Joe Rogan says Lia Thomas could be the 'woke straw' to break society's back

This is rich. The left is complaining about the definition of woke when the definitions of racist and hater have been blown out of the water to include everything. It's racist if some people can't do math and it's racist if anyone questions how a terrorist group can afford a $6 million dollar home. This is just another example of the left accusing others of what they do.

 

Folks, it's a state of mind if someone believes they're in the wrong body, it can't really be measured, it's all about feelings. On the other hand, a person's body can be scientifically measured and that measurement is repeatable, it's the epitome of settled science.

My mother-in-law is schizo, she believes the government and her neighbors are spying on her via her thermostat, smoke detectors and remote controls, so she tore them down and threw out the remotes. She strongly believes her delusion and no one will ever convince her otherwise. Now to placate her feelings, should every home and business she goes into rip out their smoke detectors and thermostats, or will we all agree it's all in her mind?

The left will never admit they're totally wrong on this, to them it's all about feelings and they just can't turn a blind eye to them.

 

And by arguing such you are arguing for changing language and making words meaningless. Whether or not you are including an infinite amount of pronouns in your argument or not is not relevant. You are adding to that argument. They are attached whether you want them to be or not. Every single person that argues for infinite pronouns uses your argument as an example. And I'll show you why over the course of the next few posts.

Let's start by asking you...what is the societal utility in acknowledging transwomen as actual women?

 

To be clear I reject the use of tautological definitions in this matter as they appear to be vague and not distinct enough to be of any use.

Which is evident in your two attempts to define woman. I still haven't a clue what you are talking about and how you define woman as different from man.

On the other hand I was able to define woman without struggling to write a paragraph or dance around the definition.

I was clean and concise and you knew exactly what I was referring to.

 

The words we use and their definitions have changed through out history. The idea that the present is immune to such changes is strange to me. It’s as if we are at the end of history. Do you find that to be likely? That society isn’t going to change in ways that include changes to the words we use and their definitions?

You’re slipping into slippery slope territory to which I respond: a) That’s a fallacy and it’s not convincing & b) I don’t really care how many pronouns people want to make up. Why do you?

Sure. It benefits people who are trans in that it helps to address gender dysphoria. It has been shown to lead to positive outcomes.
It does not cause harm (or at least not enough harm that it outweighs the benefits). All of the fear mongering and alleged harm that people (righties) throw around just doesn’t bear out in the data.

 

Tautological definitions are perfectly valid and mine is fine, but hey, I’m capable of breaking this down first grader style.

You agree that society has expectations and social norms that are imposed on women. Many of these expectations and norms do not have a biological component such as clothing choices, what they do, what they like, how they act, etc. These help to collectively define what it means to be a woman. Many people identify with this societal definitions. A large majority of these people are biological females. Some of them are biological males. All of them are women.

From this point I won’t continue to argue about the construction of my definition as I feel that this is just a tactic to delegitimize my stance on process. Engage with the topic or move on to another poster.

Edit: Just to be clear, you reject tautological definitions on this matter, or tautological definitions entirely?

 

Common argument. Which always ignores the fact that those changes happen naturally and gradually over time. They are not forced. This whole gender thing is being forced. And its a drastic change.

Its not a slippery slope when its actually happening.

How does it help them?

 

Please define natural changes in our vernacular and definitions vs forced changes. Thanks.

You’ve not demonstrated that. Also I don’t care if it is.

It helps to drastically reduce suicidal ideation and depression among other things.

 

I will suggest that society has style that we dictate as being either masculine or feminine but I absolutely reject wholeheartedly that style or fashion dictate gender identity and not merely just style or fashion choice by the individual gender is and always will be tied to your sexual traits inherited at birth from nature of which you can't change no matter what.

Your definitions are circular in that they use the word to define the word you're defining and you're saying that that's okay because I should just kind of know what you're referring to that's not how definitions work.

On the other hand I have a very clear, very concise definition of the word woman.

It is for this fact that this idea that gender is a social construct tied to fashion or style choice isn't going to fly with the general public or the world population moving forward it's a failed ideology of which there's no structure

 

I'll give you an example: The word "gay" came to the English language in the 12th century. Between then and now it went through several changes. It was originally about being carefree or joyful. Around the 14th century it started to take on some immorality connotations. By the 17th century that "immorality" was firmly in place. It wasn't until the early 1900's that it started to refer to homosexuals. And then in the 1960's homosexuals started to "own" the word by accepting it into their culture. Making it no longer a slur, but an acceptable word again. But even to this day it still has "immorality" connotations and is used derisively.

I gave you a real life example. And do you deny that people are demanding that they allow themselves to be called by whatever pronoun they want?

