@@SphincterOfDoom So... then aqua is not the spanish word, but the latin word. Just because a language is based on latin, doesn't mean you can use it referential like that. But nice attempt protecting vaush's butt.
Some critiques of Vaush in this debate. 1. He should replace the phrase "women archetypes" with "feminine archetypes" to solve his self-referentiality problem. 2. He let Thomas conflate gender with sex far too often. This debate would have been much less painful if he corrected Thomas on this conflation more often. 3. Vaush could have ended this debate in 5 seconds if he had brought up Alden's Theory of Woman.
@Anaven M1 I would argue that if we can get rid of the self-referential aspect of a definition without sacrificing it's utility, then that's what we should do. Getting rid of unnecessary literary baggage is a good thing.
@@canadagoose8543 I agree. And I think it’s only so self referential because it’s easier to do that than to go on and explain it all. It seems like a lot of Thomas’ issues were on an explicit, and I would say a bit misguided, dislike of self referential definitions. I think Vaush is right that most social concepts end up self referential somewhere down the line but tidying up any extra literary baggage like you said is good and helps remove some of the legs Thomas and those like him stand on
Rare Vaush L. Gotta start doing more prepwork man. Hate to sound like a Destiny fanboy but you had so many opportunities to make real arguments but just panicked and went bad faith mode pretty much immediately and started spouting nonsense about chemistry you clearly dont understand.
This dude literally brings up Katherine Jenkins by name and then omits the definition of self identification she lays out in the same paper he was referencing, that literally addresses all his objections to self id, absolutely dishonest and bad faith from the start
Hogs never read their sources lemme tell ya, they would bring papers up on this forum I used to frequent and be like "SEE, LOOK AT THE RESEARCH" and someone would screenshot something in the same paper that contradicted them, because they assumed from reading the first few lines the research agreed with them.
it might just be confirmation bias, he seemed reasonable enough and he seemed as if he believed what he was saying. He could have just instinctively thought that trans women are not women and then just looked for stuff that agrees with him or misinterpret stuff that disagrees.
@@aleksaa24 he's a doctor of philosophy, i think he can be expected to properly read a paper even if he disagrees with it. and besides, just cherrypicking to prove your preconceived notion is bad faith by itself
The comments here saying things like "wow a powerpoint what a loser" and "wow such a long opening statement" really reveal what low level of discourse this audience is used to. Quite telling and disappointing.
You know, I always thought Vaush was exaggerating about James's physique. He's always said James is huge and jacked af but since every time I've seen James he was in a suit it was hard to tell. But damn Vaush was right this man is YOLKED
This guy messed up when he started the water point by saying lakes and rivers are filled with water. He accidentally demonstrated that our day-to-day definitions of terms are in fact not the hyperliteral scientific ones.
Even the example that water is H2O doesnt hold up. Does this include ice? Or Steam? They are both H2O ,however, if my friend asked for some water and I brought him back an ice cube, I bet he'd be confused. Our definitions are meant to serve our general needs. In Vaush's case, it makes sense for trans women to be defined as women, because there is utility in it.
@@stella_s In fact, I was disappointed that Vaush didn't point that out. If you say "water" fills lakes and rivers, then you don't literally mean H2O, you mean the part of a river or lake that is fluid or is mixed in with the H2O which is scientifically way more complex to fully describe. Also another point Vaush missed: Bogardus tried to establish that water is H2O, but then colloquially admits also ice is H2O, so if "water is H2O" and "ice is H2O", then you're saying ice is water, which is similar, but not the same.
Yup. We somehow call water based solutions (dirty water, salt water, clean water, etc) just "water" (which supposedly refers to H2O, despite H2O having fundamentally different properties from all those solutions) and yet things like juice or blood, despite being water based solutions as well, are their own substances. Almost as if we arbitrarily decided what to call water and what not to... To elaborate, if we had a, say, 30% orange juice, we'd call that juice. If we had a 30% dirt water, we'd still call it water (unless it was enough dirt to become mud, which is *also* arbitrarily defined).
I know. I really wanted to say something like 'so, we refer to a gold colored pencil as being gold. A gold ring as being gold' even if it's costume jewelry, we refer to it as gold. Now, it will be important to say 'oh, it's plastic' at some points, but in most cases, it doesn't matter
I really LOVE the mention of "trans-water", because trans- and cis- are actual prefixes that are used in quemistry, specifically in organic chemistry, and I joke CONSTANLY with my friends who know I am trans about it.
I mean water can't be cis or trans, those guys are so fucking bad at chemistry my teeth hurt. I can't imagine worst strat than "I don't understand "a" so I'll make use shit I know even less about as a metaphor".
Also I think Vaush did critical nat 1 failure- he could hammer harder on how the "fact there's many kinds of women means there's no women" is dumb as shit.
Okay, I watched the debate and I conclude that everyone should have a PhD in language philosophy to use any gendered public bathroom. And probably a degree in chemistry as well, for some reason.
I saw this debate on the Modern Day Debate channel first and the comments were full of idiots who laughed at Vaush for saying that descriptions are prescriptive and arbitrary. As a linguist, it was an incredibly painful comment section to read.
Yes, I have worked with socio-linguists I doubt many have room for essentialism or reductionism. Language is conventional and so are the terms 'Man' and 'Woman'.
As a biochemist who has heard all the same arguments from 5G deniers and people who sabotage research centers due to ignorance, thank you so much for giving out a bunch of validity and fuel to that mindset. Appreciate it. It must be wonderful that negative consequences in your field can be fixed retroactively via lawsuit and the justice system. I wonder why the right wing guy had a cheesy grin the whole time he was losing huh?
I've never seen someone spend so long, with so many tools, trying to look and sound smart and come off as less intelligent over time in ONE INTRO. I can't stand this guy purely because its clear he doesn't, and probably has no intention of, understanding the arbitarity of Human language and societies. Vaush's example of "cool" is a perfect analogy. Even when Dr. Bogardus was talking about water, he gave lakes and oceans as an example - even though the old definition believed that the contaminants within the water - salt, dirt, bacteria, etc - were PART of the water. Saying that a lake is water is H2O is just as dumb as saying a fern is grass is a specific species of plant life. They don't track in that way and Dr. Bogardus is clearly incapable of that understanding.
I really wish vaush would have been harder on him for immediately gishgalloping. Just tell the dude, "we have an hour, give me your best argument from that or I'm picking your weakest".
You missed his point... The historical misconception was part of his point. He said that whilst the Greeks didn't know exactly what water was, they knew what water was. Overtime as we get a clearer understanding around these elements we're able to define them better and we describe the physical world more accurately. Basically water is real, we know what water is, overtime we're able to explain what makes water water. If humans were wiped off the face of the earth and all our knowledge was lost. Another species would still find water and still discover it's H2O. We have a similar thing with female, we have a very robust definition of female. An organism that when functioning properly, produces eggs. We know when it is or isn't functioning properly by looking at other identical organisms and how they function. If we were wiped off the world, and provided there wasn't a complete reset of the evolution process, what ever creature evolves to be intelligent would also discover that one factor for reproduction is the creation of eggs and they will give that being a name. These are facts of the world that we are describing. However you completely missed his wider point that he didn't need to defend the biological definition. It actually works in his favour to poke holes in it as his point was that NO definition can hold the position that all trans women are women. The cool example was also really poor. I can say that 'all cool people are cool". Then someone could ask me "what makes a person cool". Then I could give a loose list of characteristics that I believe makes a person cool. By me giving my definition that means I would exclude people who identify as cool from being cool. For example. I imagine Vaush self identifies as being cool.... He does not meet my definition of cool, therefore in my opinion, Vaush is not cool. Despite his objections to me not labelling him cool.
@@bez5297 water isn't real, the things we refer to with the word water are real but water is still a constructed categorization of those things that only exists because we say it does... The whole point is to show the difference between the facts that we describe and categorize with definitions and the words for those definitions themselves.
Vaush should've prepared for this. It's funny that this comment section is calling this Dr a transphobe when he didn't make any transphobic statements. Vaush's community use to not be so pitiful.
It's no longer about being correct, but about being virtuous. Under no circumstances would vaush concede a point here, because he knows it would look terrible for him optically. and since he has been in hot fire for a while now over all kinds of lefty drama, imagine he would also admit to trans women being not "real" women, this would be the nail in the coffin for his lefty position. this dogmatism is what turns any leftist community to total shit. inconvenient things will be deliberately ignored because they rather be "morally correct" than factually. I swear if there was really hard evidence that certain groups of people are naturally dumber or more violent, leftist would rather be deluding themselves than ever admitting there might be an issue here. This is exactly what plays into the hands of the right wing.
It was extremely evident that Vaush began floundering early on in the debate because he didn't have a real solid rebuttle in mind. He began to rely on pedantic meandering and obfuscation as a tactic to deflect. Vaush made a couple of decent points but 90% of this was sophistry, which he is good at. After all.. debates aren't about who is right or saying the truth but about who appears to have "won" to the audience. For what its worth I think I do sort of subscribe to the prescriptive model personally and don't really care about self reference in the definition of words, becasue as Derrida pointed out long ago, words are ultimately meaningless.
@@MikaelLV Tbf that's true of any comments section surrounding a public figure, but regardless yeah it is annoying to see so many detractors dismissed as a wokescolding tankie or whatever Stuff like his gun control vid still had pretty negative reception from his fans, that said
Wait, did this dude really just go from being so pedantic and condescending about the definition of water, to completely dodging the same questions being directed at him about women by saying 'I just go with the flow man, we all know its colloquial meaning why are you so nitpicky?'. This guy is constantly using generalities and imprecise language, but also tried to make 10 minutes of this about scoffing at the notion that when someone says water they might not be referring to just pure h2o but potentially any of its derivatives or mixtures. He even tried a shitty gotcha with the lake question but that example just shows how much of a useless pedant he is being. He believes a lake is full of water, but there's a lot more in there than that its a mixture of minerals bacteria etc. and if we were going by the same standard he set only seconds before then he would also be incorrect in saying that a lake is full of water. Which is obviously ridiculous and shows that these hyper literal definitions he wants to establish as the only acceptable ones is nonsensical outside of very niche context. This guy isn't even trying to hide how bad faith he is acting here especially when he started a debate trying to define terms in the most narrow way possible but not adhering to the extreme level of scrutiny he himself set only minutes later.
@@turbocat8329 thanks for explaining that. Since the main argument for trans people is gender and sex are different. And woman isn’t a female why does a trans woman need female sex hormones. Why is it wrong to say gender isn’t sex, trans women so no female sex hormone for you?
@@christianlima1993 Trans women take hormones because of two similar reasons. Firstly, women in society are expected to look a certain way. By taking HRT they look more like the societal role of women by having female sex characteristics. Gender is the social interpretation of sex and so of course this affects how women are viewed. The second reason is because of sexual dysphoria. Many transgender people also have discomfort with their natural body and HRT allows them to have a body closer to their internal view. Unlike Body Dysmorphia Disorder, these feelings can't be dissuaded with therapy similarly to how homosexuality cannot be treated.
"Your definition of 'woman' does not stand up to scientific rigor! What's my definition? Umm... I just kinda look in the dictionary or whatever." said the philosophy PhD and associate professor who "works in the area of ... philosophy of gender"
@@femboyaliens789 But any dictionary is going to be plagued by the same issues he has with Vaush's definition. Why does Vaush get the turbo-nerd pedantry when he's referring to and advocating for a marginalized community but when the question gets asked back at the associate professor he pretends to not even understand the question and then gets to give the vaguest, least-rigorous definition I've ever heard in my life?
@@JakeFace0 because his point was not all trans women are women according to any definition that isn’t circular. And any circular definition is meaningless so there would be no women . That’s the point …
@@brutuslugo3969 circular definitions are a non issue. Look at set theory. You just acknowledge that some concepts cannot be really defined, and move on. Never been a big deal honestly. Edit: therefore, many things are defined in a circular fashion in language and philosophy. The *circular definition = meaningless of concept* is really a gotcha thing that has no place in any academic discussion. You define stuff based on what you _need_ . We don't really _need_ the social construct distinction between woman and trans woman. We probably don't _need_ to include in language genders at all (and that is the gender abolitionist take). In my opinion societies will always converge on some definition that collects behavior/perspective/roles, but we don't need to fixate so much on them. These things shift all of the time, coalescing on set-in-stone definitions is a losing game.
Vaush in the intro: "Anyways language is arbitrary and we get more utility out of this so prescriptively trans women are women" Bogardus less than 2 minutes later: "so yeah trans women arent women because language says they arent lol"
@@Dekubud To be fair most academics have zero clue of linguistics. Vaush isn't really big on it either. With philosophers the lack of understanding is just more apparent.
@@bobbun4369 Arbitrary doesnt mean nonexistent, it means constructed and subjective. The important thing is that language is something we have made, and therefore we can change it and modify it to serve more utility when we please. If language was strictly objective it would be unchanging, because the first iterations of each concept would already be perfect.
Yikes, what a stunning L for Vaush. This puts even his normal content to shame. Imagine unironically supporting Self-ID as a thing that society can actually function on.
@@willdenham do you really not understand how a self-ID definition of anything destroys the meaning of if it? This shows that you didn't even listen to the professor's opening. Statement.
As a trans woman, the truth is that I am tired of my identity being treated as a clue to debate without even considering that we are people, not a political framework to start debates I still appreciate that the attempt is made to defend us agianst these kinds of harmful talking points but the truth is that these people will never change their way of thinking
I agree that this shouldn't be the way it happens, but I do think it's valuable even if he won't ever change *their* minds. Because that's not the goal- the goal is to make their arguments look dumb to the viewers. And it's worked, at least for me and plenty of other people. Hearing Vaush pick apart transphobe's arguments over and over, seeing that they couldn't stand up to scrutiny and never came up with any newer or better material, helped me build the confidence to accept that I was trans. I'm glad Vaush does what he does.
Tbf the point isn't to change this guy's opinion but the opinion of some of the hundreds of people watching that may be open to changing their mind. You fight for the audience not the opponent. That being said I can certainly understand you finding the discussion exhausting. Obv it's bullshit that a person's existance is considered debatable.
Seriously... Imagine investing this much effort into trying to debunk a subjective experience you yourself have never had and never will. The levels of entitled egocentrism from these types is utterly unreal.
I can understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but at the same time, when your subjective identity goes further than yourself and can actively affect others in adverse ways (trans women in women's sports, bathroom madness, etc., etc.) it's something that does need brought up and discussed about what the best move is for all involved parties.
@@somerandommenHere’s what confusing. We understand the non-binary nature of sex and gender. But there’s this persistence to use restrictive binary terms (i.e Man and Woman) to describe something that is fundamentally not binary. Why have sub-categories when entirely new categories can be created? I agree with Vaush that we are the masters of our language. It would seem the utility would be to expand our language. Vaush references how ancient societies had terms for third and fourth genders. Simply return to this.
@@morgancody6752 Gender is not a social construct. It is a signifier used to qualify a scientific observation based on an already existing fact, occuring independently of its signifier.
I hate how semantic and philosophical trans discourse becomes 😵💫 Like, what if we just talked about human rights issues in the context of human rights without getting bogged down by linguistics?
James, like any reasonable person, probably already believes that adults should have the right to bodily autonomy. Not much else to talk about in regards to human rights
Idk how you can come out of this thinking vaush did poorly unless you don't understand what a social construct is, as bogardus doesn't. There's no scientific reason why trans women are or aren't women. Woman isn't a scientific term, and so the only way to debate the issue is through the linguistics of assigning words to concepts. Vaush isn't deflecting by pointing out that different languages have different words for things, the idea of associating words with concepts arbitrarily is the entire point.
@@alig2472 You really think a philosophy phd is being honest when he asserts that trans women can't be considered women under ANY philosophical frame work? 🤡
@@alig2472 no they just conflate them to mean something different like Jordon Peterson. He knows what subjective and objective means but pretends he can just magically change thier usages. Same way he does with religious experiences. He claims everyone is religious then defines religious experiences as everything therefore everyone is religious.
PhD in Sociolinguistics here. Let me say that I truly wish that people who comment on language (especially definitions) would look more into the inherently social aspect of language. As a career philosopher, I'm truly shocked that Dr. Bogardus provided some incredibly weak arguments here (linguistically speaking). I'll leave the viewers with an awesome quote with summarises my field perfectly: "'statements about language are never only about language - and they are never only statements" (Gal and Irvine 2019, p1).
Thank you! I've always held an interest in laungauge. Especially how it evolves/deviates based on location, social roles, etc. (British vs American English for example. And what even is defined as standard "British" or "American" English. Why I use the slang I use, etc). I've always found it really fascinating. But I can barely look into it or discuss it online. Most people are just trying to prove they speak the "correct" form of English. Correctness is not the point of laungauge! It's infuriating to me. Who cares enough to genuinely make fun of Americans for calling American football "football"? Or literally the rest of the world for saying zed insteadve zee. It's interesting!! Not something to make fun of. It's always so shallow too. People barely talk about it with nuance so I'm stuck reading the same posts about "football," "ou, vs. o in English," "zee vs. zed," or fucking, "chips vs. French fries." I don't care about that! Ugh. Oh, I almost forgot, and because it's a discussion about laungauge, you know the grammar nerds are going to be out there x10. Correcting everything you say with, "uhm actually it's "there" maybe learn how to spell before you talk laungauge. 🙄" instead've actually addressing the points.
@Anaven M1 that’s philosophy of language 101 GIGACHAD. Day 1 in philosophy class we go over how Bertrand Russell ameliorated the argumentative structure of propositional outcomes
When Vaush saw the powerpoint presentation, he thought he was in trouble. When he saw his own quotes featured in the presentation, he knew it was over.
What, you mean gish galloping and the weak platonic theory of forms and universals? Cause that is what you do when you refer to women as water and water not being a concept but a molecule. And of course women can't be compared to water and of course when you say woman you mean a concept, a construct. There is some idealised form of a woman, in your head that is and nowhere outside of it, and I'm pretty sure it's different from my concept of a woman. !53 other ignoramuses seem to agree with you. Y'all need more Nietzsche in your lives. Imagine getting praised for using platonic ideals. Weak sauce
@@janespright I look at your comment, and you know what I think? "The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. In essence, it is prioritizing quantity of one's arguments at the expense of quality of said arguments."
I do not understand how anyone fluent in English suddenly doesn't understand that definitions are EXTREMELY fluid and contextual. It's an essential component of the language. The same words can mean entirely different things based on tone, delivery, context, etc. For example, if I walked up to you after a debate and said "you fucked that up, bro", that means you did poorly. But if I said "you fucked that UP, bro", suddenly that means you did well. So insisting that the definition of "woman" is something so disconnected from our daily usage of the term strikes me as being pedantic for pedant's sake.
Maybe more for winning's sake? Possibly, that as soon as he accepted words can have more than one meaning, he'd lose. But I'm more surprised by how he's a doctor in philosophy but he isn't as critical about things. He's like: well, that's how it. But WHY?
I think the problem is that he's treating "woman" like its definition functions like that of gold or water, when Vaush's example of "cool" is much more appropriate Womanhood is vibes What is a woman? Whatever the fuck she wants to be
@@RaineInChaosmost women would probably be offended you reducing womenhood to vibes. Also if it’s just vibes y can’t trans women just vibe themselves into the correct gender
@@mickeycostagain660 why do I feel like you are in no place to tell me what women want to be "reduced" to? (hint: stop reducing women period) "Vibes" is an overly simplistic way to refer to a gestalt formed of thousands of things that are sometimes contradictory, but all come together to form a cohesive image As for your second question, I don't understand it. That's exactly what trans women do.
What is a christian? You can have two people, both christian, who disagree on basically everything. Does that mean the term christian doesn't convey any meaning? No, it carries cultural meaning, even though that mening is constantly changing and also up to each individual to define. According to Dr. Bogardus logic that means there are no christians, which seems pretty absurd to me.
@@bobbun4369 what part of that arguemnt was incorrect? Are there not hundred of different branches of Christianity? Each one that claims they've got the right one?
@@bobbun4369 What ignorance? Hardly anyone in Western Europe would consider those gun tooting Maga fanatics who think Trump was sent to earth Christian.
@@russellward4624 I disagree with the doctor, but I don't agree with your argument. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah. That's the definition, plain and simple. It's not really a definition that's synonymous with the conversation about trans people.
But is water only h2O? When I order a water at a restaurant I expect a specific kind of drinking water served in a glass, even though the textbook definition doesn't mention those things. And there is salt in the ocean water, isn't it water? Does any human think the salt and the water are different things when looking at the ocean?
Vaush has become a parody of himself. Water isnt water its aqua. Many things fill lakes and rivers vaush thinks fishes are aqua which is a different h2o from water.
