Join our Listener Community on Substack (www.widerlenspod.com) and you'll find additional content with Colin, along with premium content with other guests, discussion posts and resources, and information on ways to support the show. Please, also remember to like and subscribe right here on UA-cam! Thank you so much!
Stella's "We've established our knowledge". Very point on. And important to add and note: 'knowledge,' NOT 'we've created what we are to call truths'. Knowledge is to be _discovered_ and _uncovered._ That's the premise of classical metaphysics (ontology), and also the fundament of the scientific method. The whole postmodern project is about constructing and deconstructing 'truths', which are obviously not really truths anymore (because truth is by definition stable and objective), but are a just a conglomerate of stances (or discourses, if you will) that are agreed upon to be the dominant ones.
I used to struggle with paraphrasing Postmodernism, but the longer you wade through these issues the more fluent the ability to explain their principle arguments becomes. Standpoint epistemology is validated by hegemonic discourse. Blimey, if Nature magazine says it I'm obviously behind the times. So next time Christopher says he's Christine I guess I had better keep my mouth shut. It's gaslighting, but it won't work unless the establishment (Nature magazine) has put it's weight behind it (it's hegemonic imprematur).
@@AndyJarman Correct, the assumption in postmodernism (and therefore queer theory) is that it's an outsider standpoint. It has nothing of value to say once it becomes hegemonic, as then it only invalidates itself. With hindsight, we can see that celebrities successfully used postmodern liberation arguments to remove legal scrutiny from their own abusive practices. Liberty backing PIE perhaps lead to Section 28, but the Thatcher government missed the mark by targeting homosexuality in general. If they had outlawed the promotion of pederasty instead, it would have marginalised PIE instead of provoking a reaction from the liberal establishment.
My daughter told me I was disrespecting her friend because I would not use the chosen pronoun of “It”. That carton is exactly right. My husband and I were just talking about how we feel everyone is running left and now we are on the conservative right and all we did was stay on the side of common sense.
@Joy2Life333 - that's why I identify as a liberal rather than a leftie. There are plenty of people on the far left who are closer to the far right than they are to those of us in the middle. Like yourself, I want a world of equity and fairness but not a world where reality doesn't exist.
I've identified as strongly left my whole adult life but this ideology is complete insanity. Plenty of people on the left are bewildered by this nonsense.
I told the autism clinic that my kids were going through gender confusion. That my daughter thought she was a boy for 2 yrs, then fairy gender. The autism clinic suggested to her the pronoun "It", and she spiraled back into the confusion because a professional had affirmed it. 😞
I miss the '90s, when we almost ignored gender roles and tried not to label others. Now, every aspect is judged by gender stereotypes, and kudos, status, and bragging rights are awarded to self-proclaimed intersectionality. It is exhausting 😮
I miss the seventeenth mostly same reasons but it was a revolution time Big changes we paved the road for the nineteenth you mentioned It was so fun to be free (Lesbienne women 20 years at the time in Paris Boum!!!!
The "sex vs gender" debate seems so silly when your native language doesn't even have a word for "gender". Here we have a word for your biological sex, and we used to talk about "sex stereotypes" but as "gender" came along from English it was adopted as "sex expression". Even to this day it's rare I ever hear conversations like this about sex/gender here, because our language doesn't support it the way English does - so when those discussions happen it's almost exclusively online, in English. When they say this movement is language-based they're not lying!
Yeah, my mother referred to me as "it" when I was a child because I didn't fit in the box that society wanted to shove me into because of my assignment at birth.
Sasha somewhere near the end asking about the emerging trend of sex/gender ambiguity. This is super interesting subject I wish to be explored more in depth. I've heard about this or maybe closely related trend in few various conversations already: of people being kind of heteronormative, usually straight and even having gender stereotypcal interests per their natal sex, AND YET doing cross-sex medical interventions and appearing more queer or androgynous. While REMAINING their interests, orientation, etc. It's all about ambiguity, and not transitioning per se. This is relatively new trend to me and I would love to be it more explored, what is it about.
