When he said it, it was funny. When I just read it in your comment, it painted pictures in my mind. I don't want those pictures. I don't need those pictures. "Please dad! You don't need those coconuts!"
Centre of the political spectrum can be pretty far right, when compared to the center of the overton window. If your using the political triangle, Vladimir putin is a centrist but far right of the overton window.
Also, dude has some absolutely nonsense arguments so far (still on trans). Just constant backpedaling on what his own position and argument is because he seemingly cannot defend it. Oh, and constant claims of strawmaning when his argument is repeated back at him.
i used to consider myself a "centrist" even though i had left-wing beliefs. eventually i realized that there's nothing wrong with wanting to eat the rich
I like to frame it like this: In America, most people use the Democrats and Republicans as examples of left and right, and a lot of centrists would self-identify as being between those parties. But Democrats are not nearly as left-wing as the Republicans are right-wing, and economically they're still neolibs. If you're between those two points you're probably at least center-right.
A lot of people are uneducated on political matters and are only aware of social issues through the lens of what they've been taught culturally. And since the culture leans more towards conservative ideas. It's basically just the "I don't know" position without actually admitting they don't know.
You know, I had never heard of you until you were on the Tim Pool podcast. You have certainly changed my mind on a couple of things. I’ve been watching a bunch of your videos. It helps that you have a buttery smooth radio voice.
@@Dan_1348 I dunno man, at least some of the other guests I have seen will pretend to half listen to the arguments against them. This dude straight up cut off Vaush anytime he spoke and screamed Straw Man. That's the debate equivalent of arguing with a Parrot, except technically the Parrot actually listens.
I don't get the impression that he is a bigot, but someone who is so committed to winning an argument that they will argue against their original point just to keep the debate going.
@@fartbucket3524 I listened to this entire debate and I can't even tell you what this guy believes. He has not settled on one single thing. How can you strawman a non-existent argument?
Wow, ummm, I know you support trans people, (I’m a trans woman) but I always thought for the most part you just supported us in a “yeah who cares they should do what they want” kind of way, and it wasn’t until thus video that I realized how intelligent you actually are on gender identity and it’s so smart in fact that even as a trans person I was like “wow, finally someone gets it” kind of blew my mind. Thank you! I know this comment was like a back handed compliment lmao, I’m sorry I’m bad at explaining myself, but this was unbelievably eye opening, not just because I saw how much you know, but you actually taught me something about my own gender identity and it really clicked. Thank you!
I’m trans too, although I haven’t been able to start HRT yet (I’m still working with my parents. i’m old enough to get it, but not without their consent). I just found Vaush and holy Hannah he is educated! You said it better than I could but the way he speaks alone makes me feel so comforted. In a time where it’s hard to stay optimistic, I’m glad we still have some educated people to defend us. :D
It's honestly impressive this guy can have a debate while running a marathon. Sure he was a little out of breath which was annoying as fuck, but still impressive accomplishment.
Seriously I was looking for a comment talking about how out of breath he sounds like he needs to slow down, step back and take some deep breaths. It’s hard listening to him when he sounds like he’s sitting in an interrogation room with sweaty palms.
Jordan Peterson isn't an agnostic atheist, he just refuses to commit to any position on his religious beliefs. He let's his followers agree with the implications of his arguments.
He's a Christian. If you whittle down all the fluffy nonsense he spouts and compare what he thinks to the traditional Christian model they're pretty much exactly the same. The illusion of ambiguity is just an extension of the rest of his vague ideas.
My man’s whole argument is practically just “I’ve never met a trans person in real life, so I decided that a fraction of a fraction of the trans community’s behavior on twitter is how all trans people *and* trans activists talk and behave.” (Bonus points for the leading question that conflated christian nationalism with religious belief.)
@@JohnSmith-px1fm yeah, you’re not wrong, a lot of people on the left (not just liberals but I’d argue they’re even more prone to it) do have a bad habit of reacting more to random bad-take assholes on twitter and conflating that with the whole of the right, especially when they start speaking in shorthand or making caricatures. It’s a common thing loads of people do on all sides in this day and age. That said, I’d hardly think the fact that some people do that in one-on-one arguments is a good basis for generalizing about how “us guys” treat conservatives when most common published reactions to conservative takes are reactions to conservative speakers and thinkers (even politicians) with big followings and are generally acknowledged within conservative institutions as influential and relevant within the space.
@@JohnSmith-px1fm bro, just look at the republican party. look at the popular right wing creators backed by billionaires. it isnt some fringe twitter take.
@@webbyishere it isn't. It's just patriarchy 2.0 to have men identify as women and then usurp their power. To deny this is just another example of misogyny
For the record as a fellow Brit, the “bathroom bans” for trans people isn’t being discussed in parliament at all so I have no clue where the caller pulled that from. While terfs may have discussed it, parties in parliament know that, logistically, attempting to do a public bathroom ban for trans people would just result in heavy protest and bad public opinion of the government. Like, the closet thing to discussing bathrooms was in early 2016 when there was discussion of more inclusive toilets in parliament itself and it just didn’t pass. I’d love to know where this guy got his source for that.
We're under the Tories though. Anyone who values trans rights probably already hates the Tories so they wouldn't lose votes from something like that 🤷♀️
@@tobywood9156 Most of the time, to me at least, referring to people by their last name is a sign of some degree of respect? Like, we talk about Shakespeare, not William. We talk about Mozart, not Wolfgang. We talk about Foucault, not Michel; Marx, not Karl; Obama, not Barack; so on and so forth. I guess if you call someone to their face by their last name it can be belittling because of a contextual implication of distance, but I don't think that applies to people like authors or otherwise influential figures you're not actively interacting with. Maybe you disagree with me?
The point is that the words were created to describe some very specific aspect of humans and of course things that don't fit a particular description are not consider part of the concept that is being described.
Yeah I think most people who are "moderates" IRL are just chill people who dont follow politics. I dont think moderates are generally transphobic. Like that was such a weird take to have
@@Vic-tz3gl On a structural level, yes, most people in general are transphobic and I believe that there is actual harm being done by people using the word to man a systemic issue to people that understand it as an individual issue, but that's more of a problem of liberal thought existing really. Like, as absurd as it seems, people who respect pronouns and names but don't actually think trans women are women do exist and maybe being super aggressive and calling them transphobic isn't really helpful.
@@miigi-p4939 Kind of. They believe we are real, they just won't accept that we ARE the gender we identify as. It's a weird "third gender" approach, like in no way the prefix "trans" wouldn't be needed to describe our gender.
In email: “Trans ideology damages human rights” In call: “When you’re advocating for trans rights you make bigots mad and that’s bad” “You’re straw manning me” “I’m glad I could help” This guy is literally every single debate lord I ever met in high school who subscribed to far right ideas but didn’t like being thought of as far right. So when pointed out to them that homophobia/transphobia/racism/etc causes harm to people they say “Oh thanks for telling me that” as if it hadn’t occurred to them before. Of course this is done to post hoc atone for the bullshit they said during the conversation. They knew that all along but are just too chicken shit to say they don’t care about that with their chest. This guy won’t go on to all of a sudden turn around and tell transphobia they’re doing harm with their language. He just wanted to end the conversation on a note that he thinks doesn’t make him look bad. This would have been less frustrating if he had just concretely lied about what he said in the email instead of trying to retcon it.
G: Trans are against human rights! V: no they're not G: you may be right but i have a different definition. Whats ur definition of a woman? V: someone who identifies as a woman. G: thats a straw man. V: ok buddy. G: i think it would be better if the definition of gender was more inclusive. V: i agree G: thats a straw man
These people don't even have the reasoning to know what a strawman is. A strawman is a logically false representation of an argument for the purpose of defeating it. Vaush saying what his definition is isn't a strawman, because it isn't a presentation of his opponent's argument. Him agreeing was the final nail in the coffin for this transphobic fuck, it's obvious that he just wanted to be contrarian to Vaush and thought strawman meant that's an opinion I don't agree with
@@maxinesenior596 - Even more so, the caller never really made a real argument to begin with. Literally said: "I don't have a point, I just disagree with yours." Can't really strawman your opponents argument if they refuse to give you one to begin with. The closest thing Vaush did to a strawman was trying to gather the caller's incoherent ramblings into a point, which he did as logically and good-faith as possible. To which the caller just claimed "strawman!" instead of actually clarifying his non-existent point.
I'm reminded of a story about Plato and Diogenese. Plato defined man as “featherless bipeds” so Diogenes plucked a chicken plopped it on the floor in front of Plato and proclaimed, “Behold! I’ve brought you a man.”
This is the guy who had a problem with self-reference. For future reference: In Philosophy, we recognize kinds of words whose definitions are self-referential/self-describing, circular, or context-dependent. One kind is *indexicals* . These are words or phrases which are defined entirely context-dependent and has no meaning outside of the instance in which it's used. Examples are "Him", "Over there", "Mine", etc. Two people can use the same indexical and refer to entirely different things. Another kind is *autological* . These are terms and phrases which are explicitly or implicitly contained within their definition. Easy examples are Identity terms, (like names) but others include: "harmless", "anagramatic", "descriptive", "redundant" I think the philosophy channel Carneades has videos on this
'Over there' isn't a word it is a phrase. 'Him' and 'Mine' both have dictionary definitions that are not self referential. Same true of the other words... Find me a published dictionary defintion that is 'x means x'. I bet you can't.
This is all great and helpful. I hope people can appreciate that most folks don't know or think about this kind of academic stuff when someone brings up a random topic in conversation or online, like ’Do you consider trans women as women?' This guy's whole point was that pro-trans people don't bother trying to get people thinking in this highly intellectual plane or even check to see what layperson definition a person is using talking about trans stuff, which is unhelpful like the caller said. It really does seem like Vaush would be and many pro-trans people would be eager to call someone transphobe or do a gotcha then to approach people from a place of reason or sense on this still relatively new and really complicated understand topic.
@@LikeGod_ButBetterLooking Self referential does not mean "x means x", it means the word or its parts are used within the definition. (e.g. anagrammatic means "in the form of an anagram"). Also, defining woman as "anyone who identifies as a woman" is not the same as saying "woman means woman". Finally, a definition is simply the description of how a word is used, that's the ONLY job it has to fulfill.
@@TheGkmasta a woman is someone who identifies as a woman is same as saying a woman is a woman. A composite word being defined by the composite parts of those words is in no way analogous to a woman is a woman. Or x means x...
@@clownsingularity OH MY GOD. That's why watching this was so frustrating. He was trying to catch Vaush on a strawman the entire time by using weirdly incoherent and incomplete arguments, and instead got fucking owned. Holy fuck.
@@TheFathersFather Wasn't this exact point brought up in the debate, where Vaush argued (probably not the exact words but close enough) that there are unhelpful and combative people everywhere on the internet and that doesn't excuse people from not knowing the views of what the person rowling was defending. There being bad people who are angry on the internet instead of writing papers on the topic of gender isn't a big revelation.
Too bad people tried and she doubled down on the pettiness. 😂 she had her chance to learn and she dropped that ball SO HARD. It was so embarrassing to watch.
