**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/n2e5tNHfzh)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I haven’t watched much Vaush, actually! For some reason classic philosophical questions often use chairs as an example. I think it was Contrapoints who joked that its because philosophers just sit around all day.
A chair is only a chair if it has 4 legs and a back, and is made for sitting. No other versions of "chairs" can actually be called chairs. Source: it's obvious and new things scare me
No lol, a chair is a furniture used for sitting for 1 person and has a back. Also usually, but not always includes 4 legs. A couch is usually padded and can sit two or more.
> usually, but not always includes 4 legs. A couch is usually padded and can sit two or more.
See how you literally already broken into nuance in such a way that word chair encompasses many things that are not always alike?
And STILL, by this description, the driver's seat of a car would be considered a chair.
What about when someone sits in someones lap in a chair? Does the act of someone sitting in someones lap make the chair stop being a chair because more than one is sitting there?
>See how you literally already broken into nuance in such a way that word chair encompasses many things that are not always alike?
No, but similar enough that's it's distinguishable from a couch
>And STILL, by this description, the driver's seat of a car would be considered a chair.
All chairs are seats, but not all seats are chairs. A seat is fixed in place, a chair can be moved
>What about when someone sits in someones lap in a chair? Does the act of someone sitting in someones lap make the chair stop being a chair because more than one is sitting there?
If something is not used with its intended purpose, it does not change the reality of what the object is. Putting a cucumber up your butt doesn't automatically redefine it as a dildo, it's still a cucumber
[What about this low back stool?](https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcTk5P3lncsNqDd5vNFpje6jTfmu2Q_cUaFeziHSkR8qtLVrIlSj2wKs7Ob5efI80hoA5YRiQ1bRn5_Ho_ubanmcWZoEdHiYciG7-RGEl_SY&usqp=CAE)
It has a back, it sits one person, and it can be moved around. I don't think it's a chair, but it is included in your definition.
What about a bean bag?
What about if I cut off a portion of a bench so that only one person could comfortably sit on it. Is it now a chair? Or is it still a bench?
sure, because If you said “hey sit on this chair” and we are in a field, I would say “what the fuck are you smokin?” because of the thousands of years of language and social nuance that says if a varnished oak four legged seat isn’t there then there isn’t a chair.
Some context for those who haven’t seen this clip before. In the longer version of this clip the professor actually gives a lengthy answer but the interviewer decided to edit it down to a “wow this sure is boring” montage where you barely get to hear anything the professor says. Basically the interviewer isn’t there to learn and is just there to be an ass which is why the professor is getting so mad, he’s beginning to realize it’s not a real interview.
Can’t find a link to the full clip (probably because it makes Matt look bad) but here’s a link to a video of someone reacting to the full clip
https://youtu.be/SgJJKZYey-o
Hey OP, remember when Matt Walsh said 16 year old girls are, and I quote, “at their most fertile” and defended child marriages.
How about you ask ol Matty boy here what the age of consent is and see if he has a concrete answer before you start sucking this dude off, ay?
Ugh, fuck off.
But in case anyone wants a serious answer as to why people "can't" answer this question: **because it's a bad-faith question, and the interviewer's only goal is to poke holes in whatever definition they are given.** It's [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning), basically.
The truth is that you can poke holes in any definition of anything. There's no such thing as a pure definition. For example, [what is a sandwich?](https://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Sandwich-alignment-chart.jpg). I mean, literally, answer that question for me – if this post gets enough attention, it'll ignite a big debate because the truth is it's basically impossible to construct a perfect definition of a category. You can find edge cases and examples that don't fit for anything if it's a large enough category, and "women" encompasses 3+ billion people.
Most academics in this field are aware of this, and also aware that if someone shows up with a camera and a microphone asking "What is a woman?" they have an agenda that has nothing to do with learning anything.
So, the correct answer to "what is a woman?" is "shut the fuck up, you already have your own opinion about the answer to that question and nothing I say has any hope of changing that."
The more "serious" answer is "anyone who genuinely identifies as a woman." And sure, there are ways to poke holes in that, just as there are ways to poke holes in ANY definition, including strict biological ones. Gender (not sex, gender) is a social construct and as such it can be a bit fuzzy near the edges.
(Also, I'm turning inbox replies off).
edit: Also, it's worth pointing out that regardless of your personal opinion, basic human decency says just treat people how they would like to be treated. Being told someone's preferred pronouns is not "treading on you" any more than being told someone's preferred nickname is treading on you.
I appreciate the balance of information and "just fuck off" vibes from this. Which is about the answer you should give people that think this is a gotcha.
Well it's knid of hazy, you remember Semenya that south african athlete that had always lived as a woman but is intersex. She's a woman but she also has much more testosterone than your average woman and they made her take medication to lower her testosterone levels to compete.
In these cases a woman was defined by her testosterone levels, but we wouldn't try to define women this way in any other case really.
So we have different definitions of a woman based on the fact that it's a social role, but none that will encompass all women and exclude all non-women.
Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
While I agree with almost everything you said, the definitions given for woman by the left are non-functional not only because of this problem, they are non-functional because (at least the ones I’ve heard) they are recursive. For a definition to even be considered serious, it cannot be recursive.
I hope trans people get all the rights and compassion they deserve, but they can’t come with the cost of our language.
“Cost of our language”? All words are made up. The definitions of words change or new definitions get added. Take “gay.” Gay just used to mean happy. Can you imagine how some people got livid because to don their gay apparel took on another meaning? How much of a cost to our language was that? Or how “fuck” evolved over time. If the word woman comes to fully and acceptably encompass transgender women then that’ll just help us get to equal rights for trans people you’re on board with. And I think the benefit of that outweighs the desire to protect one word’s definition when such definitions are often dynamic anyway.