I find a similar thing is going on right now in biology with regard to species. Because there are now so many different (and conflicting) ways of defining what a species actually is, there's a whole postmodern group coming in now saying that maybe the idea of species doesn't actually exist. It's so ridiculous. Like most postmodern things, there might be an element of truth to it (that species aren't as different as we think they are), but that doesn't mean we need to throw out the entire system just because the definitions are getting a little bit muddled.
Species! Oh gosh, we're in for a real ontological roller-coaster here. It does seem odd that they seem more keen to throw out the existing framework of understanding ASAP before finding the new patterns, and that they don't want the newly spotted patterns to include & transcend the existing models which is often 3hat happens in paradigm shifts.
I thought I was joking the other day mentioning concern if these people became zoo keepers claiming the panther identifies as a Hippo, the Hippo identifies as a lion and the Lion as a giraffe claiming they need to be reorganized in their enclosures. Your comment is far too close to my joke which was meant to make people stop and think how ridiculous everything is getting. We're going down a very odd slippery slope it seems.🤦
Re: the cartoon paradox. The issue here is conflating two different things in the political system: (1) One is having a defined stance on certain issues, e.g. women's rights should be such and such, economy such and such, other issues such and such, etc. (2) the idea of progressivism and conservatism as related to openness to change, progress, tradition, etc. In this aspect, it's very natural that progressivism will always be moving 'forward' (regardless how that 'forward' is defined), always about change, abandoning old norms (regardless what they are), etc. Obviously, the 1 and 2 may often not be in accordance with each other. If one is self-identified as a progressive because they have a certain stance on some things, they may in different space of time find themselves on the other side of the spectrum. For instance, polygamy in some places is 'old ways', whereas monogamy is new (often due to advent of Christianity coming to this regions). Whereas in Western society (due to its Christian past), monogamy is obviously traditional and conservative, and it's progressive to break up that traditional view on family structure. In the beginning centuries of Christianity in the ancient pagan world, its way of living was also revolutionary and countercultural, new, etc. Then it became the dominant culture and the opposite approaches were countercultural and progressive. Now we witness yet another turn as Christianity in the West losing it's cultural dominance. So what is really progressive or conservative? Obviously these terms also originated in the modern era in specific historic circumstances, but maybe it's time to rethink those terms? Or is it rather it's about holding to certain stances, certain viewpoints, regardless of where they lie.
@joane24 - I like what Thomas Hardy had to say about the subject. When asked whether he was a progressive/liberal or a conservative he said that he took each subject on its merits and then decided. For example, if something is traditional/old fashioned/conservative but it works and promotes fairness for all, then it doesn't need changing - and vice versa.
@@honeychurchgipsy6 That's often been my personal approach as well. A lot of convinctions I hold are conservative, but I don't care about "them always being so why change", but I believe in them on merits. In terms of personality, I'm actually open to new things (there's been some research correlating progressivism and conservatism to certain psychological trains such as openness to the new or opposite - honestly, I've often been skeptical to this correlation...). So interestingly, lots of my friends are rather progressive and artistic (myself been in the performative field), even though I don't share the same values, especially on moral subjects. I think it's helpful to remember these distinctions came to be in particular historical circumstances (Enlightenment in Europe).
@@joane24 - thanks for replying. I've seen that research too but I don't know where it places people like us - who take things on their merits rather than simply change for change's sake and vice versa. I think I am generally open to change and very liberal, but that I can also be prone to resisting change and know that sometimes I need to rethink things. However, I think that the trans issues have gone too far down the road of "you must rethink all of your positions and accept uncritically all of our positions even if you are losing out by them/they seem batshit crazy" otherwise you are a transphobe. It might be time to resist the ideology even whilst accepting that adults who believe themselves to be trans should be allowed to live their lives as they wish. Ultimately I think that we don't have to accept anything in order to treat people with respect. I can inwardly think that it's mad to be trans and change your body, but I can still accept that my trans friend does believe that and I can be an ally. What I will not go along with is the loss of hard fought rights for biological women simply to appease trans activists. I think it's a bit like religion - I am an atheist but I will fight against religious intolerance - you have the right to worship as you please even if I think the concept of a god is ridiculous - just don't use your beliefs to control my life.
“Tom boy” is trans now? That’s so ridiculous. I was a Tom boy, but I never denied I was a girl. I was a tom boy _because_ I was a girl; it didn’t replace “girl”, it was an addition to.
Why did you delete my response. If you are “right” why do you need to delete people’s responses. This is us what you’ve been teaching and preaching to the kids. You say: “Don’t ask those who love you for their opinion.” You know satan is the father of lies. You believe your own lies, and you want us to trust you. You hid the fact Drs were doing operations from us! You lie therefore you are proponents of the father of lies. Go seek and find Jesus.
Men approach men sexually very differently from how men approach women. While I have been deeply offended by how men indicated sexual interest in me as a woman, I've never been offended by how men indicated interest when they thought I was male. Thus my emotive response shifted
Haven’t even gotten any further than the first 10 minutes, but I’ve been calling this ‘a many-headed hydra’ when trying to explain all the aspects of ‘trans’. Makes it a little more intelligible when you jump from pubescent female group psychology to male fetishism to cult dynamics.
I think the reason girls are less persecuted for behaving in traditionally 'boyish' ways, as opposed to boys being bullied for having 'feminine' interests is because of an unconscious bias in favor of maleness: basically, boys are perceived as inherently better than girls, therefore girls are fine doing boy things. Boys doing girl things, however, are basically perceived to be choosing activities and behaviors that are inherently 'beneath' them, so they are bullied. Which is why, despite always have been somewhat of a tomboy, I have reclaimed pink etc. while raising my daughters 😂. If they prefer grey and black when they grow up, that's fine. But I hope they won't reject pink and princesses just because they are 'girly', and therefore inferior.
I think it goes deeper than this. Since most boys who play with dolls and generally don't like "boy" activities as children grow up to be gay, I think it got in people's heads that playing with dolls and girls is what "made" these boys into gay men, so parents would try to stop it, because they didn't want their boys to turn out gay. This eventually infiltrated all male spaces; when I was growing up in the '80s, the worst thing you could be called was gay. Not only did people make fun of you, but you could be beaten up severely, especially in bathrooms, if the guys who beat us up could claim we were being peeping toms or whatever, and they were just defending themselves.
I think it has to do also with the need to brutalise men in order to get them to fight in wars. Those "feminine" qualities of kindness, gentleness, caring etc would just get in the way if your job is to destroy lives
55:00 Colin might want to consider that as many as 25% of schools are reporting a trans identity and undergoing some level of medical GAC. Then add the fact that popular dating resources are NOT asking people to disclose their trans identity. It has already been something that people have had an experience in dating where their date was trans identifying but that was not disclosed before hand. This is very prevalent in same sex attracted social events and dating apps. Furthermore, some countries politicians have suggested it is "hate speech" and discriminatory to use terms like same or opppsite SEX attracted to define ones sexual orientation.
32:25 man, i hear you. That is a relatable expectation for a civil discourse, and you got pilloried. I am so sorry you had to fight for your reputation's life. ❤
When you take any stable and objective values in society (and that's what our postmodern culture does), people, desperately trying to find anything they can grab for support, they'll look to what they can superficially observe: the stereotypes, the majority tendencies etc. We have an innate thirst for making sense of things and finding stable categories and shared concepts, so if we don't have them (as they become subverted and reconstructed), we'll immediately create new ones. There's no such thing as valueless and relative rhizomatic culture in reality, it only exist in the realm of abstract theoretizations. When you look 'at the ground', people _will_ gravitate to anything that gives them a sense of a stable meaning.
Had to read that three times. Where have you read about 'rhizomatic' cultures? I'm not sure I know what that is and would like to read more. Think about putting your text into paragraphs. More people will read it if the text is separated out into distinct ideas.
@@AndyJarman Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. The word rhizomatic/rhizome was a reference to the famous concept from Deleuze and Guattari. For the purposes of the comment, you may also disregard it, I added it with hopes to illustrate a better picture, but if that's doing the opposite, then disregard. ( I'll also add their term is not "rhizomatic culture" per se, it was just me now using their term which I now used to relate to culture.) Btw I think that text wasn't that dense to need separate paragraphs, typically with longer comments I do them. But I'll keep that in mind🙃.
Yes, everybody can fit under the ‘umbrella’. For example, i can be considered a cis-man gender conforming heterosexual, but that’s isomorphic with my being a trans woman gender-non-conforming (dress up like a typical cis man) homosexual. There’s LITERALLY no difference between the two ‘identities’. My behavior and desires are exactly the same. The ‘trans’ umbrella is more like a circus tent.
It's interesting to consider whether the later day angst against sexual dimorphism and the trend towards androgynous social culture, is driving the trend for shaved sided hair styles. The progressive left and trans ideologues almost seem to have bought the mullet back in style. It was the fashion disaster of my generation, but a compromise between short hair and long hair seems to have resolved into short/no sides and long top and tails. If they'd did the opposite my involuntary hairstyle (with a little purple dye) could have made me cool and progressive.
55:40 Why don't you want to say normal? Normality is what Qveer Theorists want to compromise, stop helping them. Normal is normal, it's good to be normall.
Really? I disagree. Normal is fine, but Tom Brady wasn't a normal quarterback; he was extraordinary. Similarly, there are extremely attractive women who aren't normal at all; they're very rare.
I've never met a 'normal' person yet - not when you scratch below the surface - in fact those presenting as most normal are sometimes the weirdest!! I've never felt normal and I'm happy with that - my whole family are a bit weird - lol!!!
Colin Wright: can you please, please address the Julia Serano book "Excluded"? It's been so rudely prescribed to me, and yet it's just so un-interesting to me. Yet it's out there, influencing people. Also I'd be more interested in listening to you if your organization didn't spam me so often. (Also, hell no, I'm not paying for shit, not subscribing to shit! These are truisms so I do indeed want this information for free!)
Just a side comment…I really feel that your guests need to be on the top, visually. It’s honouring to them, and less about you two, because they are the guest of the hour.
Please don't use Tucker Carlson as a way to enhance your guests' credibility. Carlson is an authoritarian himself who is deeply involved with Hungary's authoritarian leader, and it looks like Carlson might be economically involved with Orban as well, but he won't talk about that.
I don't agree. Mention who you please, I say. I don't know what I think about media celebrities completely, but now that I don't tune in to my national press on purpose, I appreciate many different views and information. It helps me ask my questions more fully.
Join our Listener Community on Substack (www.widerlenspod.com) and you'll find additional content with Colin, along with premium content with other guests, discussion posts and resources, and information on ways to support the show. Please, also remember to like and subscribe right here on UA-cam! Thank you so much!
Two brilliant women joined by one brilliant man = a really great podcast. Thanks for all you do!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Stella's "We've established our knowledge". Very point on.
And important to add and note: 'knowledge,' NOT 'we've created what we are to call truths'.
Knowledge is to be _discovered_ and _uncovered._ That's the premise of classical metaphysics (ontology), and also the fundament of the scientific method.
The whole postmodern project is about constructing and deconstructing 'truths', which are obviously not really truths anymore (because truth is by definition stable and objective), but are a just a conglomerate of stances (or discourses, if you will) that are agreed upon to be the dominant ones.
I used to struggle with paraphrasing Postmodernism, but the longer you wade through these issues the more fluent the ability to explain their principle arguments becomes.
Standpoint epistemology is validated by hegemonic discourse. Blimey, if Nature magazine says it I'm obviously behind the times.
So next time Christopher says he's Christine I guess I had better keep my mouth shut. It's gaslighting, but it won't work unless the establishment (Nature magazine) has put it's weight behind it (it's hegemonic imprematur).
@@AndyJarman Correct, the assumption in postmodernism (and therefore queer theory) is that it's an outsider standpoint. It has nothing of value to say once it becomes hegemonic, as then it only invalidates itself.
With hindsight, we can see that celebrities successfully used postmodern liberation arguments to remove legal scrutiny from their own abusive practices. Liberty backing PIE perhaps lead to Section 28, but the Thatcher government missed the mark by targeting homosexuality in general. If they had outlawed the promotion of pederasty instead, it would have marginalised PIE instead of provoking a reaction from the liberal establishment.
@@AndyJarman I will never read what you’ve posted till you identify what you support. Come clean, with clarity
@@jayjaychadoy9226 good for you.
My daughter told me I was disrespecting her friend because I would not use the chosen pronoun of “It”. That carton is exactly right. My husband and I were just talking about how we feel everyone is running left and now we are on the conservative right and all we did was stay on the side of common sense.
@Joy2Life333 - that's why I identify as a liberal rather than a leftie. There are plenty of people on the far left who are closer to the far right than they are to those of us in the middle. Like yourself, I want a world of equity and fairness but not a world where reality doesn't exist.
I've identified as strongly left my whole adult life but this ideology is complete insanity. Plenty of people on the left are bewildered by this nonsense.
@@honeychurchgipsy6you're a sheep
I told the autism clinic that my kids were going through gender confusion. That my daughter thought she was a boy for 2 yrs, then fairy gender. The autism clinic suggested to her the pronoun "It", and she spiraled back into the confusion because a professional had affirmed it. 😞
@@FleurPapillonfile a complaint about the “professional” … that person should lose their job.
Colin is great. So smart and interesting,
I miss the '90s, when we almost ignored gender roles and tried not to label others.
Now, every aspect is judged by gender stereotypes, and kudos, status, and bragging rights are awarded to self-proclaimed intersectionality.
It is exhausting 😮
Feminism Ruins Everything
My favorite show when I was a kid in the 90's was Married with Children
I miss the seventeenth mostly same reasons but it was a revolution time
Big changes we paved the road for the nineteenth you mentioned
It was so fun to be free
(Lesbienne women 20 years at the time in Paris
Boum!!!!
Thank you Dr Collin
That cartoon explains how so many people feel now. It's so good
💯
I can understand why these women are excited to finally have Dr. Colin Wright as a guest.
I would be, too. 😘
The "sex vs gender" debate seems so silly when your native language doesn't even have a word for "gender". Here we have a word for your biological sex, and we used to talk about "sex stereotypes" but as "gender" came along from English it was adopted as "sex expression". Even to this day it's rare I ever hear conversations like this about sex/gender here, because our language doesn't support it the way English does - so when those discussions happen it's almost exclusively online, in English. When they say this movement is language-based they're not lying!
In many languages, there is no word for fear. Following your logic, should we dismiss that human experience also?
Yeah, my mother referred to me as "it" when I was a child because I didn't fit in the box that society wanted to shove me into because of my assignment at birth.
Colin soldified my sanity. Thank you!
Sasha somewhere near the end asking about the emerging trend of sex/gender ambiguity. This is super interesting subject I wish to be explored more in depth.
I've heard about this or maybe closely related trend in few various conversations already: of people being kind of heteronormative, usually straight and even having gender stereotypcal interests per their natal sex, AND YET doing cross-sex medical interventions and appearing more queer or androgynous. While REMAINING their interests, orientation, etc. It's all about ambiguity, and not transitioning per se.
This is relatively new trend to me and I would love to be it more explored, what is it about.
Cosmetic? Or a hormone high? Performance? A therapeutic remedy? It has serious impacts, so caveat emptor.
Eliza Mondegreen is writing about straight young women identifying as gay men, and the role of fan fiction in this community.
I find a similar thing is going on right now in biology with regard to species. Because there are now so many different (and conflicting) ways of defining what a species actually is, there's a whole postmodern group coming in now saying that maybe the idea of species doesn't actually exist. It's so ridiculous. Like most postmodern things, there might be an element of truth to it (that species aren't as different as we think they are), but that doesn't mean we need to throw out the entire system just because the definitions are getting a little bit muddled.
Species! Oh gosh, we're in for a real ontological roller-coaster here.
It does seem odd that they seem more keen to throw out the existing framework of understanding ASAP before finding the new patterns, and that they don't want the newly spotted patterns to include & transcend the existing models which is often 3hat happens in paradigm shifts.
I thought I was joking the other day mentioning concern if these people became zoo keepers claiming the panther identifies as a Hippo, the Hippo identifies as a lion and the Lion as a giraffe claiming they need to be reorganized in their enclosures.
Your comment is far too close to my joke which was meant to make people stop and think how ridiculous everything is getting. We're going down a very odd slippery slope it seems.🤦
Re: the cartoon paradox.
The issue here is conflating two different things in the political system:
(1) One is having a defined stance on certain issues, e.g. women's rights should be such and such, economy such and such, other issues such and such, etc.
(2) the idea of progressivism and conservatism as related to openness to change, progress, tradition, etc.
In this aspect, it's very natural that progressivism will always be moving 'forward' (regardless how that 'forward' is defined), always about change, abandoning old norms (regardless what they are), etc.
Obviously, the 1 and 2 may often not be in accordance with each other. If one is self-identified as a progressive because they have a certain stance on some things, they may in different space of time find themselves on the other side of the spectrum.
For instance, polygamy in some places is 'old ways', whereas monogamy is new (often due to advent of Christianity coming to this regions). Whereas in Western society (due to its Christian past), monogamy is obviously traditional and conservative, and it's progressive to break up that traditional view on family structure. In the beginning centuries of Christianity in the ancient pagan world, its way of living was also revolutionary and countercultural, new, etc. Then it became the dominant culture and the opposite approaches were countercultural and progressive. Now we witness yet another turn as Christianity in the West losing it's cultural dominance.
So what is really progressive or conservative? Obviously these terms also originated in the modern era in specific historic circumstances, but maybe it's time to rethink those terms? Or is it rather it's about holding to certain stances, certain viewpoints, regardless of where they lie.
@joane24 - I like what Thomas Hardy had to say about the subject. When asked whether he was a progressive/liberal or a conservative he said that he took each subject on its merits and then decided. For example, if something is traditional/old fashioned/conservative but it works and promotes fairness for all, then it doesn't need changing - and vice versa.
@@honeychurchgipsy6 That's often been my personal approach as well.
A lot of convinctions I hold are conservative, but I don't care about "them always being so why change", but I believe in them on merits. In terms of personality, I'm actually open to new things (there's been some research correlating progressivism and conservatism to certain psychological trains such as openness to the new or opposite - honestly, I've often been skeptical to this correlation...). So interestingly, lots of my friends are rather progressive and artistic (myself been in the performative field), even though I don't share the same values, especially on moral subjects. I think it's helpful to remember these distinctions came to be in particular historical circumstances (Enlightenment in Europe).
@@joane24 - thanks for replying. I've seen that research too but I don't know where it places people like us - who take things on their merits rather than simply change for change's sake and vice versa.
I think I am generally open to change and very liberal, but that I can also be prone to resisting change and know that sometimes I need to rethink things.
However, I think that the trans issues have gone too far down the road of "you must rethink all of your positions and accept uncritically all of our positions even if you are losing out by them/they seem batshit crazy" otherwise you are a transphobe. It might be time to resist the ideology even whilst accepting that adults who believe themselves to be trans should be allowed to live their lives as they wish.
Ultimately I think that we don't have to accept anything in order to treat people with respect. I can inwardly think that it's mad to be trans and change your body, but I can still accept that my trans friend does believe that and I can be an ally.
What I will not go along with is the loss of hard fought rights for biological women simply to appease trans activists.
I think it's a bit like religion - I am an atheist but I will fight against religious intolerance - you have the right to worship as you please even if I think the concept of a god is ridiculous - just don't use your beliefs to control my life.
Thanks y'alls ! 🐿
Lol @ the "call to arms" for arachnologists, though!
“Tom boy” is trans now? That’s so ridiculous. I was a Tom boy, but I never denied I was a girl. I was a tom boy _because_ I was a girl; it didn’t replace “girl”, it was an addition to.
What a bunch of malarky.
Why did you delete my response. If you are “right” why do you need to delete people’s responses.
This is us what you’ve been teaching and preaching to the kids. You say: “Don’t ask those who love you for their opinion.”
You know satan is the father of lies.
You believe your own lies, and you want us to trust you. You hid the fact Drs were doing operations from us!
You lie therefore you are proponents of the father of lies.
Go seek and find Jesus.
I saw the debate Colin did with Stephen Woodford. He definitely came out of it the best imo.
I suppose you mean Stephen Woodford. But, yes, I totally agree.
@@Doutsoldome Yes. Thanks, I'll correct it.
Colin rocks ✨✨✨
Oved Colin´s presentation from the conference!
SOOOO GOOD!
Men approach men sexually very differently from how men approach women. While I have been deeply offended by how men indicated sexual interest in me as a woman, I've never been offended by how men indicated interest when they thought I was male. Thus my emotive response shifted
Haven’t even gotten any further than the first 10 minutes, but I’ve been calling this ‘a many-headed hydra’ when trying to explain all the aspects of ‘trans’.
Makes it a little more intelligible when you jump from pubescent female group psychology to male fetishism to cult dynamics.
51:53 "The vast majoity of those can be put into male or female buckets."
OMG I had no idea there was even sex segregation at abortion clinics. 😮
I think the reason girls are less persecuted for behaving in traditionally 'boyish' ways, as opposed to boys being bullied for having 'feminine' interests is because of an unconscious bias in favor of maleness: basically, boys are perceived as inherently better than girls, therefore girls are fine doing boy things. Boys doing girl things, however, are basically perceived to be choosing activities and behaviors that are inherently 'beneath' them, so they are bullied. Which is why, despite always have been somewhat of a tomboy, I have reclaimed pink etc. while raising my daughters 😂. If they prefer grey and black when they grow up, that's fine. But I hope they won't reject pink and princesses just because they are 'girly', and therefore inferior.
I think it goes deeper than this. Since most boys who play with dolls and generally don't like "boy" activities as children grow up to be gay, I think it got in people's heads that playing with dolls and girls is what "made" these boys into gay men, so parents would try to stop it, because they didn't want their boys to turn out gay. This eventually infiltrated all male spaces; when I was growing up in the '80s, the worst thing you could be called was gay. Not only did people make fun of you, but you could be beaten up severely, especially in bathrooms, if the guys who beat us up could claim we were being peeping toms or whatever, and they were just defending themselves.
It's because of the widespread positive bias towards fem (upper class) and males (underclass).
And because fem are more bullying
I think it has to do also with the need to brutalise men in order to get them to fight in wars. Those "feminine" qualities of kindness, gentleness, caring etc would just get in the way if your job is to destroy lives
The geekyness of this crew lends them a great deal of credibility.
55:00 Colin might want to consider that as many as 25% of schools are reporting a trans identity and undergoing some level of medical GAC. Then add the fact that popular dating resources are NOT asking people to disclose their trans identity. It has already been something that people have had an experience in dating where their date was trans identifying but that was not disclosed before hand. This is very prevalent in same sex attracted social events and dating apps. Furthermore, some countries politicians have suggested it is "hate speech" and discriminatory to use terms like same or opppsite SEX attracted to define ones sexual orientation.
No wonder more and more lesbians and gay men want to cut off the TQ.
32:25 man, i hear you. That is a relatable expectation for a civil discourse, and you got pilloried. I am so sorry you had to fight for your reputation's life. ❤
When you take any stable and objective values in society (and that's what our postmodern culture does), people, desperately trying to find anything they can grab for support, they'll look to what they can superficially observe: the stereotypes, the majority tendencies etc. We have an innate thirst for making sense of things and finding stable categories and shared concepts, so if we don't have them (as they become subverted and reconstructed), we'll immediately create new ones. There's no such thing as valueless and relative rhizomatic culture in reality, it only exist in the realm of abstract theoretizations. When you look 'at the ground', people _will_ gravitate to anything that gives them a sense of a stable meaning.
Had to read that three times. Where have you read about 'rhizomatic' cultures?
I'm not sure I know what that is and would like to read more.
Think about putting your text into paragraphs.
More people will read it if the text is separated out into distinct ideas.
@@AndyJarman Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. The word rhizomatic/rhizome was a reference to the famous concept from Deleuze and Guattari. For the purposes of the comment, you may also disregard it, I added it with hopes to illustrate a better picture, but if that's doing the opposite, then disregard.
( I'll also add their term is not "rhizomatic culture" per se, it was just me now using their term which I now used to relate to culture.)
Btw I think that text wasn't that dense to need separate paragraphs, typically with longer comments I do them. But I'll keep that in mind🙃.
Deepity is a fine word. Thanks Dan Dennet! (Is that who we owe "deepity" to?)
yes, deepity was coined by Dennett.
❤Excelllent, thank you
Thank you for some sense
Yes, everybody can fit under the ‘umbrella’. For example, i can be considered a cis-man gender conforming heterosexual, but that’s isomorphic with my being a trans woman gender-non-conforming (dress up like a typical cis man) homosexual. There’s LITERALLY no difference between the two ‘identities’. My behavior and desires are exactly the same. The ‘trans’ umbrella is more like a circus tent.
I have listen to many of those interviews but I don't heard much about lesbiennes is transgender an heterosexual subject
It's interesting to consider whether the later day angst against sexual dimorphism and the trend towards androgynous social culture, is driving the trend for shaved sided hair styles. The progressive left and trans ideologues almost seem to have bought the mullet back in style. It was the fashion disaster of my generation, but a compromise between short hair and long hair seems to have resolved into short/no sides and long top and tails. If they'd did the opposite my involuntary hairstyle (with a little purple dye) could have made me cool and progressive.
SoC8 was removed from the WPATH website (and the german speaking associated organisation)!!
March 19th 2024
37:17 ...because they still had their faculties together. 😂
55:40 Why don't you want to say normal?
Normality is what Qveer Theorists want to compromise, stop helping them. Normal is normal, it's good to be normall.
Really? I disagree. Normal is fine, but Tom Brady wasn't a normal quarterback; he was extraordinary. Similarly, there are extremely attractive women who aren't normal at all; they're very rare.
I've never met a 'normal' person yet - not when you scratch below the surface - in fact those presenting as most normal are sometimes the weirdest!! I've never felt normal and I'm happy with that - my whole family are a bit weird - lol!!!
Sorry, I just have to comment again. If anyone I am thinking of dating says anything about pronouns, I will run 😂.
Colin Wright: can you please, please address the Julia Serano book "Excluded"? It's been so rudely prescribed to me, and yet it's just so un-interesting to me. Yet it's out there, influencing people. Also I'd be more interested in listening to you if your organization didn't spam me so often.
(Also, hell no, I'm not paying for shit, not subscribing to shit! These are truisms so I do indeed want this information for free!)
Look! People are just people. Sexual dimorphism is for animals.
Just a side comment…I really feel that your guests need to be on the top, visually. It’s honouring to them, and less about you two, because they are the guest of the hour.
Are you three gender affirming therapists who refer youth to Drs?
You need to let people know who you represent.
If you're asking this question you probably have not listened to a single episode.
That’s why I’m asking, duh!
Please don't use Tucker Carlson as a way to enhance your guests' credibility. Carlson is an authoritarian himself who is deeply involved with Hungary's authoritarian leader, and it looks like Carlson might be economically involved with Orban as well, but he won't talk about that.
Sounds like a great guy who isn't brainwashed by american-pravda
most (all?) world leaders are authoritarian now
I don't agree. Mention who you please, I say. I don't know what I think about media celebrities completely, but now that I don't tune in to my national press on purpose, I appreciate many different views and information. It helps me ask my questions more fully.
False
Get help bro