@@galaxyocicat5660 the philosophy guy said ‘water the thing that makes up lakes and rivers’ then vaush said many things make up lakes and river. River is defined as a body of water that flows into another body of water. Lake is a large body of water surrounded by land. Therefore vaush thinks fishes are water. If he wasnt tryna be so bad faith he wouldnt have implied something so stupid. The video title is trans water the fish identifies as aqua.
I'm not sure if male and female have a definite anatomical definition, but they definitely have a physiological definition. Sexual reproduction cannot proceed without a male and a female reproductive system. The mere fact that sometimes reproductive systems don't function doesn't change this. Any organ can lose its functionality for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean the function and the structure are unrelated.
@@timeisup3094 Sure, but I don't mean opposite sides of the argument I mean different arguments like "what to have for lunch" and "where should we set up camp". His is more on the base level of "why" while Vaush's argument is covering the "what if".
@@justsomeguy6336 there was no circular reasoning, as Self ID includes non exclusive prescription, like a chair in it's defintion says "typically has four legs" it is non exclusive just like self id. Edit : self ID defntion would include typical descriptors it seems Nicolas did not read my comment or even the Doctors PowerPoint.
@@wellwell7950 self-identification is circular because it only refers to itself. Has nothing to do with (non-)exclusion. Saying a woman is someone who identifies as a woman means that that someone identifies as someone who identifies as a woman. The "woman" keeps being replaced with "someone who identifies as a woman". There is no origin point, it's infinite regress. Clearly gender requires, as Judith Butler puts it, a performance -- an acting out of or feeling kinship with existing societal ideas about the gender summed up as "woman". Trans women can still be women in this framework, but saying self-ID is all that's required is just ontologically silly
@@TheSurrealist. he’s soooo confidently wrong that it’s funny that an ‘intellectual’ like him doesn’t know. I could probably ask 100 Americans how to say water in Spanish and 99 would know just because they took Spanish in school and know the odd word like “caliente”, “baño”, “agua”, etc.
A couple problems with some of Vaush's statements: 1) If someone makes an argument that a person isn't a woman when they claim to be, that is transphobic. Disagreements are perfectly natural, logical, and unavoidable. This does not make one a transphobe by default. 2) A man or woman is someone who identifies as such. That is nonsensical circular reasoning with no definition. 3) Transmen and transwomen want to be associated with and treated as the broad range of archetypes of the categories of men and women… They still subscribe to the archetype, but don’t depend on those roles to define them. So they don’t depend on those roles to define them, yet still want to be associated with that archetype, an archetype which as you said yourself is not a one size fits all, and that both cis and trans people will vary among it. So in other words it’s all meaningless, there's really no such thing as a woman, it’s a subjective statement - a woman is just someone who identifies as one, regardless of anything else. So why must this stop specifically at gender? If it’s a meaningless subjective feeling that you mark as valid, then why can’t you subjectively feel like another race, species, height, weight, age, someone with more or less limbs, etc? You said categories are arbitrary social constructs. Why do you (or the trans community) get to define which categories to self-identify as are valid and which are not? Are you invalidating the existence of Oli London and Rachel Dolezal? Transracialphobe. I know someone in real life named Pup who identifies as and acts like a dog. Is he not valid? Transpeciesphobe. 4) The definition of a woman is arbitrary, inconsistent, and harmful... Gender is a destructive concept… We should go by the definitions that hurt people the least. No it isn’t and no we shouldn’t. Leaving the definition up to “self-identification” though is arbitrary and inconsistent. The definition of a woman is: an adult human female. And the definition of a female is “of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes." However like all words that are used to define and communicate, it is still a word, and not the thing or experience itself, hence it will obviously be naturally somewhat limiting and not all-encompassing. And of course things aren’t so black and white, there’s no concrete line for any definition whatsoever. This doesn’t mean definitions aren’t valid or not useful. It just means they can't perfectly convey the thing or experience. You can apply this to any definition and nitpick. So what? We all still know what a dog is and isn’t for example. To pretend otherwise is being silly, disingenuous, and pedantic. You’re just making things intentionally difficult (perhaps to win an argument or to stroke your ego). You don’t then just throw out the definition or seek to change it in case anyone takes offence, or make a claim that anyone can identify as a dog. You literally want to change definitions based on feelings, what hurts the least, rather than logic, objectivity, or practicality. You do realize these feelings will differ from person to person, and in different cultures and historical periods? So you want to change definitions whenever feelings get hurt? If some people are that mentally and emotionally fragile that a word will harm them, even to the point of suicide, then you have a mental problem and are in need of therapy of some sort. It’s not society’s job to coddle you, and give in to your demands. Gender, or any categories, are not intrinsically destructive. Mentally unstable or emotionally fragile people may find them destructive though. The way forward is not to abolish gender or categories, but rather to strengthen the people that are so easily hurt by them. Social anxiety is another example of this. You do not tell everyone else to modify their behaviours because someone with social anxiety might be triggered. You help the individual with social anxiety to get to a point where other peoples’ thoughts and actions don’t affect them so much. That’s how one grows. EDIT: Oh I forgot to add that gold and iron are still objectively distinct properties / categories, regardless if humans or aliens discover, understand, and label them or not. That is different to what you were saying about how countries are arbitrary constructs. It just seems like you want to play a word game with everything and then say ahh gotcha!
@@bobbun4369 Who's "you people?" No that's not it, adverts when they're posted have categories selected so adverts are advertising to related videos. So Daily Wire will have set their association to politically driven videos. Its just funny to see them being advertised on a political channel that generally dislikes them.
It's hilarious how quickly he went from a very in-depth measured slideshow that lasted for 15 minutes, into trying to strawman and shove words down Vaushes' mouth that lead to obvious mockeries of logic that he doesn't stand by. Find a transphobe who will debate in good faith challenge: impossible.
@beef business I wouldn't consider him a transphobe, so much as an incredibly naive person who likes to believe the first thing he is taught on a subject, and he happened to be exposed to TERFs/Gender Criticals first because he lives in the UK.
@beef business he may debate in good faith, but all he does is regurgitate all the anti-trans talking points hes heard in his life. not exactly the most constructive
I imagine good faith transphobes do exist. Frustratingly - since this involves irrational fear, said fear also serves as a solid barrier to civil discourse. Hmm. Maybe an uptick in open letters could prove beneficial?
@@mcbaws21 I mean, that's... literally how social indoctrination works. Can't blame someone for being ignorant in good faith. We can more directly blame someone for being disproven thoroughly and still insisting on not changing anything about their views.
Destiny who didn't know that 2H2O was a thing and his moronic fans who thought it was a massive slam-dunk to just collectively imagine Vaush must've meant H2O2 instead? that reaction? lol
@@scheb3567 you're not engaging in good faith. the point the guy was making that before the label, there was still the thing. we apply labels to describe things. i felt that Vaush was just running down the clock by saying stuff that the PHD guy doesn't even disagree with, so that the PHD guy couldn't even get to the main point of his arguments.
I came here on the recommendation of a mob of hype-men laughing at "how stupid a comment Vaush made about water". Unfortunately, outside of his haphazard mispronunciation the only thing left to laugh at is yourselves for not understanding how language works and the point being made. Here is the debate in a nutshell: *Bogardus:* A woman is what it says in the dictionary a woman is, who am I to question it. Also, these credentialed individuals agree with me that if a woman is what it says a woman is in the dictionary and that trans women don't fit into that definition. *Vaush:* Any definition of woman has unavoidably arbitrary constituents such that you cannot possibly make an all-encompassing term that trans women can't fit into, there is also no utility in doing so other than spite. *Bogardus:* Here are examples of concepts I incorrectly believe have inarguably non-arbitrary aspects, the reason I think so is because they existed before we named them. *Vaush:* Your examples have unavoidably Arbitrary facets also, if you understood this, you wouldn't have used them because they bolster my point.
I actually struggle to see how Bogardus doesn't immediately recognize his own concession to a dictionary definition of womanhood as self refuting of his overall thesis, since by conceding to common consensus as the arbiter of correct definitions, he must also concede that the definition of woman is mutable to historical change, and at each step of that change, he would have to concede that the new definition is just as correct as the old one since there is no standard beyond common agreement to judge what a woman is. Hence, it seems like it's just a numbers game to him, and if so, there's no actual substance behind the claim that transwoman aren't women, other than to point out that currently, most people don't perceive it to be the case. But if it's all just about perception, then why doesn't self identification suffice as a justification? Why can't we just collectively agree to accept self identification as sufficient since it seems to bring these people comfort and joy?
That dudes opening statement didn’t prove “all trans women are women” wrong. It proved “using any given framework, no single subset of humans can be called women with 100% consistency”. Since all trans women are collectively a subset of humans, therefore “all trans women are women” is false. Totally meaningless position!
not really. people who fall into the biological definition of woman would be considered women. people who fall into the social role definition of woman would be considered women. there isnt a definition of women that lets in trans women while still having the word "women" mean something, i think that was the point he was getting at.
@@bobbun4369 the right to free expression, the right to bodily autonomy and in some cases the right to life. My personal opinion is that these matter. Maybe just a bit.
Vaush if you’re going to be an dvocate for these issues - actually prepare for debates. You walked into so many traps that could have been avoided by reading at least some of his opponents work. Also please only use philosophy terms after taking a philosophy class. You have the money now to take one from a community college
@@santiagomarin1882 I don’t claim to fight fascism on the internet. Sorry for critiquing your leader daddy Vaush, didn’t realise the negative utils caused by it and we’re all consequentialists and rule utilitarians here. So it won’t happen again. Promise.
Yes, we often conflate gender and sex; so in that sense people subscribe to the so called common meaning of adult human female. However, functionally we do not operate in our daily lives that way. Never have I ever, upon meeting a woman, been compelled to confirm her sex before treating them as a woman. So our operational understanding of woman cannot contain that prerequisite.
Never in my life have I had my gametes or chromosomes checked, there's a chance I could've been a woman all along according to some biological essentialism definition.
This guy kept committing the Reification Fallacy. He went so far as to say "H20 was definition of water before we even knew it". NO. Water itself was H20 before we knew it, the definition of the word "water" was not H20 until chemistry showed us that. IOW the map is not the territory, a definition is not the thing itself. A philosophy PhD should know this. But I've often found philosophers, despite taking the 2 basic logic courses, make these kinds of errors more often than they should.
How is pointing out that water was H20 before we even knew it committing a reification fallacy? Tomas shows a very clear understanding of the difference between an identifier and what it points to during this conversation.
@@constexprDuck Because that isn't what he said, nor what I said he claimed. What Tomas said was "H20 was the definition of water even before we knew that". As if a future definition of a word (signifier) was identical to the thing the future definition mapped onto (signified). He clearly made that mistake. And if you think that's not the Reification Fallacy, try comparing it to someone who says maps of North America were correct before we knew real geography of the continent. It's no different. A definition can be misapplied, but by Tomas's theory of definitions that can never be the case so long as the correct definition exists at a later time. H20 was not the definition of the word water before we knew chemistry.
How was water anymore h20 before chemistry, than wet stuff was water before definitions? The word water was invented. So youre discrediting him.but then making the same distinction..just for water instead of h20.
@@smugnick5458 Please try reading again. I did not say water itself became H20 after chemistry. I said the definition of the word "water" was not H20 before chemistry. If you disagree with that, you're unironically saying that the meaning of words exist independent of time. To the extent that words whose definitions were later corrected never actually had the wrong definition. You're doing the same poor argument as Tomas was.
"there's no feature you can have by simply identifying as having it" What in the fuck? Has this man never heard of football fans? Food tastes. Music taste. Fucking religion?
@@TheChuckNorrisinator why does me saying I'm a football fan not mean I'm a football fan? That's literally the main thing. It's a thing you just have to feel that you are. I can't open you up with a scalpel and decide if you are. It's purley a feeling. An identity
@@samuelmorkbednarzkepler Because to be a football fan you have to actually be a fan of football. If some crazy person identified as a football fan but never watched a single quarter of football in his life, he would NOT be a football fan.
@@samuelmorkbednarzkepler If someone watches football every week, owns piles and piles of football paraphernalia, speaks almost exclusively about football in casual conversation, has loads of stats about football memorized. If that person looks at me and tells me they're not a football fan, I think they're delusional or lying to me.
Ok, I know this of stupid of me to joke about something serious like this, but when Vaush said that "woman" is a "multifaceted gem" all I could think of were Soul Crystals. Like damn, if only it were that easy for trans people, just equip the Woman soul crystal and bing-bang-boom you're a woman! 🤣
@@SteamGrace No? I was referring to stuff like medical transitioning and stuff. Since that's usually one of the more difficult hurtles part of transitioning (obviously only if they want to medically transition) due to societal, economic, and availability reasons.
To be fair though, which statement makes more sense? 1. This statement is true because it is true. 2. A statement that we have defined as "true" is in most cases a statement which describes underlying facts
The irony that he said if you identify as women is Circular reasoning, yet when vaush describes that the defintion would include descriptors of what a women and how that is just typical prescriptions, like a chairs defintion says "typically with 4 legs" so not exclusive, Tom goes well my PowerPoint slide had an X next to that one, so that can't be right or it wouldn't have an X.
@@Garrettmcarpenter i think a trans woman can ever be a woman. but if you think trans people will end their existence if they dont match a descriptors but the description is completely made up (even tho the descriptors of gender have been the same throughout human existence) are you a bot.
@@Garrettmcarpenter I know this is 2 weeks ago but you guys example of the definition of a chair is completely useless and you guys keep clinging on to the wrong parts of the definition that usually already use a word to explain those characteristics aren't exclusive. Chair: A man made seat for 1 person to sit on, typically with legs and a back.
@@slsstar100 Yeah, not sure how people think this is a good analogy. A chair isn't a chair because it believes it is, it's a chair because it matches certain characteristics befitting a chair, with the BARE MINIMUM being something upon which people are seated. In a self-referential definition there is no BARE MINIMUM characteristic to adhere to, therefore it is a cyclical definition.
18 minute opening statement, where he misrepresented Vaushes position later concede he was wrong about self ID and didn't even give his own defintion Edit : it was in the Q&A section where he admitted that women do not have to adhere to all social standards in a defintion, therefore 2 of his crosses in the PowerPoint should actually be ticks.
@@vinaytummarakota3044 it's a couple of times once in the questions, he said that obviously defintions are not exclusive, such as a chair "typically has four legs" a trans women does not have to adhere to all parts of the definition.
@@idenree5949 I said that he shouldn't argue with him because a trained philosopher is hard to beat in a debate. I thing the issues with trans people are not simple anyway and need a lot of nuance.
@@mrl2h2 good reason, my friends mom bought a drawing of a post renaissance angel be it look just like him to the point I thought it was just his portrait.
The amount of obfuscation here because of fear over a good faith debate with an academic that actually could give solid arguments is hilarious. YOU LITERALLY COULDN'T EVEN JUST AGREE WATER IS H20. Then weren't even correct with a deuterium oxide analogy. It's D20, not 2H20. It's also not just called "water", it's called heavy water because it's not H20 and formed from deuterium. The amount of BS of stating "Well blah blah blah definitions are just categories we create to ascribe meaning blah blah so therefore I cant be proven wrong" "Would you agree 2+2 = 4?" "Well numbers are only a categorical definition of a concept we arbitrarily assert onto the act of counting. There are actually an infinite myriad of ways to reach 4. 6-2 =4, 529-525=4." "Yeah..... ... but 2+2 = 4 right?"
>It's D20, not 2H20. It's either, actually. Deuterium and protium are both hydrogen and heavy water can be validly and comprehensibly called either D20 or ^2H20. ^2H20 is a standard modern way of calling it in chemistry contexts, because hydrogen is the only element that still has isotopes with names commonly used like 'deuterium' and using ^2H20 solves a couple bookkeeping and consistency problems related to that. >It's also not just called "water" I just opened a textbook and it calls heavy water a 'form of water'. I checked online chemistry resources and they call it a 'water that is...'. I checked Wikipedia and it calls it a form of water. The American Chemical Society calls it a form of water. If you are extra sleuthy and look close, you may actually spot the word 'water' in the name 'heavy water', indicating that it is water. Looking at its chemistry...two hydrogen atoms...one oxygen atom. Water. >it's called heavy water because it's not H20 It's called heavy water because it's water with an extra neutron. It's still two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Also, mixtures of heavy and light water can be called heavy water too, when the proportion of ^2H gets to an arbitrarily high level. >it's not H20 and formed from deuterium. Deuterium is ^2H. the H means Hydrogen. The H in H20 means Hydrogen. Deuterium is Hydrogen. Normal water-usually called light water in a context in which heavy water could be around-can contain some deuterium as well. The fact that academic publications call normal water 'normal water' 'ordinary water' 'light water' when comparing it to heavy water would indicate that yes, heavy water is a kind of water. The reality is...water _is not_ H20. Water is incredibly complex and arbitrary. The thing that comes out of your taps and bottles that you drink isn't _just_ H20. It's a huge mixture of many, many chemicals. It's just _mostly_ H20. The things in it that aren't H20 can make all the difference- you will probably be fine drinking tap water, but you can't drink sea water. Those are really different things for you, but they are both 'water'. River water, contaminated lake water, partially frozen water...the only thing they really have in common is that they are mostly H20. But being mostly H20 doesn't really define water either, unless you also then think urine, soda, juice, vinegar, beer, etc are all water as well since they are 90+% H20 too. You go to the store and buy a sports drink mix and put it in your tap water and it stops being water and starts being a sports drink. Or maybe it become 'flavored water', having really not changed the H20 ratio from tap water that much? There's H20 in the air-but the air isn't water. But sometimes there is a lot of H20 in the air, which you then stop calling air and start calling 'water vapor' as it forms clouds, and it condenses and you call that 'rain water' even though it also contains all the pollutants in the air and is less fit to drink than the drinks you have that are 99% H20 that you don't call water. You're mostly H20-why aren't you water but your tap water is? What IS water? It certainly isn't 'just H20'. Most sources of H20 contain deuterium, but that doesn't make it heavy water. There's a huge body of cultural baggage that comes along with it that determines what you call and don't call water. That's the point. It's impossible to deny, you yourself along with everyone else partake in this dance of definitions on a regular basis every time you assess a liquid to be water or not. >"Would you agree 2+2 = 4?" This is the same change-of-domain garbage the professor pulled (and failed at, water as he defined it is self evidently unusable nonsense to almost everyone except chemists working under perfectly pure conditions, and contrary to the daily usage of the word by every single human). Mathematics has axioms. It's not even remotely the same thing as asking what a woman is.
@@_midinette_ talk about obfuscation. No. Water is H20 in it's purest form. Sure there are other things existing in water. Minerals etc. There are even other forms of water. Aka heavy water which has a different composition. Pure water is still H20. But when you can't even just say "Yes. Yes H20 is water" because you're trying to obfuscate what a "definition is" and that "everything is arbitrary". You're acting in bad faith so no one can even discuss a topic with you. Vaush didn't have a clue about any actual academics. Even the things you mentioned. Dude was literally just reading from chat. So he obfuscated so much to keep from having an actual debate where he would be seen as not having a clue on the topic. This professor was just very nice on not calling him out or pushing him on any topic. Like the claims about the biology in the scientific journal Nature where he can't cite a single source yet makes large claims on the science being settled.
@@randomyoutubecommenterr >Water is H20 in it's purest form. No, water is a huge number of things, as stated, and several things that ARE pure H20 are _not_ water. Your definition fails the most basic scrutiny, and it's only ever used to mean 'pure H20' in chemistry. Real, everyday humans don't mean 'pure H20' when they talk about water. What people usually mean when they ask for a 'glass of water' is a potable, liquid comprised of mostly H20 with a narrow band of potential not-unpleasant mineral flavors. I can't give you a cup of ice and say here is your water. I can't give you a cup of steam and say here is your water. Which is weird, because according to you, ice and steam are _exactly_ the same thing as water-pure H20. (By the way, if you argue against this by saying they are just different forms of water, you are also admitting heavy water is water too, thereby completely defeating your own OP and also agreeing with Vaush's position.) I can't even give you water with 300pm of mud in it and say here is your water. You won't drink any of that. But they are all water. And you can call them water. You didn't even attempt to refute this- I can only assume you're intentionally playing ignorant here. The definitions we use for water in real life are constructed and with arbitrary and subjective barriers. Two liquids that have few functional similarities can both be called water. >Vaush didn't have a clue about any actual academics. Neither did you, so if your argument is that people who are ignorant of the details can't make an argument about something broader...well, look in the mirror. I disagree though, you don't need to know every little thing to make an argument. That would be dumb and lock off every human from arguing about anything, ever. Vaush's argument didn't rely on actual chemistry at all anyway, and if you think he was arguing chemistry instead of prescriptivism vs descriptivism, you weren't paying much attention. >This professor was just very nice on not calling him out or pushing him on any topic. No, he floundered and gave up basically instantly when pressed about the definition of water. In the Q&A it was revealed that he actually believed that the definitions of words refer to an objective essence of things that exists outside of any human's perception, which is a) painfully contrary to the everyday lived reality of people who actually say words and b) completely made him unable to coherently respond to anything Vaush said, instead requiring him to divert away every time he was challenged on if the words actually meant what he claimed they meant.