So because it helps reduce suicidal ideation and depression its acceptable for society to accept transwomen as women? Right? Ok. So many that argue for an infinite amount of gender pronouns also argue the same thing. They too argue that they are depressed and has thoughts of suicide because society will not accept them for who they are. This is not just me saying this. Here's evidence: LINK: What to Know About Gender Pronouns, How to Use Them (insider.com)

So, do you see how your argument is connected yet?

 

Your continued harping on fashion, as though that we’re the only point I’ve made, suggests that you’re not engaging in good faith. You’ve been straw manning my arguments to the point I’m not certain you’re confident in the strength of your own.

You’ve failed to answer my question on how consistent your rejection of tautological definitions is. This suggests that they are a tool you’re willing to accept for some arguments while you reject them for others as evidenced in this quote from your post: “To be clear I reject the use of tautological definitions in this matter as they appear to be vague and not distinct enough to be of any use.” This again suggests a lack of confidence in your argumentation and thus you aim to hamstring me based on inconsistent values.

You keep referencing the simplicity of your definition as if it is some kind of virtue. This topic is more complex than you’re willing to acknowledge and you seem dead set on avoiding engagement with argumentation that might challenge your understanding. This comes off as quite arrogant or maybe ignorant. I haven’t decided.

And finally you return to misrepresenting my arguments by continuing to harp on fashion as if it were my only point of argumentation. Just wanted to reaffirm the straw man? You’re argument looks so very strong.

 

Sports was always going to be a problem for the trans movement. It is an area where fairness and trans rights aren't compatible.

it should not have any impact on other areas of trans rights, and we on the left shouldn't be pushing for trans participation in sports.

There isn't a practical solution for inclusion here.

 

You’ve provided an example of the slow evolution of a word. You have not defined natural changes vs forced changes. Gender, and thus woman, has meant many things across many societies for many centuries. I would say that suggests our understanding of gender has been evolving for much longer than the example you provided. That would make it more natural, yes?

Yes. I don’t care if people want to go by neo-pronouns. If you want me to think it’s a bad thing you need to demonstrate that it is a bad thing.

Demonstrate that neo-pronouns are a bad thing.

 

Are you familiar with the IOC’s guidelines for inclusion of trans athletes? If so I’d be interested in your take. If not I’d be happy to provide a resource.

 

Using you tautological definition of the word "woman" is confusing, not concise and circular. "a woman is one who identifies as woman" is not a definition. You've tried to use this twice. Backing that claim up with society norms regarding fashion choice and what not. Long hair, dresses...yadda yadda.

That's what you've brought to the table. Straw manning you? Hardly. You can't define woman. That's your own problem and why this ideology is ridiculous.

Well I reject that. Absolutely. I was able to define woman. In my definition you know exactly what I am talking about. That IS a virtue in it's clarity. It's not complex. It's actually rather simple as demonstrated by my definition. Dunno what more to tell ya?

 

You asked for a definition. I provided an example as it more accurately shows what I mean.

And no, a woman has always been a woman across all societies for thousands of years. The words pronouncement may have been different due to spoken language differences. But what a woman is has always been the same.

You're avoiding the question posed. Do you see how their argument, and your argument are the same? Its a simple yes or no question.

 

If you think that the complexity of what it means to be a woman can be boiled down simply to sexual characteristics then it is I who dunno what to tell you.

Take it easy.

 

Yea, but i don't agree with it.

I think the best solution is that people who transition before puberty probably do not have an advantage over people born as a female.

I think a 20 year old who was born male and transitions, shouldn't be able to compete against people born as a female.

I'm not a doctor, so go ahead and come at me with that, but doctor's aren't flawless, and from my reading, the IOC's standards would still allow Lia Thomas to compete, which is something that is hurting the trans movement, which i care about more than sports.

 

We already have that: Mens and Women's categories.
Those are not gender separations, those are sex separations.

 

It can and it is. Sorry. I hope you do not try and make other things in life overly complicated to the point you can't define it. Something like a wheel. What is a wheel? "Well a wheel is something that looks like a wheel!" "As I'm sure you are aware societal norms steer things towards things that either square in nature or that are rounded. If a box has some roundness to it's 8 corners one could suggest that it identifies as a wheel. It's not as simple as you are trying to suggest it is!"



good luck with all that.

 

Sex IS gender.

 

*******n I can't tell which one is the woman and which is the man? They are both dressed the same-ish and are mechanics...

 

Locker rooms have upset parents as well. A woman in Florida I believe it was upset that a man was walking around naked in front of her small daughter in the women's locker room.

 

yea, people shouldn't have their children in a place where adults of any gender might be walking around naked.