I think that a good follow up to the standpoint epistemology of "Im not a woman so I cant say what a woman is" would be "how do you know youre not a woman if you dont know what a woman is?"
Right. It's as if people began identifying as an X, and when people asked what X is, they couldn't define it but only say that it is people who identity as X who define it, but then asking how does a person begin identifying as an X if they have absolutely no concept of what X is? What is the pattern or essence of X-ness which allows one to even begin relating and identifying with it in the first place? Great question.
Also, from this belief, if you think you are a woman, how would you know if you're mistaken? You could be wrong and how would anyone not a woman know that you were either right or wrong? If two people claim to be women, but one says the other isn't, how could anyone know who's right? It's a belief that makes it impossible to make determinations.
I think this is a better alternative question. Dr. Bogardus underestimates the likelihood that this sort of ideologue will simply say, "Yeah, but you're a _cis_ man," to dismiss a discussion of, "What is a man?"
The issue is not complex. At all. It is very, very simple. The complexity is a charade; linguistic drivel. It’s why the Trans issue is so popular in academia. Pointless departments stocked with middling minds that have nothing useful to do with their hands. What *is* interesting and certainly complex is how entire populations have been shamed into denying material reality (or, rather, pretending to deny).
If you think this is over intellectualizing, try and prove 1+1=2 in university math. The reason you break these things down is not to overcomplicate, but to expose bad ideas. Bad ideas make sense for people who want to believe them true, but fall apart when you try and break down what is actually being said.
Agreed 1+1=2, or is it? We could have a big debate about why it isn't, what number base we're talking about, the construct of numbers. I like this channel but feel like they are over complicating this small issue. Also Matt has been asking this question for a long time and no one yet has give a sensible answer.
Appreciate the review of What is a Woman. Personally I thought the documentary was well done, but think your negative feedback of sound and picture was just, meh. Also found this 'review' bordering on obfuscation and hiding behind 'it is complicated'. For a Christian channel, I fail to see how it is complicated! In Genesis 1 all that is created just gets referenced by 'kind' yet when it comes to man we get: So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female. Yet somehow we are supposed to look at clown fish to determine what sex is? I find it interesting that in Gen 1 the creation of animals is not referred to as male and female, indicating the difference between man and the rest of creation. So even though Dr. Bogardus may be knowledgeable in this area from a pure philosophical stand point, the whole omission of Gen 1 in this review was sad. Worldly philosophy will always fail; you'll just keep running around in circles.
I also thought this discussion was odd on a Christian channel. We can talk about nuance while still affirming that male and female are the only options for humans. Exceptions don't make the rule (like intersex disorders)
I agree. It isn't complicated. A woman is an adult human female. Anyone who thinks otherwise is confused or a liar who is benefiting financially/politically. It's no surprise that the western societies are pushing this ideology while other societies laugh.
This just shows that most Christians who watch the channel are blinded by simplistic ideology preventing them from engaging in good intellectual reasoning on this topic. Christian: "God made them male and female and that settles it yeehaw!" Christians dealing with the existence of intersex people: "uh...um...er...they are in the vast majority so...um...er...so they don't exist...um...yeah that doesn't totally undermine my view uh...SNOWFLAKES!!!"
Christians on what worldly philosophy is: "It's philosophy that triggers me obviously!" Christians are literally talking crap about philosophy on a channel dedicated to the legitimacy of philosophy in supporting the Christian worldview. SMH
Cool cool cool. Now explain why someone who doesn’t believe the Bible should give a crap what Genesis 1 says about anything, let alone gender. Good luck bringing anyone to your way of thinking by just appealing to an authority that they don’t believe even exists.
You’re overthinking it. Matt Walsh has repeatedly said that all you have to do, is give a definition of a woman consistent with your ideology and not be circular reasoning. It would not necessarily mean it would be accepted by everyone, but at least not contradict your own beliefs. If you don’t have such a definition, then your ideology is not sound.
If that is truly Matt's aim, then he should accept an answer like, "Women (gender): A person who has and identifies with what they perceive to be the essential characteristics typically associated with the adult female sex".
@@abuabdullah9878 they only works in the abstract. Any characteristics you attribute to “woman” can be attributed to a man and still be a man. As Dr J.B. Peterson said, there are masculine women and there are feminine men.
@@DRWH044 What does "works in the abstract" mean? The definition satisfies what, according to you, is Walsh's standard. So it seems that in fact, "You're overthinking it"
@@abuabdullah9878 “works in the abstract” means, that only as long as you don’t think a woman means something concrete. Your definition is just a convoluted way of saying that a woman is someone who identifies with what they think a woman is, or in other words “a woman is someone who identifies as a woman” adding words is just a way to obfuscate the issue, it does not define what a woman is.
I think video reviews like these are nice because the videos involve educational info that fits well with things you discuss on the channel. Videos like random superhero movies probably wouldn’t be good ideas unless you only talk about the philosophical or ethical parts of the movie.
Dr. Bogardus articulates a much more philosophically precise documentary... that no one would watch. I think Matt did an excellent job appealing to the masses in his documentary, and a lot of the critiques given here would have taken away from that effect rather than added to it.
Ultimately without the Bible(or God's power)philosophy and science will never be enough to know what a Man or a Woman is. Agreement appears to be a huge or necessary part of this whole debate that cannot be taken for granted. Jesus said: "If Two of You on Earth AGREE about Anything...".-- Matthew 18:19. Agreement seems to be a necessary quality or aspect of truth(and in the reality of God himself or the trinitarian community itself) and without it, it appears to be just impossible for truth to be established in any way. What Jesus said can also be used for twisted or evil purposes. And surely it has been used that way, and probably still is(the gay community being just one example. And the struggle that everybody has with sin in their lives being another). "Again, I tell you, if ANY TWO of you on earth AGREE about ANYTHING it will be done...."(paraphrase)--Jesus/God(The Bible)
@@jacoblee5796 identities are fixed categories, if someone can transition to one gender to another than “man” and “woman” aren’t fixed biological categories, and therefore not identities.How can you base your politics on identity while believing we can cross these identities?
@@jamesrostein8643 But the left are the ones that love identity politics and are the ones that love to play identity politics. I think that was the point of the OP. If you are born a man nothing you do will change that, you get that right? Personally i don't care what one identifies as but i do like to live in reality. There are only two genders and god isn't real.
@@jamesrostein8643 you are conflating gender and sex. We refer to people by their sex. We indicate sex as a physical characteristic on documents used for identification because it is as immutable as eye color where surgery and drugs and dress can be analogous to colored contacts. "Gender identity" is not anything other than a claim one makes about some inner state of being that is claimed. That it is meant to erase an observable trait of the 2 reproductive catagories indicates it is a toxic mimic of sex. It is always subjective and always based on stereotypes when not based on outright lies or mental illness.
No, the topic is not complicated. A woman is an adult female. A man is an adult male. A girl is a juvenile female. A boy is juvenile male. A male produces spërm during one point in their life. A female produces eggs during one point in their life. No male produces eggs and no female produces spërm. THAT IS IT! **and no, the super rare cases of PMDS etc do not make someone not a woman the same way a Toyota that has a broken transmission is still a Toyota. It doesn't become a Porsche.
Ultimately without the Bible(or God's power)philosophy and science will never be enough to know what a Man or a Woman is. Agreement appears to be a huge or necessary part of this whole debate that cannot be taken for granted. Jesus said: "If Two of You on Earth AGREE about Anything...".-- Matthew 18:19. Agreement seems to be a necessary quality or aspect of truth(and in the reality of God himself or the trinitarian community itself) and without it, it appears to be just impossible for truth to be established in any way. What Jesus said can also be used for twisted or evil purposes. And surely it has been used that way, and probably still is(the gay community being just one example. And the struggle that everybody has with sin in their lives being another).
You're not engaging with the argument of the opposition (and maybe that was never your goal), I encourage you to watch the debate that Tomas did with Vaush on modern day debate. At least you'll see who you're up against ;)
@@MediaBuster You say : *"the topic is not complicated"* I don't know if that was rhetorical or not. I don't know if the topic is complicated, but I know that it is controversial. And your attempt to simplify it certainly doesn't help with the controversy, as your simplification doesn't address any of the disagreement. But maybe the goal of your comment wasn't to do any of that. I hope this is clearer :D
@@MrGustavier I still don't know your point. You agree you "don't know if the topic is complicated" which is what I said. My simplification does address the disagreement. It exposes the lack of real disagreement. Again, I have no clue what you are arguing. I made a simple statement of reality. If anyone disagrees they are more than welcome to refute it.
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple! "If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
@@glynemartin Sure, if you have someone ELSE AGREEING to the definitions or the interpretations of all those things you just mentioned in your post then what you just said MIGHT be CORRECT. Yes, AGREEMENT can be broken but ONLY by AGREEING to something else or with SOMEONE ELSE. With at least God being that OTHER Person you are AGREEING with, if correctness or Truth is to be established in any way, given that God is the source of all TRUTH or AGREEMENTS. "If any TWO of YOU on earth AGREE about ANYTHING then it will be done...."--Jesus/God(The Bible) "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. No ones comes to the TRUTH/GOD without ME...."(paraphrase) -- Jesus/God(The Bible) "Again, I tell you...."-- Jesus/God(The Bible) Ultimately, without the Bible(or God's power or revelation), philosophy and science will never be enough or be able to know what a Man or a Woman is(or any other subject for that matter). And the process of defining terms and AGREEING or DISAGREEING to them seems to be an ad-infinitum or never-ending process LITERALLY. Agreement appears to be a huge or necessary part of this whole debate(or any other debate) that cannot be taken for granted. Jesus said: "If Two of You on Earth AGREE about ANYTHING...".-- Matthew 18:19. AGREEMENT seems to also be a necessary quality or aspect of truth(and in the reality of God himself or the trinitarian community "Itself") and without it, it appears to be just impossible for truth to be established in any way. What Jesus said about AGREEMENT can also be used for twisted or evil purposes. And surely it has been used that way, and probably still is(the gay community being just one example. And the struggle that everybody has with sin in their lives being another). "Again, I tell you, if ANY TWO of you on earth AGREE about ANYTHING it will be done...."(paraphrase)--Jesus/God(The Bible) And if you DISAGREE or Do Not AGREE with what I just said then I suggest you try again or just "Do it Again" ua-cam.com/video/2mIj-jedeRA/v-deo.html
Bogardus would be too scared to do that. He would come up with a bunch of gobbledygook to get out of it. I'm sure " Walsh didn't go to college" would be part of his word salad.