@@_midinette_ You clearly do not do chemistry. No one refers to D2O is "2 H 2 O" as vaush did because that would become very confusing since that is what we audibly say when referring to 2 moles of H2O. When referring to any isotope we refer to it by the atom follow by the number. For instance carbon-13 or C-13. The correct way would be to say hydrogen-2 containing heavy water (H-2 water) or deuterated water or just write D2O. The way that you have written it is also consistent. You also seem to be mixing solvent with solute. Yes persons usually refer to water solution as "water" because it looks like what we deem as water and for simplicity's sake it is but that does not mean that there is only water in there. It just means that's all the lay person can see. That's why the water can be purified meaning it's not turned into something else but rather the solute is separated from the solvent. I guess you can call the water we drink impure water but that is only due to the fact that we know what pure water is. As an analogy, just because dirt can form on your skin does not make the dirt a part of you. Also, if I'm dissolving propane in THF solvent I don't suddenly question what THF really is... it is a cyclic oxygen containing chemical usually used as an organic solvent due to it's inert nature. Water is comprised of one oxygen molecule and 2 hydrogen molecules which form a bent shape in which the hydrogen molecules are around 109.5 degrees apart from each other. The reasons why D2O and H2O are distinct are due to them being different in nature. They're the same molecule as that have the same chemical characteristics. However, due to the masses being different the kinetics will be different. This can be theoretically determined by assuming the O-H and O-D bonds break at the same energy level. This will lead you to a result of around 3x faster in converting H2O into -OH than converting D2O into -OD. Another distinguishing factor is in NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) basically protons are ^1H NMR active while D is not which is useful for us. We know what water is. So much so that we can purify it from other molecules that are not water. Just because the wider public refers to impure water as "water" does not mean water stops being H2O. It just means that persons just find it convenient to call that water because it mostly is.
@@_midinette_ "(By the way, if you argue against this by saying they are just different forms of water, you are also admitting heavy water is water too, thereby completely defeating your own OP and also agreeing with Vaush's position.)" That technically is not true... ice and steam are pretty much the same as liquid water chemically. It's only their proximity in space, vibrational energy and kinetic energy and thus bond strength that differ. D2O is literally a different isotope of water... there's a bit of a difference there.
What is this metaphilosophy for beginners. You needs to read moar. if utilitarian is the purpose of all things human : then common definition is ; to distinguish & discuss phenomena. Not to be an inherent truth of nature, but a system of symbols. a trans person is not a woman ; a human that has been altered physically and/or chemically, in a way that modifies what the person considers sexual about themselves. a woman ; a human female mammal female mammal ; animals that nourish their young with milk. type of: female. an animal that produces gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes "I'm angry that language is not the true true". yup 10s of thousands of years of language and thought & in 10k more we still will not speak the true true.
Definition can be a good place to start conversation.. its not be all end all answer since every person has their own definition to some extent and definitions depend on context, common use and utility. So whats the problem?
@@BridgeTROLL777 you're right that definitions are important to a productive discussion. But as you aptly pointed out, most people have nuances in their preferred definition which make dictionary definitions practically useless to a philosophical conversation.
@@alephmale3171 definitions are indeed important to establish but specifically opening with a dictionary definition is a remedial debate tactic and is not helpful to the conversation
@@alephmale3171 The only issues I had was with with the social role and the “definitions can be true or false” well and the falsity of the self ID but that’s whatever. The social role issue is that we could just be meaning that if you don’t fit these categories of woman, then you aren’t a trans woman. This is a stricter view, but it gets out of the issue so that all trans women are in fact women. The other issue is that we could have these subset of categories in which it would encompass all the trans women we want to as women. I wonder what Bogardus thinks about either of those views. The little section where he says “definitions are real” was just weird and his constant “true definition” was annoying because definitions aren’t propositions lol. The self ID part was hit right on the head. It leads to a completely circular view, but that doesn’t make it false nor would it give you falsity to “All Trans Women are Women” Now, Bogardus is 100% right in saying that it never actually defines what a woman is and simply becomes meaningless. But meaningless =/= false. Those were my only issue with his objections to the definitions. It’s a breath of fresh air to hear someone on the opposite side come with better implications than “well trans women have penises” Edit: and to Clarify the first issue. We could simply mean the list of characteristics are what we mean when we say trans woman. So for example, if we say one of the identifying factors of being a woman is wearing a dress, and we have a sub category where trans women who wear dresses are included, then it’s trivially true that trans women who do not wear dresses are not trans women.
Because it’s funny watching MFs like vaush try and use words to turn men into woman A dude in a dress that says he’s a women will never be a woman, not ever.
Because there are those who seek to oppress marginalized groups and take their rights from them. If that wasn’t happening we wouldn’t be here debating this. But we are, and there are people trying to suppress marginalized groups.
Re: The idea that there is a Realist concept of an "essence" of water, gold, etc. This is Realism. It's an ideology that I personally consider to be anti-postmodern, as it asserts one universal existence for abstract objects like definitions. This is why the good Dr. was saying that the idea of a woman is universal. I have a particular dislike of the ideology because of how hard it set back modern mathematics, notably geometry. I also dislike it because it makes modern math education quite difficult. Most importantly, though, it's anti-empiricist. The reason this set back geometry is that the "Euclidean" geometry was taken as-given for centuries. Barely anyone questioned it, and it resulted in the stagnant viewpoint that geometry had been "mostly solved," aside from stuff like proofs of the Parallel Postulate (which, funnily enough, we now know to be an impossible proof). It was widely believed that Euclid's axioms applied to everything in reality and, in the context of mathematical Realism, these axioms describe some metaphysical "essence" of universal mathematical structures. This led to arguments of the universality of Euclid's axioms being inherently tied to those of mathematical Realism. Historically, challenging the universality of Euclid's axioms (and Platonism indirectly) was seen as "incorrect." It took until the 19th century for challenging mathematical Realism and Euclidean geometry to not be commonly considered "incorrect." On the note of education, most people conceptualize numbers in a realist fashion. That is, most people imagine "5" as this abstract idea that describes any existence of 5 in reality. This is fine for basic math, but it makes learning discrete mathematics a bitch for anyone used to that realist mentality. For anyone unused to questioning the "how" and "why" behind math, suddenly jumping into discrete mathematics is seen by basically everyone as a massive hurdle for the development of a student's understanding of mathematics. Aside from most people not being familiar with formal logic, this difficulty exists because realism gets you into a mindset of accepting rules as a given instead of understanding math as a construct. This is why I'm a mathematical anti-realist. That is, I don't believe that math corresponds to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities. In my opinion (the constructivist perspective), math exists as a construct. We establish foundations that we believe to be as descriptive a model as possible (for why I'm saying "as possible", it's literally impossible for an axiomatic system to include everything (see Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems)), and then we draw what conclusions we can. Thinking that any math can describe non-empirical entities leads to this brain rot where you end up saying the math equivalent of "woman is a universal concept, therefore anything outside of my understanding of this universal concept/definition isn't a woman." Your definitions become inflexible to developing concepts, and you become completely unable to adapt and learn about these developing ideas.
I'm my opinion, this isn't exactly a great response to the idea of realists... like sure, you gave a couple examples (and there are many more for sure) of why its not fully accurate. However, right now, we have yet to find anything other than the two sexes. This is why universally using the terms man and woman still exist. They are simply descriptors for the two sexes as we know them. In the future, we may use different descriptors and maybe that's ok (even if they are baseless) but until we can fully understand that they are baseless and really don't describe anything until said thing has a standard categorization, it will be seen as silly.
Well said i only learned math and geometry properly at the age of 32, because i couldn't understand why those non-empirical rules existed in the first place despite having obvious practical applications. I consider my self an anti-realist conceptualist nowadays.
For people who say we should leave intersex people out of the conversation because they aren't common, There are less ginger people than there are intersex. I guess ginger people are no longer people as they do not describe enough of the population....
@@247tubefan neither are trans people. A trans person doesn't think they are biological [male]. They know they aren't and will admit that if you asked. They just also know that they feel like they're in the wrong body, and they describe that part of their brain which identifies with some sex as gender. This isn't delutional. The delution is to claim there's only sex when the excistance of trans people clearly indicates that there's an important part of the brain which is also involved with gender identity other than what's literally between your legs
he answered, when biologists make a definition they imply that the thing they are defining is working correctly, for example a heart is an organ that pumps blood, does it stop being a heart when it stops pumping blood? i have a question for you, are infertile people members of the human species? because the definition of species is "group of animals that can interbreed and have fertile offspring" since infertile people cannot have offspring i guess they are not humans
Wait a second Tom brings up Katherine Jenkins Self ID defintion but ignores the fact she address the points he brought up this guys is amazingly dishonest.
He’s not going to go over literally every objection under the sun in his already really long opening. If Vaush wanted to make those objections, he should have, that’s kinda the point of the debate
@@nikolaskoutroulakis571 Yeah, and Tom has a paper addressing arguments in favor of a sex-gender distinction, I think he addresses Jenkins’s counter argument in that paper.
(copying my comment from elsewhere, as I'm curious the reference in question) Which paper are you talking about? In Jenkins 2018 she criticizes a simplistic univocal self-ID view, but then later interprets self-ID as a mere mention or utterance of the term "woman" (or 'non-binary', etc.). She then criticizes that interpretation as well, and doesn't respond to the types of challenges that Bogardus offers, such as it only being true in the English speaking world (or you would have to include a disjunction for all the other language utterances) or would exclude people who haven't actually made or tend to make such utterances that trans inclusivists would typically accept as women, and would include some men that do, have, or could easily make those utterances. She defends a norm-relevancy account (as in her 2016 paper). Are you counting that view as self-ID?
Godamn you guys are copy/paste robots. Chomping at the bit to pretend you noticed something that's already been pointed out 100x in this thread. "wait a sec... Copy/paste"
The "there it's called aqua" moment is legit probably the lowest point of Vaush's career (and no it's not because he mispronounced it). He was in engaging in Jordan Peterson levels of obfuscation there and ended up bogging down the entire discussion by bringing up absolutely irrelevant technical points about chemistry instead of simply acknowledging the fact that the stuff we call water (I'm talking about the thing itself here, not the word we invented to refer to it) existed long before we did.
This is untrue. Water has a different chemical composition from one lake to another, as water is not commonly used to refer to H2O, but a mixture of H2O and various minerals. However, Hydrogen and Oxygen do have much stronger definitions and properties, such as the refractive index. For example, H2O has a refractive index of 1.33. If you drink bottled water, are you drinking H2O or a soup of minerals and H2O?
You're delusional if you believe that. It isn't an irrelevant point at all, Bogardus was arguing that the definition of water is an objective definition, which is blatantly untrue. Vaush was demonstrating this by bringing up how people who speak a different language don't use the word "water". It was Bogardus who brought up chemistry, so if discussing this is bogging down the discussion that is on him not Vaush. It sounds like you suffer from VDS, might wanna get that checked out.
@@Khalkara Like I said in my comment (if you cared to read), the PhD's only point here is to say the stuff we call water (ie the SUBSTANCE ITSELF) existed long before we did and long before we invented any labels to refer to it. He merely brought up the chemical formula as a sort of a universal label precisely to avoid bogging this down to an issue of labels between different languages, which is exactly what Vaush ended up doing anyway. In other words, Bogardus was discussing the SUBSTANCE itself (ie the real compound that exists in the world independent of our labeling) and Vaush went on a silly tangent about LABELS then about chemistry and ended up derailing the entire point Bogardus was attempting to make. "By bringing up how people who speak a different language don't use the word "water"." Which is entirely irrelevant because Bogardus was not discussing labels here. You do realize people who use different words to refer to what we call "water" in English are still referring to literally the exact same thing right?? It astounds me how this simple point has to be explained over and over. Do you understand the difference between labels and concepts? "It sounds like you suffer from VDS" Just because I disagree with an embarrassingly bad take from Vaush doesn't mean I have VDS (like that's a thing now). I like a lot of his takes and regularly watch him. Sounds to me more like you're a fanboi who can't handle criticism of Vaush and can't call him out on his bad takes.
@@norseman9114 More needless obfuscation. Just because water most commonly occurs admixed with other substances doesn't mean it stops having the formula H2O. Just because we don't drink distilled water but that which is ADMIXED with minerals, doesn't mean water stops being H2O. There is no real ambiguity in the definition of the compound "water" in chemistry. The funniest thing about all of these points being brought up is that none of them are really essential to Bogardus's argument. He could have used literally any other substance or compound existing before us which our ancestors were aware of but had a poorer understanding of and he did it with gold. He just wanted to make a singular point here: the SUBSTANCE existed before we invented the LABEL to refer to it.
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 "the PhD's only point here is to say the stuff we call water (ie the SUBSTANCE ITSELF) existed long before we did" Can you cite the timestamps when Vaush disagreed with this point? Cuz I do not remember him disagreeing with this at all. "He merely brought up the chemical formula as a sort of a universal label precisely to avoid bogging this down to an issue of labels" You're lying, and its pretty obvious. He had already done this by saying "the thing we call water", for one. And he wasn't doing this in service of making a greater point, which is why Bogardus kept going back to water=H20 which Vaush correctly rejected. If I'm wrong then cite a timestamp for this too, I'll wait. "Which is entirely irrelevant because Bogardus was not discussing labels here." My dude, they're arguing over *definitions* of concepts for almost the entirety of this hour long debate. Definitions are literally labels. This is why I assume you have VDS. Because you want to desperately be contrarian to Vaush, going so far as to misrepresent obvious reality. Having criticism of Vaush is fine, having dishonest criticism is not fine.
I wish Vaush was more familiar with the Jenkins paper this guy cited. If Vaush would've looked up the paper and read the parts which affirm his self-ID argument, that would've been an Alden's Number tier slam dunk.
Tomas Bogardus explicitly shows how Jenkin's definition is not inclusive enough by her own standards (and indeed, she later admitted to this herself), so I'm not sure it helps here.
Vaush is one of those guys that's been smart enough to "just wing it" through his whole academia. But he ends up out of his depth against actual academics that are well read all the time, because he doesn't bother doing any prep.
I've been a philosophy postgrad, dissertation completed, if it matters at all, and I don't think the dude was super insufferable. This was a fairly good faith, analytic take on the issue imo. Which isn't me saying I agree with all he said. I certainly can raise objections. Most of these, I didn't hear from Vaush. But sure, I would agree with you that, generally speaking, "we" are indeed quite annoying. Champs really. But I certainly know some way more annoying philosophy people than this guy :D He seems fairly.... Regular for the standards of analytic philosophy... .. at least compared to my experience in England, which is the academic space I'm most familiar with.
You talking about Vaush or the other guy? Vaush got lured into pre pared bad faith shenanigans so its not his issue. Like I'm disappointed in him for falling for this but to say all you guys are bad based off that doesn't track. Plus isn't this what philosophy is as? I have no issue with Philosphy majors as long as they take care to not give fuel to skeptics that is not good. Below the molecular range everything is measured with constants. You can philosophize past Quantum Mechanics I guess but to philosphize on the organization of the table or the measurement of properties determined by comparison to a CONSTANT where is the philosophical good to this? Now the ethics question because unfortunately some negative consequences are better they not happen than litigate afterwards.
@@Dimiguitar and tbh Vaush was more annoying lol. I think if Vaush had a couple philosophers clean up his language, he would do very well as he has most of it down. Bogardus was pretty pleasant, and honestly he could have hit on a view points Vaush said. Like the incoherent or contradiction that Vaush wanted to speak on about definitions. But he kind of just dug through the mud to find a ruby lol. Then Vaush would completely not answer the question and instead go on a tirade that touched on some points, but in reality just obfuscated.
@Oliver I would agree with you that there tends to be a special kind of toxicity in academic philosophy. Undergrad or postgrad levels, for that matter. I think some of the same goes for science fields, but it tends to be sort of distinct, depending on the field, area, ect, in my experience. Not as "logic bro"- based perhaps.
As Tom kept avoiding answering it, how does identification exclude anyone? As to be a women doesn't mean you have to adhere to all social norms, just like the defintion of a chair says "typically four legs" it is not exclusive. That was one part of his incoherent definition of a women, which ended with him pivoting away and thanking Vaush for coming.
Saying you are a woman is kind of like saying you are a christian. What does it mean? It has a lot of cultural connotations, yet christians don't have to slavishly adhere to all of them or any of them for that matter. What it means to be a christian is defined by the culture you live in, and yet each christian is free to change that definition and decide for themselves what it means for them personally.
@@debordeleur2005 the idea of " womanhood " is so broad I'm pretty sure the people self identifying share one or more characteristics. You're being disingenuous
@@debordeleur2005 wow maby that because your conflating different things and ones construction, identity and treatment aren't all the same things but feed into one another. Also can you tell me what cool means
vaush going up against a phd, armed with nothing other than the surface level philosophy 101 memes he picked up from watching destiny streams. delusional levels of overestimating his own intelligence
Yet Vaush somehow makes significantly more coherent points. If you have a PHD, yet can't understand how definitions are created, it makes me wonder if its not written in crayon.
@@simonjaz1279 His opponent couldn't grasp simplistic concepts and defeated their own argument in their opening statement. Did we even watch the same video?
@@bullymaguire7554 we couldn't have because he grasped it he just didn't acknowledge the pointless crap vaush was saying....water is aqua??? What kind of a point is that? It didn't change anything. Words have different meanings? Cool. Didnt change the point at all. As far as every educated person thinks, vaush lost this incredibly hard. To think otherwise is just a cope tbh.
@@simonjaz1279 Vaush winning despite his awful rhetoric in this video is a testament to how comparatively worse his opponent's was. I mean really, their opening statement is so ill conceived it could even apply to *every* cis women.
I think either they just feel great about being a transphobe, or they feel like the attention felt so good that they forget about the fact they're spreading transphobic hatred.
But yeah I know right. "Get out of the way of that oncoming car!" "Actually the metaphysical questions regarding causal and effect and indeed the mereological and ontological questions of strong emergence means that cars do not exis-" SPLAT. like all that metaphysics is cool, but just because you don't have those answers does not mean that cars don't run into pedestrians.
Yea I feel like people forget that all the bio aside we still feel this way, and gender affirming actions still work so stop debating like you're debating our existence lol.
This debate was very interesting, ngl. And I think Vaush came off really good. It's funny, while dr Bogardus was trying to argue against the social construction of definitions, he convinced me more of their existence based on utility. Where dr Bogardus goes wrong is to insist there is something inherent to the definitions (i.e., water *IS* H2O, but also heavy water with deuterium is included) and uses that as a reason for why it is the "correct" definition. He doesn't explain why it is the correct definition, except when he is frustrated by Vaush acting like water is not some universally understood social concept. To humor him, we could argue that it's more complicated than just a type of molecule in the same way he argued the Aristotelian view was wrong for claiming water was just one thing. In general relativity, matter is just high-energy space-time field. So we could argue that a *more* accurate definition for water is a categorization of space-time curves that form what we call water. So he is wrong (im being pedantic, but still). However, regardless, H2O is still widely used as a definition for what water is; why is this? It's because it helps us understand the world on a higher level than just high-energy space-time curves. We use these high-level abstractions for their utility. And to hold his position (so not utility), he would have to explain why the high-level abstraction of atoms and H2O was the "correct" one or that there is something inherent about them, which he was unable to do. Of course, he could move to say that the GR definition is the correct one, but that would be missing the point (and what water is under that paradigm is way more arbitrary). We understand the world from how we arrived at our current understanding. But who's to say that an alien race would understand the world in the same way. Would they even think of things with atoms or particles? They could have started with fields from the get go and never have even thought of the idea of particles. Even if they arrive at the same conclusions as general relativity, they might still understand the world completely differently. In that sense, their high-level abstractions would be completely different. Would that make them wrong because they aren't defining water as H2O?
Also, he says ice is water, but that's not really how we use the word water. If you ask me to hand you a glass of water and I give you a glass of ice I would not have done what you asked. If I said water is falling from the sky, you would understand it as me saying it's raining, not me saying it's snowing. And is water just H2O? Is a glass of water doesn't just contain H2O, but also a different types of salt, bacteria, even air. Yet we would simply call it water. So even a simple definition like that of water is pretty fluid heh
Not a bad question, I think a it depends on what you want and what it means to be wrong. But none of that really matters in this case, after the debait vaush looked the guy up and it turns out he's a catholic and believes in absolute truth that comes from god and was arguing in bad faith the whole time. In hindsight is obvious even with out ti at the end. An idiot with a PhD is just an idiot
Yess this is what I was yelling at the screen. All definitions are higher level abstractions that pick out some sufficiently consistent pattern in nature and put a label on it. When he said "ok species definitions are a bit blurry but not physics and chemistry" I wish vaush had some more science background bc that would have been a great thing to push back on. ("protons don't exist, bro")
Something I thought when the Dr was insisting all H2O is water: if you ask for a glass of water in a restaurant and a waiter brings you a solidly frozen pint glass of ice, I'm sure the good doctor would complain. It wouldn't matter that the glass was full of the very purest dihydrogen-monoxide, it wasn't what he was asking for when he requested a glass of water with his meal. In the same way a biological female is something that exists, but if you wanted to promote 'women in STEM' and I sent you a barrel-chested, fully bearded, balding transman then you would likely have followup questions. Human definitions change with the setting and societal expectations. Everything we say is full of invisible fine print that we expect each other to pick up on
@@chucku00 To be clear, the presence of deuterium makes it unsuitable for certain biological processes. Thus it acts as an actual poison rather than killing your cells through sheer quantity.