@@TheFathersFather Of course that would be better... Doesn't make it any less ridiculous to ask it of a Twitter mob. Especially as, like Vaush said, she is a Billionaire with basically unlimited time and resources to educate herself. She also had thousands of life-long fans who explained everything, calmly and clearly, she just "wasn't convinced". And after weeks of being unconvinced she doubled down with her transphobic manifesto... Meaning she spent weeks researching, reading, and talking with people; Only to ignore everything that didn't reinforce her views and hyperfocus to cause panic about the things that did. That type of person will not be educated by a conversation online... The absolute ass washing she went through may not have done anything to change *her* mind, but it did serve in opening the eyes of many many other people to just how silly the terf worldview is. I think that has its value!
Can we start a "J. Peterson" rule where you can just dismiss people when they start talking about this guy? Like, the moment he brought Peterson up, even Vaush could tell this debate was about to be stupid... and this was less than 7 minutes into it.
Why? If it's easy to debunk JP, just do it. Why you gotta resort to dismissing people. You're just gonna look like a bad faith coward. Oh wait.... Forgot I was talking to Vaush's fans. Nevermind.
@@cancelculturevulture5453 because it’s boring and exhausting to have to debunk the SAME half decade old bullshit over and over and over again every single time it rears up. It’s *been done* and it’s a complete insult to everyone’s time to bother with tearing down ALL of JP’s crap every single time some debater name drops him. You’re Doing the equivalent of saying that we should take the time to fully debunk the flat-earth conspiracy or young earth creationism if anyone tries to reference it in an argument about climate change. That’s the point where your opponent has forfeited their entitlement to be engaged with as if they are a serious and reasonable person.
I'll never understand people the "you're just trying to play gotcha" argument. Being treated like a man by other people, and looking in the mirror and seeing male features, both made me feel dissociated from my internal sense of self. That's it. That's why we get upset. It's not about playing "gotcha," it's about trying to understand internally why someone is deliberately saying something that causes you emotional distress. (And it's why we usually don't get upset at people who do it by mistake. But people who do it deliberately, when they know it causes harm? What other explanation is there?)
I gave up 40 minutes in, I still have absolutely no idea what the caller's position is. Every time Vaush tried to get him to take a stand on anything it was 'I am not saying' or 'that is a strawman'.
The guy's point was clear and obvious to me from early on. He was basically saying that it's unhelpful to to trans advocates to both not actively try to make changing the definition of women the main point of the trans movement while also playing gotcha with people that are working from a long-held and understandable definition of women being defined as persons born with a vagina, since that's the definition most people would have had for all of US and most of western history.
@@yourneighborhoodfriendlyme4242 I'm sorry, but.. unhelpful to trans advocates to both not this while gotcha that while playing with... I don't even understand your simplified version.
@@yourneighborhoodfriendlyme4242 technically yeah, but he didn’t exactly explain what he means by it. He was all over the place and just kept calling everything a straw man without really clarifying his position and sometimes he seemed to believe completely contradictory things.
@@yourneighborhoodfriendlyme4242 But that's not true, trans advocates DO advocate for a definition of woman. Specifically, the one Vaush cited. More importantly though, the common definition "someone with a vagina" is wrong and has ALWAYS been wrong, because gender is not the same thing as sex and never has been. It's true that there's a strong correlation between vaginas and women, and until recently many people may not have heard of exceptions, but it's just not reasonable to define gender using biology and never was. This guy keeps trying to present the biological definition as the standard that trans advocates are trying to change, but in reality trans advocates are just pointing out that the biological definition was nonsense from the start, and that the only reasonable way to define gender is using self-identification.
@@randyohm3445 I think a good analogy here is if we used classic physics to define how the world works, then someone discovered that it didn't had the same rules in an atomic level (which people didn't know or understand enough before) and then a bunch of people started complaining that these new rules doesn't make sense and tried to wrongly explain these physics by using those classic rules that doesn't actually describe the reality of the subject as a totality
I can tell this guy watches way too much Jordan Petetson. Refuses to properly define some of his positions and deflects the question with "it depends on what you mean by...", and when Vaush points out a flaw or inconsistency in his views he always deflects with "that's a strawman".
He keeps saying that the transphobic definitions aren't transphobic because they were made without trans people in mind positively or negatively, just not thinking about them at all But that is exactly what is transphobic about them. Not considering the needs of trans people when deciding how things should be is transphobic.
"a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" "Nooo that's bad you can't have self referential definitions" "Woman is a label people can give to themselves" "Yeah that definition is good"
"I am an enlightened centrist and I plan to today -Teach you why this right wing candidate is good -use right wing talking points on why trans people will destroy the west -Why BLM are actually more racist then the right" I paused after the second point so hearing the BLM bit made me so happy That my assessment was correct Edit: Okay so this debate started with him lying about his positions, does not bode well for the future
As soon as he mentioned the trans and blm arguments my thoughts went to "you ain't a centrist, you a whole ass conservative". And like, he can have some views that make him more centered than someone like trump, but, he is still very conservative
@@DeathProductions200 Yeah this guy just seems like a right winger but like...its an internet debate he could just admit that it's not like he's a candidate or anything where being conservative might be used against him by voters The chat were smart enough to realise he was pretty conservative straight away, like they're Pepe posting from frame one lying doesn't make chat any more cooperative just makes you look dumber
@@zcritten that is true right there. I just feel like he should call himself as is. Also, even if he was running for political office of any type, be honest. Use vaush as a platform to potentially get voters. But centrists tend to be slippery, because ya know, they tend to have very little hard views. They bounce way to much and it becomes chaotic.
@@DeathProductions200 that's I think the problems, he's a "centrist" but most centrists when asked to name positions they hold will just name right wing positions, which means that most centrists when actually discussing their ideas just sound like right wingers
this debate frequently showcases the ways that so-called "Enlightened Centrism" can bear rhetoric that, unless carefully considered for a decent length of time, trends towards preserving the status quo, even if the ideological intent behind it is well-meaning towards affecting positive change. I do agree that the definition arrived at by synthesis is stronger as a result of this discussion, but hoo boy.
I mean, "gender is social label that people ascribe to themselves to effect their relationship to society" is pretty close, though far more simplistic, to Judith Butler's idea of gender performativity, so it actually is a decent definition.
Since yall here seem to be knowledgeable about it; isn't Vaush mistaken in claiming that under performativity butch lesbians would count as 'male'? Isn't it basically saying that the gender you are is the gender role you perform? And while butch lesbians portray themselves in a more typically masculine way, I wouldn't say they are 'performing' a male gender role. Like, I feel identifying as male would be the most important step in performing a gender, and they don't. Genuine question, I might be fully mistaken on performativity or the concept of butch lesbians.
Bri'ish Guy: "I too want to see gender roles disappear one day, I just also think we need very specific and rigid definitions to help define and differentiate between genders..." What...
tbh it's not that hard to understand, a man can act like a woman just as much as he wants to, but the definitions will stop him from being one. It's not wrong to act as someone you aren't
Well the argument sounds more solid when Ben shabibo says it to a college kid and then moves on to the next question.. this is what happens when common sense arguments seem to be sound and a gotcha stance but an adult can shred it
@@terrystevens3998 Don't get me wrong, Shapiro can eat my farts, but he at least usually goes into debates with real arguments until he loses his footing or someone calls him out on it (then he completely unravels). It feels like these smaller channels get so hyped to actually be given the platform that they completely forget that they're supposed be making a case for themselves.
Another thing I kept asking myself throughout this is "who cares"? Genuinely, why would we need to hang on to a solid definition of something if there is a _problem in the world right here right now and trans people are suffering and we need to do something about that_ ?
I always find it funny how the conversation on trans people is always exclusively an argument about trans women specifically. No one ever discusses or has issues with trans men… no one ever asks “what’s the definition of a man” it’s always about women. I think the real reason is because the idea of a person with a penis presenting outwardly as a female makes people uncomfortable. That’s the real reason people make all these arbitrary arguments about “what a woman is” or “are trans women really women.” It has nothing to do with actual logic or care about gender and sex, because if it were you’d see the same energy about trans men as well but you don’t. It just has to do with people being uncomfortable by the concept of a person with a penis presenting as a woman.
I don't know how you got that from this video tbh... I watched the whole thing and the guy turned out not to be a transphobe, he and vaush just went to trans women as an example. I think the focus on trans women is a self-perpetuating cycle of hypervisibility, rather than proof that transphobia against them is somehow objectively worse. Transphobia against trans men tends to be more covert: people don't notice it, no one talks about it, it goes unchallenged, the cycle repeats. If you want a clear (but depressing) example, read "Out of Compliance: Masculine-Identified People in Women’s Prisons" in the book 'Captive Genders'. It's about how trans men (and butch women, the research is from a decade ago and unfortunately conflates the two overall, it's still useful and well-intentioned imo) get treated by guards in women's prisons. It's glaringly obvious transphobia motivated by a fear of trans-masculinity.
Alex M I wasn’t making a comment about this person specifically or that transphobia against trans men doesn’t exist. I was just saying that I’ve noticed the vast majority of the time (mainly in online discourse as that’s where I usually see these discussions take place) that the topic is always on trans women specifically. Like there is something about trans women that gets people all riled up for whatever reason, and I feel like that reason is that the concept of a trans women makes transphobic people uncomfortable. I don’t think transphobia against trans women is objectively worse is any way, I’m just pointing out the a fact that I feel like people’s “arguments” against trans people stems from the reality that they are just uncomfortable by trans women. Not saying that there aren’t people who’s transphobia stems from discomfort by seeing trans men. Just a pattern I was pointing out is all.
Can I say I had some thoughts reading this? Men have historically always had a say in what makes a woman a woman. The standards of femininity and womanhood, you see it in laws and why historically woman could and couldn't do things and men in power's justications for it. Woman, never had a say in what makes a man or standards for masculinity. I'm pretty sure one of the toxic standards were toxic masculinity was not caring what women say or else you're pussy whipped Today, if a woman psychologist said anything about toxic masculinity, man would come down on her, saying woman have no say in masculinity and can never know how men feel. Like calling a man who cares what his girlfriend thinks a simp. But, men have always given themselves a say in femininity. From policing women's make up, to how period cramps & pregnancy don't hurt much and women are just dishonest, to stupid mgtow videos like "what femininity means to a man" (made by men for men) Along with the stupid belief that every Feminine interest from hair, fashion, skin, make-up, dolls, dance, etc is nothing more than women hobbies and interests being nothing more than women wanting to impress men, and therefore men get to judge them. Woman don't equally believe they have a say in men's interests, so most women say they don't understand football and turn away from it. Basically, historically, society was created for men. Where men lived for themselves and women lived for men. Women didn't have a say in men's things. But men controlled every little thing related to a woman from motherhood, the rules of motherhood, relationships, sex, virginity, living the house, etc. So, it's carried over from the past when men try to have a say in every little thing women are into but woman don't care about men's interests. Think about if boys got bullied for transformers the same way girls got bullied for twilight even though they were both harmful things to teach young girls and today they're both considered stupid. I think another reason trans woman get targeted is because most transphobes are male homophobes who also hate feminism (therefore they already hate cis women stepping out of line), but as male homophobes who feminism, very few transmen get accepted into male spaces. Transmen mostly have lgbt and women friends due to lgbt & feminists loving and supporting each other (except terfs). Cis-male spaces, even when they claim to not care about gay people, are closed off to gay & transmen most of the time. Cis-women, more commonly, except transwomen as their own and bring them into their spaces without distinction (I will also note that women who don't accept transwomen are usually republican conservatives who hate feminism. So, they have internalized misogyny and think women should stick to living the way men decided hundreds of years ago by preserving "traditional roles". So, transwomen are criticized more partially in direct relation to them being accepted more and therefore a bigger threat to Republicans. My god, I'm so sorry this was so long and I went in so many tangents. I kinda believed they reinforced each other.