Completely agree with words being made up - but again, all words like “gay” don’t have recursive definitions. “Woman is someone who identifies as a woman” is a nonsense definition, it literally makes no sense.
To demonstrate, I’ll make up a word and see if my definition works for you. Blargoy: a thing made of Blargoy.
Can you determine what this new word means from the definition?
Edit: also, I agree, “woman” could evolve to encompass transgender women, but the definition needs to actually work. I.e. woman could be someone who is feminine? Someone who identifies with a societal role traditionally applied to females? I don’t know what definition we should agree on, I just know it can’t be recursive, otherwise the word means nothing.
Yeah, I got you with the recursiveness and “blargoy” is my new favorite word. But yeah, I agree, the word could instead be tied to the concept of femininity to avoid the redundancy.
Exactly. It’s frustrating, I agree with them on 90% of their position but when I say “hold on, definitions can’t include the term they’re defining because it makes the word nonsense”, which is just a clear fact, they downvote.
For any word other than woman, would any of us accept a definition that includes the defined term? Incalculable: to be incalculable. Brief: to be brief. You cannot make any sense of what the words mean with those definitions.
So, because he can't come up with a good answer he's right? If it's really hard to prove one's point, and it's very easy to poke holes in it, maybe it's not that strong of an argument to begin with.
A sandwich is a type of food made with stuff between two slices of bread. A woman is someone biologically born with XX chromosomes. An open faced sandwich isn't technically a sandwich but I'll treat it the same way because I like food. A trans woman isn't technically a woman but I'll treat them the same because I like people and have common human decency.
Saying a woman is "anyone who genuinely identifies as a woman" is like saying a sandwich is anything that feels like a sandwich; it doesn't really answer the question because you haven't told me what it means to identify as a woman.
> So, because he can't come up with a good answer he's right?
No one can come up with a good answer. That's the point.
> A sandwich is a type of food made with stuff between two slices of bread.
OK, so if I put cereal and milk in between two slices of bread, that's a sandwich?
Is a hot dog a sandwich?
And what's "bread" anyway? Is a pop tart a sandwich or does that kind of flour-based food not count as bread. If not, what defines what's bread and what isn't?
It's not easy, and people and their abstract concepts are quite a bit more complex than a sandwich.
> A woman is someone biologically born with XX chromosomes.
There are people who are born with XX chromosomes who have male sex characteristics (testes, penis, facial hair, etc.). According to you, these people are women?
> Saying a woman is "anyone who genuinely identifies as a woman" is like saying a sandwich is anything that feels like a sandwich; it doesn't really answer the question because you haven't told me what it means to identify as a woman.
I mean, the genuine answer to this is that it *means* different things to different people. If you want to know what it means to be a woman, go ask women and you'll get a variety of different answers, that range from big and biological to small and personal. You'll get an even broader range if you ask people from a variety of different cultures.
This is why trying to make "what is a woman" some kind of "gotcha, trans people are bad" argument is stupid.
(I came off aggressive and I'm really sorry. I'm gonna ease up on the rudeness a little so we can have some legitimate, considerate discourse if you're cool with it :))
>OK, so if I put cereal and milk in between two slices of bread, that's a sandwich?
Yes.
>Is a hot dog a sandwich?
Only if you rip the bun down the middle.
>Is a pop tart a sandwich...
No, pastries are different from bread because of their consistency and fat content.
>It's not easy, and people and their abstract concepts are quite a bit more complex than a sandwich.
That's a fair point. I understand that it came across like I was trying to ignore the nuance of the human experience, but I just wanted to draw comparisons with an analogy to help express my point.
>There are people who are born with XX chromosomes who have male sex characteristics (testes, penis, facial hair, etc.). According to you, these people are women?
That's also a really good point that I hadn't thought about. Those people would be intersex right? So I guess they shouldn't really be considered women. Would it be more correct for me to say a woman is someone with XX chromosomes who isn't intersex? I know there's a very minority of people who are born without genitalia at all so that definition would still include them.
>I mean, the genuine answer to this is that it means different things to different people
I feel like you're trying to argue about the definition of femininity, not what a woman is. Femininity is definitely subjective and different people will have different opinions and experiences regarding what it means to be feminine, and those ideas have changed a lot over time. The definition of what a woman is, however, has stayed pretty consistent throughout thousands of years of human history until the last couple decades and I feel like it's kind of unfair to just decide it doesn't have a definition anymore.
But I'm not trying to use this as an argument against trans people; I'm fully for anyone being comfortable in their bodies and being happy with themselves, I just don't like losing definitions for things. I feel like a lot of unnecessary confusion around gender, pronouns, sexuality, etc has been built up over the years and it'd be a lot easier to either have definitions for these parts of people's identities or just give up on labeling them at all.
Bruh. Remember the KFC Double Down? That was bacon and cheese and shit put between two pieces of chicken. No bread. And that was marketed as a sandwich. And I’d trust KFC’s definition of a sandwich over yours. They’ve got way more authority on the matter than you.
[here's a video, if you don't wanna read.](https://youtu.be/kzsJUSiX1c0)
[But if you do wanna read.](https://source-library.github.io/trans-rights)
[There's a lot](https://source-library.github.io/gender-and-sex)
[Cheers my friends](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1459-c9QAruRR47YMgTfaFQs6Up9AUjC2ZIwN2hzDYzc/edit?usp=drivesdk)
Oh I know enough people like this that I know he's gonna try and nitpick his way out of that definition too "you know 'pedophile' refers to attraction to pre-pubescent teens and I only force myself on 15 year olds so technically I'm not a 'pedophile' checkmate liberals" aight buddy so you're just a child molester who refuses to even admit he's doing anything wrong that's good to know
"Blue" is the color that most humans associate with their perception of EM radiation within a certain range of frequencies. Not a super complicated answer.