@UA-cam Purchases he never actually engaged with his argument just made a decoy then blew that up and then refused to actually interface with his arguments. Also yeah the definition is totally self contradictory but it's the one we use and we get a lot of use out of it, tell you what define a christchan for me also the guy was a bad faith catholic arguing that deftions are reflective or absolute truth that comes from god, go look at his Twitter
Not really. Looking at this debate I just hate talking to people about anything because nothing is more annoying than bad faith learners. If you're going to tie that to everything I don't see people risking their livelihoods and accreditation in case they mis speak or a bad faith actor lures them into some shenanigans.
I think that’s a pretty standard disclaimer. Start up a DVD with extras and you’ll see something like “the opinions and statements expressed in the extra features are the opinions of the individual, not the studio”
2 Things about this debate: 1. The conclusion that "Trans Woman are Woman is false" under Gender Abolition and Nihilism is complete nonsense. The correct conclusion would have been N/A (not applicable). 2. I feel like every second argument from this guy was the etymological fallacy. This is why I don't understand why chat wanted the chair. Vaush could have asked him to define a computer however, a word which definition also changed in recent time.
-Not so sure if it really is the etymological fallacy. Could also be an appeal to authority(the authority here being -*-a-*- dictionary).- Edit: No, I am quite certain it is the etymological fallacy.
Also, his conclusion about self-ID is flatly wrong, but most self-ID social groups work by people identifying with that group. "Gamer" is a designation of self identity that has associated roles, assumptions and stigmatizations that someone taking on that role may or may not want to associate with. An essentialist definition of gamer would be someone who plays games, but not everyone who plays games will identity as a gamer, and someone identifying as a gamer might not actually play games.
people will call me a dgger but this debate could have been much more interesting if Vaush actually had took the time to read this guy's paper (and maybe some Kripke and Putnam, additionally)
@UA-cam Purchases That bit about "people infer, propositions imply, don't worry about it," was hilarious (1:21:03). It was so funny the multiple times Bogardus runs circles around Vaush when Vaush has no idea the technical points Bogardus is making
@UA-cam Purchases fair, maybe my bar wsd too high for Vaush lol. I used to like him somewhat, but that was months or years ago. Just frustrating to listen to this when you actually wrote your BA thesis about a related topic and you know that it theoretically could have been an interesting conversation
@UA-cam Purchases tbf this guy has "traditional catholic" in hid twitter bio, so I think he might not be he biggest trans advocate in this world haha. But he seems pretty reasonable and I think you could have an interesting discussion with him
14:46 hes equating material with the abstract. yes, hes correct "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" is circular and this conveys no meaning....but as you've noted it doesn't need to. which is why you're a gender abolitionist. id argue the value of the term is better off morally (consequentially) with it having no meaning. also, axioms can be circular too, but thats accepted accross all of acedemia. the value of the definition lies exclusively in the identity. the shared identity, even without the meaning or definition being finalized has value
It's possible that I'm incorrect here, but doesn't Vaush also argue that there is social utility to having the words man and woman. Because if this is the case, I think this would be contradictory to the ideas of gender abolitionists.
It does convey meaning though. Like does saying you are christian convey meaning? Obviously. But what does it mean to be a christian? You can have two people, both of whom are christians, and have them disagree on basically everything. It carries cultural meaning, but what that meaning is is constantly shifting and also up to each individual to define.
@@swordslicer56 Not necessarily. In a society that has achieved gender abolition, perhaps, but these definitions carry meaning up to the point where we dissolve social roles and expectations
this isn't how people live gender tho. it's not just some meaningless, self-referential thing to most people, especially not trans people, who literally kill themselves over the dysphoria they experience due to not being recognized as qualifying as a certain gender. so we must then ask, what does it mean to qualify as a woman? if all it takes to be a woman is identifying as one, then trans people wouldn't feel dysphoria, since they could just identify as a woman and know in their hearts that they are one. but clearly they do more than just self-identify as women. they change their behavior to be more stereotypically feminine. they change their bodies to appear more like women's bodies. they demand to be included in women's spaces. all of this is more than just mere self-referential self-identification. pretending that's all gender is actually refutes and defeats the entire purpose of being trans
Ha. Yeah. I never thought about it this way. Check this out. You can just bring whatever. How will he argue that it's not a "blarg"? Does it not fit the definition, lulz?
Lol, 'the Ancients Greeks didn't know what gold was', so I could time travel and hand an Ancient Greek coins made of wood and they wouldn't realise because they didn't know what the atomic structure of Gold was. This dude need to get out of his mind palace and touch grass. The Greeks knew what Gold was, it's just they had a definition based on the qualities they were able to observe, Atomic strucures were not discovered and so they were not included in the definition. If you could synthasize a metal that seemed like Gold but had a different Aatomic structure and went back to ancient Greeks it would just functionally be Gold to them, they would only be wrong under 'your' definition of the word gold which they wouldn't know or care about.
There's an entire story about a king not sure if his crown was pure gold so he challenged Archimedes to find out for sure. This led to the "eureka!" moment in the bathtub where Archimedes figured out that water will be displaced equal to the volume of the crown. Then the crown can be massed and the density can be compared to pure gold of a similar mass. This guy is just a transphobic clown with a degree. No intelligent thought, just enough sentience to paste fancy words over his disgust responses.
@@soren1803 That would undermine his argmuent which is that to be gold you need to match our current defintion which is it's Atomic structure. Gold and an Identical false metal with a different atmomic structure would both be gold to ancient Greeks and they would not be wrong for thinking so. Trying to tell them that one isn't true gold because of it's atomic structure would be like trying to explain how Gold dug up in Asia is different to Gold dug in Africa. Insofar as the things that mattered to them about Gold matched they were both, funtionally Gold. They don't understand atomic structures so it's irelevant to their definition. Gold was not an Element until we changed the defintion, Gold used to be a soft yellowish metal that could be forged into a lusterous ore. Pluto Used to be a plantet until we decided to change the defintion, Pluto has not changed, our clasification has.
@Anaven M1 Which would be functionally meaningless to them. If an alien came to us and told us two identical atoms were different because of their 'florp structure' that would mean nothing to us unless they explained and showed us what 'florp structures' were and how they were measured. Until we can perceive these differences we are not wrong to say they are the same but to the Aliens we would be. The greeks were not wrong because their definition of Gold did not include atomic structures. We were not wrong about Pluto being a planet, it was a Planet under old definitions and isn't under new one. The Greeks defined Gold accurately according to the features they ascribed to it at the time. We now define it based on more granular features because we can observe them more closeley. What makes something count as Gold has changed according to increased specificity. The problem the Doctor has is that he is trying to tie a label to a thing and say that is their true label, accurate forever. But this is fundamentally dumb, things don't have labels until we as humans give them ohe and our process of labelling is always going to be based on what we find useful contextually.
@@hotdog4260 "Gold was not an Element until we changed the definition, Gold used to be a soft yellowish metal that could be forged into a lustrous ore." But it was always an element. Gold has always been an element made of 79 protons, 79 electrons, and 118 neutrons. It has always had a specific heat capacity of 129; an atomic radius of about 1.35 angstroms; etc. These are all fundamental facts we've discovered at through an epistemological process for arriving at truth. The ancient Greeks just... didn't know about those things yet. "Gold and an Identical false metal with a different atomic structure would both be gold to ancient Greeks, and they would not be wrong for thinking so." This is not true if you mean wrong in the sense of them being factually wrong. By this logic, we could change the definition of anything if we all just decided to, and that that definition would be true. This is obviously not true, for example, if we all for some reason decided that black people aren't human, or that gold actually has 803 protons, neither of those things would somehow magically become true. This is honestly such a ridiculous point; I'm kind of shocked there's an argument about it. Obviously, fundamental physical truths aren't reliant on human definitions. The universe doesn't give a shit if we define the sun as actually runs on a system of spontaneous kitten-burning power for some reason, and the sun would keep on using nuclear fusion. That would still be true!
dr: "Just because a definition is complicated and hard to pin down doesn't mean it doesn't exist" V: "okay [gives decently succinct definition]" dr: "ah but what about [counterexample]? I know I could slightly augment the definition you gave to include it but my reasoning is simply FAR too motivated"
The critique is that a definition can’t be circular. If you don’t know what a store is and I’m trying to help you find one, saying “a store is a store” gives you no new information as to what a store is. Also, self ID is perfectly acceptable, but then you have to accept what comes with that. Which is that it’s so inclusive it’s literally saying all it takes to be a woman is to say you are one. Can’t make that claim and then also start adding qualifications about societal norms.
It’s amazing how you reject the biological definition of woman because it’s not solid enough for you and apparently allows for too many edge cases, but you think the great definition is anyone who claims to be a construct, while funny enough, you can’t even define the construct.
And you didn't watch the video. He already explained many times that the "construct" definition is inconsistent but still applicable, like how "cool people" is a thing but the meaning for word cool is different for everyone.
@@galaxyocicat5660 for not preparing himself to debate an phd, or even reading his paper while his opponent watched his content to know him better, this debate was an arrogant mistake from his part in every sense the aqua part also killed me what a dumbo
@@asherroodcreel640 for Catholics who read the Bible and think philosophically, the divine (if you even want to call it that beyond a philosophical will to support the utility of the Jewish oppressed) is unknowable by its definition. Which is ironic given this guy is a philosophy major. Although maybe it isn’t ironic given the uselessness of a philosophy degree
Fun Fact (which I am sure a lot of you are experiencing as well): Nearly any Vaush-video I start plays the "What is a woman?"-ads as the first ad. And regarding Matt's question: It's unreachable for you because most womxn despise little angry grifters like you or Ben Shapibo.
@@dudeist_priest You might have personalised ads turned on. If this is the case: GOOGLE sure has a messed up image of your interests. I wouldn't eat that sh*t under any circumstances.
@@Quiestre First and foremost he's a trerrible human being and a bad author and artist (just look at his really bad book). There might be exeptions to this rule. Like other transphobes. You for example sure seem like one considering your other comments on this channel.
@Anaven M1 Don't the cutters manage the channel? Also the Dailywire could use different accounts to do the advertising. But in any possible way I hardly believe anyone watching Vaush would fall for their hate speech and BS.
I'm not going to say you "lost," but you were tapdancing. While this showcases your abilities, it's not great in the context of the argument being made. I'm a longtime fan and will continue to be both because of your intellect and engaging entertainment; but this was as weak as I've seen you.
One thing I think we can all agree on is that for these types of big-stage debates, Vaush needs to do some preparation for his opponents. This dude is a literal philosophy professor. They might sound nonsensical when you get to the root of their argument, but on its face, they can easily come off sounding like the winner because they’re skilled at sounding smart.
Vaush's lack of preparation is easily my biggest problem with him. Rhetoric can only get you so far, you HAVE to do research when going up against people like this
Tbh usually Vaush is the one who “sounds correct”… until you actually break down some of the arguments and strip them from the sophistry… idk but this guy was pretty straightforward and clear with his points
Vaush so confidently saying the Spanish word for water is “aqua” when its “agua” lmao
To be fair, "aqua" is the latin root word for water, and Spanish as a romance language is Latin based.
@@SphincterOfDoom to be fair, it's also the name of a kingdom hearts character, therefore biggest mistake.
@Agent 006 That's what I said...
Mind you he is from fucking Los Angeles lmao
@@SphincterOfDoom So... then aqua is not the spanish word, but the latin word.
Just because a language is based on latin, doesn't mean you can use it referential like that.
But nice attempt protecting vaush's butt.
"Ah, yes, a refreshing glass of dihydrogen monoxide."
"Actually dude, that's water."
"That's what I said; dihydrogen monoxide."
This is a Jimmy Neutron joke. Jimmy's boss gets really angry when he doesn't understand that sodium chloride also means salt.
It LoOKs LiKE thIS LibEraL coULdn'T HaNDLe The NEUTRoN StyLE
Ah, a lovely glass of 2h2o, water with another hydrogen atom.
I’m sure that the outer ring of the 2 oxygen atoms can fit 2 hydrogens between them!
@@harryb12993 D2O can also be referred as ²H2O. How else can you it colloqualy the thing with the hydrogen atom was lost but his point still stands.
@@RatteASKiller holy shit you’re right.
I have only ever seen it as D but you are correct. No extra hydrogen atom still but he was like 90% right.
Some critiques of Vaush in this debate.
1. He should replace the phrase "women archetypes" with "feminine archetypes" to solve his self-referentiality problem.
2. He let Thomas conflate gender with sex far too often. This debate would have been much less painful if he corrected Thomas on this conflation more often.
3. Vaush could have ended this debate in 5 seconds if he had brought up Alden's Theory of Woman.
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!
Alden's Number.
Then you just get an infinite recursion problem, because what is feminine?
Canadian supremacist smh /s
@Anaven M1 I would argue that if we can get rid of the self-referential aspect of a definition without sacrificing it's utility, then that's what we should do. Getting rid of unnecessary literary baggage is a good thing.
@@canadagoose8543 I agree. And I think it’s only so self referential because it’s easier to do that than to go on and explain it all. It seems like a lot of Thomas’ issues were on an explicit, and I would say a bit misguided, dislike of self referential definitions.
I think Vaush is right that most social concepts end up self referential somewhere down the line but tidying up any extra literary baggage like you said is good and helps remove some of the legs Thomas and those like him stand on
Rare Vaush L.
Gotta start doing more prepwork man. Hate to sound like a Destiny fanboy but you had so many opportunities to make real arguments but just panicked and went bad faith mode pretty much immediately and started spouting nonsense about chemistry you clearly dont understand.
Thanks for coming on again, Vaush! It was a fun one!
It was a good debate!
@@sebastianspiguel445 agreed!
beard got you looking like a snack james
James in here looking jacked
Yeah I love watching vaush getting rekt
This dude literally brings up Katherine Jenkins by name and then omits the definition of self identification she lays out in the same paper he was referencing, that literally addresses all his objections to self id, absolutely dishonest and bad faith from the start
Hogs never read their sources lemme tell ya, they would bring papers up on this forum I used to frequent and be like "SEE, LOOK AT THE RESEARCH" and someone would screenshot something in the same paper that contradicted them, because they assumed from reading the first few lines the research agreed with them.
Thanks for commenting this so I don't have to waste anymore of my time on this guy
it might just be confirmation bias, he seemed reasonable enough and he seemed as if he believed what he was saying. He could have just instinctively thought that trans women are not women and then just looked for stuff that agrees with him or misinterpret stuff that disagrees.
@@aleksaa24 he's a doctor of philosophy, i think he can be expected to properly read a paper even if he disagrees with it. and besides, just cherrypicking to prove your preconceived notion is bad faith by itself
@@MrMinedownloads ok
debate aside, vaush's pronounciation of "aesthetics" never fails to drive me nuts.
@Anaven M1 someone seriously needs to correct him on the coward-ice pronunciation lmao
Lmfao i like it, it makes me feel smarter than him, even though I’m definitely probably not.
and "chromozone"
Ayesthetics😂
OP is such a handsome dude
The comments here saying things like "wow a powerpoint what a loser" and "wow such a long opening statement" really reveal what low level of discourse this audience is used to. Quite telling and disappointing.
@Exile Complex It's clumsy and wasteful to have high expectations for a debate on a very difficult question?
@Exile Complex you illustrate the original comment
@Exile Complex There is no joke, except the constant comedy of watching people who are unironically Vaush fans make utter fools of themselves.
You know, I always thought Vaush was exaggerating about James's physique.
He's always said James is huge and jacked af but since every time I've seen James he was in a suit it was hard to tell.
But damn Vaush was right this man is YOLKED
Hey I know this isn't like, related to anything, but I like your posts on your channel. Just thought I'd let you know 😄
*yoked
@@rainbowkrampus Five dozen, so he's roughly the size of a barge.
@@EpicMathTime after a dozen eggs in the morning, you become yolked 😂
This guy messed up when he started the water point by saying lakes and rivers are filled with water. He accidentally demonstrated that our day-to-day definitions of terms are in fact not the hyperliteral scientific ones.
Even the example that water is H2O doesnt hold up. Does this include ice? Or Steam? They are both H2O ,however, if my friend asked for some water and I brought him back an ice cube, I bet he'd be confused. Our definitions are meant to serve our general needs. In Vaush's case, it makes sense for trans women to be defined as women, because there is utility in it.
@@stella_s In fact, I was disappointed that Vaush didn't point that out. If you say "water" fills lakes and rivers, then you don't literally mean H2O, you mean the part of a river or lake that is fluid or is mixed in with the H2O which is scientifically way more complex to fully describe. Also another point Vaush missed: Bogardus tried to establish that water is H2O, but then colloquially admits also ice is H2O, so if "water is H2O" and "ice is H2O", then you're saying ice is water, which is similar, but not the same.
Yup. We somehow call water based solutions (dirty water, salt water, clean water, etc) just "water" (which supposedly refers to H2O, despite H2O having fundamentally different properties from all those solutions) and yet things like juice or blood, despite being water based solutions as well, are their own substances. Almost as if we arbitrarily decided what to call water and what not to...
To elaborate, if we had a, say, 30% orange juice, we'd call that juice.
If we had a 30% dirt water, we'd still call it water (unless it was enough dirt to become mud, which is *also* arbitrarily defined).
For a philosopher, he slipped into the "alleged certainty" fallacy and appeals to common sense an awful lot!
I know. I really wanted to say something like 'so, we refer to a gold colored pencil as being gold. A gold ring as being gold' even if it's costume jewelry, we refer to it as gold. Now, it will be important to say 'oh, it's plastic' at some points, but in most cases, it doesn't matter
First time seeing Vaush. Highly overrated. Talks in circles and has no substance
I live in Mexico, this is the first time I hear that H2O is Aqua.
ok and, you just didn't know
@LiamDrake-tz8jr it's a joke, because in Spanish the word isn't Aqua, it's Agua. You don't gotta be such a fuckin hardass
@@jessiearkwryte5765 No, it's not a joke
Borgadus sounds like the next villain in a Morbius sequel.
It sounds like the dude Achilles killed at the beginning of Troy
Borgadus, guardian of the Borgar King.
ඞ BOGARDUS ඞ
Morbius 2: the morbening
Sounds like a Godzilla kaiju
I really LOVE the mention of "trans-water", because trans- and cis- are actual prefixes that are used in quemistry, specifically in organic chemistry, and I joke CONSTANLY with my friends who know I am trans about it.
"I only drink cis-water, thank you!"
I mean water can't be cis or trans, those guys are so fucking bad at chemistry my teeth hurt.
I can't imagine worst strat than "I don't understand "a" so I'll make use shit I know even less about as a metaphor".
The two genders. Transwater and ciswater.
@@DrPonner Wait, but aren't trans water and cis water both _gender fluids_
I'll see myself out.
Also I think Vaush did critical nat 1 failure- he could hammer harder on how the "fact there's many kinds of women means there's no women" is dumb as shit.
Men discussing what it means to be a woman
Don't women discuss what i means to be a man?
Men and women don't really exist anyway. It's all a social construct.
Okay, I watched the debate and I conclude that everyone should have a PhD in language philosophy to use any gendered public bathroom. And probably a degree in chemistry as well, for some reason.
Not only is the Dr. behind on biology, he's using linguistic philosophy that was abandoned 2000 years ago.
I saw this debate on the Modern Day Debate channel first and the comments were full of idiots who laughed at Vaush for saying that descriptions are prescriptive and arbitrary. As a linguist, it was an incredibly painful comment section to read.
Yes, I have worked with socio-linguists I doubt many have room for essentialism or reductionism. Language is conventional and so are the terms 'Man' and 'Woman'.
Don’t do this to yourself man, UA-cam comments are not representative of people. Hopefully. >_
Modern Day Debate chat is always full of Nazis. You should avoid it like the plague
As a biochemist who has heard all the same arguments from 5G deniers and people who sabotage research centers due to ignorance, thank you so much for giving out a bunch of validity and fuel to that mindset. Appreciate it. It must be wonderful that negative consequences in your field can be fixed retroactively via lawsuit and the justice system. I wonder why the right wing guy had a cheesy grin the whole time he was losing huh?