@@netdavis Your argument is based on a lot of suppositions, if Matt debated ______ this would happen. I'm sure you'll continue to disparage Matt without any hard evidence.
Dr. Bogardus brought up a point that really ought to be explored in depth: The Civil Rights movement did not attempt to redefine race or ancestry, anti-ageism does not try to redefine age. Why, then, the push to redefine sex and gender? I suspect it is at least related to the division of paid versus unpaid work, and ways this has changed in society due to the introduction of hormonal contraceptives.
@@prodebates9182 Adult human female. Female is a being of the sex capable of producing large gametes. Your turn (and no, you can't use "woman" in the definiton of "woman".)
I think it is a mass push to weaken the US. You should research the kind of propoganda China has been putting in front of their countries eyes. All at the same time in the last 20 years someone turned a dial towards this extreme lgbtq movement for the US. China is going old school and pushing traditional roles through propoganda they removed shows/commercials that show any trans or gay people in it. The US is being propped up to be the next Rome.
@@orkunakman1541 A woman is an identity people use to tell others how they view themselves. You can ask me followup questions but I have one for you first: Statement: *Female is a being of the sex capable of producing large gametes.* Question: *What does it mean to be the sex capable of producing large gametes? What would make someone this?*
Regarding the first point about standing epistemology, the entire issue could have been subverted directly, more directly than Dr. Borgardus’ initial suggestion, even. If a person says, “I am not a woman, so I can’t say what a woman is,” all you have to ask is, “How do you know you’re not a woman, if you don’t even know what a woman is?” In order to say I am not X, I have to know what X is.
"In order to say I am not X, I have to know what X is." Although this is generally true, in the context of a category that can be identified with, it may not be. In the documentary, the people answering "what is a woman" were doing so in terms of gender identity. Walsh was waiting for an answer in terms of biology or sex. That was an easily avoidable equivocation if you ask me, but I wasn't the one asking questions. An example of how you wouldn't need to know what X is in order to not identify with it would be: if someone asked about human flourishing considers the question "well, what is a happy person anyway?". They responders may say "a happy person is anyone who identifies with happiness". That is ambiguous, but it is so by nature because it is not a term that can de defined (it is based on subjective experience). Maybe the responders would say "I don't know because I am not happy", meaning: they do not have the subjective experience of happiness and so cannot identify what markers would make someone identify with it. In this case the responders may not be practicing standing epistemology, but just regular epistemology.
@@tannerwhetzel I don’t think I agree. There’s a difference between not finding the exact words, or formulating a precise definition that would satisfy a philosopher, and simply not knowing what something is. Most people in the documentary simply did not know what a woman is, rather than simply struggling to find exact words to define it. Ultimately, I think the question can be answered as such: a woman is an adult, human female. However, as you said, this is more of a biological definition, and not at all what people mean when they use it in terms of gender identity. As such, we could respond that a woman is someone who identifies as an adult, human female. The problem will nevertheless be that an adult human female has its own definition, and we will inevitably find ourselves using a definition that does not align with what the words mean. As such, I think those in the transgender community should come up with their own definition, and we can proceed from there.
@@bendecidospr, "Most people in the documentary simply did not know what a woman is" I think that this is either unfair or untrue. Walsh's intentions seemed a little suspect, but better questions could have been asked. What if, for example, instead of "what is a woman" he asked "in terms of biology, what is a woman"? I cannot speak for the people who answered in the documentary, but I can imagine that some of them would mention something closer to an "adult human female". I am not suggesting that they were not able to find the right words or that they did not know what a woman is. I am suggesting that in the examples given in this video (the people who said that they cannot answer because they are not women or do not identify as women) were answering per the context of gender identity. When they heard "woman", they thought of it as a domain of gender identity. You do not have to define something to be able to not identify with it, especially in an exhaustive sense. With the happy persons example, someone doesn't to need to define "happy person" before they can not identify with it, they only need at least one characteristic that they do not identify with. Going off of your definition, what do you mean by female?
@@tannerwhetzel I offered two definitions that would work, one for biology, and one for gender identity. The problem with the latter is that it claims to identify as something that is biological. That is why I think most people would not want to answer this question. The only clear way to answer it is biologically, but that is not what gender identity is about. As such, I reiterate that the trans community should create or choose their definition. So long as it remains ambiguous, or it varies from person to person, they should not expect the rest of the world to align, especially not by force (legally). Having said that, whatever definition us agreed on, eventually, will always be different from what it means biologically. Hence, a transwoman will never be a full on woman. They will be a tranwoman, because “woman” in that case means something different from what the term has meant, historically, and what it continues to mean, biologically. I think one of the problems is the insistence that they be considered women in all senses, even if they are not women biologically.
Usually come to this channel just to start controversy in the comment section but your guest is here is actually really high quality. Appreciated the clear thinking.
I really appreciate this discussion - I really learned/benefited from it - but, for me, the question of what “gender” means is clear once the transgender movement introduces hormones and surgeries. It is clear to me that both sides of this debate are talking about biological sex. The subject would not be nearly as controversial today if we were just talking about social roles or stereotypes. We’ve been talking about those issues for generations without putting anyone under the knife. The trans issue today is whether a person should alter their biological sex if they do not fit gender norms (and should we call this alteration a transition since trans people do not actually become the other biological sex). Another telling point is when trans activists talk about sexual relationships where a man can be with a trans-woman and it is not considered a homosexual relationship. The public debate is about biology.
Altering your external organs and messing with hormones doesn't change your SEX...if we agree that "female" references the sex that's ordered to produce eggs (ova) and "male" is the sex ordered to produce spermatozoa...
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple! "If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
You guys kinda missed the point, thus your criticism was off. 1. Matt did talk about male and female gametes (spërm /eggs) so that wasn't a valid criticism that he could have said that. 2. Bringing up straw man like biological sex having super rare exceptions wasn't the point of the documentary. The title is literally what is a woman, talking about HUMANS. 3. It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback like criticism of some of his questions/follow ups. That criticism may fit for a podcast, but he was making a movie where you need some drama and controversy, which includes gotcha questions and reactions. Therefore showing a time-lapse of an answer makes a humorous point, and pokes fun of what should have been a short and simple answer.
Editing a response can remove context, leave out important details, come over as cherry picking or skewering just to strengthen your view. It can also be seen as insidious.
I just want to thank Dr. Tomas for sharing the line from St. Peter that particularly hit me today: About the reason why we respond (while truthfully) in gentleness and reverence, being for our disparagers to be put to shame. Now, maybe, there are many ways to read into that, but for the first time it hit me as charity _for the disparagers._ If by our good conduct God can inspire them to feel shame at disparaging what comes from God, that could be a real gift for them; a doorway, a pivotal moment in which they might become receptive to God's urging of them in another direction. Shame can be instructive.
The documentary was brillant. It's simplifying what is essentially a simple question with a simple answer that is the same answer for thousands (millions?) of years...
About 20 minutes in. Really enjoying the guest and his consistent approach to each issue. Wish this guy was a newscaster present things in an unbiased manner. On a side not the hosts audio does keep fluctuating louder and quieter as I listen which I find amusing and wonder if that's why he had audio issues with the film
I think you both may have missed the overarching message of the movie. The actual message is that our society overcomplicates everything because we are decadent and self involved. The Trans debate is the vehicle by which Matt is making this point (while also attacking the destruction excesses of trans culture itself as well. You can do more than one thing at a time) The important point at the ending is not his wife's definition of "woman". It's that she needs help opening the jar. The movie is telling you that eternal, convoluted and self obsessed introspection is not the path to happiness. Being focused on the needs of others is.
If we focused on the needs of others, we would not be living in such a narcissistic culture. We would not have so many gun deaths, homelessness, and a cruel wealth gap, particularly along race lines. My problem with Walsh is that there are much bigger fish to fly in this country, such as why > 80% of evangelicals would vote for a malignant narcissist. To see a rebuttal of Walsh's claims and tactics, see Professor Dave's and Rebecca Watson's responses. Also, check out some of Walsh's other videos to get a broader view of this guy.
That’s how you know we live in easy times, these people need to deconstruct everything for no reason and create stupid problems because they’re bored and they need conflict.
Please understand, I am going to speak firmly, but no less with charity. We need to be careful of taking too slack of a stand on something clearly addressed in scriptures, Medicine and science. It is not complicated. That's the real point behind "What is a Woman". Now it is a sensitive topic, obviously because we are dealing with other people and their emotions. But it is not complicated. That is a poor choice of words that suggests people without formal education, should not comment on the matter, because "it's complicated". That's why Walsh travels to an isolated tribe in Africa and asks the same question. Fact: there are millions of people (many of which are children), all over Western nations being horribly harmed mentally and mutilated physically by this social contagion. To say this is complicated is to deny that reality. Loving our neighbors as ourselves can not be accomplished by always affirming. Some things are simply wrong. No matter how complicated we try to make it. I find it odd how for the past fifty years the mantra has been in favor of Medicine and science over scriptures. But now that Medicine and science overwhelming agree with scriptures, we must casually dismiss all three, and fall back on... It's complicated? No, this is a cliff we don't want to jump off. A line we can not afford to cross. To do so is to allow a horrible lie to prosper. Peace.
The issue is not complicated at all. A woman is an adult female. A female, by definition, largely and normally and by design has a vagina and breast that can provide nourishment, to babies (after birth of course.) No charge.