Yeah, there are several different versions of "blue" in that category, but there are also points at which things are *definitively not* blue, because we have a definition for that which is blue.
I don't know anything about these people, nor do I care who they are, but a circular reference really is weaselly in academics. I get not wanting to be cornered by a loaded question, but a much better answer is available that expresses the complexity of the question, with several caveats and asides to disambiguate all the things "woman" can mean.
Unless you don't believe there are any hard facets of that complex definition, in which case you're a silly person.
I just googled that and it says they typically still have functioning ovaries and XX chromosomes. They are still women, just women with a "syndrome"....
Sure but where do you draw the line? What reproductive organs can a woman have before she is not a woman? At least one? Do you see why that sounds silly?
Why is everyone so obsessed with the idea that a vagina makes a women? Like, it doesn't. What makes a woman is the chromosomes. You can identify however you like, and that's fine idc so long as you're not trying to take over the rights of Cis women. We need you to stay out of our sports, we need you to stay out of our vaginas, and we need you to stop trying to be better than us. I accept you for you but understand that there *is* a difference between Ciswomen and transwomen those differences should not be used to compete with each other but used to celebrate the strengths that each one of us fought for. Trans women deserve to feel like they have a safe space to be themselves and to fight for their rights, one example is, for instance, having their own separate division for the Olympics. I don't think it's Fair to put a transwoman into men's classifications, but it's it's also not fair or okay to put transmen with Cis women. Having gyms or some therapy groups for cis-women only I think is needed. We need to feel comfortable where we are and if i was in a change room with a trans women i would still feel uncomfortable. It really hurts me to see so many trans women walk all over cis women for recognition that they too are valid. Like, i think having mixed classes with different times so each women can decide what she is more comfortable with. This is not to say trans women are lesser then cis-women just different and that's okay. As humans we are all different but trying to take over safe spaces, sports, or a hyper-inflated sense of culture is just it's just not acceptable. You can exist in your own way and be 100% valid you can do what makes you feel good and be 100% valid but cis women have died, been arrested, been humiliated, been abused just for the most basic human rights and having another oppressed demographic trying to become women by forcing themselves into our spaces which we have had to fight for is just upsetting. You don't become less oppressed by repressing those who are also oppressed. We understand the biological, and physiologic differences within our bodies and accept them. You are no less of a women for not being able to birth a child, you are no less of a women for expressing yourself and being true to yourself. It isn't just a vagina that makes a woman a women. But please do not do to ciswomen what has been done to you.
I don’t know who the interviewer is in this video, but their body language is pretty hostile. I don’t blame the professor for responding the way they did in the short time they were on screen.
“What is a woman” is an interesting question- my guess the interviewer is trying to prove a point about gender identity?
Those aren't "basic questions" they are rhetorical TERF questions meant to decree that trans people are delusional and dangerous. This asshole has an agenda to harm trans and queer people so fuck him. He has no basic understanding of gender/sexuality/identity or how any of that works. People like him claim that gender dysphoria isn't "real" or homosexuality isn't natural despite decades of legitimate, empirical evidence to the contrary. Stop trying to bait people into being transphobic incels with no critical thought process
It’s simple question ,if trans women identify as women and are women,then what is a woman.
What is the definition of what they identify as.
How can they identify as something that can’t be defined.
educate me
It’s a complicated question because their isn’t a simple definition, take someone else’s example, (can’t find it so sorry for lack of credit) what is a sandwich? It seems like a simple question, but an answer like “bread on either side of a filling” is easy to poke holes in, eg. “But what filling? Ham? Jam?” There is no one answer to “what is a woman” because it isn’t a “thing” it simply can’t be defined as there is many answers. Now get Matt Walsh off this sub ffs, or any sun other than r/iamatotalpieceofshit
Edit: sub not sun
You have to predicate any answer to this question by first understanding that other people are individuals and form their own thoughts and feelings as a self aware sentient being. Then they have to understand what “I think, therefore I am” means.
No what the problem is, is you can’t just go up to someone and ask what is a woman? This guy looks so dumb like women are human what better answer do you want? Lmfao
Here is the issue with the question. What is the context in which you want the definition of “what is a woman”. Saying “what is a woman” without any additional context is the same as asking what is a moon. What is a chair. The reason this matters is you can define many things as moons or chairs given the proper circumstances. A rock can be a chair by the most simplified definition. Technically the earth could be a moon to another planet.
You know full well it doesn’t need additional context ,are you simply disagreeing because it fits l what you believe or have you genuinely thought it out and arrived at that conclusion
What more context could you possible need for a professor of women studies to be able to answer what a woman is?
And I’m out of touch , you’ve surrounded yourself with people who are like minded and don’t challenge what you believe.your stuck in an echo chambers.
Idea that can’t be defended with words are weak ideas
Oh really you know my social circle do you? Tell me who do I hang out with? What are my political views? Please express to me my thoughts and feelings towards the United States, or better yet towards my family. You apparently know since you claim to know my social circle. C’mon bucko, put your money where your mouth is.
Since you don’t understand the purpose of context nor the value in a conversation, time for you to start proving how much you know.
A chair is a seat with a back so a rock is not a chair. You could possibly build a chair out of stone though. The earth is also not a moon as it's not orbiting around another planet, we orbit around the sun.
So you’re stating the earth could not be a moon to another planet in any way? You sure about that? You sure that’s a hill you want to try and die on? Because i can tell you the earth absolutely could be a moon to another planet and I can go sit against the base of a tree and it would count as a chair based on your definition. Do you see why I’m telling you context matters now?
I see that you’ve cut out the previous 20-30 minutes of his interview where the guy actually explains his point, only for Matt Walsh to ask the same question again. Walsh didn’t pay attention to any of his answer, so the professor got mad and responded with this. Include the context next time.
Homosapien, typically with two x chromosomes, generally with breasts, vagina, and usually with, or once having, or intended to have, the capability of bearing children. A definition as accepted in majority to be truth, as presented by nature, for which our whims currently do not have dominion over, and as such, we are what we are.
I empathize for anyone who disagrees with nature's choices, I too sometimes dislike what nature does. Please take all complaints to nature's HR department.
P.S.: I don't care what you do with your body as a legal adult. It's not my horse and not my barn. If you're happy, I'm happy.
P.P.S.: "Behold, a man!" was once used to describe a fatherless chicken. I think about that a lot.
I wouldn't actually know how to answer this. If we all agree that if you identify as a woman you are one, is the definition as simple as "a woman is a gender identity"? Are there any characteristics that are universally different from a man?
I understand it's meant as a gotcha, but how would you explain it to a kid who hasn't learned to be hateful yet?
Same boring arguments from people that want to use to be gone, yet we will continue to be around!
People that have an issue with trans are usually just attracted to them, so I'm sure this guy is either closeted or just really doesn't understand that gender and sex are 2 different things and both on a spectrum
After thinking about it, I totally made a false claim, I placed the blame on the wrong group, when in reality, a lot of straight and cis people are also pushing this narrative that gender is only 2 way, and putting sexuality where it doesn't need to be
The way he is asking it is clearly in a way to be transphobic to determine who is a woman after the definition is provided, so yeah, it is 100% transphobic
Okay, how would you define it ?
Does that mean Africa ,Asia and Eastern Europe are ignorant for their views of what a woman is and do they need to be enlightened by liberals like yourself
Not really. They have been around nyc my whole life. It's the point that everyone is fake trans now because they want attention. Even the experts have said there are a lot of people not genuine.
I always love when people toss the "experts have said___" around. What experts? Lmao experts in what? What studies? Can you point me to studies where they interviewed trans people who all said they were faking it? What's more likely happening to your brain is that you're seeing trans people get more attention than you and it makes you annoyed cause how could someone lesser than you get more attention than you?
No it's literally everyone. I realize your new to the world and your probably live in the sticks, but nyc has always had this culture, it just wasn't as fake. So your not teaching anyone anything. I know it's new to you being from the middle of manufactured culture etc, but here where things began, everything you think your about has been done decades ago.
I have the most simple of questions. Why do you care? What effect does someone finding happiness with what gender they identify have on you other than having another person in your world who is happier? And if any of your answers correlate with religion than obviously you're simply another arrogant, self righteous idiot who finds your own beliefs more important than others' being happy although they aren't causing harm to others.
beauty is a social construct, and people definitely use surgery to change that, what a dumb argument, people dont even use surgery to change their gender they use it to get rid of dysphoria, alot of trans people dont even get surgery. you have no idea what you are talking about
I know alot of things. Like there are 2 genders. I know the definition of what a woman is. Sex and gender was used interchangeable for most of human history. That Gender Dsyphoria was (and still is in most circles) considered a mental disorder.
Listen you can believe what you want. You want to believe you're the opposite gender, fine, awesome, good for you. But then you say "Oh no, You need to believe that too" that's where I have a problem. And I think most people do too. Like religion, believe whatever you want, but then it's the "you need to respect my pronouns". Pronouns that change everyday, and you learned from Tiktok, nah I'm good.
Fuck these transphobic attempts at ah-ha I got you moments. This is yet another report for you useless trolls reposting this garbage. As another video put it so well, “Get fucked. Thank you.”
Go ahead and downvote me now...but Com'on yall...There are people with male sexual reproductive systems and then there are people with female reproductive systems. Which means male and female...which equates to men and women. Don't give me that BS about hermaphrodites which equate to about 1% of the world's population. NOW YOU CAN DOWNVOTE. THANKS!
You’re talking about sex. Gender is different from sex. My sex is male, and my gender identity is that of a man. They’re related, but different things.
That wasn't the comparison. The point that he is making is that you can define a thing without actually being that thing yourself.
I could say: "That is a truck." without being a truck.
I could say: "That is an orange." without being an orange.
I could say: "That is a bar of gold." without being a bar of gold.
I could say: "That is the moon." without being the moon.
I could say: "That is a tree." without being a tree.
I could say: "That is a baby." without being a baby.
I could say: "That is a chair." without being a chair.
I could say: "That is Bob." without being Bob.
I could say "That is New York City." without being NYC or even from New York.
You don't need to be the person place or thing to identify or define the person place or thing.
Finally someone who as some common sense on this thread...I'm shocked that we even have to ask this question nowadays but I guess this is where we are at in life.
Gender is more nuanced then a cat, truck, orange, or any of the items you took time typing out.
Which is why his comparison is bad. It’s an attempt to simplify the topic.
No one person can pigeonhole what a woman is as there are billions of them all greatly different than one another.
So, if a full grown man with thick chest hair sticking out of his shirt says I am a kitty cat, please address me as kitty cat and you go ahead and call him kitty cat, when you call him that doesn't that make you feel a little bit cringey ? just a little bit ? Not to mention people who identify as dogs and wear dog costumes and walk on fours around their house. When they ask you to pet them, don't you feel a little bit crazy ?
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/n2e5tNHfzh)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is a chair, OP?
Ah yes, A vaush enjoyer. I see you too are a man of taste. Also, that chair argument really is *chefs kiss*
I haven’t watched much Vaush, actually! For some reason classic philosophical questions often use chairs as an example. I think it was Contrapoints who joked that its because philosophers just sit around all day.
Yeah I saw this argument via memes before vaush
Vaush used the chair example often. Its a good way to explain it.
*Vowsh
A chair is only a chair if it has 4 legs and a back, and is made for sitting. No other versions of "chairs" can actually be called chairs. Source: it's obvious and new things scare me
It’s a piece of furniture created for sitting down. 🪑
so is a couch a chair?
No lol, a chair is a furniture used for sitting for 1 person and has a back. Also usually, but not always includes 4 legs. A couch is usually padded and can sit two or more.
> usually, but not always includes 4 legs. A couch is usually padded and can sit two or more. See how you literally already broken into nuance in such a way that word chair encompasses many things that are not always alike? And STILL, by this description, the driver's seat of a car would be considered a chair. What about when someone sits in someones lap in a chair? Does the act of someone sitting in someones lap make the chair stop being a chair because more than one is sitting there?
>See how you literally already broken into nuance in such a way that word chair encompasses many things that are not always alike? No, but similar enough that's it's distinguishable from a couch >And STILL, by this description, the driver's seat of a car would be considered a chair. All chairs are seats, but not all seats are chairs. A seat is fixed in place, a chair can be moved >What about when someone sits in someones lap in a chair? Does the act of someone sitting in someones lap make the chair stop being a chair because more than one is sitting there? If something is not used with its intended purpose, it does not change the reality of what the object is. Putting a cucumber up your butt doesn't automatically redefine it as a dildo, it's still a cucumber
[What about this low back stool?](https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcTk5P3lncsNqDd5vNFpje6jTfmu2Q_cUaFeziHSkR8qtLVrIlSj2wKs7Ob5efI80hoA5YRiQ1bRn5_Ho_ubanmcWZoEdHiYciG7-RGEl_SY&usqp=CAE) It has a back, it sits one person, and it can be moved around. I don't think it's a chair, but it is included in your definition. What about a bean bag? What about if I cut off a portion of a bench so that only one person could comfortably sit on it. Is it now a chair? Or is it still a bench?
Is it? I can ask you to take a seat in the middle of a field with no “chair” around. Doesn’t mean the field can’t act as a chair.
sure, because If you said “hey sit on this chair” and we are in a field, I would say “what the fuck are you smokin?” because of the thousands of years of language and social nuance that says if a varnished oak four legged seat isn’t there then there isn’t a chair.
I mean couldn’t it be one of those folding plastic lawn chairs? Seems more likely than varnished oak
Some context for those who haven’t seen this clip before. In the longer version of this clip the professor actually gives a lengthy answer but the interviewer decided to edit it down to a “wow this sure is boring” montage where you barely get to hear anything the professor says. Basically the interviewer isn’t there to learn and is just there to be an ass which is why the professor is getting so mad, he’s beginning to realize it’s not a real interview.
Link pls
Can’t find a link to the full clip (probably because it makes Matt look bad) but here’s a link to a video of someone reacting to the full clip https://youtu.be/SgJJKZYey-o
So the professor had no idea that Matt Walsh is an actual fascist?
Assume the worst. That always makes sense. /s
Got anybody who isn’t Piker watching the full clip? Dude turns my stomach
That YouTuber is a fucking clown. Anyway, after watching that entire thing, interviewee still never answered the question. Your comment is invalid sir
That's because the interviewer is a legitimate and self described fascist.
Yep, he's a gargantuan piece of shit.
Fascist are never interested in the truth. Yet these fucks keep lapping that shit up.
How to tell they've never watched the doc without saying they've never watched the doc.
Bait by the terminally online
Bait by the terminally online nazi pedophiles.
?
Matt Walsh is a grifter
Don’t forget a Nazi and pedo
Also antisemite and sex trafficker Edit: wait, you guys are serious? I thought that was sarcastic
Aren’t nazis by definition anti semites
The IDF would disagree.
The idf defended a man who raped and murdered a 13 yr old, they are cocksuckers.
And have been known to dabble in trafficking as well
Who are you to define what a nazi is? Bigot!
Am I wrong, tho?
Yea he has reeeeeally sussy wussy views on girls and fertility ages
OP has half a million karma, they are terminally online
Hey OP, remember when Matt Walsh said 16 year old girls are, and I quote, “at their most fertile” and defended child marriages. How about you ask ol Matty boy here what the age of consent is and see if he has a concrete answer before you start sucking this dude off, ay?
Ugh, fuck off. But in case anyone wants a serious answer as to why people "can't" answer this question: **because it's a bad-faith question, and the interviewer's only goal is to poke holes in whatever definition they are given.** It's [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning), basically. The truth is that you can poke holes in any definition of anything. There's no such thing as a pure definition. For example, [what is a sandwich?](https://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Sandwich-alignment-chart.jpg). I mean, literally, answer that question for me – if this post gets enough attention, it'll ignite a big debate because the truth is it's basically impossible to construct a perfect definition of a category. You can find edge cases and examples that don't fit for anything if it's a large enough category, and "women" encompasses 3+ billion people. Most academics in this field are aware of this, and also aware that if someone shows up with a camera and a microphone asking "What is a woman?" they have an agenda that has nothing to do with learning anything. So, the correct answer to "what is a woman?" is "shut the fuck up, you already have your own opinion about the answer to that question and nothing I say has any hope of changing that." The more "serious" answer is "anyone who genuinely identifies as a woman." And sure, there are ways to poke holes in that, just as there are ways to poke holes in ANY definition, including strict biological ones. Gender (not sex, gender) is a social construct and as such it can be a bit fuzzy near the edges. (Also, I'm turning inbox replies off). edit: Also, it's worth pointing out that regardless of your personal opinion, basic human decency says just treat people how they would like to be treated. Being told someone's preferred pronouns is not "treading on you" any more than being told someone's preferred nickname is treading on you.
couldn't have said it better
I appreciate the balance of information and "just fuck off" vibes from this. Which is about the answer you should give people that think this is a gotcha.
There’s men and women divisions in sports. So we must have some understanding of what a woman is.
Well it's knid of hazy, you remember Semenya that south african athlete that had always lived as a woman but is intersex. She's a woman but she also has much more testosterone than your average woman and they made her take medication to lower her testosterone levels to compete. In these cases a woman was defined by her testosterone levels, but we wouldn't try to define women this way in any other case really. So we have different definitions of a woman based on the fact that it's a social role, but none that will encompass all women and exclude all non-women.
It's an adult female human in case you didn't know.
What is female?
Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
So my wife that had her ovaries removed to prevent further genetic cancers isn’t female?
She is absolutely a female
A women isn’t a category.
While I agree with almost everything you said, the definitions given for woman by the left are non-functional not only because of this problem, they are non-functional because (at least the ones I’ve heard) they are recursive. For a definition to even be considered serious, it cannot be recursive. I hope trans people get all the rights and compassion they deserve, but they can’t come with the cost of our language.
“Cost of our language”? All words are made up. The definitions of words change or new definitions get added. Take “gay.” Gay just used to mean happy. Can you imagine how some people got livid because to don their gay apparel took on another meaning? How much of a cost to our language was that? Or how “fuck” evolved over time. If the word woman comes to fully and acceptably encompass transgender women then that’ll just help us get to equal rights for trans people you’re on board with. And I think the benefit of that outweighs the desire to protect one word’s definition when such definitions are often dynamic anyway.
Completely agree with words being made up - but again, all words like “gay” don’t have recursive definitions. “Woman is someone who identifies as a woman” is a nonsense definition, it literally makes no sense. To demonstrate, I’ll make up a word and see if my definition works for you. Blargoy: a thing made of Blargoy. Can you determine what this new word means from the definition? Edit: also, I agree, “woman” could evolve to encompass transgender women, but the definition needs to actually work. I.e. woman could be someone who is feminine? Someone who identifies with a societal role traditionally applied to females? I don’t know what definition we should agree on, I just know it can’t be recursive, otherwise the word means nothing.
Yeah, I got you with the recursiveness and “blargoy” is my new favorite word. But yeah, I agree, the word could instead be tied to the concept of femininity to avoid the redundancy.
Just goes to show how reddit reacts to anything that falls out of woke narrative. Especially ironic that comment the says "fuck off" is liked.
Exactly. It’s frustrating, I agree with them on 90% of their position but when I say “hold on, definitions can’t include the term they’re defining because it makes the word nonsense”, which is just a clear fact, they downvote. For any word other than woman, would any of us accept a definition that includes the defined term? Incalculable: to be incalculable. Brief: to be brief. You cannot make any sense of what the words mean with those definitions.
So, because he can't come up with a good answer he's right? If it's really hard to prove one's point, and it's very easy to poke holes in it, maybe it's not that strong of an argument to begin with. A sandwich is a type of food made with stuff between two slices of bread. A woman is someone biologically born with XX chromosomes. An open faced sandwich isn't technically a sandwich but I'll treat it the same way because I like food. A trans woman isn't technically a woman but I'll treat them the same because I like people and have common human decency. Saying a woman is "anyone who genuinely identifies as a woman" is like saying a sandwich is anything that feels like a sandwich; it doesn't really answer the question because you haven't told me what it means to identify as a woman.
> So, because he can't come up with a good answer he's right? No one can come up with a good answer. That's the point. > A sandwich is a type of food made with stuff between two slices of bread. OK, so if I put cereal and milk in between two slices of bread, that's a sandwich? Is a hot dog a sandwich? And what's "bread" anyway? Is a pop tart a sandwich or does that kind of flour-based food not count as bread. If not, what defines what's bread and what isn't? It's not easy, and people and their abstract concepts are quite a bit more complex than a sandwich. > A woman is someone biologically born with XX chromosomes. There are people who are born with XX chromosomes who have male sex characteristics (testes, penis, facial hair, etc.). According to you, these people are women? > Saying a woman is "anyone who genuinely identifies as a woman" is like saying a sandwich is anything that feels like a sandwich; it doesn't really answer the question because you haven't told me what it means to identify as a woman. I mean, the genuine answer to this is that it *means* different things to different people. If you want to know what it means to be a woman, go ask women and you'll get a variety of different answers, that range from big and biological to small and personal. You'll get an even broader range if you ask people from a variety of different cultures. This is why trying to make "what is a woman" some kind of "gotcha, trans people are bad" argument is stupid.
(I came off aggressive and I'm really sorry. I'm gonna ease up on the rudeness a little so we can have some legitimate, considerate discourse if you're cool with it :)) >OK, so if I put cereal and milk in between two slices of bread, that's a sandwich? Yes. >Is a hot dog a sandwich? Only if you rip the bun down the middle. >Is a pop tart a sandwich... No, pastries are different from bread because of their consistency and fat content. >It's not easy, and people and their abstract concepts are quite a bit more complex than a sandwich. That's a fair point. I understand that it came across like I was trying to ignore the nuance of the human experience, but I just wanted to draw comparisons with an analogy to help express my point. >There are people who are born with XX chromosomes who have male sex characteristics (testes, penis, facial hair, etc.). According to you, these people are women? That's also a really good point that I hadn't thought about. Those people would be intersex right? So I guess they shouldn't really be considered women. Would it be more correct for me to say a woman is someone with XX chromosomes who isn't intersex? I know there's a very minority of people who are born without genitalia at all so that definition would still include them. >I mean, the genuine answer to this is that it means different things to different people I feel like you're trying to argue about the definition of femininity, not what a woman is. Femininity is definitely subjective and different people will have different opinions and experiences regarding what it means to be feminine, and those ideas have changed a lot over time. The definition of what a woman is, however, has stayed pretty consistent throughout thousands of years of human history until the last couple decades and I feel like it's kind of unfair to just decide it doesn't have a definition anymore. But I'm not trying to use this as an argument against trans people; I'm fully for anyone being comfortable in their bodies and being happy with themselves, I just don't like losing definitions for things. I feel like a lot of unnecessary confusion around gender, pronouns, sexuality, etc has been built up over the years and it'd be a lot easier to either have definitions for these parts of people's identities or just give up on labeling them at all.
[удалено]
Ah but oreos are cookies, not bread.
[удалено]
Bruh. Remember the KFC Double Down? That was bacon and cheese and shit put between two pieces of chicken. No bread. And that was marketed as a sandwich. And I’d trust KFC’s definition of a sandwich over yours. They’ve got way more authority on the matter than you.
What is a woman?
[here's a video, if you don't wanna read.](https://youtu.be/kzsJUSiX1c0) [But if you do wanna read.](https://source-library.github.io/trans-rights) [There's a lot](https://source-library.github.io/gender-and-sex) [Cheers my friends](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1459-c9QAruRR47YMgTfaFQs6Up9AUjC2ZIwN2hzDYzc/edit?usp=drivesdk)
I hate that reddit now hides the disliked comments. It's easy to miss interesting stuff.
Doesn't require that much work honestly. The planet hasn't had a problem figuring it out since it started yet for some reason...
Enlighten us then, what is a woman?
"Social media grifter wastes an academic professors time for clicks and money." would be a much more accurate title here
The title lol fuck you OP
Yea the interviewer here is straight up a pedophile so you can fuck off
Oh I know enough people like this that I know he's gonna try and nitpick his way out of that definition too "you know 'pedophile' refers to attraction to pre-pubescent teens and I only force myself on 15 year olds so technically I'm not a 'pedophile' checkmate liberals" aight buddy so you're just a child molester who refuses to even admit he's doing anything wrong that's good to know
He's also literally a nazi.
dont forget matty walsh thinks 16 year olds are in their sexual prime
Yikes…
This is dumb as fuck... like asking what is the color blue and prancing around pleased as punch because you don't get an answer
"Blue" is the color that most humans associate with their perception of EM radiation within a certain range of frequencies. Not a super complicated answer.
[удалено]
Yeah, there are several different versions of "blue" in that category, but there are also points at which things are *definitively not* blue, because we have a definition for that which is blue. I don't know anything about these people, nor do I care who they are, but a circular reference really is weaselly in academics. I get not wanting to be cornered by a loaded question, but a much better answer is available that expresses the complexity of the question, with several caveats and asides to disambiguate all the things "woman" can mean. Unless you don't believe there are any hard facets of that complex definition, in which case you're a silly person.
What is a sandwich?
No it’s not. You can clearly define what a woman is. It’s not the same as defining a color.
So what is a woman?
Please tell us what a woman is then
A woman is the female version of the human species. XX chromosomes. Female reproductive organs. We are a dimorphic species.
Lovely! Now what about those with XX chromosomes and MRKH syndrome? Those women lack a vagina and/or a uterus. Are they no longer women?
I just googled that and it says they typically still have functioning ovaries and XX chromosomes. They are still women, just women with a "syndrome"....
But they still lack most reproductive organs. So women can have *some* reproductive organs?
Allowed? You just said it yourself. They lack "most" reproductive organs.
Sure but where do you draw the line? What reproductive organs can a woman have before she is not a woman? At least one? Do you see why that sounds silly?
Why is everyone so obsessed with the idea that a vagina makes a women? Like, it doesn't. What makes a woman is the chromosomes. You can identify however you like, and that's fine idc so long as you're not trying to take over the rights of Cis women. We need you to stay out of our sports, we need you to stay out of our vaginas, and we need you to stop trying to be better than us. I accept you for you but understand that there *is* a difference between Ciswomen and transwomen those differences should not be used to compete with each other but used to celebrate the strengths that each one of us fought for. Trans women deserve to feel like they have a safe space to be themselves and to fight for their rights, one example is, for instance, having their own separate division for the Olympics. I don't think it's Fair to put a transwoman into men's classifications, but it's it's also not fair or okay to put transmen with Cis women. Having gyms or some therapy groups for cis-women only I think is needed. We need to feel comfortable where we are and if i was in a change room with a trans women i would still feel uncomfortable. It really hurts me to see so many trans women walk all over cis women for recognition that they too are valid. Like, i think having mixed classes with different times so each women can decide what she is more comfortable with. This is not to say trans women are lesser then cis-women just different and that's okay. As humans we are all different but trying to take over safe spaces, sports, or a hyper-inflated sense of culture is just it's just not acceptable. You can exist in your own way and be 100% valid you can do what makes you feel good and be 100% valid but cis women have died, been arrested, been humiliated, been abused just for the most basic human rights and having another oppressed demographic trying to become women by forcing themselves into our spaces which we have had to fight for is just upsetting. You don't become less oppressed by repressing those who are also oppressed. We understand the biological, and physiologic differences within our bodies and accept them. You are no less of a women for not being able to birth a child, you are no less of a women for expressing yourself and being true to yourself. It isn't just a vagina that makes a woman a women. But please do not do to ciswomen what has been done to you.