Yeah that comment section was a complete shitshow
I've never seen someone spend so long, with so many tools, trying to look and sound smart and come off as less intelligent over time in ONE INTRO. I can't stand this guy purely because its clear he doesn't, and probably has no intention of, understanding the arbitarity of Human language and societies. Vaush's example of "cool" is a perfect analogy.
Even when Dr. Bogardus was talking about water, he gave lakes and oceans as an example - even though the old definition believed that the contaminants within the water - salt, dirt, bacteria, etc - were PART of the water. Saying that a lake is water is H2O is just as dumb as saying a fern is grass is a specific species of plant life. They don't track in that way and Dr. Bogardus is clearly incapable of that understanding.
Unwilling, not unable
I really wish vaush would have been harder on him for immediately gishgalloping. Just tell the dude, "we have an hour, give me your best argument from that or I'm picking your weakest".
You missed his point... The historical misconception was part of his point. He said that whilst the Greeks didn't know exactly what water was, they knew what water was. Overtime as we get a clearer understanding around these elements we're able to define them better and we describe the physical world more accurately. Basically water is real, we know what water is, overtime we're able to explain what makes water water. If humans were wiped off the face of the earth and all our knowledge was lost. Another species would still find water and still discover it's H2O. We have a similar thing with female, we have a very robust definition of female. An organism that when functioning properly, produces eggs. We know when it is or isn't functioning properly by looking at other identical organisms and how they function. If we were wiped off the world, and provided there wasn't a complete reset of the evolution process, what ever creature evolves to be intelligent would also discover that one factor for reproduction is the creation of eggs and they will give that being a name. These are facts of the world that we are describing.
However you completely missed his wider point that he didn't need to defend the biological definition. It actually works in his favour to poke holes in it as his point was that NO definition can hold the position that all trans women are women.
The cool example was also really poor. I can say that 'all cool people are cool". Then someone could ask me "what makes a person cool". Then I could give a loose list of characteristics that I believe makes a person cool. By me giving my definition that means I would exclude people who identify as cool from being cool. For example. I imagine Vaush self identifies as being cool.... He does not meet my definition of cool, therefore in my opinion, Vaush is not cool. Despite his objections to me not labelling him cool.
@@bez5297 water isn't real, the things we refer to with the word water are real but water is still a constructed categorization of those things that only exists because we say it does...
The whole point is to show the difference between the facts that we describe and categorize with definitions and the words for those definitions themselves.
@@bez5297 I guess I've never drank a cup of "water" in my life, since that liquid is filled with things that aren't H2O.
Vaush should've prepared for this. It's funny that this comment section is calling this Dr a transphobe when he didn't make any transphobic statements. Vaush's community use to not be so pitiful.
It's no longer about being correct, but about being virtuous. Under no circumstances would vaush concede a point here, because he knows it would look terrible for him optically. and since he has been in hot fire for a while now over all kinds of lefty drama, imagine he would also admit to trans women being not "real" women, this would be the nail in the coffin for his lefty position.
this dogmatism is what turns any leftist community to total shit. inconvenient things will be deliberately ignored because they rather be "morally correct" than factually.
I swear if there was really hard evidence that certain groups of people are naturally dumber or more violent, leftist would rather be deluding themselves than ever admitting there might be an issue here.
This is exactly what plays into the hands of the right wing.
It was extremely evident that Vaush began floundering early on in the debate because he didn't have a real solid rebuttle in mind. He began to rely on pedantic meandering and obfuscation as a tactic to deflect. Vaush made a couple of decent points but 90% of this was sophistry, which he is good at. After all.. debates aren't about who is right or saying the truth but about who appears to have "won" to the audience.
For what its worth I think I do sort of subscribe to the prescriptive model personally and don't really care about self reference in the definition of words, becasue as Derrida pointed out long ago, words are ultimately meaningless.
His fan base is completely brain dead. Reading these comments that don’t follow the debate at all screams schizo
This comment section has to protect their cult leader at any cost.
@@MikaelLV Tbf that's true of any comments section surrounding a public figure, but regardless yeah it is annoying to see so many detractors dismissed as a wokescolding tankie or whatever
Stuff like his gun control vid still had pretty negative reception from his fans, that said
Wait, did this dude really just go from being so pedantic and condescending about the definition of water, to completely dodging the same questions being directed at him about women by saying 'I just go with the flow man, we all know its colloquial meaning why are you so nitpicky?'. This guy is constantly using generalities and imprecise language, but also tried to make 10 minutes of this about scoffing at the notion that when someone says water they might not be referring to just pure h2o but potentially any of its derivatives or mixtures. He even tried a shitty gotcha with the lake question but that example just shows how much of a useless pedant he is being. He believes a lake is full of water, but there's a lot more in there than that its a mixture of minerals bacteria etc. and if we were going by the same standard he set only seconds before then he would also be incorrect in saying that a lake is full of water. Which is obviously ridiculous and shows that these hyper literal definitions he wants to establish as the only acceptable ones is nonsensical outside of very niche context. This guy isn't even trying to hide how bad faith he is acting here especially when he started a debate trying to define terms in the most narrow way possible but not adhering to the extreme level of scrutiny he himself set only minutes later.
Is HRT gender hormones or sex hormones?
A lake that was absolutely pure H20 and nothing else would be unnatural and not really quite a lake at that point.
@@christianlima1993 HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy) is the medical process by which different sex hormones are introduced
@@turbocat8329 thanks for explaining that. Since the main argument for trans people is gender and sex are different. And woman isn’t a female why does a trans woman need female sex hormones. Why is it wrong to say gender isn’t sex, trans women so no female sex hormone for you?
@@christianlima1993 Trans women take hormones because of two similar reasons. Firstly, women in society are expected to look a certain way. By taking HRT they look more like the societal role of women by having female sex characteristics. Gender is the social interpretation of sex and so of course this affects how women are viewed. The second reason is because of sexual dysphoria. Many transgender people also have discomfort with their natural body and HRT allows them to have a body closer to their internal view. Unlike Body Dysmorphia Disorder, these feelings can't be dissuaded with therapy similarly to how homosexuality cannot be treated.
"Your definition of 'woman' does not stand up to scientific rigor! What's my definition? Umm... I just kinda look in the dictionary or whatever." said the philosophy PhD and associate professor who "works in the area of ... philosophy of gender"
He said he doesn't have a private language, so obviously he would use the generally accepted definition
@@femboyaliens789 and the generally accepted one is one of self identification.
@@femboyaliens789 But any dictionary is going to be plagued by the same issues he has with Vaush's definition. Why does Vaush get the turbo-nerd pedantry when he's referring to and advocating for a marginalized community but when the question gets asked back at the associate professor he pretends to not even understand the question and then gets to give the vaguest, least-rigorous definition I've ever heard in my life?
@@JakeFace0 because his point was not all trans women are women according to any definition that isn’t circular. And any circular definition is meaningless so there would be no women . That’s the point …
@@brutuslugo3969 circular definitions are a non issue. Look at set theory. You just acknowledge that some concepts cannot be really defined, and move on. Never been a big deal honestly.
Edit: therefore, many things are defined in a circular fashion in language and philosophy. The *circular definition = meaningless of concept* is really a gotcha thing that has no place in any academic discussion. You define stuff based on what you _need_ . We don't really _need_ the social construct distinction between woman and trans woman. We probably don't _need_ to include in language genders at all (and that is the gender abolitionist take).
In my opinion societies will always converge on some definition that collects behavior/perspective/roles, but we don't need to fixate so much on them. These things shift all of the time, coalescing on set-in-stone definitions is a losing game.
Vaush in the intro: "Anyways language is arbitrary and we get more utility out of this so prescriptively trans women are women"
Bogardus less than 2 minutes later: "so yeah trans women arent women because language says they arent lol"
This man may have a PhD but he needs to take Linguistics 101
@@Dekubud To be fair most academics have zero clue of linguistics. Vaush isn't really big on it either. With philosophers the lack of understanding is just more apparent.
@@bobbun4369 With language?
Was just about to comment this exact thing haha this guy is ridiculous
@@bobbun4369 Arbitrary doesnt mean nonexistent, it means constructed and subjective. The important thing is that language is something we have made, and therefore we can change it and modify it to serve more utility when we please. If language was strictly objective it would be unchanging, because the first iterations of each concept would already be perfect.
Yikes, what a stunning L for Vaush. This puts even his normal content to shame. Imagine unironically supporting Self-ID as a thing that society can actually function on.
That's because Vaush self-identifies...as a man. When he's obviously a low-t soy boy who's never known the touch of a woman.
How does it dirupt the 'function' of society to just refer to someone the way they prefer being referred to?
whats the alternative to self ID? someone else telling me how i personally feel about my gender identity? wtf lol
@@willdenham do you really not understand how a self-ID definition of anything destroys the meaning of if it?
This shows that you didn't even listen to the professor's opening.
Statement.
Oh common man, are you one of these folks who believes womanhood is all about self-identification?
yep, he is lol
@@nunumere5307 terrible!
The power point was a bad idea. Boring, incoherent, made it feel like a lecture about what vaush thinks and not about the topic itself.
Maybe fix your attention span?
@@ZachForcier nah that shit was boring asl
Well it definitely was *an* idea. Maybe he should have just made it shorter.
@@aurora.7798 Head back to tiktok then
@@forever7387 I'm sure there are other formats for this discussion which may work better for you
As a trans woman, the truth is that I am tired of my identity being treated as a clue to debate without even considering that we are people, not a political framework to start debates I still appreciate that the attempt is made to defend us agianst these kinds of harmful talking points but the truth is that these people will never change their way of thinking
I agree that this shouldn't be the way it happens, but I do think it's valuable even if he won't ever change *their* minds. Because that's not the goal- the goal is to make their arguments look dumb to the viewers. And it's worked, at least for me and plenty of other people. Hearing Vaush pick apart transphobe's arguments over and over, seeing that they couldn't stand up to scrutiny and never came up with any newer or better material, helped me build the confidence to accept that I was trans. I'm glad Vaush does what he does.
All trans women are biological males. It’s okay. But it’s true
Tbf the point isn't to change this guy's opinion but the opinion of some of the hundreds of people watching that may be open to changing their mind. You fight for the audience not the opponent.
That being said I can certainly understand you finding the discussion exhausting. Obv it's bullshit that a person's existance is considered debatable.
Seriously... Imagine investing this much effort into trying to debunk a subjective experience you yourself have never had and never will. The levels of entitled egocentrism from these types is utterly unreal.
I can understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but at the same time, when your subjective identity goes further than yourself and can actively affect others in adverse ways (trans women in women's sports, bathroom madness, etc., etc.) it's something that does need brought up and discussed about what the best move is for all involved parties.
Trans women are not women.
Trans women are not men.
Trans women are Trans women.
Is there any controversy with this claim?
@@somerandommenHere’s what confusing. We understand the non-binary nature of sex and gender. But there’s this persistence to use restrictive binary terms (i.e Man and Woman) to describe something that is fundamentally not binary. Why have sub-categories when entirely new categories can be created? I agree with Vaush that we are the masters of our language. It would seem the utility would be to expand our language. Vaush references how ancient societies had terms for third and fourth genders. Simply return to this.
Transwomen are males with gender dysphoria. Transwomen are transwomen and not women.
@@morgancody6752 Gender is *not* a social construct.
@@morgancody6752 No. Definition of social construct
: an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society
@@morgancody6752 Gender is not a social construct. It is a signifier used to qualify a scientific observation based on an already existing fact, occuring independently of its signifier.
I hate how semantic and philosophical trans discourse becomes 😵💫 Like, what if we just talked about human rights issues in the context of human rights without getting bogged down by linguistics?
We're at the "are black people people" part of trans discourse 😔
James, like any reasonable person, probably already believes that adults should have the right to bodily autonomy. Not much else to talk about in regards to human rights
@@criticalthinker3262 uhhh, wouldn’t the more accurate analogy be “are trans racial people actually the race they claim to be?”
@@ditkovichpaysmyrent you don't know what an analogy is
@@criticalthinker3262 I definitely used it correctly but sure dodge the comment if you want
Idk how you can come out of this thinking vaush did poorly unless you don't understand what a social construct is, as bogardus doesn't. There's no scientific reason why trans women are or aren't women. Woman isn't a scientific term, and so the only way to debate the issue is through the linguistics of assigning words to concepts. Vaush isn't deflecting by pointing out that different languages have different words for things, the idea of associating words with concepts arbitrarily is the entire point.
You think a philosophy phd doesn't know what a social construct is?
🤡
They’re hyper focusing on a single part of Vaush’s overall good performance because destiny told them to.
@@alig2472 You really think a philosophy phd is being honest when he asserts that trans women can't be considered women under ANY philosophical frame work?
🤡
@@alig2472 no they just conflate them to mean something different like Jordon Peterson. He knows what subjective and objective means but pretends he can just magically change thier usages. Same way he does with religious experiences. He claims everyone is religious then defines religious experiences as everything therefore everyone is religious.
@@alig2472 he may know what one is but he refuses to acknowledge or interact with them
PhD in Sociolinguistics here. Let me say that I truly wish that people who comment on language (especially definitions) would look more into the inherently social aspect of language. As a career philosopher, I'm truly shocked that Dr. Bogardus provided some incredibly weak arguments here (linguistically speaking).
I'll leave the viewers with an awesome quote with summarises my field perfectly: "'statements about language are never only about language - and they are never only statements" (Gal and Irvine 2019, p1).
Thank you! I've always held an interest in laungauge. Especially how it evolves/deviates based on location, social roles, etc. (British vs American English for example. And what even is defined as standard "British" or "American" English. Why I use the slang I use, etc). I've always found it really fascinating.
But I can barely look into it or discuss it online. Most people are just trying to prove they speak the "correct" form of English. Correctness is not the point of laungauge! It's infuriating to me. Who cares enough to genuinely make fun of Americans for calling American football "football"? Or literally the rest of the world for saying zed insteadve zee. It's interesting!! Not something to make fun of. It's always so shallow too. People barely talk about it with nuance so I'm stuck reading the same posts about "football," "ou, vs. o in English," "zee vs. zed," or fucking, "chips vs. French fries." I don't care about that! Ugh.
Oh, I almost forgot, and because it's a discussion about laungauge, you know the grammar nerds are going to be out there x10. Correcting everything you say with, "uhm actually it's "there" maybe learn how to spell before you talk laungauge. 🙄" instead've actually addressing the points.
@Anaven M1 that’s philosophy of language 101 GIGACHAD. Day 1 in philosophy class we go over how Bertrand Russell ameliorated the argumentative structure of propositional outcomes
It's painful to see people refer to the dictionary definition of sociological terms and wide concepts in general
what actually is a definition conceptually? is what vaush said correct? i agree with him but i really want to know what is the correct concept
@@judas4544 he was using it to support the premise that this was the ordinary use of the term. It was an evidentiary argument.
When Vaush saw the powerpoint presentation, he thought he was in trouble.
When he saw his own quotes featured in the presentation, he knew it was over.
Keep saying that to yourself buddy
@@silkysnow6793 "no u"
@@Stbaa77 You can't do much when lowlives make entire realities in their heads as if they were legit empaths
What, you mean gish galloping and the weak platonic theory of forms and universals? Cause that is what you do when you refer to women as water and water not being a concept but a molecule. And of course women can't be compared to water and of course when you say woman you mean a concept, a construct. There is some idealised form of a woman, in your head that is and nowhere outside of it, and I'm pretty sure it's different from my concept of a woman. !53 other ignoramuses seem to agree with you. Y'all need more Nietzsche in your lives. Imagine getting praised for using platonic ideals. Weak sauce
@@janespright I look at your comment, and you know what I think?
"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. In essence, it is prioritizing quantity of one's arguments at the expense of quality of said arguments."
I do not understand how anyone fluent in English suddenly doesn't understand that definitions are EXTREMELY fluid and contextual. It's an essential component of the language. The same words can mean entirely different things based on tone, delivery, context, etc.
For example, if I walked up to you after a debate and said "you fucked that up, bro", that means you did poorly. But if I said "you fucked that UP, bro", suddenly that means you did well.
So insisting that the definition of "woman" is something so disconnected from our daily usage of the term strikes me as being pedantic for pedant's sake.
Maybe more for winning's sake? Possibly, that as soon as he accepted words can have more than one meaning, he'd lose. But I'm more surprised by how he's a doctor in philosophy but he isn't as critical about things. He's like: well, that's how it. But WHY?
I think the problem is that he's treating "woman" like its definition functions like that of gold or water, when Vaush's example of "cool" is much more appropriate
Womanhood is vibes
What is a woman? Whatever the fuck she wants to be
@@RaineInChaosmost women would probably be offended you reducing womenhood to vibes. Also if it’s just vibes y can’t trans women just vibe themselves into the correct gender
@@mickeycostagain660 why do I feel like you are in no place to tell me what women want to be "reduced" to? (hint: stop reducing women period) "Vibes" is an overly simplistic way to refer to a gestalt formed of thousands of things that are sometimes contradictory, but all come together to form a cohesive image
As for your second question, I don't understand it. That's exactly what trans women do.
@@RaineInChaos correct gender meaning the ones they were born into
If I ever create a videogme, I'm creating a cute but evil character called Dr. Bogardus
You think he's cute? I think he looks like a quintessential Christian good boy™️
@@radiofloyd2359 I think they were just saying his name is silly and would fit a “cute but evil” character archetype
Dude I was flabbergasted by the fact that BOGARDUS might be a real life, non villain, PhD carrying human name
make it a trans wifu!!
@@diceroanoke7363 ah fair.
What is a christian? You can have two people, both christian, who disagree on basically everything. Does that mean the term christian doesn't convey any meaning? No, it carries cultural meaning, even though that mening is constantly changing and also up to each individual to define. According to Dr. Bogardus logic that means there are no christians, which seems pretty absurd to me.
Yeah there's a reason he's utterly unique in his arguments. Uniquely bad.
@@bobbun4369 what part of that arguemnt was incorrect? Are there not hundred of different branches of Christianity? Each one that claims they've got the right one?
@@bobbun4369 What ignorance? Hardly anyone in Western Europe would consider those gun tooting Maga fanatics who think Trump was sent to earth Christian.
I'm so sorry for your low intelligence if this is what you got from what he said.
@@russellward4624 I disagree with the doctor, but I don't agree with your argument. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah. That's the definition, plain and simple. It's not really a definition that's synonymous with the conversation about trans people.
So the entire debate was Voush avoiding defining the word “woman”
The guy is so disingenuous
Vaush got absolutely obliterated in this debate.
Destiny wouldn’t like you making him look bad like this.
@@harryb12993 Huh?
Give me a definition of a woman
@@galaxyocicat5660 Aqua
@@Hakkolinen someone clearly didn't understand this debate
Props to the host for maintaining ultra high energy after suffering through a 20 min opening statement
@@richardfilanderer mate, the host is the moderator. Are ya okay?
@@richardfilanderer what's word salad?
@@iceman5117 They just mean that they're too dumb to follow Vaush's points
@Anaven M1 so when did Vaush do this?
@@v8ali8 who is Vaush?
But is water only h2O? When I order a water at a restaurant I expect a specific kind of drinking water served in a glass, even though the textbook definition doesn't mention those things. And there is salt in the ocean water, isn't it water? Does any human think the salt and the water are different things when looking at the ocean?
Stop with the semantics
@@justsomeguy6336 Hard to talk about the definition of words without semantics.
@@justsomeguy6336 ooga booga
There are minerals in your water when you order it too, it's not as though you ask for water and someone automatically thinks to distill it.
@@justsomeguy6336 "That's semantics" isn't a magical phrase that gets you out of any argument sweaty.
Vaush has become a parody of himself. Water isnt water its aqua. Many things fill lakes and rivers vaush thinks fishes are aqua which is a different h2o from water.
Where did Vaush say that fish is aqua? Don't let your hallucinations get projected unto the video.
@@galaxyocicat5660 the philosophy guy said ‘water the thing that makes up lakes and rivers’ then vaush said many things make up lakes and river. River is defined as a body of water that flows into another body of water. Lake is a large body of water surrounded by land. Therefore vaush thinks fishes are water. If he wasnt tryna be so bad faith he wouldnt have implied something so stupid. The video title is trans water the fish identifies as aqua.
@@christianlima1993 your logic doesnt follow
I'm not sure if male and female have a definite anatomical definition, but they definitely have a physiological definition. Sexual reproduction cannot proceed without a male and a female reproductive system. The mere fact that sometimes reproductive systems don't function doesn't change this. Any organ can lose its functionality for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean the function and the structure are unrelated.
People have largely moved past this debate I think. Trans activists have quietly conceded their arguments are incoherent.
Fun fact: Vaush’s education is more relevant on this topic than the PhD’s.
Lol. Cope harder
Not for what Bogardus was arguing. He was asking the philosophical ought of why there should be a distinction.
@@daviddavidson5961 Well, they would be arguing different things right?
@@justsomeguy6336 Low IQ
@@timeisup3094 Sure, but I don't mean opposite sides of the argument I mean different arguments like "what to have for lunch" and "where should we set up camp". His is more on the base level of "why" while Vaush's argument is covering the "what if".
I think it would've been interesting if Vaush screenshot the powerpoint and deconstructed it entirely point by point
Good luck
Not possible. He wouldn’t be able to get around the circular reasoning.
@@justsomeguy6336 there was no circular reasoning, as Self ID includes non exclusive prescription, like a chair in it's defintion says "typically has four legs" it is non exclusive just like self id.
Edit : self ID defntion would include typical descriptors it seems Nicolas did not read my comment or even the Doctors PowerPoint.
@@ZachForcier pretty simple as Tom conceded that self id does not require someone to identify with every description of a women.
@@wellwell7950 self-identification is circular because it only refers to itself. Has nothing to do with (non-)exclusion. Saying a woman is someone who identifies as a woman means that that someone identifies as someone who identifies as a woman. The "woman" keeps being replaced with "someone who identifies as a woman". There is no origin point, it's infinite regress. Clearly gender requires, as Judith Butler puts it, a performance -- an acting out of or feeling kinship with existing societal ideas about the gender summed up as "woman". Trans women can still be women in this framework, but saying self-ID is all that's required is just ontologically silly
The best part is when vaush thinks aqua means water in Spanish😭
I mean it’s “agua”. Like one letter off how’s that a big deal?
@@TheSurrealist. he’s soooo confidently wrong that it’s funny that an ‘intellectual’ like him doesn’t know. I could probably ask 100 Americans how to say water in Spanish and 99 would know just because they took Spanish in school and know the odd word like “caliente”, “baño”, “agua”, etc.
Vaush mispronouncing a word is irrelevant to the argument.
@@NJames-dh6kz bro idgaf it’s just funny. also you’re lying if you think he mispronounced it. He just got it wrong it wasn’t a mispronunciation
@@diegogonzalezvazq still irrelevant
A couple problems with some of Vaush's statements:
1) If someone makes an argument that a person isn't a woman when they claim to be, that is transphobic.
Disagreements are perfectly natural, logical, and unavoidable. This does not make one a transphobe by default.
2) A man or woman is someone who identifies as such.
That is nonsensical circular reasoning with no definition.
3) Transmen and transwomen want to be associated with and treated as the broad range of archetypes of the categories of men and women… They still subscribe to the archetype, but don’t depend on those roles to define them.
So they don’t depend on those roles to define them, yet still want to be associated with that archetype, an archetype which as you said yourself is not a one size fits all, and that both cis and trans people will vary among it. So in other words it’s all meaningless, there's really no such thing as a woman, it’s a subjective statement - a woman is just someone who identifies as one, regardless of anything else. So why must this stop specifically at gender? If it’s a meaningless subjective feeling that you mark as valid, then why can’t you subjectively feel like another race, species, height, weight, age, someone with more or less limbs, etc? You said categories are arbitrary social constructs. Why do you (or the trans community) get to define which categories to self-identify as are valid and which are not? Are you invalidating the existence of Oli London and Rachel Dolezal? Transracialphobe. I know someone in real life named Pup who identifies as and acts like a dog. Is he not valid? Transpeciesphobe.
4) The definition of a woman is arbitrary, inconsistent, and harmful... Gender is a destructive concept… We should go by the definitions that hurt people the least.
No it isn’t and no we shouldn’t. Leaving the definition up to “self-identification” though is arbitrary and inconsistent. The definition of a woman is: an adult human female. And the definition of a female is “of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes." However like all words that are used to define and communicate, it is still a word, and not the thing or experience itself, hence it will obviously be naturally somewhat limiting and not all-encompassing. And of course things aren’t so black and white, there’s no concrete line for any definition whatsoever. This doesn’t mean definitions aren’t valid or not useful. It just means they can't perfectly convey the thing or experience. You can apply this to any definition and nitpick. So what? We all still know what a dog is and isn’t for example. To pretend otherwise is being silly, disingenuous, and pedantic. You’re just making things intentionally difficult (perhaps to win an argument or to stroke your ego). You don’t then just throw out the definition or seek to change it in case anyone takes offence, or make a claim that anyone can identify as a dog.
You literally want to change definitions based on feelings, what hurts the least, rather than logic, objectivity, or practicality. You do realize these feelings will differ from person to person, and in different cultures and historical periods? So you want to change definitions whenever feelings get hurt? If some people are that mentally and emotionally fragile that a word will harm them, even to the point of suicide, then you have a mental problem and are in need of therapy of some sort. It’s not society’s job to coddle you, and give in to your demands. Gender, or any categories, are not intrinsically destructive. Mentally unstable or emotionally fragile people may find them destructive though. The way forward is not to abolish gender or categories, but rather to strengthen the people that are so easily hurt by them. Social anxiety is another example of this. You do not tell everyone else to modify their behaviours because someone with social anxiety might be triggered. You help the individual with social anxiety to get to a point where other peoples’ thoughts and actions don’t affect them so much. That’s how one grows.
EDIT: Oh I forgot to add that gold and iron are still objectively distinct properties / categories, regardless if humans or aliens discover, understand, and label them or not. That is different to what you were saying about how countries are arbitrary constructs. It just seems like you want to play a word game with everything and then say ahh gotcha!
Define adult. Define human. Define female.
And tell me how you check that someone is all three before calling them a woman.
@@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos exactly
Casually getting advertised the Daily Wire on Vaush videos.
@@bobbun4369 Who's "you people?"
No that's not it, adverts when they're posted have categories selected so adverts are advertising to related videos.
So Daily Wire will have set their association to politically driven videos. Its just funny to see them being advertised on a political channel that generally dislikes them.
@@bobbun4369 Vaush litteraly gives a definition in the video
are you just arguing with people on videos you havent even watched?
@@BeanBossing Define it
@@ZachForcier someone who identifies with the social roles that society ascribes to women, that are associated with the female sex
@@mcbaws21 in 2022 there are no gender based social roles, except maybe being a mother. You can't define gender as a social role
It's hilarious how quickly he went from a very in-depth measured slideshow that lasted for 15 minutes, into trying to strawman and shove words down Vaushes' mouth that lead to obvious mockeries of logic that he doesn't stand by.
Find a transphobe who will debate in good faith challenge: impossible.
@beef business I wouldn't consider him a transphobe, so much as an incredibly naive person who likes to believe the first thing he is taught on a subject, and he happened to be exposed to TERFs/Gender Criticals first because he lives in the UK.
@beef business he may debate in good faith, but all he does is regurgitate all the anti-trans talking points hes heard in his life. not exactly the most constructive
I imagine good faith transphobes do exist. Frustratingly - since this involves irrational fear, said fear also serves as a solid barrier to civil discourse. Hmm. Maybe an uptick in open letters could prove beneficial?
@@mcbaws21 I mean, that's... literally how social indoctrination works. Can't blame someone for being ignorant in good faith. We can more directly blame someone for being disproven thoroughly and still insisting on not changing anything about their views.
So all people on earth who don't adhere to transgender ideology are transphobic ?
What is the definition of the word "transphobic" ?
Please watch Destiny's reaction to this debate if you think Vaush came off looking like the victor
Destiny who didn't know that 2H2O was a thing and his moronic fans who thought it was a massive slam-dunk to just collectively imagine Vaush must've meant H2O2 instead? that reaction? lol
@@scheb3567 you're not engaging in good faith. the point the guy was making that before the label, there was still the thing. we apply labels to describe things. i felt that Vaush was just running down the clock by saying stuff that the PHD guy doesn't even disagree with, so that the PHD guy couldn't even get to the main point of his arguments.
that's great buddy, doesn't make destiny's little reaction video any less funny
@@scheb3567 did you watch the whole thing? and do you still think Vaush is right?
Imo, Vaush ridiculed himself.
I came here on the recommendation of a mob of hype-men laughing at "how stupid a comment Vaush made about water".
Unfortunately, outside of his haphazard mispronunciation the only thing left to laugh at is yourselves for not understanding how language works and the point being made.
Here is the debate in a nutshell:
*Bogardus:* A woman is what it says in the dictionary a woman is, who am I to question it. Also, these credentialed individuals agree with me that if a woman is what it says a woman is in the dictionary and that trans women don't fit into that definition.
*Vaush:* Any definition of woman has unavoidably arbitrary constituents such that you cannot possibly make an all-encompassing term that trans women can't fit into, there is also no utility in doing so other than spite.
*Bogardus:* Here are examples of concepts I incorrectly believe have inarguably non-arbitrary aspects, the reason I think so is because they existed before we named them.
*Vaush:* Your examples have unavoidably Arbitrary facets also, if you understood this, you wouldn't have used them because they bolster my point.
I actually struggle to see how Bogardus doesn't immediately recognize his own concession to a dictionary definition of womanhood as self refuting of his overall thesis, since by conceding to common consensus as the arbiter of correct definitions, he must also concede that the definition of woman is mutable to historical change, and at each step of that change, he would have to concede that the new definition is just as correct as the old one since there is no standard beyond common agreement to judge what a woman is. Hence, it seems like it's just a numbers game to him, and if so, there's no actual substance behind the claim that transwoman aren't women, other than to point out that currently, most people don't perceive it to be the case. But if it's all just about perception, then why doesn't self identification suffice as a justification? Why can't we just collectively agree to accept self identification as sufficient since it seems to bring these people comfort and joy?
That dudes opening statement didn’t prove “all trans women are women” wrong. It proved “using any given framework, no single subset of humans can be called women with 100% consistency”.
Since all trans women are collectively a subset of humans, therefore “all trans women are women” is false.
Totally meaningless position!
not really. people who fall into the biological definition of woman would be considered women. people who fall into the social role definition of woman would be considered women. there isnt a definition of women that lets in trans women while still having the word "women" mean something, i think that was the point he was getting at.
Trans rights!
@@bobbun4369 quite a few
@@bobbun4369 the right to free expression, the right to bodily autonomy and in some cases the right to life.
My personal opinion is that these matter. Maybe just a bit.
Vaush if you’re going to be an dvocate for these issues - actually prepare for debates. You walked into so many traps that could have been avoided by reading at least some of his opponents work. Also please only use philosophy terms after taking a philosophy class. You have the money now to take one from a community college
Lmfao make your own channel
@@santiagomarin1882 I don’t claim to fight fascism on the internet.
Sorry for critiquing your leader daddy Vaush, didn’t realise the negative utils caused by it and we’re all consequentialists and rule utilitarians here. So it won’t happen again. Promise.
@@Bravepotato1 What the fuck are you talking about
no Avatar, no name, 50+ comments each one angrier and more frothy then the last.
You are miserable and I think I genuinely pity you.
@@billiecruz4399 you sound very angry and upset. But sure, project on me, I get it. I hope your life situation improves.❤️
Yes, we often conflate gender and sex; so in that sense people subscribe to the so called common meaning of adult human female. However, functionally we do not operate in our daily lives that way. Never have I ever, upon meeting a woman, been compelled to confirm her sex before treating them as a woman. So our operational understanding of woman cannot contain that prerequisite.
Never in my life have I had my gametes or chromosomes checked, there's a chance I could've been a woman all along according to some biological essentialism definition.
This guy kept committing the Reification Fallacy. He went so far as to say "H20 was definition of water before we even knew it". NO. Water itself was H20 before we knew it, the definition of the word "water" was not H20 until chemistry showed us that.
IOW the map is not the territory, a definition is not the thing itself. A philosophy PhD should know this. But I've often found philosophers, despite taking the 2 basic logic courses, make these kinds of errors more often than they should.
How is pointing out that water was H20 before we even knew it committing a reification fallacy? Tomas shows a very clear understanding of the difference between an identifier and what it points to during this conversation.
@@constexprDuck Because that isn't what he said, nor what I said he claimed. What Tomas said was "H20 was the definition of water even before we knew that". As if a future definition of a word (signifier) was identical to the thing the future definition mapped onto (signified). He clearly made that mistake. And if you think that's not the Reification Fallacy, try comparing it to someone who says maps of North America were correct before we knew real geography of the continent. It's no different.
A definition can be misapplied, but by Tomas's theory of definitions that can never be the case so long as the correct definition exists at a later time. H20 was not the definition of the word water before we knew chemistry.
How was water anymore h20 before chemistry, than wet stuff was water before definitions? The word water was invented. So youre discrediting him.but then making the same distinction..just for water instead of h20.
@@smugnick5458 i don't think you understand the point being made
@@smugnick5458 Please try reading again. I did not say water itself became H20 after chemistry. I said the definition of the word "water" was not H20 before chemistry. If you disagree with that, you're unironically saying that the meaning of words exist independent of time. To the extent that words whose definitions were later corrected never actually had the wrong definition.
You're doing the same poor argument as Tomas was.
"there's no feature you can have by simply identifying as having it"
What in the fuck? Has this man never heard of football fans? Food tastes. Music taste. Fucking religion?
there are still underlying things that make those true. Someone saying they are a football fan doesn't make them a football fan.
@@TheChuckNorrisinator why does me saying I'm a football fan not mean I'm a football fan? That's literally the main thing. It's a thing you just have to feel that you are. I can't open you up with a scalpel and decide if you are. It's purley a feeling. An identity
“Someone saying they are a football fan doesn’t make them a football fan” 💀
@@samuelmorkbednarzkepler Because to be a football fan you have to actually be a fan of football. If some crazy person identified as a football fan but never watched a single quarter of football in his life, he would NOT be a football fan.
@@samuelmorkbednarzkepler If someone watches football every week, owns piles and piles of football paraphernalia, speaks almost exclusively about football in casual conversation, has loads of stats about football memorized. If that person looks at me and tells me they're not a football fan, I think they're delusional or lying to me.
Ok, I know this of stupid of me to joke about something serious like this, but when Vaush said that "woman" is a "multifaceted gem" all I could think of were Soul Crystals. Like damn, if only it were that easy for trans people, just equip the Woman soul crystal and bing-bang-boom you're a woman! 🤣
It's not that easy? You don't think trans women are women?
@@SteamGrace Buddy, that is not at all what I was saying.
@@NinjaFrog65 You said that "if only it were that easy for trans people [to become a woman]." Are you implying that self identification isn't enough?
@@SteamGrace No? I was referring to stuff like medical transitioning and stuff. Since that's usually one of the more difficult hurtles part of transitioning (obviously only if they want to medically transition) due to societal, economic, and availability reasons.
@@SteamGrace Uh, that's not what they said at all. It's a little thing some people do called a "Joke" you know
"Vaush, your definition is circular whereas mine is defined in the dictionary"
I truly don't understand how you get your PhD in this stuff and then act as if it's the first time you've ever heard these counterarguments
To be fair though, which statement makes more sense?
1. This statement is true because it is true.
2. A statement that we have defined as "true" is in most cases a statement which describes underlying facts
No contradiction in that statement.
@@hazmat_v Define long
The irony that he said if you identify as women is Circular reasoning, yet when vaush describes that the defintion would include descriptors of what a women and how that is just typical prescriptions, like a chairs defintion says "typically with 4 legs" so not exclusive, Tom goes well my PowerPoint slide had an X next to that one, so that can't be right or it wouldn't have an X.
You dont believe that if trans woman had no desire to fit the descriptors would you still say all trans women are women
@@christianlima1993 if a chair does not fit into the role of having 4 legs and a back, then is it not a chair?
@@Garrettmcarpenter i think a trans woman can ever be a woman. but if you think trans people will end their existence if they dont match a descriptors but the description is completely made up (even tho the descriptors of gender have been the same throughout human existence) are you a bot.
@@Garrettmcarpenter I know this is 2 weeks ago but you guys example of the definition of a chair is completely useless and you guys keep clinging on to the wrong parts of the definition that usually already use a word to explain those characteristics aren't exclusive.
Chair: A man made seat for 1 person to sit on, typically with legs and a back.
@@slsstar100 Yeah, not sure how people think this is a good analogy. A chair isn't a chair because it believes it is, it's a chair because it matches certain characteristics befitting a chair, with the BARE MINIMUM being something upon which people are seated. In a self-referential definition there is no BARE MINIMUM characteristic to adhere to, therefore it is a cyclical definition.
18 minute opening statement, where he misrepresented Vaushes position later concede he was wrong about self ID and didn't even give his own defintion
Edit : it was in the Q&A section where he admitted that women do not have to adhere to all social standards in a defintion, therefore 2 of his crosses in the PowerPoint should actually be ticks.
Where does he concede that he’s wrong about self-ID
@@vinaytummarakota3044 it's a couple of times once in the questions, he said that obviously defintions are not exclusive, such as a chair "typically has four legs" a trans women does not have to adhere to all parts of the definition.
@@vinaytummarakota3044 In the QA Section
@@wellwell7950 do you happen to have a time stamp for these? I remember noting them myself but I can’t find them again
Never argue with a professional philosopher. He is basically saying if you can't define 'woman' then how can anyone identify as one.
He is correct though.
And?
How's that exactly illogical?
@@idenree5949 I am not saying it isn't
@@andrewr311 oh ok. Sorry, This is not my native language so maybe I misunderstood what you saud. But why did you say he shouldn't argue with him.
@@idenree5949 I said that he shouldn't argue with him because a trained philosopher is hard to beat in a debate. I thing the issues with trans people are not simple anyway and need a lot of nuance.
I can't believe how many people defend Vaush in this one.
Vaush is just sophistry as a human
@@ALLAHDRINKSCUM good one? Idk wtf you're point could be here.
@@mindlander use your brain you invertebrate.
@@ALLAHDRINKSCUM you must be used to disappointing people.
@mindlander You are embarrassing yourself. Your parents must be ashamed about you.
tons of cope in the MDD comment section after this one
Nice pfp love those renaissance babies
@@asherroodcreel640 thanks, chose it because it looks just like me
@@mrl2h2 good reason, my friends mom bought a drawing of a post renaissance angel be it look just like him to the point I thought it was just his portrait.
Honestly Vaush's approach to defending trans rights is super effective and important
I mean he made an ass of himself in this debate. Not sure why he didn’t do any preparation
@@frostbite3318 I mean he made an ass of himself in this debate. Not sure why he didn't do any preparation
@@radiofloyd2359 I mean he made an ass of himself in this debate. Not sure why he didn’t do any preparation
@Christian I mean he made an ass of himself in this debate. Not sure why he didn’t do any preparation
@@pognarchy @Pogrock I mean he made an ass of himself in this debate. Not sure why he didn't do any preperation
The amount of obfuscation here because of fear over a good faith debate with an academic that actually could give solid arguments is hilarious. YOU LITERALLY COULDN'T EVEN JUST AGREE WATER IS H20. Then weren't even correct with a deuterium oxide analogy. It's D20, not 2H20. It's also not just called "water", it's called heavy water because it's not H20 and formed from deuterium.
The amount of BS of stating "Well blah blah blah definitions are just categories we create to ascribe meaning blah blah so therefore I cant be proven wrong"
"Would you agree 2+2 = 4?"
"Well numbers are only a categorical definition of a concept we arbitrarily assert onto the act of counting. There are actually an infinite myriad of ways to reach 4. 6-2 =4, 529-525=4."
"Yeah..... ... but 2+2 = 4 right?"
>It's D20, not 2H20.
It's either, actually. Deuterium and protium are both hydrogen and heavy water can be validly and comprehensibly called either D20 or ^2H20. ^2H20 is a standard modern way of calling it in chemistry contexts, because hydrogen is the only element that still has isotopes with names commonly used like 'deuterium' and using ^2H20 solves a couple bookkeeping and consistency problems related to that.
>It's also not just called "water"
I just opened a textbook and it calls heavy water a 'form of water'. I checked online chemistry resources and they call it a 'water that is...'. I checked Wikipedia and it calls it a form of water. The American Chemical Society calls it a form of water. If you are extra sleuthy and look close, you may actually spot the word 'water' in the name 'heavy water', indicating that it is water. Looking at its chemistry...two hydrogen atoms...one oxygen atom. Water.
>it's called heavy water because it's not H20
It's called heavy water because it's water with an extra neutron. It's still two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Also, mixtures of heavy and light water can be called heavy water too, when the proportion of ^2H gets to an arbitrarily high level.
>it's not H20 and formed from deuterium.
Deuterium is ^2H. the H means Hydrogen. The H in H20 means Hydrogen. Deuterium is Hydrogen. Normal water-usually called light water in a context in which heavy water could be around-can contain some deuterium as well. The fact that academic publications call normal water 'normal water' 'ordinary water' 'light water' when comparing it to heavy water would indicate that yes, heavy water is a kind of water.
The reality is...water _is not_ H20. Water is incredibly complex and arbitrary. The thing that comes out of your taps and bottles that you drink isn't _just_ H20. It's a huge mixture of many, many chemicals. It's just _mostly_ H20. The things in it that aren't H20 can make all the difference- you will probably be fine drinking tap water, but you can't drink sea water. Those are really different things for you, but they are both 'water'. River water, contaminated lake water, partially frozen water...the only thing they really have in common is that they are mostly H20. But being mostly H20 doesn't really define water either, unless you also then think urine, soda, juice, vinegar, beer, etc are all water as well since they are 90+% H20 too. You go to the store and buy a sports drink mix and put it in your tap water and it stops being water and starts being a sports drink. Or maybe it become 'flavored water', having really not changed the H20 ratio from tap water that much? There's H20 in the air-but the air isn't water. But sometimes there is a lot of H20 in the air, which you then stop calling air and start calling 'water vapor' as it forms clouds, and it condenses and you call that 'rain water' even though it also contains all the pollutants in the air and is less fit to drink than the drinks you have that are 99% H20 that you don't call water. You're mostly H20-why aren't you water but your tap water is? What IS water? It certainly isn't 'just H20'. Most sources of H20 contain deuterium, but that doesn't make it heavy water. There's a huge body of cultural baggage that comes along with it that determines what you call and don't call water. That's the point. It's impossible to deny, you yourself along with everyone else partake in this dance of definitions on a regular basis every time you assess a liquid to be water or not.
>"Would you agree 2+2 = 4?"
This is the same change-of-domain garbage the professor pulled (and failed at, water as he defined it is self evidently unusable nonsense to almost everyone except chemists working under perfectly pure conditions, and contrary to the daily usage of the word by every single human). Mathematics has axioms. It's not even remotely the same thing as asking what a woman is.
@@_midinette_ talk about obfuscation. No. Water is H20 in it's purest form. Sure there are other things existing in water. Minerals etc. There are even other forms of water. Aka heavy water which has a different composition. Pure water is still H20. But when you can't even just say "Yes. Yes H20 is water" because you're trying to obfuscate what a "definition is" and that "everything is arbitrary". You're acting in bad faith so no one can even discuss a topic with you.
Vaush didn't have a clue about any actual academics. Even the things you mentioned. Dude was literally just reading from chat. So he obfuscated so much to keep from having an actual debate where he would be seen as not having a clue on the topic.
This professor was just very nice on not calling him out or pushing him on any topic. Like the claims about the biology in the scientific journal Nature where he can't cite a single source yet makes large claims on the science being settled.
@@randomyoutubecommenterr
>Water is H20 in it's purest form.
No, water is a huge number of things, as stated, and several things that ARE pure H20 are _not_ water. Your definition fails the most basic scrutiny, and it's only ever used to mean 'pure H20' in chemistry. Real, everyday humans don't mean 'pure H20' when they talk about water. What people usually mean when they ask for a 'glass of water' is a potable, liquid comprised of mostly H20 with a narrow band of potential not-unpleasant mineral flavors. I can't give you a cup of ice and say here is your water. I can't give you a cup of steam and say here is your water. Which is weird, because according to you, ice and steam are _exactly_ the same thing as water-pure H20. (By the way, if you argue against this by saying they are just different forms of water, you are also admitting heavy water is water too, thereby completely defeating your own OP and also agreeing with Vaush's position.) I can't even give you water with 300pm of mud in it and say here is your water. You won't drink any of that. But they are all water. And you can call them water. You didn't even attempt to refute this- I can only assume you're intentionally playing ignorant here. The definitions we use for water in real life are constructed and with arbitrary and subjective barriers. Two liquids that have few functional similarities can both be called water.
>Vaush didn't have a clue about any actual academics.
Neither did you, so if your argument is that people who are ignorant of the details can't make an argument about something broader...well, look in the mirror. I disagree though, you don't need to know every little thing to make an argument. That would be dumb and lock off every human from arguing about anything, ever. Vaush's argument didn't rely on actual chemistry at all anyway, and if you think he was arguing chemistry instead of prescriptivism vs descriptivism, you weren't paying much attention.
>This professor was just very nice on not calling him out or pushing him on any topic.
No, he floundered and gave up basically instantly when pressed about the definition of water. In the Q&A it was revealed that he actually believed that the definitions of words refer to an objective essence of things that exists outside of any human's perception, which is a) painfully contrary to the everyday lived reality of people who actually say words and b) completely made him unable to coherently respond to anything Vaush said, instead requiring him to divert away every time he was challenged on if the words actually meant what he claimed they meant.
@@_midinette_ You clearly do not do chemistry. No one refers to D2O is "2 H 2 O" as vaush did because that would become very confusing since that is what we audibly say when referring to 2 moles of H2O. When referring to any isotope we refer to it by the atom follow by the number. For instance carbon-13 or C-13. The correct way would be to say hydrogen-2 containing heavy water (H-2 water) or deuterated water or just write D2O. The way that you have written it is also consistent.
You also seem to be mixing solvent with solute. Yes persons usually refer to water solution as "water" because it looks like what we deem as water and for simplicity's sake it is but that does not mean that there is only water in there. It just means that's all the lay person can see. That's why the water can be purified meaning it's not turned into something else but rather the solute is separated from the solvent.
I guess you can call the water we drink impure water but that is only due to the fact that we know what pure water is. As an analogy, just because dirt can form on your skin does not make the dirt a part of you. Also, if I'm dissolving propane in THF solvent I don't suddenly question what THF really is... it is a cyclic oxygen containing chemical usually used as an organic solvent due to it's inert nature.
Water is comprised of one oxygen molecule and 2 hydrogen molecules which form a bent shape in which the hydrogen molecules are around 109.5 degrees apart from each other.
The reasons why D2O and H2O are distinct are due to them being different in nature. They're the same molecule as that have the same chemical characteristics. However, due to the masses being different the kinetics will be different. This can be theoretically determined by assuming the O-H and O-D bonds break at the same energy level. This will lead you to a result of around 3x faster in converting H2O into -OH than converting D2O into -OD.
Another distinguishing factor is in NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) basically protons are ^1H NMR active while D is not which is useful for us.
We know what water is. So much so that we can purify it from other molecules that are not water. Just because the wider public refers to impure water as "water" does not mean water stops being H2O. It just means that persons just find it convenient to call that water because it mostly is.
@@_midinette_ "(By the way, if you argue against this by saying they are just different forms of water, you are also admitting heavy water is water too, thereby completely defeating your own OP and also agreeing with Vaush's position.)" That technically is not true... ice and steam are pretty much the same as liquid water chemically. It's only their proximity in space, vibrational energy and kinetic energy and thus bond strength that differ. D2O is literally a different isotope of water... there's a bit of a difference there.
What is this metaphilosophy for beginners. You needs to read moar. if utilitarian is the purpose of all things human : then common definition is ; to distinguish & discuss phenomena. Not to be an inherent truth of nature, but a system of symbols.
a trans person is not a woman ; a human that has been altered physically and/or chemically, in a way that modifies what the person considers sexual about themselves.
a woman ; a human female mammal
female mammal ; animals that nourish their young with milk. type of: female. an animal that produces gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes
"I'm angry that language is not the true true".
yup 10s of thousands of years of language and thought & in 10k more we still will not speak the true true.
Wow, never woulda expected a philosopher to open an argument with a dictionary definition
Imagine coming to that dude to talk philoophy only using dictionary definitions for philosophical terms. He'd have a fit
Definition can be a good place to start conversation.. its not be all end all answer since every person has their own definition to some extent and definitions depend on context, common use and utility.
So whats the problem?
@@BridgeTROLL777 you're right that definitions are important to a productive discussion. But as you aptly pointed out, most people have nuances in their preferred definition which make dictionary definitions practically useless to a philosophical conversation.
@@alephmale3171 definitions are indeed important to establish but specifically opening with a dictionary definition is a remedial debate tactic and is not helpful to the conversation
@@alephmale3171 The only issues I had was with with the social role and the “definitions can be true or false” well and the falsity of the self ID but that’s whatever.
The social role issue is that we could just be meaning that if you don’t fit these categories of woman, then you aren’t a trans woman. This is a stricter view, but it gets out of the issue so that all trans women are in fact women.
The other issue is that we could have these subset of categories in which it would encompass all the trans women we want to as women. I wonder what Bogardus thinks about either of those views.
The little section where he says “definitions are real” was just weird and his constant “true definition” was annoying because definitions aren’t propositions lol.
The self ID part was hit right on the head. It leads to a completely circular view, but that doesn’t make it false nor would it give you falsity to “All Trans Women are Women”
Now, Bogardus is 100% right in saying that it never actually defines what a woman is and simply becomes meaningless. But meaningless =/= false.
Those were my only issue with his objections to the definitions. It’s a breath of fresh air to hear someone on the opposite side come with better implications than “well trans women have penises”
Edit: and to Clarify the first issue. We could simply mean the list of characteristics are what we mean when we say trans woman. So for example, if we say one of the identifying factors of being a woman is wearing a dress, and we have a sub category where trans women who wear dresses are included, then it’s trivially true that trans women who do not wear dresses are not trans women.
trans👏water👏is👏water
It still doesn’t make sense to me why we spend so much time on the subject.
Because it’s funny watching MFs like vaush try and use words to turn men into woman
A dude in a dress that says he’s a women will never be a woman, not ever.
Because conservatives are always focusing on complaining about the least important things, while trying to make things worse in important things.
Because there are those who seek to oppress marginalized groups and take their rights from them. If that wasn’t happening we wouldn’t be here debating this. But we are, and there are people trying to suppress marginalized groups.
Re: The idea that there is a Realist concept of an "essence" of water, gold, etc.
This is Realism. It's an ideology that I personally consider to be anti-postmodern, as it asserts one universal existence for abstract objects like definitions. This is why the good Dr. was saying that the idea of a woman is universal. I have a particular dislike of the ideology because of how hard it set back modern mathematics, notably geometry. I also dislike it because it makes modern math education quite difficult. Most importantly, though, it's anti-empiricist.
The reason this set back geometry is that the "Euclidean" geometry was taken as-given for centuries. Barely anyone questioned it, and it resulted in the stagnant viewpoint that geometry had been "mostly solved," aside from stuff like proofs of the Parallel Postulate (which, funnily enough, we now know to be an impossible proof). It was widely believed that Euclid's axioms applied to everything in reality and, in the context of mathematical Realism, these axioms describe some metaphysical "essence" of universal mathematical structures. This led to arguments of the universality of Euclid's axioms being inherently tied to those of mathematical Realism. Historically, challenging the universality of Euclid's axioms (and Platonism indirectly) was seen as "incorrect." It took until the 19th century for challenging mathematical Realism and Euclidean geometry to not be commonly considered "incorrect."
On the note of education, most people conceptualize numbers in a realist fashion. That is, most people imagine "5" as this abstract idea that describes any existence of 5 in reality. This is fine for basic math, but it makes learning discrete mathematics a bitch for anyone used to that realist mentality. For anyone unused to questioning the "how" and "why" behind math, suddenly jumping into discrete mathematics is seen by basically everyone as a massive hurdle for the development of a student's understanding of mathematics. Aside from most people not being familiar with formal logic, this difficulty exists because realism gets you into a mindset of accepting rules as a given instead of understanding math as a construct.
This is why I'm a mathematical anti-realist. That is, I don't believe that math corresponds to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities. In my opinion (the constructivist perspective), math exists as a construct. We establish foundations that we believe to be as descriptive a model as possible (for why I'm saying "as possible", it's literally impossible for an axiomatic system to include everything (see Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems)), and then we draw what conclusions we can. Thinking that any math can describe non-empirical entities leads to this brain rot where you end up saying the math equivalent of "woman is a universal concept, therefore anything outside of my understanding of this universal concept/definition isn't a woman." Your definitions become inflexible to developing concepts, and you become completely unable to adapt and learn about these developing ideas.
I'm my opinion, this isn't exactly a great response to the idea of realists... like sure, you gave a couple examples (and there are many more for sure) of why its not fully accurate. However, right now, we have yet to find anything other than the two sexes. This is why universally using the terms man and woman still exist. They are simply descriptors for the two sexes as we know them. In the future, we may use different descriptors and maybe that's ok (even if they are baseless) but until we can fully understand that they are baseless and really don't describe anything until said thing has a standard categorization, it will be seen as silly.
Well said i only learned math and geometry properly at the age of 32, because i couldn't understand why those non-empirical rules existed in the first place despite having obvious practical applications. I consider my self an anti-realist conceptualist nowadays.
For people who say we should leave intersex people out of the conversation because they aren't common, There are less ginger people than there are intersex. I guess ginger people are no longer people as they do not describe enough of the population....
But Gingers are not Delusional.
@@247tubefan neither are trans people. A trans person doesn't think they are biological [male]. They know they aren't and will admit that if you asked. They just also know that they feel like they're in the wrong body, and they describe that part of their brain which identifies with some sex as gender. This isn't delutional. The delution is to claim there's only sex when the excistance of trans people clearly indicates that there's an important part of the brain which is also involved with gender identity other than what's literally between your legs
@@247tubefan intersex isn't delusion it is biological.
he answered, when biologists make a definition they imply that the thing they are defining is working correctly, for example a heart is an organ that pumps blood, does it stop being a heart when it stops pumping blood? i have a question for you, are infertile people members of the human species? because the definition of species is "group of animals that can interbreed and have fertile offspring" since infertile people cannot have offspring i guess they are not humans
@@247tubefan I sincerely hope you’re trolling
Wait a second Tom brings up Katherine Jenkins Self ID defintion but ignores the fact she address the points he brought up this guys is amazingly dishonest.
He’s not going to go over literally every objection under the sun in his already really long opening. If Vaush wanted to make those objections, he should have, that’s kinda the point of the debate
What paper by Jenkins?
@@nikolaskoutroulakis571 Yeah, and Tom has a paper addressing arguments in favor of a sex-gender distinction, I think he addresses Jenkins’s counter argument in that paper.
(copying my comment from elsewhere, as I'm curious the reference in question) Which paper are you talking about? In Jenkins 2018 she criticizes a simplistic univocal self-ID view, but then later interprets self-ID as a mere mention or utterance of the term "woman" (or 'non-binary', etc.). She then criticizes that interpretation as well, and doesn't respond to the types of challenges that Bogardus offers, such as it only being true in the English speaking world (or you would have to include a disjunction for all the other language utterances) or would exclude people who haven't actually made or tend to make such utterances that trans inclusivists would typically accept as women, and would include some men that do, have, or could easily make those utterances.
She defends a norm-relevancy account (as in her 2016 paper). Are you counting that view as self-ID?
Godamn you guys are copy/paste robots. Chomping at the bit to pretend you noticed something that's already been pointed out 100x in this thread.
"wait a sec... Copy/paste"
The "there it's called aqua" moment is legit probably the lowest point of Vaush's career (and no it's not because he mispronounced it). He was in engaging in Jordan Peterson levels of obfuscation there and ended up bogging down the entire discussion by bringing up absolutely irrelevant technical points about chemistry instead of simply acknowledging the fact that the stuff we call water (I'm talking about the thing itself here, not the word we invented to refer to it) existed long before we did.
This is untrue. Water has a different chemical composition from one lake to another, as water is not commonly used to refer to H2O, but a mixture of H2O and various minerals.
However, Hydrogen and Oxygen do have much stronger definitions and properties, such as the refractive index. For example, H2O has a refractive index of 1.33.
If you drink bottled water, are you drinking H2O or a soup of minerals and H2O?
You're delusional if you believe that. It isn't an irrelevant point at all, Bogardus was arguing that the definition of water is an objective definition, which is blatantly untrue.
Vaush was demonstrating this by bringing up how people who speak a different language don't use the word "water".
It was Bogardus who brought up chemistry, so if discussing this is bogging down the discussion that is on him not Vaush.
It sounds like you suffer from VDS, might wanna get that checked out.
@@Khalkara Like I said in my comment (if you cared to read), the PhD's only point here is to say the stuff we call water (ie the SUBSTANCE ITSELF) existed long before we did and long before we invented any labels to refer to it. He merely brought up the chemical formula as a sort of a universal label precisely to avoid bogging this down to an issue of labels between different languages, which is exactly what Vaush ended up doing anyway. In other words, Bogardus was discussing the SUBSTANCE itself (ie the real compound that exists in the world independent of our labeling) and Vaush went on a silly tangent about LABELS then about chemistry and ended up derailing the entire point Bogardus was attempting to make.
"By bringing up how people who speak a different language don't use the word "water"."
Which is entirely irrelevant because Bogardus was not discussing labels here. You do realize people who use different words to refer to what we call "water" in English are still referring to literally the exact same thing right?? It astounds me how this simple point has to be explained over and over. Do you understand the difference between labels and concepts?
"It sounds like you suffer from VDS"
Just because I disagree with an embarrassingly bad take from Vaush doesn't mean I have VDS (like that's a thing now). I like a lot of his takes and regularly watch him. Sounds to me more like you're a fanboi who can't handle criticism of Vaush and can't call him out on his bad takes.
@@norseman9114 More needless obfuscation. Just because water most commonly occurs admixed with other substances doesn't mean it stops having the formula H2O. Just because we don't drink distilled water but that which is ADMIXED with minerals, doesn't mean water stops being H2O. There is no real ambiguity in the definition of the compound "water" in chemistry.
The funniest thing about all of these points being brought up is that none of them are really essential to Bogardus's argument. He could have used literally any other substance or compound existing before us which our ancestors were aware of but had a poorer understanding of and he did it with gold. He just wanted to make a singular point here: the SUBSTANCE existed before we invented the LABEL to refer to it.
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 "the PhD's only point here is to say the stuff we call water (ie the SUBSTANCE ITSELF) existed long before we did"
Can you cite the timestamps when Vaush disagreed with this point? Cuz I do not remember him disagreeing with this at all.
"He merely brought up the chemical formula as a sort of a universal label precisely to avoid bogging this down to an issue of labels"
You're lying, and its pretty obvious. He had already done this by saying "the thing we call water", for one. And he wasn't doing this in service of making a greater point, which is why Bogardus kept going back to water=H20 which Vaush correctly rejected.
If I'm wrong then cite a timestamp for this too, I'll wait.
"Which is entirely irrelevant because Bogardus was not discussing labels here."
My dude, they're arguing over *definitions* of concepts for almost the entirety of this hour long debate. Definitions are literally labels.
This is why I assume you have VDS. Because you want to desperately be contrarian to Vaush, going so far as to misrepresent obvious reality.
Having criticism of Vaush is fine, having dishonest criticism is not fine.
I wish Vaush was more familiar with the Jenkins paper this guy cited. If Vaush would've looked up the paper and read the parts which affirm his self-ID argument, that would've been an Alden's Number tier slam dunk.
Can you give me any links to read about this?
@@TheSurrealist.
Katharine Jenkins, Toward an Account of Gender Identity. She has a couple more as well, I cant remember which one exactly was cited.
Tomas Bogardus explicitly shows how Jenkin's definition is not inclusive enough by her own standards (and indeed, she later admitted to this herself), so I'm not sure it helps here.
Vaush is one of those guys that's been smart enough to "just wing it" through his whole academia. But he ends up out of his depth against actual academics that are well read all the time, because he doesn't bother doing any prep.
Vaush is too lazy to prep, he will never do it. That’s why he stumbled into so many arguments this guy already made in his paper
As a philosophy major, I am so sorry for this. I swear, we're all annoying, but not as insufferable as this dude
I hate all of you go back the to weeds and yell at each other about terms.
I've been a philosophy postgrad, dissertation completed, if it matters at all, and I don't think the dude was super insufferable.
This was a fairly good faith, analytic take on the issue imo. Which isn't me saying I agree with all he said. I certainly can raise objections. Most of these, I didn't hear from Vaush.
But sure, I would agree with you that, generally speaking, "we" are indeed quite annoying. Champs really. But I certainly know some way more annoying philosophy people than this guy :D He seems fairly.... Regular for the standards of analytic philosophy...
.. at least compared to my experience in England, which is the academic space I'm most familiar with.
You talking about Vaush or the other guy? Vaush got lured into pre pared bad faith shenanigans so its not his issue. Like I'm disappointed in him for falling for this but to say all you guys are bad based off that doesn't track. Plus isn't this what philosophy is as? I have no issue with Philosphy majors as long as they take care to not give fuel to skeptics that is not good. Below the molecular range everything is measured with constants. You can philosophize past Quantum Mechanics I guess but to philosphize on the organization of the table or the measurement of properties determined by comparison to a CONSTANT where is the philosophical good to this? Now the ethics question because unfortunately some negative consequences are better they not happen than litigate afterwards.
@@Dimiguitar and tbh Vaush was more annoying lol. I think if Vaush had a couple philosophers clean up his language, he would do very well as he has most of it down.
Bogardus was pretty pleasant, and honestly he could have hit on a view points Vaush said. Like the incoherent or contradiction that Vaush wanted to speak on about definitions. But he kind of just dug through the mud to find a ruby lol.