Can I say I had some thoughts reading this? Men have historically always had a say in what makes a woman a woman. The standards of femininity and womanhood, you see it in laws and why historically woman could and couldn't do things and men in power's justications for it. Woman, never had a say in what makes a man or standards for masculinity. I'm pretty sure one of the toxic standards for toxic masculinity was not caring what women say or else you're pussy whipped Today, if a woman psychologist said anything about toxic masculinity, man would come down on her, saying woman have no say in masculinity and can never know how men feel. Like calling a man who cares what his girlfriend thinks a simp. But, men have always given themselves a say in femininity. From policing women's make up, to how period cramps & pregnancy don't hurt much and women are just dishonest, to stupid mgtow videos like "what femininity means to a man" (made by men for men) Along with the stupid belief that every Feminine interest from hair, fashion, skin, make-up, dolls, dance, etc is nothing more than women hobbies and interests being nothing more than women wanting to impress men, and therefore men get to judge them. Woman don't equally believe they have a say in men's interests, so most women who say they don't like football will turn away from it. Basically, historically, society was created for men. Where men lived for themselves and women lived for men. Women didn't have a say in men's things. But men controlled every little thing related to a woman from motherhood, the rules of motherhood, relationships, sex, virginity, leaving the house, etc. So, it's carried over from the past when men try to have a say in every little thing women are into but woman don't care about men's interests. Think about if boys got bullied for transformers the same way girls got bullied for twilight even though they were both harmful things to teach young girls and today they're both considered stupid. I think another reason trans woman get targeted is because most transphobes are male homophobes who also hate feminism (therefore they already hate cis women stepping out of line), but as male homophobes who feminism, very few transmen get accepted into male spaces. Transmen mostly have lgbt and women friends due to lgbt & feminists loving and supporting each other (except terfs). Cis-male spaces, even when they claim to not care about gay people, are closed off to gay & transmen most of the time. Cis-women, more commonly, accept transwomen as their own and bring them into their spaces without distinction (I will also note that women who don't accept transwomen are usually republican conservatives who hate feminism. So, they have internalized misogyny and think women should stick to living the way men decided hundreds of years ago by preserving "traditional roles". So, transwomen are criticized more partially in direct relation to them being accepted more and therefore a bigger threat to Republicans. My god, I'm so sorry this was so long and I went in so many tangents. I kinda believed they reinforced each other.
Fun thing about self referential definitions is that I've spoken to my fellow physics master's students that took a class in symmetries what a tensor -- a very important concept in maths and physics -- is, on three separate occations I got the answer "A tensor is an object that is transformed like a tensor".
@@AnimeFan9833 the point is it don't matter. Just because it doesn't make logical sense doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Logic is just another system we can use and base things on
@@Dan_1348 - "A woman is a person who identifies as a woman" isn't even self-referential. Sure it doesn't explain a ton, and leads to questions like: "what does it mean to identify as a woman?", "what is considered womanhood?". And those are questions that go far beyond what a definition can give you, cause they change and depend on time and place and culture and society etc. The definition for "woman" would take up 5 pages in the dictionary if you wanted that all included, and it'd be outdated in a year.
@@TheMrVengeance This is basically the "if it can't be done perfectly there's no point in doing it at all" argument. No definition is perfect, they are a tool to help someone understand a concept. A definition that says "x is x" is basically pointless.
I am always curious what is the actual root of their issue? Up to the age of 15 I did have a homophobia. I was afraid of homosexuals but then we went on a vacation to Hawaii to where my Mom befriend a gay couple. My Sister and I cringed every time we got on the elevator that they would not be on it with us. They not only were on our flight but we staying in the same hotel we were and literally were about three floors directly below us. We ran into them everywhere, even the side trip to Kauai. By the end of the vacation, I just saw them as people. I had no fear that they were going to do anything against me etc. I am heterosexual. I know who I am. I am certainly not going to support anything that limits and restricts them based on their sexual preference. But then when we get to trans what are these guys actual beef? Is the Crying Game their actual fear? Trans have been with us for a very long time. When I was in the Army there was this huge fear of homosexuals being allowed in to which I said but they are already in right now. I swear you could hear all these homophobes buttholes clenching with eyes wide open.
@@davidbarroso1960 are we sure there's no way for a definition to be self-referential without being circular? i have given this no thought whatsoever, I'll admit, but it sounds a bit reductive. I'll think about a concrete example.
@@jakimoretti7771 the definition "a woman is anyone that identifies as a woman" isnt actually circular, Vaush even proves how silly their contention is by rewording it with the same meaning without saying woman again and they're like "oop all better now"
The main reason is that TERF ideology took over a small minority of self-proclaimed feminists. All our political parties, at least those that gain parliament seats, have an internal transphobia problem. However, the UK is probably just as transphobic as America when it comes to public opinion, it’s more so that our laws are way behind on trans rights in comparison. As a young enby person, I’ve seen a somewhat more positive shift in public opinion towards trans people over the last few years, it’s just our politics and a small vocal minority of terfs that cause the issues here.
@@kayundae4411 i also assume that the government is more centralized compared to the US, so it's easier to have these far-reaching laws affected by a small but influential minority
Merriam-Webster defines "woman" as "An adult female person". "Female" has several definitions, as almost every word does; one of which is "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male". Lots of people point to "dictionary definitions" without actually checking, and that can bite them because dictionaries reflect usage first and foremost.
It's only recently has "new" definitions, which are not widely accepted and creates confusion. For that reason, a trans woman should be referred to as a trans woman and not a woman, because they are two very different things. For instance, if a trans person were in a car accident, and the doctor needed to know if the patient were male or female, a man or a woman, he's not referring to gender, he's referring to sex...because your sexual biology will be important in determining course of treatment. So if someone just said "female" or "woman" and not "trans woman", that missing detail could end up causing more harm.
@@cman04 Can we at least agree that common usage of language doesn't need to always match medical language? Like, maybe, a doctor talking about someone's birth sex isn't the same as referring to someone in their daily life?
@@cman04 non trans has a word and it's called cis, no one wants to withhold the clarification of the trans/cis prefix, especially medically speaking. If the doctor knows the name of the person they can find her medical records and if they can't or dont have the time then as a trained medical professional they should be able to determine her sex after a brief examination. Also, what physical treatment are you thinking of that would be harmful if given to the wrong sex? And how would that be different from the kinds of mishaps can happen if the doctor messes up the patients blood type? Sounds like we're talking about improving healthcare and doctors to take care of people better and not the rights of people to their own identity.
@@cman04 Dictionaries update their definitions to reflect usage. Dictionaries didn't put in new definitions before people used them--people used them and that's why dictionaries put them in. People think dictionaries tell us some sort of objectively right and wrong definitions, and that 'new' definitions need to be proven 'correct', but really dictionaries just tell us the most commonly used definitions among people who spoke that language at the time the dictionary was written.
@@cman04 I'm going to assume that you missed the part where I said it's normal for words to have multiple definitions, so I'll elaborate here: It's normal and quite common for words to have multiple definitions, and therefore it's unreasonable to complain that an educated person (like a doctor) might mix those definitions up. If I report a car accident to a hospital, and the doctor on the other end asks me why they should be concerned that I took the wrong exit by mistake, that is on them, not the English language.
When people tell me how minorities should or shouldn’t behave I am immediately reminded of the suffragettes and the reality that often, through history, violence has been absolutely necessary for the rights we enjoy today. In fact, America, the country where I live, had to be established through bloodshed. Not to be pro violence persay but do people fully grasp the sheer unfeasibility of the demands they make of minorities? It’s also cringe and ez to parody. Yo kid I get that your father got killed by a cop for no justifiable reason but you can’t just be impolite about it. We live in a society Y’know?
About his claims that "That's not a definition": I have a group of people in a gymnasium. I tell them to go to either side A or side B, their choice. The definition of both groups is now "People who chose to go to that side". Easy
Exactly. "Woman" is a social construct. It means whatever society decides it means. On it's own, without context, it doesn't mean anything. As a society we decided there is a category called "woman" (a side of the gymnasium), and that means a woman is anyone who decides to be on that side of the gymnasium.
@@TheMrVengeance Gender is used to categorize people by biology in fields like sports. Should we just refer to people as male and female? If gender is a social construct, why does it even matter how you identify?
@@mattm9584 Oh no! Not poor old sports 🥺 whatever will we do? Perhaps we should find better ways to categorise sports. There are bigger differences in advantage between cis women, than there are between transitioned trans women and cis women. Should every sport have weight classes, and height classes? Because a 6ft+ cis woman will have a much greater advantage in basketball over another shorter cis woman, than a trans woman of equal height. And your last sentence makes absolutely no sense. How you identify means _everything_ BECAUSE it's a social construct. It's like asking why it's important we believe money has value. That belief/trust IS the reason money has value. Society constructed the category 'woman' with certain checkboxes to fit in, and now people who fit in are calling themselves women regardless of sex. Because as much as you might hate it, genitals aren't one of the criteria/checkboxes.
@@TheMrVengeance Jesus. You need basic science lessons. The differences between cis women and trans women are tremendous. Taking testosterone blockers/estrogen doesn't eliminate advantages like larger hearts and lungs, increased bone density, higher concentrations of fast-twitch muscle fibers, etc. Males who have gone through puberty retain even more advantages. However, even pre-pubescent males demonstrate changes in development that would not be reversed by simple hormone blockers. And placing women into a "Checkbox" as you call it is blatantly sexist. Tomgirls exist as do effiminate men. The binary is a spectrum but it's still a binary.
“Viewer DESTROYS my Trans Ideology” What Trans ideology? That Trans people exist and are valid? I didn’t know just blatant random facts are an ideology now...
It’s so obvious this guy and people like him who go on Vaush’s stream don’t rlly hold their beliefs to deeply. They’ve just never had them been challenged which is why they’re always so vague and avoid holding direct and concrete views.
The English are really scraping the bottom of the barrel sending this dude to argue about definitions of a woman. Glad to be Welsh in times like this hahah.
You might try to distance yourself from the guest, but for all of the world you're both British people, and your pity distinctions are meaningless to us :P
I have learned so much from these videos and certainly had my eyes opened about many things. It would be so great if you could release the audio of these conversations as podcasts so that us boomers can enjoy them while mowing the lawn, painting the house and doing other boomer things.
my office chair has 5 legs. Or depending on your definition of "leg" it could only have one leg which splits out in 5 directions at the bottom with wheels
Here's a Wittgensteinian take: You can define invented words however you want, but that will simply be a stipulation (not that stipulations can't be useful). Now, try to entirely define "real" words and you'll immediately run into a host of serious issues. What is a chair? What is a computer? What is time? Here's a simple description of the problem: sometimes (and only sometimes), words do in fact function as labels we simply stick to specific things to name them. So then it may be enough to point to the object we stuck the label to to define the word written on it. But that's a special case that only applies in situations where terms can be fully understood by their attachment to things. List all the activities we might call "games". Can you define the term by clearly pointing to all instances at once, as one would like to do in an ideal definition? Can you perhaps find some essential characteristic shared by all of them and point to that? I suggest you actually try, to get some idea of the difficulties involved. You'll be out of this mess the moment you realize that you don't have to think about words as having a hidden meaning or essence, like some object or ideal they must be secretly referring to or mirrors of. Instead, try thinking of them as tools which we use to interact with other humans: "what does it MEAN?" turns into "how is it USED?". Now we could begin to construct a better picture of language: names may be labels after all, which pick out beings or concepts so we can direct our attention to them specifically. Verbs may bring our attention to actions, their relation to time, etc. Personally, I'd call it a waste of time, and I think Wittgenstein would agree. The real hope is that you may now stop thinking about language and return to what you've always known was more important: doing things with words.