“He was despised and rejected- a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.” Isaiah 53:3-12 NLT "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 God loves you so much and showed that by sending His Son to die for us so that we may inherit eternal life. We deserve hell but He gave us heaven through faith in Jesus. He took the punishment we deserved and by putting our faith in Him we can be saved. The Key To Eternal Life: ua-cam.com/video/uZdv-TtiMkg/v-deo.html For evidence for Christianity and answered questions, check out ua-cam.com/users/drcraigvideos and ua-cam.com/users/CrossExamined because if Jesus really rose from the dead it is the most important fact ever! God bless y’all!
14 minutes. 14 minutes .... You have talked around the subject ( what is a woman ) and have not answered the question. I listened for 14 minutes, endless discussions on a subject that should have been put to bed in 14 minutes.
I was born and raised in Germany. We have the word "Geschlecht" as to how we identify male and female on forms or anything else. The word sex is used in different context. One is a certain Geschlecht but one has sex. We say Sexualität which means something to do with sex. For example a rapist is a Sexualverbrecher. A criminal who commits a crime that has something to do with sex. Male and female behavior is mentioned as "männlich oder weiblich". That would mean some type of gendering. But nowadays when I watched youtube German shows in German, I saw young people talking about gender just like in the US. Nobody used that English term in Germany when I was still living there. I left in 1977, so a lot of time to change. I noticed that much has changed what we used to call "amerikanisiert" americanized. German language adopted many words in the time since I left. In contemporary Germany there is the same woke cult about sex and gender. Young people in western countries are sick and tired of having to follow gender/sex stereotypes. I was also against that when I was a teenager. I didn't want to be pushed into a role that is outdated. I wanted higher education and opportunities but those were reserved for elite groups whose parents were on the upper crust of society, the left over of the aristocracy. They said, why do you want to study if you end up as housewife anyway? I appreciated the fantastic opportunity I had and still have in the US. I never felt less of a woman being dressed casually in jeans but I used to belong to a church that made it a requirement to wear a skirt when coming into the sanctuary. That was really getting on my nerves since skirts make me look totally overweight. I feel that the word female is the same as woman. To have the dictionary post adult human female is the same as adult woman. In Germany we gender girls and babies as NEUTRAL, not she, but boys and men are always he. That is so stupid. I agree with Tomas that what defines a woman is that she produces eggs and a man produces sperm. Why nobody said that in Matt Walshe's documentary is that woke god who tries to convert people to accept that a man can turn himself into a woman and if they would say anything about eggs or sperm, which they perfectly know, is that they are afraid to get canceled or fired and they need their position to pay their mortgage, like we saw in the case of the recent supreme court justice who said, "no, I can't define what a woman is, I'm not a biologist". If she would have mentioned anything about biological truth, she would not have gotten her job.
Few minutes into this video and these verses come to mind: 2 Timothy 3:7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Romans 1:21-22 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.
BtW, my middle/high school math students would LUV standpoint epistemology 😂 “Ms., only a Mathematician could answer that question, and I’m not a mathematician”.
If my stance is that woman has an objective, measurable definition, then wouldn't transitioning to the question of what is a man be conceding that the term is subjective? The whole idea behind "what is a woman" is that the term is based off of reality, and not subjective feelings, so the documentary should be consistent with that.
God made them, male and female. Pretty straightforward. I don’t see how Christians can view whether or not asking “what is a woman” is complicated and they haven’t settled on an answer.
Ultimately without the Bible(or God's power)philosophy and science will never be enough to know what a Man or a Woman is. Agreement appears to be a huge or necessary part of this whole debate that cannot be taken for granted. Jesus said: "If Two of You on Earth AGREE about Anything...".-- Matthew 18:19. Agreement seems to be a necessary quality or aspect of truth(and in the reality of God himself or the trinitarian community itself) and without it, it appears to be just impossible for truth to be established in any way. What Jesus said can also be used for twisted or evil purposes. And surely it has been used that way, and probably still is(the gay community being just one example. And the struggle that everybody has with sin in their lives being another).
Lutheran pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber has said that Genesis 5:2 is “proof” that God made humans “non-binary” because it says “and,” not “or.” I’m not saying I agree, I’m saying this is why you can’t go my interpreting the Bible for yourself.
@Prodebates I like Trent Horn’s definitions- a woman is a human whose purpose is to be impregnated, and a man is a human whose purpose is to impregnate. (I’m probably paraphrasing.) This covers even those who might not have the biological parts or ability for various reasons.
I’m in Australia and I’d never heard of Matt Walsh and after googling him I definitely don’t agree with some of his positions, however I thought this documentary was fantastic.
The documentary was great for exposing this lunacy they're pushing on children. We need to stand for the Bible, not bend over for non believers and back down from Biblical principles. Sophisticated philosophical conversations seem to appeal to the secular subculture of intellectual pride and ego.
Yet another comment highlighting the unintellectual side of Christianity. Support philosophy when it is useful in supporting Christianity and reject it when it isn’t. That's not a serious position; it's childish.
Every time you make a disclaimer of not being something, it is in effect also a claim to knowledge. 'I am not that (i am this and not that).' You claim to know enough about that 'that' to know that you are not it. So, you know what you are, and what that 'that' is, and that is not what you are.
First. I love your channel. That said, I can’t tell if you are trying to make a point or perhaps Dr Bogardus or perhaps the Lord is being funny. Your first critique was regarding the lackluster quality of the sound of Matt’s documentary and then the volume on Dr Bogardus’ mic was fluctuations f so bad as well as him going in and out from his camera. It was comical.
@@CapturingChristianity true. But could it be that there are just things beyond one’s ability to control when doing interviews in uncontrollable situations?
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple! "If any two of you AGREE about ANYTHING..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
So long as progressive philosophers are writing pseudo-intellectual paper-length treatments defending their views, gender traditionalists need to engage those arguments. That’s why I’m a big fan of Bogardus-he does that work, and does it well. However, that’s not to say we can’t have a rationally justified opinion on this issue without wading through the quagmires of gender philosophy. The conclusion compelled at any depth of examination is the same: the traditional view of sex and gender is correct.
@@calebjore3295 appreciate this response good sir. I agree the work is important. I worry when we over-intellectualize such flimsy topics that it further enables the quagmire of obscurantist thought. But your thoughtfelt response gives me something to tussle with.
@@calebjore3295 I wrote a comment under this video specifically expressing why I think Tomas Bogardus is failing at addressing the *"pseudo-intellectual papers-length treatments"* that you mention.
It is so concerning how common this sentiment is here in the comments. We can't promote intellectual discourse when it suits us and reject it when it doesn't just because it's complex.
So, the hosts are not moved too much by the horrible damage done to the kids who get brainwashed to believe they can and should change their sex. Not much comments on that at all. No protests. They seem totally ok with how the matters are.
12:48 The term "woman" is a sacred term much like the term "marriage". Both terms have far reaching theological meaning. I used to think that the left were trying to redefine terms, but what they're attempting to do is much more diabolical: They want to un-define the terms, or rather to make the terms meaningless. The greatest philosophical/spiritual synthesis ever is the marriage of Christianity with Athens (some say Jerusalem melding with Athens). The Logos is what the Greeks sought above all and it was the Christians who expressed the coming of Christ as the Logos (translated as the Word. Jn 1;1). The Logos has a broad and far reaching meaning in Greek. The Logos is the meaning of all things; To internalize this, the Logos also means the wisdom which is the understanding of the meaning of all things; To externalize this, the Logos also means the actual words which express the revelation of the understanding of the meaning of all things. Yes, in Christianity, on Christmas day we celebrate the birth of a child, which is the Logos made flesh. This little baby is the meaning of all things, the wisdom which is the understanding of the meaning of all things, and the expression which the revelation of the meaning of all things. This deconstructionism is the erasing of our sacred words which the evil one wishes to make meaningless. For if we have no words to use to express the Gospel, we have no means to bring Christ to the ailing people of this fallen world.
I actually enjoyed the doc. Only bigger problem is that Matt would match the energy of the person he was talking to too much. It would have been nice if he actually admitted when people asked what his motives are to say that its a confusing topic and showing some more of his cards.
This is quite ironic (from an Englishman - trained in Theology not Philosophy) this interview comes over , especially as they were so critical of the Film, as being problematic. If I made a video of this video speaking from the point of view that I am a Man which allows me to think critically as being a man and respond critically to the video's comments from a educated trained and experienced Man. Listen guys. This isnt really very .....hmmmmm....as a Man....edifying or helpful. Tomas - this sounds unfortunately similar to the wrong side of the ACADEMIC BUBBLE - that Matt Walsh brilliantly highlights. Thankful you guys didnt produce the Film. Cameron you are great. This one didnt really work.
“Well, do you know what a cat is?” “Sure, but this is sort of just a gotcha, I know what a cat is, I know what a human is as well. My hesitance to answer you is not my refusal to think critically, But my refusal to acknowledge what I believe is a bad faith push, to get a reaction on camera… I think questioning social constructs is healthy, and people who are outwardly opposed to evolving our understandings of the world and the people we don’t relate to especially, are forever steeped in confusion, discomfort, and anger.
Someone challenges your views a little bit by asking a simple question and it’s instantly a bad faith “gotcha”. Sounds like you’re just not very confident in your beliefs.
@EMB123 Christians are required to operate within creation, and to not create man made constructs that are devoid of reality. No one agrees to a grounded context, they are operating on the fumes of reality and enforcing that everyone else goes along with the project.
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple! "If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
But a heart is still a heart when it functions in the body. Or when there is a heart attack or even in a dead body or on an anatomy table. Function doesn't determine the structure and recognised shape of a human heart
In the mentioned debate between Dr. Bogardus and Vaush according to Dr. Bogardus _"ice is_ [also] _water/H2O"._ So, Cameron, are you still thinking, that _"brick houses cannot be build and made out of water",_ when igloos are exactly that - brick houses made and built out of snow/ice/water/H2O?