Then Vaush would completely not answer the question and instead go on a tirade that touched on some points, but in reality just obfuscated.
@Oliver I would agree with you that there tends to be a special kind of toxicity in academic philosophy. Undergrad or postgrad levels, for that matter. I think some of the same goes for science fields, but it tends to be sort of distinct, depending on the field, area, ect, in my experience. Not as "logic bro"- based perhaps.
As Tom kept avoiding answering it, how does identification exclude anyone? As to be a women doesn't mean you have to adhere to all social norms, just like the defintion of a chair says "typically four legs" it is not exclusive. That was one part of his incoherent definition of a women, which ended with him pivoting away and thanking Vaush for coming.
Saying you are a woman is kind of like saying you are a christian. What does it mean? It has a lot of cultural connotations, yet christians don't have to slavishly adhere to all of them or any of them for that matter. What it means to be a christian is defined by the culture you live in, and yet each christian is free to change that definition and decide for themselves what it means for them personally.
@@debordeleur2005 well it requires sincerity, as do any descriptions of oneself you hold to be true.
@@debordeleur2005 the idea of " womanhood " is so broad I'm pretty sure the people self identifying share one or more characteristics. You're being disingenuous
@@debordeleur2005 wow maby that because your conflating different things and ones construction, identity and treatment aren't all the same things but feed into one another. Also can you tell me what cool means
@@marmar3530 How are you sure?
vaush going up against a phd, armed with nothing other than the surface level philosophy 101 memes he picked up from watching destiny streams. delusional levels of overestimating his own intelligence
Yet Vaush somehow makes significantly more coherent points.
If you have a PHD, yet can't understand how definitions are created, it makes me wonder if its not written in crayon.
@@bullymaguire7554 the points vaush made were trash at best so no....he lost that hard.
@@simonjaz1279 His opponent couldn't grasp simplistic concepts and defeated their own argument in their opening statement.
Did we even watch the same video?
@@bullymaguire7554 we couldn't have because he grasped it he just didn't acknowledge the pointless crap vaush was saying....water is aqua??? What kind of a point is that? It didn't change anything. Words have different meanings? Cool. Didnt change the point at all. As far as every educated person thinks, vaush lost this incredibly hard. To think otherwise is just a cope tbh.
@@simonjaz1279 Vaush winning despite his awful rhetoric in this video is a testament to how comparatively worse his opponent's was.
I mean really, their opening statement is so ill conceived it could even apply to *every* cis women.
do people like this get to the end of their hour long monologue and expect every trans person just be like "wow he's right we don't exist lmao"
I think either they just feel great about being a transphobe, or they feel like the attention felt so good that they forget about the fact they're spreading transphobic hatred.
But yeah I know right. "Get out of the way of that oncoming car!" "Actually the metaphysical questions regarding causal and effect and indeed the mereological and ontological questions of strong emergence means that cars do not exis-" SPLAT.
like all that metaphysics is cool, but just because you don't have those answers does not mean that cars don't run into pedestrians.
Yea I feel like people forget that all the bio aside we still feel this way, and gender affirming actions still work so stop debating like you're debating our existence lol.
You're so right tho. Gender only exists in regards to how people see themselves. That's the only way it exists.
@@reallyidrathernot.134 lol
This debate was very interesting, ngl. And I think Vaush came off really good. It's funny, while dr Bogardus was trying to argue against the social construction of definitions, he convinced me more of their existence based on utility. Where dr Bogardus goes wrong is to insist there is something inherent to the definitions (i.e., water *IS* H2O, but also heavy water with deuterium is included) and uses that as a reason for why it is the "correct" definition. He doesn't explain why it is the correct definition, except when he is frustrated by Vaush acting like water is not some universally understood social concept.
To humor him, we could argue that it's more complicated than just a type of molecule in the same way he argued the Aristotelian view was wrong for claiming water was just one thing. In general relativity, matter is just high-energy space-time field. So we could argue that a *more* accurate definition for water is a categorization of space-time curves that form what we call water. So he is wrong (im being pedantic, but still). However, regardless, H2O is still widely used as a definition for what water is; why is this? It's because it helps us understand the world on a higher level than just high-energy space-time curves. We use these high-level abstractions for their utility. And to hold his position (so not utility), he would have to explain why the high-level abstraction of atoms and H2O was the "correct" one or that there is something inherent about them, which he was unable to do. Of course, he could move to say that the GR definition is the correct one, but that would be missing the point (and what water is under that paradigm is way more arbitrary).
We understand the world from how we arrived at our current understanding. But who's to say that an alien race would understand the world in the same way. Would they even think of things with atoms or particles? They could have started with fields from the get go and never have even thought of the idea of particles. Even if they arrive at the same conclusions as general relativity, they might still understand the world completely differently. In that sense, their high-level abstractions would be completely different. Would that make them wrong because they aren't defining water as H2O?
Also, he says ice is water, but that's not really how we use the word water. If you ask me to hand you a glass of water and I give you a glass of ice I would not have done what you asked. If I said water is falling from the sky, you would understand it as me saying it's raining, not me saying it's snowing.
And is water just H2O? Is a glass of water doesn't just contain H2O, but also a different types of salt, bacteria, even air. Yet we would simply call it water. So even a simple definition like that of water is pretty fluid heh
Not a bad question, I think a it depends on what you want and what it means to be wrong. But none of that really matters in this case, after the debait vaush looked the guy up and it turns out he's a catholic and believes in absolute truth that comes from god and was arguing in bad faith the whole time. In hindsight is obvious even with out ti at the end. An idiot with a PhD is just an idiot
Yess this is what I was yelling at the screen.
All definitions are higher level abstractions that pick out some sufficiently consistent pattern in nature and put a label on it.
When he said "ok species definitions are a bit blurry but not physics and chemistry" I wish vaush had some more science background bc that would have been a great thing to push back on. ("protons don't exist, bro")
Something I thought when the Dr was insisting all H2O is water: if you ask for a glass of water in a restaurant and a waiter brings you a solidly frozen pint glass of ice, I'm sure the good doctor would complain. It wouldn't matter that the glass was full of the very purest dihydrogen-monoxide, it wasn't what he was asking for when he requested a glass of water with his meal.
In the same way a biological female is something that exists, but if you wanted to promote 'women in STEM' and I sent you a barrel-chested, fully bearded, balding transman then you would likely have followup questions.
Human definitions change with the setting and societal expectations. Everything we say is full of invisible fine print that we expect each other to pick up on
All H2O is water. All water is not H2O
Is vegan meat, meat? No, it's not.
trans meat LOL
@@Quiestre LOL
Fun fact: Heavy water actually tastes different than normal water when concentrated and is actually poisonous in large quantities.
There are a lot of fun facts that come this irresponsible debate. Sigh
That's not a very fun fact I gotta be honest
Standard water is also deadly in very large quantities. Dose, poison, all that jazz...
@@xbabu142x How is it irresponsible?
@@chucku00 To be clear, the presence of deuterium makes it unsuitable for certain biological processes. Thus it acts as an actual poison rather than killing your cells through sheer quantity.
This is the longest opening statement that I've ever heard in my entire life
Welcome to uni, enjoy the fact that dispite its length he managed to miss the point entirely.
I honestly thought he had forgone an opening statement, and Vaush was just being VERY generous with letting him go off on a tangent.
Homer: "The longest so far!"
@@capcaptainmycaptain4771 clearly you have never read the count of Monty Cristo
@UA-cam Purchases he never actually engaged with his argument just made a decoy then blew that up and then refused to actually interface with his arguments. Also yeah the definition is totally self contradictory but it's the one we use and we get a lot of use out of it, tell you what define a christchan for me also the guy was a bad faith catholic arguing that deftions are reflective or absolute truth that comes from god, go look at his Twitter
Vaush arguments are so weak. Not surprised these debats lead to nothing when one person has common sense and the other are trying to be "special".
I do not support the other guys view but you argued this horribly and missinterpreted many of their points
I feel like it should be so suspect if they literally have to give a "this person does not reflect the views of this institution" warning
Right?! Just started it up and was like “oh boy, the platform’s disclaimer is getting longer and longer, we gotta strap in, huh.”
IIRC, this guy works at a Catholic university or something like that 💀
Not really. Looking at this debate I just hate talking to people about anything because nothing is more annoying than bad faith learners. If you're going to tie that to everything I don't see people risking their livelihoods and accreditation in case they mis speak or a bad faith actor lures them into some shenanigans.
It’s capitalism
I think that’s a pretty standard disclaimer. Start up a DVD with extras and you’ll see something like “the opinions and statements expressed in the extra features are the opinions of the individual, not the studio”
2 Things about this debate:
1. The conclusion that "Trans Woman are Woman is false" under Gender Abolition and Nihilism is complete nonsense. The correct conclusion would have been N/A (not applicable).
2. I feel like every second argument from this guy was the etymological fallacy. This is why I don't understand why chat wanted the chair. Vaush could have asked him to define a computer however, a word which definition also changed in recent time.
-Not so sure if it really is the etymological fallacy. Could also be an appeal to authority(the authority here being -*-a-*- dictionary).-
Edit: No, I am quite certain it is the etymological fallacy.
Also, his conclusion about self-ID is flatly wrong, but most self-ID social groups work by people identifying with that group. "Gamer" is a designation of self identity that has associated roles, assumptions and stigmatizations that someone taking on that role may or may not want to associate with. An essentialist definition of gamer would be someone who plays games, but not everyone who plays games will identity as a gamer, and someone identifying as a gamer might not actually play games.
@@Pluveus Yeah, I think he doesn't understand what self-identification means.
Computers used to be people
@@manjackson2772 some real Soylent Green shit right here
This debate did not go well for Vaush
people will call me a dgger but this debate could have been much more interesting if Vaush actually had took the time to read this guy's paper (and maybe some Kripke and Putnam, additionally)
You get it
@UA-cam Purchases That bit about "people infer, propositions imply, don't worry about it," was hilarious (1:21:03). It was so funny the multiple times Bogardus runs circles around Vaush when Vaush has no idea the technical points Bogardus is making
@UA-cam Purchases fair, maybe my bar wsd too high for Vaush lol.
I used to like him somewhat, but that was months or years ago.
Just frustrating to listen to this when you actually wrote your BA thesis about a related topic and you know that it theoretically could have been an interesting conversation
@UA-cam Purchases tbf this guy has "traditional catholic" in hid twitter bio, so I think he might not be he biggest trans advocate in this world haha.
But he seems pretty reasonable and I think you could have an interesting discussion with him
@UA-cam Purchases what do you mean?
14:46 hes equating material with the abstract. yes, hes correct "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" is circular and this conveys no meaning....but as you've noted it doesn't need to. which is why you're a gender abolitionist. id argue the value of the term is better off morally (consequentially) with it having no meaning.
also, axioms can be circular too, but thats accepted accross all of acedemia. the value of the definition lies exclusively in the identity. the shared identity, even without the meaning or definition being finalized has value
It's possible that I'm incorrect here, but doesn't Vaush also argue that there is social utility to having the words man and woman. Because if this is the case, I think this would be contradictory to the ideas of gender abolitionists.
It does convey meaning though. Like does saying you are christian convey meaning? Obviously. But what does it mean to be a christian? You can have two people, both of whom are christians, and have them disagree on basically everything. It carries cultural meaning, but what that meaning is is constantly shifting and also up to each individual to define.
@@robinvik1 do they both follow the teaching of jesus CHRIST?
@@swordslicer56 Not necessarily. In a society that has achieved gender abolition, perhaps, but these definitions carry meaning up to the point where we dissolve social roles and expectations
Gender ideology is nonsensical, absurd, and poison to society.
Matt Walsh In a trench coat
"A blarg is anyone that identifies as a blarg"
"I'll give you 50 bucks if you find a blarg and bring it to me"
Damn, easiest 50 bucks I ever made!
this isn't how people live gender tho. it's not just some meaningless, self-referential thing to most people, especially not trans people, who literally kill themselves over the dysphoria they experience due to not being recognized as qualifying as a certain gender. so we must then ask, what does it mean to qualify as a woman? if all it takes to be a woman is identifying as one, then trans people wouldn't feel dysphoria, since they could just identify as a woman and know in their hearts that they are one. but clearly they do more than just self-identify as women. they change their behavior to be more stereotypically feminine. they change their bodies to appear more like women's bodies. they demand to be included in women's spaces. all of this is more than just mere self-referential self-identification. pretending that's all gender is actually refutes and defeats the entire purpose of being trans
@Acererak and the feature of being a blarg is that you identify as such.
@Acererak well yes. But a fascist Blarg of course.
Ha. Yeah. I never thought about it this way. Check this out. You can just bring whatever. How will he argue that it's not a "blarg"? Does it not fit the definition, lulz?
Bit sad about how this turned out. Vaush was clearly out of his depth.
Lol, 'the Ancients Greeks didn't know what gold was', so I could time travel and hand an Ancient Greek coins made of wood and they wouldn't realise because they didn't know what the atomic structure of Gold was.
This dude need to get out of his mind palace and touch grass. The Greeks knew what Gold was, it's just they had a definition based on the qualities they were able to observe, Atomic strucures were not discovered and so they were not included in the definition.
If you could synthasize a metal that seemed like Gold but had a different Aatomic structure and went back to ancient Greeks it would just functionally be Gold to them, they would only be wrong under 'your' definition of the word gold which they wouldn't know or care about.
There's an entire story about a king not sure if his crown was pure gold so he challenged Archimedes to find out for sure. This led to the "eureka!" moment in the bathtub where Archimedes figured out that water will be displaced equal to the volume of the crown. Then the crown can be massed and the density can be compared to pure gold of a similar mass.
This guy is just a transphobic clown with a degree. No intelligent thought, just enough sentience to paste fancy words over his disgust responses.
I’m gonna be generous and assume what he meant they wouldn’t know everything that we do ABOUT gold
@@soren1803 That would undermine his argmuent which is that to be gold you need to match our current defintion which is it's Atomic structure.
Gold and an Identical false metal with a different atmomic structure would both be gold to ancient Greeks and they would not be wrong for thinking so.
Trying to tell them that one isn't true gold because of it's atomic structure would be like trying to explain how Gold dug up in Asia is different to Gold dug in Africa. Insofar as the things that mattered to them about Gold matched they were both, funtionally Gold. They don't understand atomic structures so it's irelevant to their definition.
Gold was not an Element until we changed the defintion, Gold used to be a soft yellowish metal that could be forged into a lusterous ore. Pluto Used to be a plantet until we decided to change the defintion, Pluto has not changed, our clasification has.
@Anaven M1 Which would be functionally meaningless to them. If an alien came to us and told us two identical atoms were different because of their 'florp structure' that would mean nothing to us unless they explained and showed us what 'florp structures' were and how they were measured. Until we can perceive these differences we are not wrong to say they are the same but to the Aliens we would be.
The greeks were not wrong because their definition of Gold did not include atomic structures. We were not wrong about Pluto being a planet, it was a Planet under old definitions and isn't under new one.
The Greeks defined Gold accurately according to the features they ascribed to it at the time. We now define it based on more granular features because we can observe them more closeley. What makes something count as Gold has changed according to increased specificity.
The problem the Doctor has is that he is trying to tie a label to a thing and say that is their true label, accurate forever. But this is fundamentally dumb, things don't have labels until we as humans give them ohe and our process of labelling is always going to be based on what we find useful contextually.
@@hotdog4260 "Gold was not an Element until we changed the definition, Gold used to be a soft yellowish metal that could be forged into a lustrous ore." But it was always an element. Gold has always been an element made of 79 protons, 79 electrons, and 118 neutrons. It has always had a specific heat capacity of 129; an atomic radius of about 1.35 angstroms; etc. These are all fundamental facts we've discovered at through an epistemological process for arriving at truth. The ancient Greeks just... didn't know about those things yet.
"Gold and an Identical false metal with a different atomic structure would both be gold to ancient Greeks, and they would not be wrong for thinking so." This is not true if you mean wrong in the sense of them being factually wrong. By this logic, we could change the definition of anything if we all just decided to, and that that definition would be true. This is obviously not true, for example, if we all for some reason decided that black people aren't human, or that gold actually has 803 protons, neither of those things would somehow magically become true.
This is honestly such a ridiculous point; I'm kind of shocked there's an argument about it. Obviously, fundamental physical truths aren't reliant on human definitions. The universe doesn't give a shit if we define the sun as actually runs on a system of spontaneous kitten-burning power for some reason, and the sun would keep on using nuclear fusion. That would still be true!
dr: "Just because a definition is complicated and hard to pin down doesn't mean it doesn't exist"
V: "okay [gives decently succinct definition]"
dr: "ah but what about [counterexample]? I know I could slightly augment the definition you gave to include it but my reasoning is simply FAR too motivated"
Time stamp?
Based
Yeah this never happened
The critique is that a definition can’t be circular. If you don’t know what a store is and I’m trying to help you find one, saying “a store is a store” gives you no new information as to what a store is.
Also, self ID is perfectly acceptable, but then you have to accept what comes with that. Which is that it’s so inclusive it’s literally saying all it takes to be a woman is to say you are one. Can’t make that claim and then also start adding qualifications about societal norms.
@@KingstonHawke Why not? Why can't the definition be complicated and hard to pin down? Why can't we qualify our statements?
It’s amazing how you reject the biological definition of woman because it’s not solid enough for you and apparently allows for too many edge cases, but you think the great definition is anyone who claims to be a construct, while funny enough, you can’t even define the construct.
🙌
And you didn't watch the video. He already explained many times that the "construct" definition is inconsistent but still applicable, like how "cool people" is a thing but the meaning for word cool is different for everyone.
@@noellemorel7280 You need to develop some braincells
@@galaxyocicat5660 sure 😂
@@galaxyocicat5660 I like how you put on the same level the subjective concept of "being cool" and the objective biological fact of being a woman 🤣😘
It's astounding how Vaush was outclassed here. And how little his community is willing to see it.
Outclassed for not using fancier words?
Denial is strong in those stans
@@galaxyocicat5660 for not preparing himself to debate an phd, or even reading his paper while his opponent watched his content to know him better, this debate was an arrogant mistake from his part in every sense
the aqua part also killed me what a dumbo
What point do you believe he was outclassed on?
@@ssorvete89 yeah, the aqua part was humiliating.
Funny how this dude weaseled out of giving a definition of woman himself during the convo part of the debate and then gave it during question time.
Really makes you think... He knew he couldn't defend it
Yup, what is it with catholics and universal truth? Isn't the devine suppose to be unkowable?
Pretty sure his definition of woman is adult human female.
@@asherroodcreel640 for Catholics who read the Bible and think philosophically, the divine (if you even want to call it that beyond a philosophical will to support the utility of the Jewish oppressed) is unknowable by its definition.
Which is ironic given this guy is a philosophy major. Although maybe it isn’t ironic given the uselessness of a philosophy degree
He actually gave one; did Vaush edit his video here to not include that?
Fun Fact (which I am sure a lot of you are experiencing as well):
Nearly any Vaush-video I start plays the "What is a woman?"-ads as the first ad.
And regarding Matt's question:
It's unreachable for you because most womxn despise little angry grifters like you or Ben Shapibo.
I'm getting Tyson Air Fry nuggie ads. Which is also sus.
@@dudeist_priest You might have personalised ads turned on.
If this is the case:
GOOGLE sure has a messed up image of your interests. I wouldn't eat that sh*t under any circumstances.
he literally is a father
@@Quiestre First and foremost he's a trerrible human being and a bad author and artist (just look at his really bad book).
There might be exeptions to this rule.
Like other transphobes.
You for example sure seem like one considering your other comments on this channel.
@Anaven M1 Don't the cutters manage the channel?
Also the Dailywire could use different accounts to do the advertising.
But in any possible way I hardly believe anyone watching Vaush would fall for their hate speech and BS.
I'm not going to say you "lost," but you were tapdancing. While this showcases your abilities, it's not great in the context of the argument being made. I'm a longtime fan and will continue to be both because of your intellect and engaging entertainment; but this was as weak as I've seen you.
which one are you referring to?
Look up the dictionary definition of curb-stomping and you will find a screencap of this debate. I can't even believe this is real 🤣
One thing I think we can all agree on is that for these types of big-stage debates, Vaush needs to do some preparation for his opponents. This dude is a literal philosophy professor. They might sound nonsensical when you get to the root of their argument, but on its face, they can easily come off sounding like the winner because they’re skilled at sounding smart.
Vaush's lack of preparation is easily my biggest problem with him. Rhetoric can only get you so far, you HAVE to do research when going up against people like this
Lol you don't need to prepare to argue Spiderman. "Transgender" is not a thing is doesn't exsist. I will end this fool in 5 minutes.
Tbh usually Vaush is the one who “sounds correct”… until you actually break down some of the arguments and strip them from the sophistry… idk but this guy was pretty straightforward and clear with his points
no, vaush just lost
The irony lol