I'm about 20 minutes in and I can see the point the view is TRYING to make but he's clearly working backwards from a position he already had. I think if he was intellectually honest with himself he would arrive at a completely different conclusion, more in line with what Vaush is arguing. We'll see how the rest of this video goes...
Guest: *Says some random, half mumbled apparent point* Vaush: *replies to the mess he said* Guest: "I think you misunderstood" *says some new half argument* Repeat x100
Pretty much. He says that anybody who doesn't go around killing people isn't really an atheist no matter what they claim, because . . . uh . . . because Dostoyevksy wrote real good books.
Yeah, some people claim it's impossible to have morality without God, because only God can decide what is "good" and "evil". And therefore anyone acting morally is secretly actually Christian because they're obeying God.
My mans really struggling to grasp the concept of self reference. Here is a simple way to do it: This sentence has one verb. ^No paradox or anything completely valid statement even though it is self referential.
Sometimes people just don't understand that certain things need more nuanced research than just Googling the dictionary definition. Definition of a burglar? "A person who commits burglary"
A sentence can refer to itself. A definition of a word, in order to show the meaning must not be self referential, otherwise it doesn't provide a useful meaning, which means that your mind cannot connect that word to any other concept you already have knowledge of.
You could definitely see that gendered terms meant specific traits unrelated to biology, such as when people pointed out you were "acting like a woman," or "be a man." These might have been deragatory, but you could see how the perceived genders were treated differently. Clearly, gender and sex are different as one can be mistaken for the other, and people are simply more open about/able to share either identifying as one of those two genders, or one outside/inbetween those, or even gender-fluid/free (free could be one who wishes to abolish gender as a concept). As people become more aware of how gender functioned and how it is now functioning, we can learn to maybe become more aware of biases based on our perceptions of another, especially one picked up by judging someone by their exterior appearance.
Look up the definitions of male, female, masculine, and feminine in the oldest US dictionary (it was published 200 years ago)... and you can see where the gendered speech has changed.
I was once in an argument with someone who claimed that gender roles are not actually a thing who told me at one point to "man up", thereby destroying his own argument in two words.
@Suicidal Veteran I understand the correlation and why it's there, it was only quite recently that the term "cis" became more common when referring to gender, at least from my POV, but this is part of why this discussion was had. It seems that there is a mix of topics here on what gender means to us (all people), and how some who is transgender feels about their bodies and how they're identified. Also, I am not saying people will no longer judge on first sight, but that they may be aware of that behavior, and remain open to taking in more information before settling it in their mind. Our survival instincts are noast helpful here, and can cause some conflict when trying to understand the world as it is as it is seemingly less and less intuitive as we learn and evolve (mentally, not in terms of actual evolution).
@Suicidal Veteran _"'Man' and 'male' and 'woman' and 'female' have a VERY high correlation, an unimpeachable fact that trans activists always try to obfuscate and muddy the waters."_ What difference does it make? Clearly there are instances where biological males and biological females have traits, feelings and a nature that are more closely aligned with what we would traditionally associate with the opposite sex. Those biological males and females take on gender roles that are different from their sex because they're more comfortable in those roles.
This guy seems like someone who is either super mask on or just needs some time to think over his position. His final statement seemed indicative of this
"Sex is real, I have it with people's dads all the time"
Fucking classic
When he said it, it was funny.
When I just read it in your comment, it painted pictures in my mind. I don't want those pictures. I don't need those pictures.
"Please dad! You don't need those coconuts!"
@@aknopf8173 uhm... sir- that last sentence... what the fuck
no cocoercion required in your dad's case
Y no timestamp :(
@@aknopf8173 Vaush anarcho capitalist domination fetish?
>Debate is about "trans ideology"
>The guy has a british accent
HERE WE GOOOOOOO
Sad bri’ish noises.
Predictable Bri'ish IQ levels = Predictable debate. Unsubbed 😡
Freaking terf land . 🤮 .
@Colby oh no anyone that actually wants to promote good arguments must be a terf... Yeah great point 🤔
Im british and i support trans rights🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
"I'm a centrist"
Ah yes the centre of the spectrum where the left is Gamer and the right is Fascist.
Centre of the political spectrum can be pretty far right, when compared to the center of the overton window. If your using the political triangle, Vladimir putin is a centrist but far right of the overton window.
@@erispapps9929 the political dodecahedron is much more accurate
I wish I could press a laughing button for this like on Facebook posts.
I'm a centrist. Proceeds leaning towards the Right.
@@RickyFSeiei What right leaning solutions did I advocate for?
Centrist as defined: a person who agrees and argues in favour of right-wing beliefs, but doesn't want to be judged by it.
Also, dude has some absolutely nonsense arguments so far (still on trans). Just constant backpedaling on what his own position and argument is because he seemingly cannot defend it. Oh, and constant claims of strawmaning when his argument is repeated back at him.
100% correct.
i used to consider myself a "centrist" even though i had left-wing beliefs. eventually i realized that there's nothing wrong with wanting to eat the rich
I like to frame it like this:
In America, most people use the Democrats and Republicans as examples of left and right, and a lot of centrists would self-identify as being between those parties. But Democrats are not nearly as left-wing as the Republicans are right-wing, and economically they're still neolibs. If you're between those two points you're probably at least center-right.
A lot of people are uneducated on political matters and are only aware of social issues through the lens of what they've been taught culturally. And since the culture leans more towards conservative ideas. It's basically just the "I don't know" position without actually admitting they don't know.
You know, I had never heard of you until you were on the Tim Pool podcast. You have certainly changed my mind on a couple of things. I’ve been watching a bunch of your videos. It helps that you have a buttery smooth radio voice.
Welcome to the channel, please make yourself at home in our community. :)
@@hondurashaiti1508 try being a lot nicer?
Welcome!
“Welcome to this place, I’ll show you everything, with arms wide open!”
Good job on being open to changing your mind, its a hard thing to do!
We Brits are not sending our best.
to be fair, when have ye ever?
Thats been happening since the revolutionary War my friend ;)
@@Dan_1348 I think the English were about 9000 years too late to be the original Americans.
@@Dan_1348 I dunno man, at least some of the other guests I have seen will pretend to half listen to the arguments against them. This dude straight up cut off Vaush anytime he spoke and screamed Straw Man. That's the debate equivalent of arguing with a Parrot, except technically the Parrot actually listens.
Don’t take this wrong way but…I used to think the English accent sounded smarter….then love island happened…and now I’m bruvophobic….
“Why can’t you guys just be nicer to bigots and transphobes?” -this guy
That's a strawman.
-This guy.
@@Argness1 that is exactly what his response would be lol
Why you guys acting like he wasn't right every time vaush strawmanned him
I don't get the impression that he is a bigot, but someone who is so committed to winning an argument that they will argue against their original point just to keep the debate going.
@@fartbucket3524 I listened to this entire debate and I can't even tell you what this guy believes. He has not settled on one single thing. How can you strawman a non-existent argument?
I'm British and even I went "oh no" when I heard the accent lmao.
Us Bri’ons are very blunt and stubborn when we’re arguing, aren’t we?
Same here lmao
Ugh, same. Shameful mess.
Me too. Our chief cultural export is now TERF ideology. Bloody brilliant.
aww you're one of the good ones...awesome for you :)
Wow, ummm, I know you support trans people, (I’m a trans woman) but I always thought for the most part you just supported us in a “yeah who cares they should do what they want” kind of way, and it wasn’t until thus video that I realized how intelligent you actually are on gender identity and it’s so smart in fact that even as a trans person I was like “wow, finally someone gets it” kind of blew my mind. Thank you! I know this comment was like a back handed compliment lmao, I’m sorry I’m bad at explaining myself, but this was unbelievably eye opening, not just because I saw how much you know, but you actually taught me something about my own gender identity and it really clicked. Thank you!
I’m trans too, although I haven’t been able to start HRT yet (I’m still working with my parents. i’m old enough to get it, but not without their consent). I just found Vaush and holy Hannah he is educated! You said it better than I could but the way he speaks alone makes me feel so comforted. In a time where it’s hard to stay optimistic, I’m glad we still have some educated people to defend us. :D
Vaush gets it more than many trans people lol
I agree. I'm a trans man and finally someone gets us lol also I wanted to thumbs up but I can't ruin that nice 69 likes lmao
It's honestly impressive this guy can have a debate while running a marathon. Sure he was a little out of breath which was annoying as fuck, but still impressive accomplishment.
Seriously I was looking for a comment talking about how out of breath he sounds like he needs to slow down, step back and take some deep breaths. It’s hard listening to him when he sounds like he’s sitting in an interrogation room with sweaty palms.
I am the most famous man on YouTub! This is not bragging! This is the truth! The truth will set you free, dear a
@@AxxLAfriku I’ll sub if you say trans rights
Isn't it a little ableist? Especially during Covid pandemic, which destroyed many people's lungs?
@@Superbajt sincerely hope you're memeing rn 😂
Jordan Peterson isn't an agnostic atheist, he just refuses to commit to any position on his religious beliefs. He let's his followers agree with the implications of his arguments.
He's a gnostic theists by the way he praised jesus in a recent video...
"slippery weasel" describes him perfectly
Yeah he's an agnostic atheist who believes that morality can only exist because of Christianity.
Implications.... he is like Denise from always sunny in Philadelphia never says what he means but leaves all the clue's to the implications.
He's a Christian. If you whittle down all the fluffy nonsense he spouts and compare what he thinks to the traditional Christian model they're pretty much exactly the same. The illusion of ambiguity is just an extension of the rest of his vague ideas.
-says he is a centrist
-proceeds to name 3 far rights talking points
Centrists are rarely what they say they are. Centrists have no balls.
Nowadays "Centrist" just means "I'm actually a Republican but I want to pretend I'm reasonable"
My man’s whole argument is practically just “I’ve never met a trans person in real life, so I decided that a fraction of a fraction of the trans community’s behavior on twitter is how all trans people *and* trans activists talk and behave.”
(Bonus points for the leading question that conflated christian nationalism with religious belief.)
Shows the importance of always considering optics. For a lot of people their only interactions with small minority groups is going to be online.
Thanks for saving me time.
kinda reminds me how you guys treat conservatives...
@@JohnSmith-px1fm yeah, you’re not wrong, a lot of people on the left (not just liberals but I’d argue they’re even more prone to it) do have a bad habit of reacting more to random bad-take assholes on twitter and conflating that with the whole of the right, especially when they start speaking in shorthand or making caricatures. It’s a common thing loads of people do on all sides in this day and age.
That said, I’d hardly think the fact that some people do that in one-on-one arguments is a good basis for generalizing about how “us guys” treat conservatives when most common published reactions to conservative takes are reactions to conservative speakers and thinkers (even politicians) with big followings and are generally acknowledged within conservative institutions as influential and relevant within the space.
@@JohnSmith-px1fm bro, just look at the republican party. look at the popular right wing creators backed by billionaires. it isnt some fringe twitter take.
"Daddy, what is a woman?" "Well, son, let me read you an excerpt from the gospel of dictionary."
I hope this guy never has kids.
As a Brit, I can confirm that there is no Trans Toilet Ban being implemented or discussed in the UK.
Good to know most trans folk where I live think of the UK as TERF island, unlike Scotland.
Not over here in the Netherlands either!
:D
@@mikethegoothough the Netherlands were super supporting of lgbt stuff
Wow, this dude spent a lot of time not saying anything.
Not true - he spent an hour asking for the right to be politely bigoted without reprocussions
@@SA-mo3hq 'bigoted' because believing a man can't become a woman for having surgically implanted titties is totally bigoted
@@charlene2459 yes, it is by definition bigoted. Do you need to rewatch the video? They even discussed what definitions are.
@@webbyishere it isn't. It's just patriarchy 2.0 to have men identify as women and then usurp their power. To deny this is just another example of misogyny
@@charlene2459 me when i torture myself physically and mentally, pushing myself almost to suicide, so i can usurp the power of women
Vaush: *breathes*
Viewer: That's a straw man
Also viewer: Here's this strawman made up about trans ideology.
Also viewer: so you’re saying all dictionaries are wrong
*That's a ludicrous straw man. ^^
For the record as a fellow Brit, the “bathroom bans” for trans people isn’t being discussed in parliament at all so I have no clue where the caller pulled that from. While terfs may have discussed it, parties in parliament know that, logistically, attempting to do a public bathroom ban for trans people would just result in heavy protest and bad public opinion of the government. Like, the closet thing to discussing bathrooms was in early 2016 when there was discussion of more inclusive toilets in parliament itself and it just didn’t pass.
I’d love to know where this guy got his source for that.
We're under the Tories though. Anyone who values trans rights probably already hates the Tories so they wouldn't lose votes from something like that 🤷♀️
I swear liz truss tried to do pass through a bathroom bill a year or 2 ago.
Your pfp reminded me of catboy Jerma
Sorry for the off topic e.e
Trans people should use the bathroom of their birth assignment ..if you have a penis use the male bathroom.
@@scoreunder really some of the biggest gays are conservative.
He just had to be British, I hate living on terf island.
Move to Portland, its very nice there with lots of friendly people
@@wc8246 but British people live there
@@wc8246 Source?
@@wc8246 source
as someone from Florida, I understand the pain
"The silly author of hogwarts" is a pretty fitting title for Joanne. Probably the only thing that I agree with this guy on lol.
normally i refer to people by their last name to be belittling, but hearing you call her "joanne" feels so belittling i love it
@@tobywood9156 Similar to when people refer to Butch Hartman by his birthname: Elmer
@@tobywood9156 Most of the time, to me at least, referring to people by their last name is a sign of some degree of respect? Like, we talk about Shakespeare, not William. We talk about Mozart, not Wolfgang. We talk about Foucault, not Michel; Marx, not Karl; Obama, not Barack; so on and so forth. I guess if you call someone to their face by their last name it can be belittling because of a contextual implication of distance, but I don't think that applies to people like authors or otherwise influential figures you're not actively interacting with. Maybe you disagree with me?
I like that definition for her.
Joanne, the silly author of hogwarts.
I dont get his “those words werent created with trans people in mind” argument.
Times change, we update them. Its not that hard to understand.
yep. exactly like how "all men under god" in the constitution wasn't written with women nor any poc in mind at the time either.
they've never been updated.
The point is that the words were created to describe some very specific aspect of humans and of course things that don't fit a particular description are not consider part of the concept that is being described.
@@Vault-Born lol the vast majority of dysphoric cross-dressers do not pass, i.e. they are socially men.
@@FreeTheDonbas LOL that’s a lovely made up data point you have there.
On the topic of "trans rhetoric" "loosing moderates", my own mother is extremely far-right and she still accepts trans people. Things are changing.
Yeah I think most people who are "moderates" IRL are just chill people who dont follow politics. I dont think moderates are generally transphobic. Like that was such a weird take to have
@@Vic-tz3gl On a structural level, yes, most people in general are transphobic and I believe that there is actual harm being done by people using the word to man a systemic issue to people that understand it as an individual issue, but that's more of a problem of liberal thought existing really.
Like, as absurd as it seems, people who respect pronouns and names but don't actually think trans women are women do exist and maybe being super aggressive and calling them transphobic isn't really helpful.
@@xXxzAAa0aAAzxXx" i dont think you are real
But i will be kinda nice and say your pronoums"
@@miigi-p4939 Kind of. They believe we are real, they just won't accept that we ARE the gender we identify as. It's a weird "third gender" approach, like in no way the prefix "trans" wouldn't be needed to describe our gender.
@@xXxzAAa0aAAzxXx thats so weird like why?
"So, I think women exist-"
"Again, I think you're misunderstanding there"
bruh
Based and redpilled
In email: “Trans ideology damages human rights”
In call: “When you’re advocating for trans rights you make bigots mad and that’s bad” “You’re straw manning me” “I’m glad I could help”
This guy is literally every single debate lord I ever met in high school who subscribed to far right ideas but didn’t like being thought of as far right. So when pointed out to them that homophobia/transphobia/racism/etc causes harm to people they say “Oh thanks for telling me that” as if it hadn’t occurred to them before. Of course this is done to post hoc atone for the bullshit they said during the conversation. They knew that all along but are just too chicken shit to say they don’t care about that with their chest. This guy won’t go on to all of a sudden turn around and tell transphobia they’re doing harm with their language. He just wanted to end the conversation on a note that he thinks doesn’t make him look bad.
This would have been less frustrating if he had just concretely lied about what he said in the email instead of trying to retcon it.
And even if he had actually not realized that transphobia causes harm, that just means he’s a moron.
G: Trans are against human rights!
V: no they're not
G: you may be right but i have a different definition. Whats ur definition of a woman?
V: someone who identifies as a woman.
G: thats a straw man.
V: ok buddy.
G: i think it would be better if the definition of gender was more inclusive.
V: i agree
G: thats a straw man
These people don't even have the reasoning to know what a strawman is. A strawman is a logically false representation of an argument for the purpose of defeating it. Vaush saying what his definition is isn't a strawman, because it isn't a presentation of his opponent's argument. Him agreeing was the final nail in the coffin for this transphobic fuck, it's obvious that he just wanted to be contrarian to Vaush and thought strawman meant that's an opinion I don't agree with
@@maxinesenior596 - Even more so, the caller never really made a real argument to begin with. Literally said: "I don't have a point, I just disagree with yours." Can't really strawman your opponents argument if they refuse to give you one to begin with.
The closest thing Vaush did to a strawman was trying to gather the caller's incoherent ramblings into a point, which he did as logically and good-faith as possible.
To which the caller just claimed "strawman!" instead of actually clarifying his non-existent point.
I'm reminded of a story about Plato and Diogenese. Plato defined man as “featherless bipeds” so Diogenes plucked a chicken plopped it on the floor in front of Plato and proclaimed, “Behold! I’ve brought you a man.”
its also a woman cause it has breasts too!
Caller brings up Rowling
Vausch talks about Rowling
Caller: why are you focusing on Rowling?
Found the German.
This is the guy who had a problem with self-reference. For future reference:
In Philosophy, we recognize kinds of words whose definitions are self-referential/self-describing, circular, or context-dependent.
One kind is *indexicals* . These are words or phrases which are defined entirely context-dependent and has no meaning outside of the instance in which it's used. Examples are "Him", "Over there", "Mine", etc. Two people can use the same indexical and refer to entirely different things.
Another kind is *autological* . These are terms and phrases which are explicitly or implicitly contained within their definition. Easy examples are Identity terms, (like names) but others include: "harmless", "anagramatic", "descriptive", "redundant"
I think the philosophy channel Carneades has videos on this
Ah shit, this is enlightening thank you!
'Over there' isn't a word it is a phrase. 'Him' and 'Mine' both have dictionary definitions that are not self referential.
Same true of the other words...
Find me a published dictionary defintion that is 'x means x'. I bet you can't.
This is all great and helpful. I hope people can appreciate that most folks don't know or think about this kind of academic stuff when someone brings up a random topic in conversation or online, like ’Do you consider trans women as women?'
This guy's whole point was that pro-trans people don't bother trying to get people thinking in this highly intellectual plane or even check to see what layperson definition a person is using talking about trans stuff, which is unhelpful like the caller said. It really does seem like Vaush would be and many pro-trans people would be eager to call someone transphobe or do a gotcha then to approach people from a place of reason or sense on this still relatively new and really complicated understand topic.
@@LikeGod_ButBetterLooking Self referential does not mean "x means x", it means the word or its parts are used within the definition. (e.g. anagrammatic means "in the form of an anagram"). Also, defining woman as "anyone who identifies as a woman" is not the same as saying "woman means woman". Finally, a definition is simply the description of how a word is used, that's the ONLY job it has to fulfill.
@@TheGkmasta a woman is someone who identifies as a woman is same as saying a woman is a woman.
A composite word being defined by the composite parts of those words is in no way analogous to a woman is a woman. Or x means x...
"The definition of woman wasn't designed to exclude trans women. It wasn't designed with trans women in mind at all"
Yes. That's the problem.
"I presume you've heard of Jordan Peterson."
Chat: "Oh no"
When you debate Vaush and just want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing
“I believe sex is real. I have it with peoples’ dads all the time”
Guy who keeps making incomplete and badly stated arguments: "why do you keep strawmanning me?"
hes trying to gotcha him by accusing him of trying to gotcha people
@@clownsingularity OH MY GOD. That's why watching this was so frustrating. He was trying to catch Vaush on a strawman the entire time by using weirdly incoherent and incomplete arguments, and instead got fucking owned. Holy fuck.
"My point is that I don't really have a point, I just disagree with your point."
"Then quit being a strawman!"
🤣🤣
"Why wasn't the Twitter mob nicer to JK. Rowling? It would have been a good time to educate her!" lmfao
@@TheFathersFather Wasn't this exact point brought up in the debate, where Vaush argued (probably not the exact words but close enough) that there are unhelpful and combative people everywhere on the internet and that doesn't excuse people from not knowing the views of what the person rowling was defending. There being bad people who are angry on the internet instead of writing papers on the topic of gender isn't a big revelation.
Too bad people tried and she doubled down on the pettiness. 😂 she had her chance to learn and she dropped that ball SO HARD. It was so embarrassing to watch.
@@TheFathersFather This is honestly the best thing to do but I don’t think this view is popular. Which is a real damn shame
@@TheFathersFather Of course that would be better... Doesn't make it any less ridiculous to ask it of a Twitter mob.
Especially as, like Vaush said, she is a Billionaire with basically unlimited time and resources to educate herself.
She also had thousands of life-long fans who explained everything, calmly and clearly, she just "wasn't convinced". And after weeks of being unconvinced she doubled down with her transphobic manifesto... Meaning she spent weeks researching, reading, and talking with people; Only to ignore everything that didn't reinforce her views and hyperfocus to cause panic about the things that did. That type of person will not be educated by a conversation online...
The absolute ass washing she went through may not have done anything to change *her* mind, but it did serve in opening the eyes of many many other people to just how silly the terf worldview is. I think that has its value!
@@TheFathersFather Kinda need more than 280 characters to deconstruct womanhood.
"I am a centrist"
-follows up with exclusively right-wing points
There is no centre in the UK. The only people who claim to be are right wingers.
I took a shot every time this person used the terms “ludicrous” or “straw man” and now I’m dead.
Omg! We have a zombie among us!!
@@amandagarcia2848 among us
@@amandagarcia2848 Well it depends on your definition of "dead".
Rip
Can we start a "J. Peterson" rule where you can just dismiss people when they start talking about this guy? Like, the moment he brought Peterson up, even Vaush could tell this debate was about to be stupid... and this was less than 7 minutes into it.
Please?
Why? If it's easy to debunk JP, just do it. Why you gotta resort to dismissing people. You're just gonna look like a bad faith coward. Oh wait.... Forgot I was talking to Vaush's fans. Nevermind.
@@cancelculturevulture5453 because it’s boring and exhausting to have to debunk the SAME half decade old bullshit over and over and over again every single time it rears up. It’s *been done* and it’s a complete insult to everyone’s time to bother with tearing down ALL of JP’s crap every single time some debater name drops him. You’re Doing the equivalent of saying that we should take the time to fully debunk the flat-earth conspiracy or young earth creationism if anyone tries to reference it in an argument about climate change. That’s the point where your opponent has forfeited their entitlement to be engaged with as if they are a serious and reasonable person.
so the only debate here would be to challenge people that align with your ideas completely? that seems like a boring debate
The “chair” analogy.. apparently a chair is something with 4 legs and a base on which to sit, but that hasn’t stopped guys from sitting on my face 😆
woah woah woah woah woah woah woah waoh woah there buddy woah woah woah owah woah woah
"I think sex is real. Everyone thinks sex is real. I have it with people's dads all the time."
LOL HOLY FUCK that was hilarious
this guy sounds so out of breath he triggered my manual breathing
LMAO
Your comment triggered my manual breathing...now I keep forgetting to do it
I'll never understand people the "you're just trying to play gotcha" argument. Being treated like a man by other people, and looking in the mirror and seeing male features, both made me feel dissociated from my internal sense of self. That's it. That's why we get upset. It's not about playing "gotcha," it's about trying to understand internally why someone is deliberately saying something that causes you emotional distress. (And it's why we usually don't get upset at people who do it by mistake. But people who do it deliberately, when they know it causes harm? What other explanation is there?)
As a Brit myself, I knew it was going to be bad the moment I heard his accent
Bri'ish 😂
I quite literally said "oh god he's British" as soon as I heard him say hi
Man, me with my southern accent yall would assume I'm some trump supporting asshole basing it off of that. But valid points there
@@BatButchabout my reaction
@@hana_irl123 the racism in Vowsh’s comuni’iy is disgusting
I gave up 40 minutes in, I still have absolutely no idea what the caller's position is. Every time Vaush tried to get him to take a stand on anything it was 'I am not saying' or 'that is a strawman'.
The guy's point was clear and obvious to me from early on. He was basically saying that it's unhelpful to to trans advocates to both not actively try to make changing the definition of women the main point of the trans movement while also playing gotcha with people that are working from a long-held and understandable definition of women being defined as persons born with a vagina, since that's the definition most people would have had for all of US and most of western history.
@@yourneighborhoodfriendlyme4242 I'm sorry, but.. unhelpful to trans advocates to both not this while gotcha that while playing with... I don't even understand your simplified version.
@@yourneighborhoodfriendlyme4242 technically yeah, but he didn’t exactly explain what he means by it. He was all over the place and just kept calling everything a straw man without really clarifying his position and sometimes he seemed to believe completely contradictory things.
@@yourneighborhoodfriendlyme4242 But that's not true, trans advocates DO advocate for a definition of woman. Specifically, the one Vaush cited. More importantly though, the common definition "someone with a vagina" is wrong and has ALWAYS been wrong, because gender is not the same thing as sex and never has been. It's true that there's a strong correlation between vaginas and women, and until recently many people may not have heard of exceptions, but it's just not reasonable to define gender using biology and never was. This guy keeps trying to present the biological definition as the standard that trans advocates are trying to change, but in reality trans advocates are just pointing out that the biological definition was nonsense from the start, and that the only reasonable way to define gender is using self-identification.
@@randyohm3445 I think a good analogy here is if we used classic physics to define how the world works, then someone discovered that it didn't had the same rules in an atomic level (which people didn't know or understand enough before) and then a bunch of people started complaining that these new rules doesn't make sense and tried to wrongly explain these physics by using those classic rules that doesn't actually describe the reality of the subject as a totality
I can tell this guy watches way too much Jordan Petetson.
Refuses to properly define some of his positions and deflects the question with "it depends on what you mean by...", and when Vaush points out a flaw or inconsistency in his views he always deflects with "that's a strawman".
He keeps saying that the transphobic definitions aren't transphobic because they were made without trans people in mind positively or negatively, just not thinking about them at all
But that is exactly what is transphobic about them. Not considering the needs of trans people when deciding how things should be is transphobic.
"a woman is someone who identifies as a woman"
"Nooo that's bad you can't have self referential definitions"
"Woman is a label people can give to themselves"
"Yeah that definition is good"
One is autmoatic, the other say it's a possibility ?
A gun is something some people have.
Water is something that has weight.
Turtles are things that light can bounce off of.
So do you guys think 72 genders is reasonable and logically sound?
@@theanimehub2180 I don't care. Let people live as they want if they aren't hurting others
@@stonium69 It hurts others when they're allowed to compete in a sport that is separated on biological lines.
"I am an enlightened centrist and I plan to today
-Teach you why this right wing candidate is good
-use right wing talking points on why trans people will destroy the west
-Why BLM are actually more racist then the right"
I paused after the second point so hearing the BLM bit made me so happy That my assessment was correct
Edit: Okay so this debate started with him lying about his positions, does not bode well for the future
As soon as he mentioned the trans and blm arguments my thoughts went to "you ain't a centrist, you a whole ass conservative". And like, he can have some views that make him more centered than someone like trump, but, he is still very conservative
@@DeathProductions200 Yeah this guy just seems like a right winger but like...its an internet debate he could just admit that it's not like he's a candidate or anything where being conservative might be used against him by voters
The chat were smart enough to realise he was pretty conservative straight away, like they're Pepe posting from frame one lying doesn't make chat any more cooperative just makes you look dumber
@@zcritten that is true right there. I just feel like he should call himself as is. Also, even if he was running for political office of any type, be honest. Use vaush as a platform to potentially get voters. But centrists tend to be slippery, because ya know, they tend to have very little hard views. They bounce way to much and it becomes chaotic.
@@DeathProductions200 that's I think the problems, he's a "centrist" but most centrists when asked to name positions they hold will just name right wing positions, which means that most centrists when actually discussing their ideas just sound like right wingers
This should not surprise you. "Centrist" is code for "right wing but don't want to admit it."
Right away the Bri'ish accent, can't make this shit up.
My people do suck :/
@@TheSquareheadgamer British “people”
@@zionschwarting458 hurtful
Us British are just more intelligent tbh, we can see past this idology much easier :)
@@imShlievenhien God did you just reveal yourself to be British? just gave everyone a blank cheque to ignore everything you say.
this debate frequently showcases the ways that so-called "Enlightened Centrism" can bear rhetoric that, unless carefully considered for a decent length of time, trends towards preserving the status quo, even if the ideological intent behind it is well-meaning towards affecting positive change. I do agree that the definition arrived at by synthesis is stronger as a result of this discussion, but hoo boy.
I mean, "gender is social label that people ascribe to themselves to effect their relationship to society" is pretty close, though far more simplistic, to Judith Butler's idea of gender performativity, so it actually is a decent definition.
Oh I'm currently reading "gender trouble" so yes, totally agree with that!
Love me some Butler
Yeah I mean if there were no underlying facts of the matter.
Since yall here seem to be knowledgeable about it; isn't Vaush mistaken in claiming that under performativity butch lesbians would count as 'male'? Isn't it basically saying that the gender you are is the gender role you perform? And while butch lesbians portray themselves in a more typically masculine way, I wouldn't say they are 'performing' a male gender role. Like, I feel identifying as male would be the most important step in performing a gender, and they don't.
Genuine question, I might be fully mistaken on performativity or the concept of butch lesbians.
@@cf6713 What facts?
Bri'ish Guy: "I too want to see gender roles disappear one day, I just also think we need very specific and rigid definitions to help define and differentiate between genders..."
What...
tbh it's not that hard to understand, a man can act like a woman just as much as he wants to, but the definitions will stop him from being one.
It's not wrong to act as someone you aren't
@@Alecsussi pretty sure you didnt watch this video anyway
@@miigi-p4939 I guess it's impossible to have an opinion after you watched something
@@Alecsussi i am pretty sure that you didnt watch a video that literally answered your answers
And just ignore ir
This is genuinely frustrating to watch. This guy doesn't even seem like he's prepared any real arguments.
That's generally how terfs operate. They just rely on lies and emotional propaganda.
@@Lotan_ You're not wrong.
Well the argument sounds more solid when Ben shabibo says it to a college kid and then moves on to the next question.. this is what happens when common sense arguments seem to be sound and a gotcha stance but an adult can shred it
@@terrystevens3998 Don't get me wrong, Shapiro can eat my farts, but he at least usually goes into debates with real arguments until he loses his footing or someone calls him out on it (then he completely unravels).
It feels like these smaller channels get so hyped to actually be given the platform that they completely forget that they're supposed be making a case for themselves.
He got feels. That's all he's got.
Vaush just remained fucking ZEN throughout this debate. Grandmaster Debate Bro Vowsh
Debating on a treadmill as all Bri*ish people do, other theories for why they are out of breath are appreciated
We all smoke hand rolled cigs.
What's with all the anglophobes here? The guys an idiot but he doesn't represent all of us
@@orcho141 we blame our problems on the British because we are tired of being made fun of our imperial system
@@orcho141 lol anglophobes
@@teteteteta2548 in fairness it's not just us that pick on you for that
Another thing I kept asking myself throughout this is "who cares"? Genuinely, why would we need to hang on to a solid definition of something if there is a _problem in the world right here right now and trans people are suffering and we need to do something about that_ ?
they do cause if they don't hate they can't be happy
As soon as he said Jordan Peterson I knew the inconsistencies were coming.
I always find it funny how the conversation on trans people is always exclusively an argument about trans women specifically. No one ever discusses or has issues with trans men… no one ever asks “what’s the definition of a man” it’s always about women. I think the real reason is because the idea of a person with a penis presenting outwardly as a female makes people uncomfortable. That’s the real reason people make all these arbitrary arguments about “what a woman is” or “are trans women really women.” It has nothing to do with actual logic or care about gender and sex, because if it were you’d see the same energy about trans men as well but you don’t. It just has to do with people being uncomfortable by the concept of a person with a penis presenting as a woman.
I don't know how you got that from this video tbh... I watched the whole thing and the guy turned out not to be a transphobe, he and vaush just went to trans women as an example.
I think the focus on trans women is a self-perpetuating cycle of hypervisibility, rather than proof that transphobia against them is somehow objectively worse. Transphobia against trans men tends to be more covert: people don't notice it, no one talks about it, it goes unchallenged, the cycle repeats. If you want a clear (but depressing) example, read "Out of Compliance: Masculine-Identified People in Women’s Prisons" in the book 'Captive Genders'. It's about how trans men (and butch women, the research is from a decade ago and unfortunately conflates the two overall, it's still useful and well-intentioned imo) get treated by guards in women's prisons. It's glaringly obvious transphobia motivated by a fear of trans-masculinity.
Alex M I wasn’t making a comment about this person specifically or that transphobia against trans men doesn’t exist. I was just saying that I’ve noticed the vast majority of the time (mainly in online discourse as that’s where I usually see these discussions take place) that the topic is always on trans women specifically. Like there is something about trans women that gets people all riled up for whatever reason, and I feel like that reason is that the concept of a trans women makes transphobic people uncomfortable. I don’t think transphobia against trans women is objectively worse is any way, I’m just pointing out the a fact that I feel like people’s “arguments” against trans people stems from the reality that they are just uncomfortable by trans women. Not saying that there aren’t people who’s transphobia stems from discomfort by seeing trans men. Just a pattern I was pointing out is all.
@@ttaybelle I’ve noticed that as well. I’m not sure why that is, but your explanation def sounds plausible.
Can I say I had some thoughts reading this?
Men have historically always had a say in what makes a woman a woman. The standards of femininity and womanhood, you see it in laws and why historically woman could and couldn't do things and men in power's justications for it.
Woman, never had a say in what makes a man or standards for masculinity. I'm pretty sure one of the toxic standards were toxic masculinity was not caring what women say or else you're pussy whipped
Today, if a woman psychologist said anything about toxic masculinity, man would come down on her, saying woman have no say in masculinity and can never know how men feel. Like calling a man who cares what his girlfriend thinks a simp.
But, men have always given themselves a say in femininity. From policing women's make up, to how period cramps & pregnancy don't hurt much and women are just dishonest, to stupid mgtow videos like "what femininity means to a man" (made by men for men)
Along with the stupid belief that every Feminine interest from hair, fashion, skin, make-up, dolls, dance, etc is nothing more than women hobbies and interests being nothing more than women wanting to impress men, and therefore men get to judge them.
Woman don't equally believe they have a say in men's interests, so most women say they don't understand football and turn away from it.
Basically, historically, society was created for men. Where men lived for themselves and women lived for men. Women didn't have a say in men's things. But men controlled every little thing related to a woman from motherhood, the rules of motherhood, relationships, sex, virginity, living the house, etc.
So, it's carried over from the past when men try to have a say in every little thing women are into but woman don't care about men's interests. Think about if boys got bullied for transformers the same way girls got bullied for twilight even though they were both harmful things to teach young girls and today they're both considered stupid.
I think another reason trans woman get targeted is because most transphobes are male homophobes who also hate feminism (therefore they already hate cis women stepping out of line), but as male homophobes who feminism, very few transmen get accepted into male spaces. Transmen mostly have lgbt and women friends due to lgbt & feminists loving and supporting each other (except terfs). Cis-male spaces, even when they claim to not care about gay people, are closed off to gay & transmen most of the time.
Cis-women, more commonly, except transwomen as their own and bring them into their spaces without distinction (I will also note that women who don't accept transwomen are usually republican conservatives who hate feminism. So, they have internalized misogyny and think women should stick to living the way men decided hundreds of years ago by preserving "traditional roles".
So, transwomen are criticized more partially in direct relation to them being accepted more and therefore a bigger threat to Republicans.
My god, I'm so sorry this was so long and I went in so many tangents. I kinda believed they reinforced each other.
Can I say I had some thoughts reading this?
Men have historically always had a say in what makes a woman a woman. The standards of femininity and womanhood, you see it in laws and why historically woman could and couldn't do things and men in power's justications for it.
Woman, never had a say in what makes a man or standards for masculinity. I'm pretty sure one of the toxic standards for toxic masculinity was not caring what women say or else you're pussy whipped
Today, if a woman psychologist said anything about toxic masculinity, man would come down on her, saying woman have no say in masculinity and can never know how men feel. Like calling a man who cares what his girlfriend thinks a simp.
But, men have always given themselves a say in femininity. From policing women's make up, to how period cramps & pregnancy don't hurt much and women are just dishonest, to stupid mgtow videos like "what femininity means to a man" (made by men for men)
Along with the stupid belief that every Feminine interest from hair, fashion, skin, make-up, dolls, dance, etc is nothing more than women hobbies and interests being nothing more than women wanting to impress men, and therefore men get to judge them.
Woman don't equally believe they have a say in men's interests, so most women who say they don't like football will turn away from it.
Basically, historically, society was created for men. Where men lived for themselves and women lived for men. Women didn't have a say in men's things. But men controlled every little thing related to a woman from motherhood, the rules of motherhood, relationships, sex, virginity, leaving the house, etc.
So, it's carried over from the past when men try to have a say in every little thing women are into but woman don't care about men's interests. Think about if boys got bullied for transformers the same way girls got bullied for twilight even though they were both harmful things to teach young girls and today they're both considered stupid.
I think another reason trans woman get targeted is because most transphobes are male homophobes who also hate feminism (therefore they already hate cis women stepping out of line), but as male homophobes who feminism, very few transmen get accepted into male spaces. Transmen mostly have lgbt and women friends due to lgbt & feminists loving and supporting each other (except terfs). Cis-male spaces, even when they claim to not care about gay people, are closed off to gay & transmen most of the time.
Cis-women, more commonly, accept transwomen as their own and bring them into their spaces without distinction (I will also note that women who don't accept transwomen are usually republican conservatives who hate feminism. So, they have internalized misogyny and think women should stick to living the way men decided hundreds of years ago by preserving "traditional roles".
So, transwomen are criticized more partially in direct relation to them being accepted more and therefore a bigger threat to Republicans.
My god, I'm so sorry this was so long and I went in so many tangents. I kinda believed they reinforced each other.
Fun thing about self referential definitions is that I've spoken to my fellow physics master's students that took a class in symmetries what a tensor -- a very important concept in maths and physics -- is, on three separate occations I got the answer "A tensor is an object that is transformed like a tensor".
Physics masters grad here
That is indeed the definition of tensor...
I mean definitions like that certainly exist but that doesn't really tell us anything about wether they make logical sense.
@@AnimeFan9833 the point is it don't matter. Just because it doesn't make logical sense doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Logic is just another system we can use and base things on
@@Dan_1348 - "A woman is a person who identifies as a woman" isn't even self-referential. Sure it doesn't explain a ton, and leads to questions like: "what does it mean to identify as a woman?", "what is considered womanhood?". And those are questions that go far beyond what a definition can give you, cause they change and depend on time and place and culture and society etc. The definition for "woman" would take up 5 pages in the dictionary if you wanted that all included, and it'd be outdated in a year.
@@TheMrVengeance This is basically the "if it can't be done perfectly there's no point in doing it at all" argument. No definition is perfect, they are a tool to help someone understand a concept. A definition that says "x is x" is basically pointless.
When someome unironically identifies as an "enlightened centrist" you know youre in for a doozy
Vaush makes statement
This guy: ‘thats a loooooooodicrous strawman
You're strawmanning his argument because he hasn't made any arguments so you have to construct your own to even carry on the conversation
Exactly! It's wild to constantly claim "strawman!" when you're the one actively and deliberately refusing to make a firm point.
The dude is such a coward lmao. "I agree with everything you say but you're wrong. No I will not support my points."
I am always curious what is the actual root of their issue? Up to the age of 15 I did have a homophobia. I was afraid of homosexuals but then we went on a vacation to Hawaii to where my Mom befriend a gay couple. My Sister and I cringed every time we got on the elevator that they would not be on it with us. They not only were on our flight but we staying in the same hotel we were and literally were about three floors directly below us. We ran into them everywhere, even the side trip to Kauai. By the end of the vacation, I just saw them as people. I had no fear that they were going to do anything against me etc. I am heterosexual. I know who I am. I am certainly not going to support anything that limits and restricts them based on their sexual preference.
But then when we get to trans what are these guys actual beef? Is the Crying Game their actual fear? Trans have been with us for a very long time. When I was in the Army there was this huge fear of homosexuals being allowed in to which I said but they are already in right now. I swear you could hear all these homophobes buttholes clenching with eyes wide open.
The Chair analogy needs to be a meme too. Alden's Chair
Still don’t know what a chin is
Alden's Coconut Chair
Is the coconut hoarder sitting on it?
WHAT'S A CHIN VAUSH, WHAT'S A CHIN
The chair take is so dumb it shows how vaush resort to calling everything a social construct when he is has no argument.
I was legit about to search for a vaush trans debate and this was first in my recommended
I got it in my head that this is just Sargon with a high pitched voice and now I can't unhear it
oh no
"Definitions cant be self referencal"
"why?"
"Cause I said so"
because it’s circular. if i tell you a glorpal is a type of glorpal, you still have no idea what a glorpal is
I mean if he didn't say that the sentence couldn't be a tautology
@@davidbarroso1960 are we sure there's no way for a definition to be self-referential without being circular? i have given this no thought whatsoever, I'll admit, but it sounds a bit reductive. I'll think about a concrete example.
@@jakimoretti7771 the definition "a woman is anyone that identifies as a woman" isnt actually circular, Vaush even proves how silly their contention is by rewording it with the same meaning without saying woman again and they're like "oop all better now"
That annoyed me so much. "You haven't provided a definition!!" "Yes I did." "Well, I didn't like it :("
Every time you extrapolate the exact consequences of his ideas, he claims it's a strawman. Jesus christ.
At least it ended on a decent note.
"Again, ur strawmanning me"
Ok... Maybe provide something more than straw?
Why does this dude sound like he’s gonna burst into tears the entire time, so hard to listen to. Please make a coherent argument
What is it with a lot of people in the UK being transphobic? I don't get it.
Idk but I hate it here please help
Terf Island
@@ginger6readspaceman I know.
The main reason is that TERF ideology took over a small minority of self-proclaimed feminists. All our political parties, at least those that gain parliament seats, have an internal transphobia problem. However, the UK is probably just as transphobic as America when it comes to public opinion, it’s more so that our laws are way behind on trans rights in comparison. As a young enby person, I’ve seen a somewhat more positive shift in public opinion towards trans people over the last few years, it’s just our politics and a small vocal minority of terfs that cause the issues here.
@@kayundae4411 i also assume that the government is more centralized compared to the US, so it's easier to have these far-reaching laws affected by a small but influential minority
Vaush kinda won this one before it started
Merriam-Webster defines "woman" as "An adult female person". "Female" has several definitions, as almost every word does; one of which is "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male". Lots of people point to "dictionary definitions" without actually checking, and that can bite them because dictionaries reflect usage first and foremost.
It's only recently has "new" definitions, which are not widely accepted and creates confusion. For that reason, a trans woman should be referred to as a trans woman and not a woman, because they are two very different things.
For instance, if a trans person were in a car accident, and the doctor needed to know if the patient were male or female, a man or a woman, he's not referring to gender, he's referring to sex...because your sexual biology will be important in determining course of treatment.
So if someone just said "female" or "woman" and not "trans woman", that missing detail could end up causing more harm.
@@cman04 Can we at least agree that common usage of language doesn't need to always match medical language? Like, maybe, a doctor talking about someone's birth sex isn't the same as referring to someone in their daily life?
@@cman04 non trans has a word and it's called cis, no one wants to withhold the clarification of the trans/cis prefix, especially medically speaking. If the doctor knows the name of the person they can find her medical records and if they can't or dont have the time then as a trained medical professional they should be able to determine her sex after a brief examination. Also, what physical treatment are you thinking of that would be harmful if given to the wrong sex? And how would that be different from the kinds of mishaps can happen if the doctor messes up the patients blood type? Sounds like we're talking about improving healthcare and doctors to take care of people better and not the rights of people to their own identity.
@@cman04 Dictionaries update their definitions to reflect usage. Dictionaries didn't put in new definitions before people used them--people used them and that's why dictionaries put them in. People think dictionaries tell us some sort of objectively right and wrong definitions, and that 'new' definitions need to be proven 'correct', but really dictionaries just tell us the most commonly used definitions among people who spoke that language at the time the dictionary was written.
@@cman04 I'm going to assume that you missed the part where I said it's normal for words to have multiple definitions, so I'll elaborate here: It's normal and quite common for words to have multiple definitions, and therefore it's unreasonable to complain that an educated person (like a doctor) might mix those definitions up. If I report a car accident to a hospital, and the doctor on the other end asks me why they should be concerned that I took the wrong exit by mistake, that is on them, not the English language.
When people tell me how minorities should or shouldn’t behave I am immediately reminded of the suffragettes and the reality that often, through history, violence has been absolutely necessary for the rights we enjoy today. In fact, America, the country where I live, had to be established through bloodshed.
Not to be pro violence persay but do people fully grasp the sheer unfeasibility of the demands they make of minorities? It’s also cringe and ez to parody.
Yo kid I get that your father got killed by a cop for no justifiable reason but you can’t just be impolite about it. We live in a society Y’know?
About his claims that "That's not a definition":
I have a group of people in a gymnasium. I tell them to go to either side A or side B, their choice.
The definition of both groups is now "People who chose to go to that side".
Easy
Exactly. "Woman" is a social construct. It means whatever society decides it means. On it's own, without context, it doesn't mean anything. As a society we decided there is a category called "woman" (a side of the gymnasium), and that means a woman is anyone who decides to be on that side of the gymnasium.
But what definition are you using? 😂
@@TheMrVengeance Gender is used to categorize people by biology in fields like sports. Should we just refer to people as male and female? If gender is a social construct, why does it even matter how you identify?
@@mattm9584 Oh no! Not poor old sports 🥺 whatever will we do? Perhaps we should find better ways to categorise sports.
There are bigger differences in advantage between cis women, than there are between transitioned trans women and cis women.
Should every sport have weight classes, and height classes?
Because a 6ft+ cis woman will have a much greater advantage in basketball over another shorter cis woman, than a trans woman of equal height.
And your last sentence makes absolutely no sense. How you identify means _everything_ BECAUSE it's a social construct.
It's like asking why it's important we believe money has value. That belief/trust IS the reason money has value.
Society constructed the category 'woman' with certain checkboxes to fit in, and now people who fit in are calling themselves women regardless of sex. Because as much as you might hate it, genitals aren't one of the criteria/checkboxes.
@@TheMrVengeance Jesus. You need basic science lessons. The differences between cis women and trans women are tremendous. Taking testosterone blockers/estrogen doesn't eliminate advantages like larger hearts and lungs, increased bone density, higher concentrations of fast-twitch muscle fibers, etc. Males who have gone through puberty retain even more advantages. However, even pre-pubescent males demonstrate changes in development that would not be reversed by simple hormone blockers.
And placing women into a "Checkbox" as you call it is blatantly sexist. Tomgirls exist as do effiminate men. The binary is a spectrum but it's still a binary.
vaush: takes argument to its logical conclusion
this guy: strawman !!! that’s ludicrous !!! not what I meant !!!
vaush: Ok?? So what is your point?
caller: I don't have a point really, I just disagree with your point.
Shows he hasn’t properly thought through his arguments
"Hello-"
"Thats a strawman"
“Viewer DESTROYS my Trans Ideology”
What Trans ideology? That Trans people exist and are valid? I didn’t know just blatant random facts are an ideology now...
It's a catchy title
Perhaps watch the debate and you'd understand more. No one disagreed with either of those facts in this debate.
a 6 minutes ago comment on a video that's been out for like 10 minutes
@@vautrinvaquer5240 it was on a live stream a few days ago. Or just not comment until you have a clue what you're talking about 🤷♂️
It's part of the ideology which has led to the crisis in Afganistan :)
It’s so obvious this guy and people like him who go on Vaush’s stream don’t rlly hold their beliefs to deeply. They’ve just never had them been challenged which is why they’re always so vague and avoid holding direct and concrete views.
The English are really scraping the bottom of the barrel sending this dude to argue about definitions of a woman. Glad to be Welsh in times like this hahah.
Yes all of the people in England sent this guy. He's clearly the emperor of English people:3
@@AH-vm8yo truly the pinnacle of the great British monarchy
I sure as hell wasn't consulted on this guy.
You might try to distance yourself from the guest, but for all of the world you're both British people, and your pity distinctions are meaningless to us :P
I have learned so much from these videos and certainly had my eyes opened about many things. It would be so great if you could release the audio of these conversations as podcasts so that us boomers can enjoy them while mowing the lawn, painting the house and doing other boomer things.
Vaush lookin so slim my dude 💚
my office chair has 5 legs. Or depending on your definition of "leg" it could only have one leg which splits out in 5 directions at the bottom with wheels
That's a strawman!
Here's a Wittgensteinian take:
You can define invented words however you want, but that will simply be a stipulation (not that stipulations can't be useful). Now, try to entirely define "real" words and you'll immediately run into a host of serious issues. What is a chair? What is a computer? What is time? Here's a simple description of the problem: sometimes (and only sometimes), words do in fact function as labels we simply stick to specific things to name them. So then it may be enough to point to the object we stuck the label to to define the word written on it. But that's a special case that only applies in situations where terms can be fully understood by their attachment to things. List all the activities we might call "games". Can you define the term by clearly pointing to all instances at once, as one would like to do in an ideal definition? Can you perhaps find some essential characteristic shared by all of them and point to that? I suggest you actually try, to get some idea of the difficulties involved. You'll be out of this mess the moment you realize that you don't have to think about words as having a hidden meaning or essence, like some object or ideal they must be secretly referring to or mirrors of. Instead, try thinking of them as tools which we use to interact with other humans: "what does it MEAN?" turns into "how is it USED?". Now we could begin to construct a better picture of language: names may be labels after all, which pick out beings or concepts so we can direct our attention to them specifically. Verbs may bring our attention to actions, their relation to time, etc. Personally, I'd call it a waste of time, and I think Wittgenstein would agree. The real hope is that you may now stop thinking about language and return to what you've always known was more important: doing things with words.
I'm about 20 minutes in and I can see the point the view is TRYING to make but he's clearly working backwards from a position he already had. I think if he was intellectually honest with himself he would arrive at a completely different conclusion, more in line with what Vaush is arguing.
We'll see how the rest of this video goes...
Guest: *Says some random, half mumbled apparent point*
Vaush: *replies to the mess he said*
Guest: "I think you misunderstood" *says some new half argument*
Repeat x100
Didn't Jordan Peterson say some shit like people with good morals believe in God even if they're atheist because reasons?
Pretty much. He says that anybody who doesn't go around killing people isn't really an atheist no matter what they claim, because . . . uh . . . because Dostoyevksy wrote real good books.
Yeah, some people claim it's impossible to have morality without God, because only God can decide what is "good" and "evil". And therefore anyone acting morally is secretly actually Christian because they're obeying God.
Honestly, I did like the joke of the cat and a toxic relationship.
It’s a decent joke but terrible time to tell it
He has that overly confident, despite achieving nothing of value in life, smug, tory British accent.
I'd love to see this guy try to tell Jordan Peterson that he's an atheist
My mans really struggling to grasp the concept of self reference.
Here is a simple way to do it:
This sentence has one verb.
^No paradox or anything completely valid statement even though it is self referential.
Sometimes people just don't understand that certain things need more nuanced research than just Googling the dictionary definition.
Definition of a burglar? "A person who commits burglary"
A sentence can refer to itself. A definition of a word, in order to show the meaning must not be self referential, otherwise it doesn't provide a useful meaning, which means that your mind cannot connect that word to any other concept you already have knowledge of.
From now on whenever someone disagrees with me I’m just going to say it’s a strawman and change the topic.
You could definitely see that gendered terms meant specific traits unrelated to biology, such as when people pointed out you were "acting like a woman," or "be a man."
These might have been deragatory, but you could see how the perceived genders were treated differently.
Clearly, gender and sex are different as one can be mistaken for the other, and people are simply more open about/able to share either identifying as one of those two genders, or one outside/inbetween those, or even gender-fluid/free (free could be one who wishes to abolish gender as a concept).
As people become more aware of how gender functioned and how it is now functioning, we can learn to maybe become more aware of biases based on our perceptions of another, especially one picked up by judging someone by their exterior appearance.
Look up the definitions of male, female, masculine, and feminine in the oldest US dictionary (it was published 200 years ago)... and you can see where the gendered speech has changed.
I was once in an argument with someone who claimed that gender roles are not actually a thing who told me at one point to "man up", thereby destroying his own argument in two words.
@Suicidal Veteran
I understand the correlation and why it's there, it was only quite recently that the term "cis" became more common when referring to gender, at least from my POV, but this is part of why this discussion was had.
It seems that there is a mix of topics here on what gender means to us (all people), and how some who is transgender feels about their bodies and how they're identified.
Also, I am not saying people will no longer judge on first sight, but that they may be aware of that behavior, and remain open to taking in more information before settling it in their mind.
Our survival instincts are noast helpful here, and can cause some conflict when trying to understand the world as it is as it is seemingly less and less intuitive as we learn and evolve (mentally, not in terms of actual evolution).
@Suicidal Veteran
_"'Man' and 'male' and 'woman' and 'female' have a VERY high correlation, an unimpeachable fact that trans activists always try to obfuscate and muddy the waters."_
What difference does it make? Clearly there are instances where biological males and biological females have traits, feelings and a nature that are more closely aligned with what we would traditionally associate with the opposite sex. Those biological males and females take on gender roles that are different from their sex because they're more comfortable in those roles.
This guy seems like someone who is either super mask on or just needs some time to think over his position. His final statement seemed indicative of this
Vaush: says anything
brit bong: s t r a w m a n
54:49 it is confirmed that 63% of all Vaush viewers are sometimes a chair
We're actually just all chairs
To my dog, at this very moment, I am indeed a chair.
"Because I didn't know the definition, it didn't exist." He literally has the mind of a child closing their eyes to make something scary going away.
As a furry, I’m all for gender getting fuzzy uwu
Same
@Nova Hrvatska ⸸ ☭ ew pfp
LOL
@Nova Hrvatska ⸸ ☭ no u
Does this mean I get to head pat gender?
Just remember, a vowsh isn’t a person who calls themself a vowsh because it’s a self referential definition
Fuck, as soon as he mentioned jordan peterson i knew i was in for a cringe fest
"If I make no arguments, everything you argue against is a strawman."