@@MrGustavier *"Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is COMPLETELY WRONG About God"* at 6:56: ( ua-cam.com/video/mrrSZboiKNU/v-deo.html ) For how long has this been? For over two years? D*mn! Time flies by so quickly.
Bogardus represents .00001 percent of the population. Not everything needs to be a pretentious dialogue of higher intellectual pursuit. Sometimes just letting your opponents demonstrate the absurdity of their positions is enough. I'm looking to win the culture war, not wow people with "intellectual prowess".
I agree completely. Not everything demands intellectual depth. The end. Some things really are simple no matter how many armchair intellectuals decide to make things seem complicated. This topic is so unbelievably overdone. If people weren’t treating some unbelievably rare condition as some sort of meritorious driving force for the creation of a “new normal” as being defined by literally insane people, no one would be talking about this outside of psychiatrists actually trying to treat the REAL condition(s). I’m so tired of pretending this is a worthwhile discussion.
I was very disappointed with this interview with Bogardus. I really love the work you do in general. You do very thought provoking interviews. Matt Walsh did an amazing job although simplistic in some was but regardless it was well done and conveyed the point of the absurdity of this transgender craziness. Your guest although an intellectual could not have done a better job than Matt Walsh. Not even close. Very disappointed. But keep up your good work. I'm still a fan
No offense but some times listening to the doctor made me flash back to Bill Clinton on TV saying "it depends on what you defention of the word is is " When he starts to go down into "well in other species "
This was a review? If you're doing a review, then play a clip and respond or read a quote from the documentary and respond. Sorry, but I think this discussion was rambling and difficult to follow what points were being put forth. I enjoyed your previous discussions with Dr. Bogardus and would like to hear more straight-up answers to basic questions being put forth at the popular level.
Why overcomplicate a simple issue... A 5 year old knows differences between man and woman yet we claim to be smarter by abstracting the word out of reality... If we continue this way, dictionary will soon become extinct..
Wait a minute, is Dr. Bogardus saying that asking if that guy is a cat is too combative? If so I completely disagree. It was barely combative at all. It was a simple question 😂
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple! "If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
@@taowaycamino4891 Both parties? Okay, go inform every single man and woman then. I don't think the billions in Asia and Africa are going to take kindly to your Western cultural view
@@wilno7579 You said: "Both parties? Okay, go inform every single man and woman then. I don't think the billions in Asia and Africa are going to take kindly to your Western cultural view" There is no support for the truth of what you are claiming. Therefore, your comment is unjustified or pointless. "Agreement" is a case-by-case basis. "and do everything in love"-- The Holy Bible
I think you had a fair critique of not equally defining terms on both sides. But I don’t know that this video took into account cultural relevance that was a big topic of what he was hitting on.
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple! "If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
@@taowaycamino4891 yes, you can redefine terms however you want but that doesn’t make it reflect reality. And that would not be the appropriate use of that scripture. We must take into account hermeneutical context for what the author was conveying to the audience.
I am baffled you should find something negative about What Is a Woman? I've watched the film three times and consider it beautifully crafted, clever, insightful, informative and very funny. Given your comments, here, you seem to have missed much of the irony and sarcasm employed by the film to answer the question.
I am equally baffled that anyone could find it clever, insightful, or informative. It's certainly funny, but probably not in the way you found it funny.
I would say that this is not a hard question tbh a woman is a human being that could become a mother and a man is a human being that could become a father, and that's it. Its the simplest definition I can think off. We need people like Dr. Bogardus in academia to discuss and argue in philosophical and biological grounds but come on people is not that hard to know what a woman is
My goodness it's like no one thought of that. Oh wait they did and then they discovered intersex people exist and discarded the notion as too simplistic.
Re: 25:19 And specifically the only thing that distinguishes ova and sperm is gamete size. So a male is the sex, in duel sex animals that create the smaller gametes.
As far as I can tell, Dr. Bogardus has now spent multiple hours on this channel discussing the meaning of this word. Yet, we still don't know what he thinks the consequences of his view are! There would be many many consequences for psychiatry and for civil rights, and we all know that this movie was made with the express purpose of furthering a reactionary anti-LGBT movement. So it's just deeply bizarre that he doesn't say! Sure, I love conceptual analysis for its own sake, but this is getting ridiculous. If he's addressed his view elsewhere, my mistake. Please point me to it.
I agree. He seems very careful not to let on too strongly to what the conclusions to his arguments are. Perhaps he's trying to be as unbiased as possible or "leave up to you to decide", but it comes across as either elusive or unconfident. I'd much prefer he just say, "Trans ideology is bunk and here's why."
the truth is what matters and there are no consequences to civil rights. treating men as men is not an abuse of people's rights. the consequences fo your views is women being endangered and made uncomfortable in the name of tolerance towards cross dressing men.
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple! "If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
Dr Borg boragus keep bringing up a philosophical approach matt Walsh was doing this documentary with journalistic style approach not a philosophical type of approach.
Initially I was annoyed with this review as I thought Tom was being too hyper critical of the documentary and he didn’t “get” the current political situation we are living in. However I just watched dr bogardus debate with vaush and have reconsidered this review. Dr bogardus is still a little hypercritical but I think he has a sense of the commies we’re against.
I wish Vaush hadn't poisoned his opinion of the Twitch politics sphere (though fair enough that it did), because he would have a productive conversation with Destiny, I think.
How come he doesn't talk about where these philosophies came from. I don't hear him talking anything about John money or postmodernism which decided that gender should be deconstructed as a way of deconstructing society.
Why is this review 1 hour and 22 minutes long? The documentary is 1 hour and 34 minutes long. I watch reviews to see if I want to watch the documentary. So, after only 4 minutes of seeing how this review was going to go I just broke down and went and watched the documentary.
I mean fair point. I am generally for long open conversation or react formats but they can get long, repetitive, and can still not cover much new ground. In fairness this is probably more of a react video then a review video to see if it is worth watching.
I think that a good follow up to the standpoint epistemology of "Im not a woman so I cant say what a woman is" would be "how do you know youre not a woman if you dont know what a woman is?"
Right. It's as if people began identifying as an X, and when people asked what X is, they couldn't define it but only say that it is people who identity as X who define it, but then asking how does a person begin identifying as an X if they have absolutely no concept of what X is? What is the pattern or essence of X-ness which allows one to even begin relating and identifying with it in the first place? Great question.
Since I am not a reaction video.. nor a question, I have no idea what's going on, and have no oopinion.
Also, from this belief, if you think you are a woman, how would you know if you're mistaken? You could be wrong and how would anyone not a woman know that you were either right or wrong? If two people claim to be women, but one says the other isn't, how could anyone know who's right?
It's a belief that makes it impossible to make determinations.
I think this is a better alternative question.
Dr. Bogardus underestimates the likelihood that this sort of ideologue will simply say, "Yeah, but you're a _cis_ man," to dismiss a discussion of, "What is a man?"
Love this response!
The issue is not complex. At all. It is very, very simple. The complexity is a charade; linguistic drivel. It’s why the Trans issue is so popular in academia. Pointless departments stocked with middling minds that have nothing useful to do with their hands. What *is* interesting and certainly complex is how entire populations have been shamed into denying material reality (or, rather, pretending to deny).
Okay reality denier
in what manner are people denying material reality?
@@tamasfarago1843 In the way that they’re saying men with cocks are women.
Saying a man can become a woman
@@kishibelunatik what do you take man and woman to mean?
If you think this is over intellectualizing, try and prove 1+1=2 in university math.
The reason you break these things down is not to overcomplicate, but to expose bad ideas. Bad ideas make sense for people who want to believe them true, but fall apart when you try and break down what is actually being said.
Agreed 1+1=2, or is it? We could have a big debate about why it isn't, what number base we're talking about, the construct of numbers. I like this channel but feel like they are over complicating this small issue.
Also Matt has been asking this question for a long time and no one yet has give a sensible answer.
Sounds racist 😂
Appreciate the review of What is a Woman. Personally I thought the documentary was well done, but think your negative feedback of sound and picture was just, meh. Also found this 'review' bordering on obfuscation and hiding behind 'it is complicated'. For a Christian channel, I fail to see how it is complicated! In Genesis 1 all that is created just gets referenced by 'kind' yet when it comes to man we get:
So God created man in His own image;
He created him in the image of God;
He created them male and female.
Yet somehow we are supposed to look at clown fish to determine what sex is? I find it interesting that in Gen 1 the creation of animals is not referred to as male and female, indicating the difference between man and the rest of creation. So even though Dr. Bogardus may be knowledgeable in this area from a pure philosophical stand point, the whole omission of Gen 1 in this review was sad. Worldly philosophy will always fail; you'll just keep running around in circles.
I also thought this discussion was odd on a Christian channel. We can talk about nuance while still affirming that male and female are the only options for humans. Exceptions don't make the rule (like intersex disorders)
I agree. It isn't complicated. A woman is an adult human female. Anyone who thinks otherwise is confused or a liar who is benefiting financially/politically. It's no surprise that the western societies are pushing this ideology while other societies laugh.
This just shows that most Christians who watch the channel are blinded by simplistic ideology preventing them from engaging in good intellectual reasoning on this topic. Christian: "God made them male and female and that settles it yeehaw!" Christians dealing with the existence of intersex people: "uh...um...er...they are in the vast majority so...um...er...so they don't exist...um...yeah that doesn't totally undermine my view uh...SNOWFLAKES!!!"
Christians on what worldly philosophy is: "It's philosophy that triggers me obviously!"
Christians are literally talking crap about philosophy on a channel dedicated to the legitimacy of philosophy in supporting the Christian worldview. SMH
Cool cool cool. Now explain why someone who doesn’t believe the Bible should give a crap what Genesis 1 says about anything, let alone gender. Good luck bringing anyone to your way of thinking by just appealing to an authority that they don’t believe even exists.
