can afford as a society to be as inclusive as the left wants us to be. It's simply not a realistic goal and makes conversation exceptionally difficult for very little "real" gain. Cant believe he asked "What is a woman" on the show oh my god by the end of the documentary I'm fucking sick of hearing it. Shockingly he gets a surprisingly good answer "Well it's to each their own, each woman, each man, each person is gonna have a different relation with their own gender identity and define it differently." Matt then accuses the trans community of appropriating womanhood and using it as a fulltime costume. I can see both sides here but I would rather live in a world where I'm not strictly limited to the stereotypes of manliness or whatever. So what if I like baking and scented candles and getting a massage or getting my nails done (havent yet but it seems pretty chill tbh). Why would I wanna rob myself of enjoyable things just for the sake of fulfilling my role as a man better? Do swinging a hammer and operating power tools have to be mutually exclusive from self care? Being a man doesnt have to mean the same thing to everyone and neither does being a woman. I dont wanna live in a world without tomboy pole vaulters, who would??? A masochist? Some kind of demon possessed imbecile? The doctor lady on the show accuses him of having extreme views, he retorts by saying his beliefs are the beliefs that have held up for thousands of years across all cultures which is objectively false. He says he cares about the truth but the methodology he's employed in the search for the truth is contradictory to actually finding the truth.


Ends the movie with ~6 more "What is a woman" question/answer clips. He asks his wife and the look she gives him before her verbal response is a great answer honestly. My buddy asked his gf last night and the sigh before actually responding was another great answer too lmao.

Matt brings up some interesting things and makes some decent points but I think if I were to clip it down to just those moments the movie might only be 20-45 minutes long. Abstaining from talking to Native American cultures where more than two genders was/is normalized and even celebrated is intellectually dishonest if his claim is he's after the truth. Not bringing up intersex people who genetically are not male or female is another big miss if he's in pursuit of the truth. Pissing off his interviewees so his target audience thinks he's based is another major loss. Why not ask some hard hitting questions that arent intentionally inflammatory? I just dont get why you'd go through the trouble of seeking out these interviews only to waste the opportunity by trolling them. I get the impression that on a philosophical level Matt is on the wrong side of the bell curve. What is the truth? What is the reality? Those are philosophical questions that he's trying to apply to biological sex and gender roles specifically. Nobody has those answers but there are some interesting theories out there. Unfortunately he hones in on just one aspect of the human experience which is such a shallow approach. Fundamentally both sides are tired of being told what to think. Conservatives dont want to be told that traditional gender roles are antiquated and dead and liberals dont want to be told that theyre absolutely required to submit themselves to traditional gender roles. On a more personal level I think that as people transition younger and look more accurate to their desired gender it confuses the playing field a lot. Maybe I'm a terrible person but I can say that I would rather be with a biological woman than a trans woman. I dont know why that is and I dont know that I'm capable of being different. I also dont think that makes me a bad person necessarily, I cant help the feelings that I feel. We're not all the way there yet but give it another 50 or 100 years and to navigate the field of love sounds even more impossible than it already is. What happens when the day comes that with CRISPR technology and surgery a trans woman looks and sounds and functions like a biological woman? How do I feel about that? I just dont know.

Anyway I wish this movie was a more sincere attempt at exploring this topic. A movie like Gender Revolution: A Journey with Katie Couric does a much much better job at taking a respectful and informative approach to transgenderism. What is a Woman? mostly comes across as a long format troll video where he sits down with the right people and asks all the wrong questions. Matt Walsh strikes me as a midwit "intellectual" of the conservative variety, the yang to the lefts yin (Vaush).

Tl;dr:
I was gonna post a tl;dr but I think I typed this up more for myself than anyone else so I dont think I will. Read it or dont.

This post was edited by BrianPeppers on Nov 22 2022 05:23pm
Member
Posts: 2,664
Joined: Dec 4 2011
Gold: 6.66
#89
Nov 22 2022 05:25pm
Quote (WitchfinderGeneral @ Oct 11 2022 11:29am)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/959805503544913953/1029324321526657034/unknown.png




Why couldn't liberals answer one simple question?


Easy, it's the gender whom you will never touch. Next!
Member
Posts: 39,668
Joined: Nov 16 2005
Gold: 13.37
#90
Nov 22 2022 05:28pm
What is love?
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1789101117Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact