She 100% understands! 6-8 mos before her Twitter BS, she yelled "at" Josh Hawley on her show when he was acting stupid about inclusive language & at THAT time she was fully understanding!!! And people even reminded her of that segment and she STILL didn't listen!
Most of them don't know at all the process. But Ana also defended the MAGA group that protested LGBT education in schools, because "they wanted to control what their kids learn" which I couldn't give her benefit of doubt on at all. It was just verbatim a right wing claim. Does Ana think we should learn LGBT history and awareness in schools? Or should parents have the right to deny it?
I think Ana is easy to read. When she said I DON'T CARE, she most definitely does. I don't get why she's holding on to this like a pit bull, dying on this hill. Maybe just butt out and leave things up to trans people and their doctors, Cenk/Ana. I think it's about arrogance and that incredulous reaction to being criticized by the left for what right wingers do/say. She can't believe she's being called out and is hurt about it. Then she reacts by lashing out. Would you be soothed, Ana, if they switched the term to parent or 'potential' parent or parent-to-be? Same with her saying she's afraid to talk to POC/people outside her race. Would she really say something like that if she had any meaningful relationships with people of color? I think not. And her saying that gave her away. It also showed her thinking of us as a monolith. I'd advise counseling for her constant outrage and pet peeves about every little thing. I think she's in shock that so many people got fed up with her right wing talking points. I think apologies are near impossible for her, so she'd rather cry to the right and wait for a comforting embrace to validate her. If she's truly leaving the left, good for her. She didn't seem happy and seems stuck on the fact that people strongly disagree with her. There's so much news to cover, yet she can't seem to get over this. I think her talent was teaching integrity in journalism. She admits she's in her own news bubble. Maybe a career change is necessary to avoid becoming fully toxic.
She complains that people on the fringe are after her. Fringe would suggest a small number. So again, why so bothered? Ignore them and block them like you would a misogynist or stalker type. I feel she's the type who can hear 99 compliments, but can only focus on the 1 deranged comment. She imagines she's being piled upon by millions with that mindset.
how does he fundamentally misunderstand what rights are & how they’re supposed to work??? you dont EARN your rights…. they’re given to everyone we see as US citizens as a minimum level of dignity and respect. he’s supposed to be presenting pro-American conservative talking points?? 🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
Shes tactically pivoting before the 24 election sop she can hopefully get the bag$$$ like Dave Ruben or Jimmy Dore. Her and Cenk are trying to save TYT and they think this justifies it if they can do 10 more years of good. It's so transparent I can see it on their faces. Seeing Hasan succeed beyond their wildest dreams must drive Ana up a wall too.
All this stuff is going to be so bizarre to people a decade from now. Everyone will look back and wonder what the hell was wrong with people in the 2020's
Ok so it's like this; firetrucks are not "trucks with the capacity to put out fires", they're firetrucks. The vehicles that the fire department uses, those things. Now, if I put a bucket of water in my truck, and drive to a fire and use the bucket to try and help in putting out the fire, that doesn't make my truck a firetruck, even though it has the capacity to put out a (pretty small) fire. Say you have a firetruck, that the fire department uses, but it is broken and can't currently (or maybe ever again) put out a fire any more. Is it not still a firetruck? See, it is a thing for things to be defective at doing something they're supposed to be able to do. You can be a "defective firetruck" or a "defective woman" in case of a woman that can't give birth, when it is the norm that women (females of child-bearing age) can give birth. And if you're post-menopause you're now an "old woman" which is the thing women become when they age out of the capacity for birth. Even if I put a fire hydrant and a huge water tank on my pickup truck and go and put out fires, my pickup truck is not actually a firetruck, despite being a truck that puts out fires effectively. But people are trying to be nice to the defective among us and don't want to call them a "defective woman" or a "woman who thinks they're a man, but is actually a woman cause they can get pregnant", so they use the term birthing person. They're calling actual firetrucks that the fire department uses "trucks with the capacity to put out fires", and the objection here is that such a thing also can just refer to my truck with the bucket, and that there should be a difference of kind between the two. You don't need a separate category for nonbinary people and all that, you can just call them women with identity issues, as a sub-category of women along the lines of "old woman".
Are you a 4 y.o.? Guess no one has informed you, but no one who uses them for a living calls the vehicle a fire truck.😆 Just an fyi bruh, what you're referring to is actually a fire engine - That's the vehicle that transports firefighters & hundreds of gallons of water, plus lots of hoses and various tools. There is also the much larger ladder truck - that transports firefighters and has a 100 ft or higher ladder, & may carry a smaller amount of water. However... there isn't anything called a "fire truck".😄 But hey, it's all good! 😊 I mean, at least it's not like you are some kind of know it all, arrogant douchbag who tries to correct ppl on matters they're totally ignorant about,insisting that its others that are actually the ones that are wrong! "If I put a water tank on my pickup truck and go put out fires, my pickup is not actually a fire truck" 🧏♀️ So.... Actually... 🤓 It just happens out, many fire depts got those, too,lol... At least lots of deots with rural areas.... It's called a type 6 - Pretty much just a small tank (about 200 gal) on a 4x4 pickup, w/ a pump. 😄🤷♀️ 👍 The more you know!😂
@@darkcrystalmagik3369 No, just using the wording in my native tongue, which in English translates to "fire truck". And my point is actually an analogue, you focusing on semantics is a tacit admission that you can't actually tackle the substance of my meaning.
"Birthing person is an inclusive term that means... a person that has the capacity to give birth... cis women but not all cis women... some non-binary and some trans men" Since cis women are by far the most numerous of those groups, why not use "Women and birthing people..." This way you don't exclude women while also including the other groups, as well as stating the context of birthing capability. What I don't get is, if we are all for the value of inclusion, then why are we excluding the largest member of that group in this case? Inclusive language is not really inclusive if you exclude a large portion of a group. And when you say "I don't know if Ana is a birthing person" it's irrelevant because Ana knows if she's a birthing person or not and if she is, then the term birthing person in the context where she saw it, it would indeed be referring to her.
In your first sentence you said cis women who can give birth would be included in the term birthing person. Then you ask: "why are we excluding the largest member of this group?" it doesn't excludes them. Let's be consistent, if birthing person is a bad word we shouldn't refer to the subset of nonbinary people and trans masc people who can give birth as that either. To stay peceise we would have to say: "the subset of women, trans men and nonbinary people who have the capability to give birth".
@@leaxical Hi, a couple of things: In the first sentence I'm quoting the definition Irene gave in the video, to show what I'm responding to, hence the quotation marks. Secondly, I don't think birthing person is a "bad word" but since women are the most numerous of the group, to avoid othering/excluding them, they should be named explicitly. And, yes I agree that your example is more precise and inclusive.
First off just because someone is in a relationship with a man doesn’t make them unable to be attracted to women as well. That’s an assumption you have made on behalf of Ana. The point she is making is not that gay people are pushing for this, only trans people, and curiously the language only applies to females. What is a gender inclusive term all males must use? There isn’t one word that has been redefined. I believe this is where the problem lies.
The words she takes issue with are used to include trans men and trans masc nonbinary people in the conversation about reproductive healthcare. If we use the word women in that context we include women who can't give birth, who aren't helped or harmed by reproductive healthcare which is a non issue. The issue is that we exclude non women who can give birth. We can have a conversation if the usage of these terms outside of that context is harmful, I have not seen anybody advocate for usage of those term outside of that context yet. That discussion has to involve how biosentialist language like "biological woman", "born male" or "biologically male" can also be considered as harmful in many contexts.
@@jonigazeboize_ziri6737 I don’t understand how male/female is bio essentialist, given that bio essentialism has to do with projecting specific gendered stereotypes onto a sex. I see male/female as void of these presuppositions. I’m not saying someone cannot feel dysphoria around hearing a certain sex, but simply we should move away from the conservative lens that any sex has a predetermined set of attributes or interests. In regards to Ana’s position, she has said that birthing person specifically is offensive to her because she feels it correlates reproduction with females & it feels regressive to her. Maybe she is a staunch supporter of choice feminism, & feels uncomfortable with cultural pressure on perceived heterosexual females to start a family asap. Which is on her of course, but everyone is valid. As a gay woman I’m merely trying to put myself in another’s shoes to try to understand where the thought processes come from.
She 100% understands! 6-8 mos before her Twitter BS, she yelled "at" Josh Hawley on her show when he was acting stupid about inclusive language & at THAT time she was fully understanding!!! And people even reminded her of that segment and she STILL didn't listen!
Most of them don't know at all the process. But Ana also defended the MAGA group that protested LGBT education in schools, because "they wanted to control what their kids learn" which I couldn't give her benefit of doubt on at all. It was just verbatim a right wing claim. Does Ana think we should learn LGBT history and awareness in schools? Or should parents have the right to deny it?
Missed the premire but thank you for your good work
No worries, thank you for the support!
Anna needs to say it with her chest, rather than being a weasel
What a weasel!
she nearly *always* weasels, she co-weaseled w Cenk for how long?00
Holes for me not for thee, My word! ((😅)) hope Ana recovers from this grievance.
Free the holes!
I think Ana is easy to read. When she said I DON'T CARE, she most definitely does. I don't get why she's holding on to this like a pit bull, dying on this hill. Maybe just butt out and leave things up to trans people and their doctors, Cenk/Ana. I think it's about arrogance and that incredulous reaction to being criticized by the left for what right wingers do/say. She can't believe she's being called out and is hurt about it. Then she reacts by lashing out. Would you be soothed, Ana, if they switched the term to parent or 'potential' parent or parent-to-be?
Same with her saying she's afraid to talk to POC/people outside her race. Would she really say something like that if she had any meaningful relationships with people of color? I think not. And her saying that gave her away. It also showed her thinking of us as a monolith.
I'd advise counseling for her constant outrage and pet peeves about every little thing. I think she's in shock that so many people got fed up with her right wing talking points. I think apologies are near impossible for her, so she'd rather cry to the right and wait for a comforting embrace to validate her. If she's truly leaving the left, good for her. She didn't seem happy and seems stuck on the fact that people strongly disagree with her. There's so much news to cover, yet she can't seem to get over this. I think her talent was teaching integrity in journalism. She admits she's in her own news bubble. Maybe a career change is necessary to avoid becoming fully toxic.
She complains that people on the fringe are after her. Fringe would suggest a small number. So again, why so bothered? Ignore them and block them like you would a misogynist or stalker type. I feel she's the type who can hear 99 compliments, but can only focus on the 1 deranged comment. She imagines she's being piled upon by millions with that mindset.
how does he fundamentally
misunderstand what rights are & how they’re supposed to work??? you dont EARN your rights…. they’re given to everyone we see as US citizens as a minimum level of dignity and respect. he’s supposed to be presenting pro-American conservative talking points?? 🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
do not believe that anyone actually referred to her as a birthing person for one split second, medical situation or not.
Ana actually somehow used the very argument used to challenge her position, as her own argument to defend it. Unbelievable.
She's the paragon of bad faith.
Shes tactically pivoting before the 24 election sop she can hopefully get the bag$$$ like Dave Ruben or Jimmy Dore. Her and Cenk are trying to save TYT and they think this justifies it if they can do 10 more years of good. It's so transparent I can see it on their faces. Seeing Hasan succeed beyond their wildest dreams must drive Ana up a wall too.
another great vid! sorry i missed the premier
No worries, thanks!
All this stuff is going to be so bizarre to people a decade from now. Everyone will look back and wonder what the hell was wrong with people in the 2020's
Following proper protocol for getting gender affirming care feels like being the protagonist in kafkas novel Der Prozess.
Damn
Also, she looks pregnant. Or maybe something happened with her face.
lol breeders
love your AK takes but i'm really only subbing cos of yr ears~
Ok so it's like this; firetrucks are not "trucks with the capacity to put out fires", they're firetrucks. The vehicles that the fire department uses, those things.
Now, if I put a bucket of water in my truck, and drive to a fire and use the bucket to try and help in putting out the fire, that doesn't make my truck a firetruck, even though it has the capacity to put out a (pretty small) fire.
Say you have a firetruck, that the fire department uses, but it is broken and can't currently (or maybe ever again) put out a fire any more. Is it not still a firetruck?
See, it is a thing for things to be defective at doing something they're supposed to be able to do. You can be a "defective firetruck" or a "defective woman" in case of a woman that can't give birth, when it is the norm that women (females of child-bearing age) can give birth. And if you're post-menopause you're now an "old woman" which is the thing women become when they age out of the capacity for birth.
Even if I put a fire hydrant and a huge water tank on my pickup truck and go and put out fires, my pickup truck is not actually a firetruck, despite being a truck that puts out fires effectively. But people are trying to be nice to the defective among us and don't want to call them a "defective woman" or a "woman who thinks they're a man, but is actually a woman cause they can get pregnant", so they use the term birthing person.
They're calling actual firetrucks that the fire department uses "trucks with the capacity to put out fires", and the objection here is that such a thing also can just refer to my truck with the bucket, and that there should be a difference of kind between the two.
You don't need a separate category for nonbinary people and all that, you can just call them women with identity issues, as a sub-category of women along the lines of "old woman".
Are you a 4 y.o.? Guess no one has informed you, but no one who uses them for a living calls the vehicle a fire truck.😆
Just an fyi bruh, what you're referring to is actually a fire engine -
That's the vehicle that transports firefighters & hundreds of gallons of water, plus lots of hoses and various tools.
There is also the much larger ladder truck - that transports firefighters and has a 100 ft or higher ladder, & may carry a smaller amount of water.
However... there isn't anything called a "fire truck".😄
But hey, it's all good! 😊 I mean, at least it's not like you are some kind of know it all, arrogant douchbag who tries to correct ppl on matters they're totally ignorant about,insisting that its others that are actually the ones that are wrong!
"If I put a water tank on my pickup truck and go put out fires, my pickup is not actually a fire truck"
🧏♀️ So.... Actually...
🤓 It just happens out, many fire depts got those, too,lol...
At least lots of deots with rural areas....
It's called a type 6 -
Pretty much just a small tank (about 200 gal) on a 4x4 pickup, w/ a pump.
😄🤷♀️
👍
The more you know!😂
@@darkcrystalmagik3369 No, just using the wording in my native tongue, which in English translates to "fire truck". And my point is actually an analogue, you focusing on semantics is a tacit admission that you can't actually tackle the substance of my meaning.
"Birthing person is an inclusive term that means... a person that has the capacity to give birth... cis women but not all cis women... some non-binary and some trans men"
Since cis women are by far the most numerous of those groups, why not use "Women and birthing people..." This way you don't exclude women while also including the other groups, as well as stating the context of birthing capability.
What I don't get is, if we are all for the value of inclusion, then why are we excluding the largest member of that group in this case?
Inclusive language is not really inclusive if you exclude a large portion of a group.
And when you say "I don't know if Ana is a birthing person" it's irrelevant because Ana knows if she's a birthing person or not and if she is, then the term birthing person in the context where she saw it, it would indeed be referring to her.
In your first sentence you said cis women who can give birth would be included in the term birthing person. Then you ask: "why are we excluding the largest member of this group?" it doesn't excludes them. Let's be consistent, if birthing person is a bad word we shouldn't refer to the subset of nonbinary people and trans masc people who can give birth as that either. To stay peceise we would have to say: "the subset of women, trans men and nonbinary people who have the capability to give birth".
@@leaxical Hi, a couple of things: In the first sentence I'm quoting the definition Irene gave in the video, to show what I'm responding to, hence the quotation marks. Secondly, I don't think birthing person is a "bad word" but since women are the most numerous of the group, to avoid othering/excluding them, they should be named explicitly.
And, yes I agree that your example is more precise and inclusive.
First off just because someone is in a relationship with a man doesn’t make them unable to be attracted to women as well. That’s an assumption you have made on behalf of Ana. The point she is making is not that gay people are pushing for this, only trans people, and curiously the language only applies to females. What is a gender inclusive term all males must use? There isn’t one word that has been redefined. I believe this is where the problem lies.
The words she takes issue with are used to include trans men and trans masc nonbinary people in the conversation about reproductive healthcare. If we use the word women in that context we include women who can't give birth, who aren't helped or harmed by reproductive healthcare which is a non issue. The issue is that we exclude non women who can give birth. We can have a conversation if the usage of these terms outside of that context is harmful, I have not seen anybody advocate for usage of those term outside of that context yet. That discussion has to involve how biosentialist language like "biological woman", "born male" or "biologically male" can also be considered as harmful in many contexts.
@@jonigazeboize_ziri6737 I don’t understand how male/female is bio essentialist, given that bio essentialism has to do with projecting specific gendered stereotypes onto a sex. I see male/female as void of these presuppositions. I’m not saying someone cannot feel dysphoria around hearing a certain sex, but simply we should move away from the conservative lens that any sex has a predetermined set of attributes or interests. In regards to Ana’s position, she has said that birthing person specifically is offensive to her because she feels it correlates reproduction with females & it feels regressive to her. Maybe she is a staunch supporter of choice feminism, & feels uncomfortable with cultural pressure on perceived heterosexual females to start a family asap. Which is on her of course, but everyone is valid. As a gay woman I’m merely trying to put myself in another’s shoes to try to understand where the thought processes come from.
Ana is brilliant.
I love Ana. These terms are dumb. Let’s stop this.
No one is using these terms colloquially. They’re meant to be used in medical contexts where accuracy in language is particularly important.
Silly