You’re overthinking it. Matt Walsh has repeatedly said that all you have to do, is give a definition of a woman consistent with your ideology and not be circular reasoning. It would not necessarily mean it would be accepted by everyone, but at least not contradict your own beliefs. If you don’t have such a definition, then your ideology is not sound.
If that is truly Matt's aim, then he should accept an answer like, "Women (gender): A person who has and identifies with what they perceive to be the essential characteristics typically associated with the adult female sex".
@@abuabdullah9878 they only works in the abstract. Any characteristics you attribute to “woman” can be attributed to a man and still be a man. As Dr J.B. Peterson said, there are masculine women and there are feminine men.
@@DRWH044 What does "works in the abstract" mean? The definition satisfies what, according to you, is Walsh's standard. So it seems that in fact, "You're overthinking it"
@@abuabdullah9878 “works in the abstract” means, that only as long as you don’t think a woman means something concrete. Your definition is just a convoluted way of saying that a woman is someone who identifies with what they think a woman is, or in other words “a woman is someone who identifies as a woman” adding words is just a way to obfuscate the issue, it does not define what a woman is.
I think video reviews like these are nice because the videos involve educational info that fits well with things you discuss on the channel. Videos like random superhero movies probably wouldn’t be good ideas unless you only talk about the philosophical or ethical parts of the movie.
Dr. Bogardus articulates a much more philosophically precise documentary... that no one would watch. I think Matt did an excellent job appealing to the masses in his documentary, and a lot of the critiques given here would have taken away from that effect rather than added to it.
That sounds interesting. What is it called? Is on youtube?
That’s always the tightrope walk professionals are trying to perfect. Accurate and informative vs engaging and snappy
Ultimately without the Bible(or God's power)philosophy and science will never be enough to know what a Man or a Woman is. Agreement appears to be a huge or necessary part of this whole debate that cannot be taken for granted. Jesus said: "If Two of You on Earth AGREE about Anything...".-- Matthew 18:19.
Agreement seems to be a necessary quality or aspect of truth(and in the reality of God himself or the trinitarian community itself) and without it, it appears to be just impossible for truth to be established in any way.
What Jesus said can also be used for twisted or evil purposes. And surely it has been used that way, and probably still is(the gay community being just one example. And the struggle that everybody has with sin in their lives being another).
"Again, I tell you, if ANY TWO of you on earth AGREE about ANYTHING it will be done...."(paraphrase)--Jesus/God(The Bible)
I was just thinking the same thing.
I'd watch Dr Tomas Bogardus, even over Matt Walsh.
Awesome video Cameron and thanks as always for the great shoutouts!!
It's amazing listening to philosophers tackle political issues. They're always respectful and thoughtfull.
Its a hard question for individuals who indulge themselves in Identity Politics, but not a hard question for everyone else
You know you are the one who believe in identity politics right?Trans goes against identity politics, read a book😭
@@jamesrostein8643 Could you expand on this please, I'm not sure what you mean, i agree with the OP.
@@jacoblee5796 identities are fixed categories, if someone can transition to one gender to another than “man” and “woman” aren’t fixed biological categories, and therefore not identities.How can you base your politics on identity while believing we can cross these identities?
@@jamesrostein8643 But the left are the ones that love identity politics and are the ones that love to play identity politics. I think that was the point of the OP.
If you are born a man nothing you do will change that, you get that right?
Personally i don't care what one identifies as but i do like to live in reality. There are only two genders and god isn't real.
@@jamesrostein8643 you are conflating gender and sex. We refer to people by their sex. We indicate sex as a physical characteristic on documents used for identification because it is as immutable as eye color where surgery and drugs and dress can be analogous to colored contacts. "Gender identity" is not anything other than a claim one makes about some inner state of being that is claimed. That it is meant to erase an observable trait of the 2 reproductive catagories indicates it is a toxic mimic of sex. It is always subjective and always based on stereotypes when not based on outright lies or mental illness.
can you guys pray for my aunt she needs a liver transplant, shes not doing so good. God bless.
Praying for your aunt, God bless you and your family.
No, the topic is not complicated.
A woman is an adult female. A man is an adult male. A girl is a juvenile female. A boy is juvenile male. A male produces spërm during one point in their life. A female produces eggs during one point in their life. No male produces eggs and no female produces spërm. THAT IS IT!
**and no, the super rare cases of PMDS etc do not make someone not a woman the same way a Toyota that has a broken transmission is still a Toyota. It doesn't become a Porsche.
Ultimately without the Bible(or God's power)philosophy and science will never be enough to know what a Man or a Woman is. Agreement appears to be a huge or necessary part of this whole debate that cannot be taken for granted. Jesus said: "If Two of You on Earth AGREE about Anything...".-- Matthew 18:19.
Agreement seems to be a necessary quality or aspect of truth(and in the reality of God himself or the trinitarian community itself) and without it, it appears to be just impossible for truth to be established in any way.
What Jesus said can also be used for twisted or evil purposes. And surely it has been used that way, and probably still is(the gay community being just one example. And the struggle that everybody has with sin in their lives being another).
You're not engaging with the argument of the opposition (and maybe that was never your goal), I encourage you to watch the debate that Tomas did with Vaush on modern day debate. At least you'll see who you're up against ;)
@@MrGustavier Don't know what you're talking about.
@@MediaBuster You say : *"the topic is not complicated"*
I don't know if that was rhetorical or not. I don't know if the topic is complicated, but I know that it is controversial.
And your attempt to simplify it certainly doesn't help with the controversy, as your simplification doesn't address any of the disagreement.
But maybe the goal of your comment wasn't to do any of that.
I hope this is clearer :D
@@MrGustavier I still don't know your point. You agree you "don't know if the topic is complicated" which is what I said.
My simplification does address the disagreement. It exposes the lack of real disagreement. Again, I have no clue what you are arguing. I made a simple statement of reality. If anyone disagrees they are more than welcome to refute it.
Dr. Bogardus is based. Thanks for having him on again.
What makes him based?
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple!
"If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
@@taowaycamino4891 Methinks you need to see a human adult male
@@glynemartin Sure, if you have someone ELSE AGREEING to the definitions or the interpretations of all those things you just mentioned in your post then what you just said MIGHT be CORRECT.
Yes, AGREEMENT can be broken but ONLY by AGREEING to something else or with SOMEONE ELSE. With at least God being that OTHER Person you are AGREEING with, if correctness or Truth is to be established in any way, given that God is the source of all TRUTH or AGREEMENTS.
"If any TWO of YOU on earth AGREE about ANYTHING then it will be done...."--Jesus/God(The Bible)
"I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. No ones comes to the TRUTH/GOD without ME...."(paraphrase) -- Jesus/God(The Bible)
"Again, I tell you...."-- Jesus/God(The Bible)
Ultimately, without the Bible(or God's power or revelation), philosophy and science will never be enough or be able to know what a Man or a Woman is(or any other subject for that matter). And the process of defining terms and AGREEING or DISAGREEING to them seems to be an ad-infinitum or never-ending process LITERALLY.
Agreement appears to be a huge or necessary part of this whole debate(or any other debate) that cannot be taken for granted. Jesus said: "If Two of You on Earth AGREE about ANYTHING...".-- Matthew 18:19.
AGREEMENT seems to also be a necessary quality or aspect of truth(and in the reality of God himself or the trinitarian community "Itself") and without it, it appears to be just impossible for truth to be established in any way.
What Jesus said about AGREEMENT can also be used for twisted or evil purposes. And surely it has been used that way, and probably still is(the gay community being just one example. And the struggle that everybody has with sin in their lives being another).
"Again, I tell you, if ANY TWO of you on earth AGREE about ANYTHING it will be done...."(paraphrase)--Jesus/God(The Bible)
And if you DISAGREE or Do Not AGREE with what I just said then I suggest you try again or just "Do it Again" ua-cam.com/video/2mIj-jedeRA/v-deo.html
What do you mean by "based"? Thanks
It wd be worthwhile to have Walsh himself engage with Dr Bogardus.
Bogardus would be too scared to do that. He would come up with a bunch of gobbledygook to get out of it. I'm sure " Walsh didn't go to college" would be part of his word salad.
@@alexk48 he literally debated vaush the most dishonest debater ever who thinks water is not h20
@@youngboy5285 what does that have to do with what he just said?
@@netdavis Your argument is based on a lot of suppositions, if Matt debated ______ this would happen.
I'm sure you'll continue to disparage Matt without any hard evidence.
@@alexk48 He agrees with Walsh tho, so what reason would he have??
If anything, Matt could use him to support his position
Dr. Bogardus brought up a point that really ought to be explored in depth:
The Civil Rights movement did not attempt to redefine race or ancestry, anti-ageism does not try to redefine age.
Why, then, the push to redefine sex and gender?
I suspect it is at least related to the division of paid versus unpaid work, and ways this has changed in society due to the introduction of hormonal contraceptives.
Can you define what a woman is for me?
@@prodebates9182 Adult human female. Female is a being of the sex capable of producing large gametes. Your turn (and no, you can't use "woman" in the definiton of "woman".)
I think it is a mass push to weaken the US. You should research the kind of propoganda China has been putting in front of their countries eyes. All at the same time in the last 20 years someone turned a dial towards this extreme lgbtq movement for the US. China is going old school and pushing traditional roles through propoganda they removed shows/commercials that show any trans or gay people in it. The US is being propped up to be the next Rome.
@@orkunakman1541 A woman is an identity people use to tell others how they view themselves.
You can ask me followup questions but I have one for you first:
Statement: *Female is a being of the sex capable of producing large gametes.*
Question: *What does it mean to be the sex capable of producing large gametes? What would make someone this?*
@@prodebates9182
The natural ability to become pregnant
Regarding the first point about standing epistemology, the entire issue could have been subverted directly, more directly than Dr. Borgardus’ initial suggestion, even. If a person says, “I am not a woman, so I can’t say what a woman is,” all you have to ask is, “How do you know you’re not a woman, if you don’t even know what a woman is?” In order to say I am not X, I have to know what X is.
I was thinking the same!
"In order to say I am not X, I have to know what X is."
Although this is generally true, in the context of a category that can be identified with, it may not be. In the documentary, the people answering "what is a woman" were doing so in terms of gender identity. Walsh was waiting for an answer in terms of biology or sex. That was an easily avoidable equivocation if you ask me, but I wasn't the one asking questions.
An example of how you wouldn't need to know what X is in order to not identify with it would be: if someone asked about human flourishing considers the question "well, what is a happy person anyway?". They responders may say "a happy person is anyone who identifies with happiness". That is ambiguous, but it is so by nature because it is not a term that can de defined (it is based on subjective experience). Maybe the responders would say "I don't know because I am not happy", meaning: they do not have the subjective experience of happiness and so cannot identify what markers would make someone identify with it.
In this case the responders may not be practicing standing epistemology, but just regular epistemology.
@@tannerwhetzel I don’t think I agree. There’s a difference between not finding the exact words, or formulating a precise definition that would satisfy a philosopher, and simply not knowing what something is. Most people in the documentary simply did not know what a woman is, rather than simply struggling to find exact words to define it. Ultimately, I think the question can be answered as such: a woman is an adult, human female. However, as you said, this is more of a biological definition, and not at all what people mean when they use it in terms of gender identity. As such, we could respond that a woman is someone who identifies as an adult, human female. The problem will nevertheless be that an adult human female has its own definition, and we will inevitably find ourselves using a definition that does not align with what the words mean. As such, I think those in the transgender community should come up with their own definition, and we can proceed from there.
@@bendecidospr,
"Most people in the documentary simply did not know what a woman is"
I think that this is either unfair or untrue. Walsh's intentions seemed a little suspect, but better questions could have been asked. What if, for example, instead of "what is a woman" he asked "in terms of biology, what is a woman"? I cannot speak for the people who answered in the documentary, but I can imagine that some of them would mention something closer to an "adult human female".
I am not suggesting that they were not able to find the right words or that they did not know what a woman is. I am suggesting that in the examples given in this video (the people who said that they cannot answer because they are not women or do not identify as women) were answering per the context of gender identity. When they heard "woman", they thought of it as a domain of gender identity.
You do not have to define something to be able to not identify with it, especially in an exhaustive sense. With the happy persons example, someone doesn't to need to define "happy person" before they can not identify with it, they only need at least one characteristic that they do not identify with.
Going off of your definition, what do you mean by female?
@@tannerwhetzel I offered two definitions that would work, one for biology, and one for gender identity. The problem with the latter is that it claims to identify as something that is biological. That is why I think most people would not want to answer this question. The only clear way to answer it is biologically, but that is not what gender identity is about. As such, I reiterate that the trans community should create or choose their definition. So long as it remains ambiguous, or it varies from person to person, they should not expect the rest of the world to align, especially not by force (legally). Having said that, whatever definition us agreed on, eventually, will always be different from what it means biologically. Hence, a transwoman will never be a full on woman. They will be a tranwoman, because “woman” in that case means something different from what the term has meant, historically, and what it continues to mean, biologically. I think one of the problems is the insistence that they be considered women in all senses, even if they are not women biologically.
Usually come to this channel just to start controversy in the comment section but your guest is here is actually really high quality. Appreciated the clear thinking.
Dr Bogardus is a very careful and well articulated thinker. Really do enjoy his interviews as always. Thanks Cam
I finally figured it out! It took a lot to finally understand that what I thought was a woman since I was a kid was right!
They tell me it's whatever a sexist misogynistic closeted homosexual AUTOGYNEPHILE says it is 🤡
I really appreciate this discussion - I really learned/benefited from it - but, for me, the question of what “gender” means is clear once the transgender movement introduces hormones and surgeries. It is clear to me that both sides of this debate are talking about biological sex. The subject would not be nearly as controversial today if we were just talking about social roles or stereotypes. We’ve been talking about those issues for generations without putting anyone under the knife. The trans issue today is whether a person should alter their biological sex if they do not fit gender norms (and should we call this alteration a transition since trans people do not actually become the other biological sex). Another telling point is when trans activists talk about sexual relationships where a man can be with a trans-woman and it is not considered a homosexual relationship. The public debate is about biology.
Humans cannot alter their biological sex. That's just a biological fact. All they can do is alter some physical characteristics.
Altering your external organs and messing with hormones doesn't change your SEX...if we agree that "female" references the sex that's ordered to produce eggs (ova) and "male" is the sex ordered to produce spermatozoa...
Seems sound
Exactly
Wow, this guy is a careful thinker. Nice conversation.
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple!
"If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
why don't you have Matt Walsh on the show instead of talking about him?
Exactly what I’ve been saying
Yes. Would be nice to have Matt on the show
I invited him, but received no response.
An interview between Dr. Bogardus and Matt Walsh would be fun.
He a bigot, and so is capturing Christianity
this was really good. More content like this, please
You guys kinda missed the point, thus your criticism was off.
1. Matt did talk about male and female gametes (spërm /eggs) so that wasn't a valid criticism that he could have said that.
2. Bringing up straw man like biological sex having super rare exceptions wasn't the point of the documentary. The title is literally what is a woman, talking about HUMANS.
3. It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback like criticism of some of his questions/follow ups. That criticism may fit for a podcast, but he was making a movie where you need some drama and controversy, which includes gotcha questions and reactions. Therefore showing a time-lapse of an answer makes a humorous point, and pokes fun of what should have been a short and simple answer.
Editing a response can remove context, leave out important details, come over as cherry picking or skewering just to strengthen your view. It can also be seen as insidious.
@@glynemartin We all know that's not what happened.
@@UnderTheFloor79 Maybe you were there.
I wasn't.
@@glynemartin But you need PROOF of that, and if you have proof, you have to show it would have made a difference.
@@MediaBuster You also need proof. Us not being there means we both are going on supposition and are therefore in a state of belief...
I just want to thank Dr. Tomas for sharing the line from St. Peter that particularly hit me today: About the reason why we respond (while truthfully) in gentleness and reverence, being for our disparagers to be put to shame. Now, maybe, there are many ways to read into that, but for the first time it hit me as charity _for the disparagers._ If by our good conduct God can inspire them to feel shame at disparaging what comes from God, that could be a real gift for them; a doorway, a pivotal moment in which they might become receptive to God's urging of them in another direction. Shame can be instructive.
The documentary was brillant. It's simplifying what is essentially a simple question with a simple answer that is the same answer for thousands (millions?) of years...
So a car starts when it’s functioning properly. Does it become something else if it won’t start or is it still a car?
About 20 minutes in. Really enjoying the guest and his consistent approach to each issue. Wish this guy was a newscaster present things in an unbiased manner.
On a side not the hosts audio does keep fluctuating louder and quieter as I listen which I find amusing and wonder if that's why he had audio issues with the film
I think you both may have missed the overarching message of the movie.
The actual message is that our society overcomplicates everything because we are decadent and self involved. The Trans debate is the vehicle by which Matt is making this point (while also attacking the destruction excesses of trans culture itself as well. You can do more than one thing at a time)
The important point at the ending is not his wife's definition of "woman". It's that she needs help opening the jar. The movie is telling you that eternal, convoluted and self obsessed introspection is not the path to happiness. Being focused on the needs of others is.
The point could also be the “perception is reality myth.”That began in the colleges 40 or so years ago.
THANK YOU!
If we focused on the needs of others, we would not be living in such a narcissistic culture. We would not have so many gun deaths, homelessness, and a cruel wealth gap, particularly along race lines.
My problem with Walsh is that there are much bigger fish to fly in this country, such as why > 80% of evangelicals would vote for a malignant narcissist.
To see a rebuttal of Walsh's claims and tactics, see Professor Dave's and Rebecca Watson's responses.
Also, check out some of Walsh's other videos to get a broader view of this guy.
@@acdude5266 "Professor Dave" is a joke.
@AC Dude Here is a self righteous liberal. With the same talking points I have seen a million times.
Modernity overcomplicates everything.
That's the heresy of modernism. It is a synthesis of all prior heresies.
That’s how you know we live in easy times, these people need to deconstruct everything for no reason and create stupid problems because they’re bored and they need conflict.
If we seriously cannot define what a woman is …. Then why do we use the word at all? It’s meaningless
Well, WE can. Just a few simpletons out there cannot.
Please understand, I am going to speak firmly, but no less with charity. We need to be careful of taking too slack of a stand on something clearly addressed in scriptures, Medicine and science. It is not complicated. That's the real point behind "What is a Woman". Now it is a sensitive topic, obviously because we are dealing with other people and their emotions. But it is not complicated. That is a poor choice of words that suggests people without formal education, should not comment on the matter, because "it's complicated". That's why Walsh travels to an isolated tribe in Africa and asks the same question. Fact: there are millions of people (many of which are children), all over Western nations being horribly harmed mentally and mutilated physically by this social contagion. To say this is complicated is to deny that reality. Loving our neighbors as ourselves can not be accomplished by always affirming. Some things are simply wrong. No matter how complicated we try to make it. I find it odd how for the past fifty years the mantra has been in favor of Medicine and science over scriptures. But now that Medicine and science overwhelming agree with scriptures, we must casually dismiss all three, and fall back on... It's complicated? No, this is a cliff we don't want to jump off. A line we can not afford to cross. To do so is to allow a horrible lie to prosper. Peace.
Agreed. Very well written.
Cameron, why don't you link papers/materials about the topic anymore?
The rejoinder to the standpoint epistemology objection is "How do you know that you are not a woman?"
No, it is not complicated. I am a woman. You, gentlemen, are men. There.
All by natural design. The way it is, the way it was meant to be.
The issue is not complicated at all. A woman is an adult female. A female, by definition, largely and normally and by design has a vagina and breast that can provide nourishment, to babies (after birth of course.) No charge.
Nah
@@jamesrostein8643 seriously, that's been the definition for thousands of years. No charge.
@@fandude7 and so? I
“He was despised and rejected- a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.”
Isaiah 53:3-12 NLT
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
God loves you so much and showed that by sending His Son to die for us so that we may inherit eternal life. We deserve hell but He gave us heaven through faith in Jesus. He took the punishment we deserved and by putting our faith in Him we can be saved. The Key To Eternal Life:
ua-cam.com/video/uZdv-TtiMkg/v-deo.html
For evidence for Christianity and answered questions, check out
ua-cam.com/users/drcraigvideos
and ua-cam.com/users/CrossExamined
because if Jesus really rose from the dead it is the most important fact ever!
God bless y’all!
14 minutes. 14 minutes .... You have talked around the subject ( what is a woman ) and have not answered the question. I listened for 14 minutes, endless discussions on a subject that should have been put to bed in 14 minutes.
I was born and raised in Germany. We have the word "Geschlecht" as to how we identify male and female on forms or anything else. The word sex is used in different context. One is a certain Geschlecht but one has sex. We say Sexualität which means something to do with sex. For example a rapist is a Sexualverbrecher. A criminal who commits a crime that has something to do with sex. Male and female behavior is mentioned as "männlich oder weiblich". That would mean some type of gendering. But nowadays when I watched youtube German shows in German, I saw young people talking about gender just like in the US. Nobody used that English term in Germany when I was still living there. I left in 1977, so a lot of time to change. I noticed that much has changed what we used to call "amerikanisiert" americanized. German language adopted many words in the time since I left. In contemporary Germany there is the same woke cult about sex and gender. Young people in western countries are sick and tired of having to follow gender/sex stereotypes. I was also against that when I was a teenager. I didn't want to be pushed into a role that is outdated. I wanted higher education and opportunities but those were reserved for elite groups whose parents were on the upper crust of society, the left over of the aristocracy. They said, why do you want to study if you end up as housewife anyway? I appreciated the fantastic opportunity I had and still have in the US. I never felt less of a woman being dressed casually in jeans but I used to belong to a church that made it a requirement to wear a skirt when coming into the sanctuary. That was really getting on my nerves since skirts make me look totally overweight. I feel that the word female is the same as woman. To have the dictionary post adult human female is the same as adult woman. In Germany we gender girls and babies as NEUTRAL, not she, but boys and men are always he. That is so stupid. I agree with Tomas that what defines a woman is that she produces eggs and a man produces sperm. Why nobody said that in Matt Walshe's documentary is that woke god who tries to convert people to accept that a man can turn himself into a woman and if they would say anything about eggs or sperm, which they perfectly know, is that they are afraid to get canceled or fired and they need their position to pay their mortgage, like we saw in the case of the recent supreme court justice who said, "no, I can't define what a woman is, I'm not a biologist". If she would have mentioned anything about biological truth, she would not have gotten her job.
Raising these alarms are so necessary.
Few minutes into this video and these verses come to mind:
2 Timothy 3:7
always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Romans 1:21-22
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.
Pffft I bet this guy thinks water is always h2o. How un-ameliorated
I gotta say I didn’t like this critique. Felt half-hearted, pandering, and inconclusive. I don’t appreciate this guys way of talking or logic.
Why didn’t anyone ask why Dr. Bogardus was simultaneously identifying as a hybrid of Matt Walsh, and Jorge from Cross Examined, in this interview?
BtW, my middle/high school math students would LUV standpoint epistemology 😂 “Ms., only a Mathematician could answer that question, and I’m not a mathematician”.
It is not a complicated issue.
If my stance is that woman has an objective, measurable definition, then wouldn't transitioning to the question of what is a man be conceding that the term is subjective? The whole idea behind "what is a woman" is that the term is based off of reality, and not subjective feelings, so the documentary should be consistent with that.
God made them, male and female. Pretty straightforward. I don’t see how Christians can view whether or not asking “what is a woman” is complicated and they haven’t settled on an answer.
Ultimately without the Bible(or God's power)philosophy and science will never be enough to know what a Man or a Woman is. Agreement appears to be a huge or necessary part of this whole debate that cannot be taken for granted. Jesus said: "If Two of You on Earth AGREE about Anything...".-- Matthew 18:19.
Agreement seems to be a necessary quality or aspect of truth(and in the reality of God himself or the trinitarian community itself) and without it, it appears to be just impossible for truth to be established in any way.
What Jesus said can also be used for twisted or evil purposes. And surely it has been used that way, and probably still is(the gay community being just one example. And the struggle that everybody has with sin in their lives being another).
What is a woman?
God seems to be pretty sloppy and accidentally created a whole spectrum of intersex conditions it would seem.
Lutheran pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber has said that Genesis 5:2 is “proof” that God made humans “non-binary” because it says “and,” not “or.”
I’m not saying I agree, I’m saying this is why you can’t go my interpreting the Bible for yourself.
@Prodebates I like Trent Horn’s definitions- a woman is a human whose purpose is to be impregnated, and a man is a human whose purpose is to impregnate. (I’m probably paraphrasing.) This covers even those who might not have the biological parts or ability for various reasons.
Vaugeness is the new cool indifference is a kind of superiority perhaps
@Capturing Christianity - Connect with Marc Barnes at New Polity about this. I think it will really rock your world.
I’m in Australia and I’d never heard of Matt Walsh and after googling him I definitely don’t agree with some of his positions, however I thought this documentary was fantastic.
I want to bring attention to Newpolity's podcast "The politics of gender". Marc Barnes is great contributor to the topic.
The documentary was great for exposing this lunacy they're pushing on children. We need to stand for the Bible, not bend over for non believers and back down from Biblical principles. Sophisticated philosophical conversations seem to appeal to the secular subculture of intellectual pride and ego.
I'm a non believer, I still know what a women is though.
It’s because the Bible is a joke only sophists defend in the realm of philosophy
Yet another comment highlighting the unintellectual side of Christianity. Support philosophy when it is useful in supporting Christianity and reject it when it isn’t. That's not a serious position; it's childish.
Every time you make a disclaimer of not being something, it is in effect also a claim to knowledge. 'I am not that (i am this and not that).' You claim to know enough about that 'that' to know that you are not it. So, you know what you are, and what that 'that' is, and that is not what you are.
First. I love your channel. That said, I can’t tell if you are trying to make a point or perhaps Dr Bogardus or perhaps the Lord is being funny. Your first critique was regarding the lackluster quality of the sound of Matt’s documentary and then the volume on Dr Bogardus’ mic was fluctuations f so bad as well as him going in and out from his camera. It was comical.
There is literally no comparison between a Daily Wire-level budget, in-person documentary and a CC-budget, remote livestream.
@@CapturingChristianity then why bash their quality??
@@CapturingChristianity true. But could it be that there are just things beyond one’s ability to control when doing interviews in uncontrollable situations?
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple!
"If any two of you AGREE about ANYTHING..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
Really surprised about the quality of discussion.
Still wonder if we are over intellectualizing the matter in some regard.
So long as progressive philosophers are writing pseudo-intellectual paper-length treatments defending their views, gender traditionalists need to engage those arguments. That’s why I’m a big fan of Bogardus-he does that work, and does it well. However, that’s not to say we can’t have a rationally justified opinion on this issue without wading through the quagmires of gender philosophy. The conclusion compelled at any depth of examination is the same: the traditional view of sex and gender is correct.
@@calebjore3295 appreciate this response good sir. I agree the work is important. I worry when we over-intellectualize such flimsy topics that it further enables the quagmire of obscurantist thought.
But your thoughtfelt response gives me something to tussle with.
@@calebjore3295 I wrote a comment under this video specifically expressing why I think Tomas Bogardus is failing at addressing the *"pseudo-intellectual papers-length treatments"* that you mention.
It is so concerning how common this sentiment is here in the comments. We can't promote intellectual discourse when it suits us and reject it when it doesn't just because it's complex.
When a car doesn't start it doesn't stop being a car.
Gr+eat job. Dr. Bogardus is A+.
So, the hosts are not moved too much by the horrible damage done to the kids who get brainwashed to believe they can and should change their sex. Not much comments on that at all. No protests. They seem totally ok with how the matters are.
12:48 The term "woman" is a sacred term much like the term "marriage". Both terms have far reaching theological meaning. I used to think that the left were trying to redefine terms, but what they're attempting to do is much more diabolical: They want to un-define the terms, or rather to make the terms meaningless. The greatest philosophical/spiritual synthesis ever is the marriage of Christianity with Athens (some say Jerusalem melding with Athens). The Logos is what the Greeks sought above all and it was the Christians who expressed the coming of Christ as the Logos (translated as the Word. Jn 1;1). The Logos has a broad and far reaching meaning in Greek. The Logos is the meaning of all things; To internalize this, the Logos also means the wisdom which is the understanding of the meaning of all things; To externalize this, the Logos also means the actual words which express the revelation of the understanding of the meaning of all things.
Yes, in Christianity, on Christmas day we celebrate the birth of a child, which is the Logos made flesh. This little baby is the meaning of all things, the wisdom which is the understanding of the meaning of all things, and the expression which the revelation of the meaning of all things.
This deconstructionism is the erasing of our sacred words which the evil one wishes to make meaningless. For if we have no words to use to express the Gospel, we have no means to bring Christ to the ailing people of this fallen world.
There are 2 genders male and female. Next topic!
I actually enjoyed the doc. Only bigger problem is that Matt would match the energy of the person he was talking to too much. It would have been nice if he actually admitted when people asked what his motives are to say that its a confusing topic and showing some more of his cards.
Woman is a developed human female. Who has gone through the process of Womanhood, usually activated by Menstruation.
"Gender identity" is as broad as personality and as narrow as mood. It's the secular replacement for the soul.
Bogardus is an epic last name
Glad to see viewers of this channel are getting some eduction about biological evolution.
This is quite ironic (from an Englishman - trained in Theology not Philosophy) this interview comes over , especially as they were so critical of the Film, as being problematic. If I made a video of this video speaking from the point of view that I am a Man which allows me to think critically as being a man and respond critically to the video's comments from a educated trained and experienced Man. Listen guys. This isnt really very .....hmmmmm....as a Man....edifying or helpful. Tomas - this sounds unfortunately similar to the wrong side of the ACADEMIC BUBBLE - that Matt Walsh brilliantly highlights. Thankful you guys didnt produce the Film. Cameron you are great. This one didnt really work.
documentary did not need to be over produced
Besides, if you don't know what a woman is, how do you know you're not a woman?
“Well, do you know what a cat is?” “Sure, but this is sort of just a gotcha, I know what a cat is, I know what a human is as well. My hesitance to answer you is not my refusal to think critically, But my refusal to acknowledge what I believe is a bad faith push, to get a reaction on camera… I think questioning social constructs is healthy, and people who are outwardly opposed to evolving our understandings of the world and the people we don’t relate to especially, are forever steeped in confusion, discomfort, and anger.
Someone challenges your views a little bit by asking a simple question and it’s instantly a bad faith “gotcha”. Sounds like you’re just not very confident in your beliefs.
Yeah my main criticism is that he did not consult conservative gender philosophers on this issue. All in all it was great for normies.
@EMB123
not a single so called "Gender scholar" can explain what Gender is
@EMB123
no definition other than "synonymous to sex" makes sense
@EMB123
you are free to provide one that works
@EMB123 Christians are required to operate within creation, and to not create man made constructs that are devoid of reality. No one agrees to a grounded context, they are operating on the fumes of reality and enforcing that everyone else goes along with the project.
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple!
"If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
But a heart is still a heart when it functions in the body. Or when there is a heart attack or even in a dead body or on an anatomy table. Function doesn't determine the structure and recognised shape of a human heart
In the mentioned debate between Dr. Bogardus and Vaush according to Dr. Bogardus _"ice is_ [also] _water/H2O"._
So, Cameron, are you still thinking, that _"brick houses cannot be build and made out of water",_ when igloos are exactly that - brick houses made and built out of snow/ice/water/H2O?
When did he say that ?
@@MrGustavier *"Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is COMPLETELY WRONG About God"* at 6:56: ( ua-cam.com/video/mrrSZboiKNU/v-deo.html )
For how long has this been? For over two years?
D*mn! Time flies by so quickly.
Bogardus represents .00001 percent of the population. Not everything needs to be a pretentious dialogue of higher intellectual pursuit. Sometimes just letting your opponents demonstrate the absurdity of their positions is enough. I'm looking to win the culture war, not wow people with "intellectual prowess".
it's not pretentious, if a formal definition is needed, it's needed and there's little else we can do about that
I agree completely. Not everything demands intellectual depth. The end. Some things really are simple no matter how many armchair intellectuals decide to make things seem complicated. This topic is so unbelievably overdone. If people weren’t treating some unbelievably rare condition as some sort of meritorious driving force for the creation of a “new normal” as being defined by literally insane people, no one would be talking about this outside of psychiatrists actually trying to treat the REAL condition(s). I’m so tired of pretending this is a worthwhile discussion.
Win the culture war at the price of truth. Got it 👌
That's why skeptics will always be there to defeat right-wing fascists.
I hope some of us on here are trying to win souls too... Just sayin'. #whataworld
@@senorabroomesrabroome1314 So winning souls requires being LESS nuanced and accurate on the topic of sex and gender?
Yes a seahorse is like a human being 🤦
I was very disappointed with this interview with Bogardus. I really love the work you do in general. You do very thought provoking interviews. Matt Walsh did an amazing job although simplistic in some was but regardless it was well done and conveyed the point of the absurdity of this transgender craziness. Your guest although an intellectual could not have done a better job than Matt Walsh. Not even close. Very disappointed. But keep up your good work. I'm still a fan
Oh just shush
There is not one way to live with a female body. It seems the question is expecting an answer that equates body with sex-typed behavior.
DR Bogardus - why are you still not in mainstream media?
Please answer the question
No offense but some times listening to the doctor made me flash back to Bill Clinton on TV saying "it depends on what you defention of the word is is " When he starts to go down into "well in other species "
“It’s a recent shmoovieeee”
This was a review? If you're doing a review, then play a clip and respond or read a quote from the documentary and respond. Sorry, but I think this discussion was rambling and difficult to follow what points were being put forth. I enjoyed your previous discussions with Dr. Bogardus and would like to hear more straight-up answers to basic questions being put forth at the popular level.
Why overcomplicate a simple issue... A 5 year old knows differences between man and woman yet we claim to be smarter by abstracting the word out of reality...
If we continue this way, dictionary will soon become extinct..
What does that have to do with this documentary?
Wait a minute, is Dr. Bogardus saying that asking if that guy is a cat is too combative? If so I completely disagree. It was barely combative at all. It was a simple question 😂
Dr. Bogardus, your name and personality match what you do. 😆
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple!
"If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
@@taowaycamino4891 Both parties? Okay, go inform every single man and woman then. I don't think the billions in Asia and Africa are going to take kindly to your Western cultural view
@@wilno7579 You said: "Both parties? Okay, go inform every single man and woman then. I don't think the billions in Asia and Africa are going to take kindly to your Western cultural view"
There is no support for the truth of what you are claiming. Therefore, your comment is unjustified or pointless. "Agreement" is a case-by-case basis.
"and do everything in love"-- The Holy Bible
I think you had a fair critique of not equally defining terms on both sides. But I don’t know that this video took into account cultural relevance that was a big topic of what he was hitting on.
Possibly have Matt Walsh on the show? I’ve been curious as to see if he would be on Pints with Acquinas again after the documentary.
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple!
"If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
@@taowaycamino4891 yes, you can redefine terms however you want but that doesn’t make it reflect reality.
And that would not be the appropriate use of that scripture. We must take into account hermeneutical context for what the author was conveying to the audience.
@@jessewayer621 Sure, what you said is true only if people agree with what you just said.
Could something be true even if only one person said it? Or are we simply a majority rules?
JFYI, not finding the Christ-Centered Capitol link on here. I'll do a DDG.
I am baffled you should find something negative about What Is a Woman? I've watched the film three times and consider it beautifully crafted, clever, insightful, informative and very funny. Given your comments, here, you seem to have missed much of the irony and sarcasm employed by the film to answer the question.
Their critiques were fair
I am equally baffled that anyone could find it clever, insightful, or informative. It's certainly funny, but probably not in the way you found it funny.
The worst thing, you can be , is being intellectual to yourself 🤷 word salad, an mental gymnastics only make you feel more smarter than you are 👍
A woman is an adult female human
I would say that this is not a hard question tbh a woman is a human being that could become a mother and a man is a human being that could become a father, and that's it. Its the simplest definition I can think off. We need people like Dr. Bogardus in academia to discuss and argue in philosophical and biological grounds but come on people is not that hard to know what a woman is
My goodness it's like no one thought of that. Oh wait they did and then they discovered intersex people exist and discarded the notion as too simplistic.
Re: 25:19 And specifically the only thing that distinguishes ova and sperm is gamete size. So a male is the sex, in duel sex animals that create the smaller gametes.
As far as I can tell, Dr. Bogardus has now spent multiple hours on this channel discussing the meaning of this word. Yet, we still don't know what he thinks the consequences of his view are! There would be many many consequences for psychiatry and for civil rights, and we all know that this movie was made with the express purpose of furthering a reactionary anti-LGBT movement. So it's just deeply bizarre that he doesn't say! Sure, I love conceptual analysis for its own sake, but this is getting ridiculous. If he's addressed his view elsewhere, my mistake. Please point me to it.
What consequences?
I agree. He seems very careful not to let on too strongly to what the conclusions to his arguments are. Perhaps he's trying to be as unbiased as possible or "leave up to you to decide", but it comes across as either elusive or unconfident. I'd much prefer he just say, "Trans ideology is bunk and here's why."
the truth is what matters and there are no consequences to civil rights. treating men as men is not an abuse of people's rights. the consequences fo your views is women being endangered and made uncomfortable in the name of tolerance towards cross dressing men.
@@MarkJBosse he does say that it's bunk but he's a philosopher, an intellectual, so....
@@axum4335 "Me think, why waste time, say lot word when few word do trick?"
So what is a woman ?
40:45 excellent, simply put argument.
It's pretty easy for a man to be a woman or for a man to have babies. Both parties just need to agree on the definition of all those things. Simple!
"If any two of you agree about anything..."(paraphrased)--The Bible
@@taowaycamino4891 dumb. By your logic, nothing is true and nothing is false.
Dr Borg boragus keep bringing up a philosophical approach matt Walsh was doing this documentary with journalistic style approach not a philosophical type of approach.
Initially I was annoyed with this review as I thought Tom was being too hyper critical of the documentary and he didn’t “get” the current political situation we are living in. However I just watched dr bogardus debate with vaush and have reconsidered this review. Dr bogardus is still a little hypercritical but I think he has a sense of the commies we’re against.
I wish Vaush hadn't poisoned his opinion of the Twitch politics sphere (though fair enough that it did), because he would have a productive conversation with Destiny, I think.
Why anybody would give losers like vaush the time of day is disappointing
How come he doesn't talk about where these philosophies came from. I don't hear him talking anything about John money or postmodernism which decided that gender should be deconstructed as a way of deconstructing society.
Why is this review 1 hour and 22 minutes long? The documentary is 1 hour and 34 minutes long. I watch reviews to see if I want to watch the documentary. So, after only 4 minutes of seeing how this review was going to go I just broke down and went and watched the documentary.
I mean fair point. I am generally for long open conversation or react formats but they can get long, repetitive, and can still not cover much new ground. In fairness this is probably more of a react video then a review video to see if it is worth watching.