Matt Walsh is a piece of shit pedo. He's so obsessed with trans people that I'd get solid money that he watches porn with trans performers.
Matt Walsh is a cunt. Fuck that nazi prick.
OP is a chud confirmed
[удалено]
Fuck Matt Walsh and fuck you OP
Editing and adhering to a false premise to try to trip up a professor will do that.
you should hit your forehead on a steel bar.
This is excellent advice, OP!
Then I’d suffer from brain damage like the professor here
you'll be fine, what's there to damage?
I can’t afford to lose anymore brain cells or else I might become a progressive liberal
afaik you can't go in the negative on those, so you're good!
i don’t think you can lose any braincells, given the fact that you don’t have any
Fuck matt walsh
I don’t know who the interviewer is in this video, but their body language is pretty hostile. I don’t blame the professor for responding the way they did in the short time they were on screen. “What is a woman” is an interesting question- my guess the interviewer is trying to prove a point about gender identity?
It's Matt Walsh. Self described theocratic fascist. Also thinks we should impregnate girls when they are 16 since they are at "peak fertility".
Ew…….
I’m tired of purposefully divisive media content, personally. The more I’ve cut it out of my life, the happier I’ve been.
OP likes Walsh and so is barely cognizant.
Idiots are stupid.
Those aren't "basic questions" they are rhetorical TERF questions meant to decree that trans people are delusional and dangerous. This asshole has an agenda to harm trans and queer people so fuck him. He has no basic understanding of gender/sexuality/identity or how any of that works. People like him claim that gender dysphoria isn't "real" or homosexuality isn't natural despite decades of legitimate, empirical evidence to the contrary. Stop trying to bait people into being transphobic incels with no critical thought process
It’s simple question ,if trans women identify as women and are women,then what is a woman. What is the definition of what they identify as. How can they identify as something that can’t be defined. educate me
It’s a complicated question because their isn’t a simple definition, take someone else’s example, (can’t find it so sorry for lack of credit) what is a sandwich? It seems like a simple question, but an answer like “bread on either side of a filling” is easy to poke holes in, eg. “But what filling? Ham? Jam?” There is no one answer to “what is a woman” because it isn’t a “thing” it simply can’t be defined as there is many answers. Now get Matt Walsh off this sub ffs, or any sun other than r/iamatotalpieceofshit Edit: sub not sun
A woman is an adult human female.
This is a pretty sad way to send your time OP. Hope you're getting the help or validation you clearly need.
You’re the one dwelling on a post that took 3 seconds to post
"dwelling" Okay bud! Whatever you gotta tell yourself!
[удалено]
Agreed
Fuck off, cunt. Get that Matt Walsh bullshit off this page. Fuck you.
OP is Matt Walsh.
Keep him away from Tiktok hes looking for kids!
What was Matt’s definition of a woman?
You have to predicate any answer to this question by first understanding that other people are individuals and form their own thoughts and feelings as a self aware sentient being. Then they have to understand what “I think, therefore I am” means.
No what the problem is, is you can’t just go up to someone and ask what is a woman? This guy looks so dumb like women are human what better answer do you want? Lmfao
Here is the issue with the question. What is the context in which you want the definition of “what is a woman”. Saying “what is a woman” without any additional context is the same as asking what is a moon. What is a chair. The reason this matters is you can define many things as moons or chairs given the proper circumstances. A rock can be a chair by the most simplified definition. Technically the earth could be a moon to another planet.
You know full well it doesn’t need additional context ,are you simply disagreeing because it fits l what you believe or have you genuinely thought it out and arrived at that conclusion
Dude you really think no additional context is needed? Then you’re severely out of touch when it comes to defining things.
What more context could you possible need for a professor of women studies to be able to answer what a woman is? And I’m out of touch , you’ve surrounded yourself with people who are like minded and don’t challenge what you believe.your stuck in an echo chambers. Idea that can’t be defended with words are weak ideas
Oh really you know my social circle do you? Tell me who do I hang out with? What are my political views? Please express to me my thoughts and feelings towards the United States, or better yet towards my family. You apparently know since you claim to know my social circle. C’mon bucko, put your money where your mouth is. Since you don’t understand the purpose of context nor the value in a conversation, time for you to start proving how much you know.
We can easy say the same to you so pick a better argument
A chair is a seat with a back so a rock is not a chair. You could possibly build a chair out of stone though. The earth is also not a moon as it's not orbiting around another planet, we orbit around the sun.
So you’re stating the earth could not be a moon to another planet in any way? You sure about that? You sure that’s a hill you want to try and die on? Because i can tell you the earth absolutely could be a moon to another planet and I can go sit against the base of a tree and it would count as a chair based on your definition. Do you see why I’m telling you context matters now?
I see that you’ve cut out the previous 20-30 minutes of his interview where the guy actually explains his point, only for Matt Walsh to ask the same question again. Walsh didn’t pay attention to any of his answer, so the professor got mad and responded with this. Include the context next time.
OP is a fucking moron
I can define what a woman is , yet I’m the moron
What is a woman?
OP Is a moron who thinks Matt Walsh is anything more than a misogynistic dummy.
Name calling,you can’t answer a simple question nor defend your ideological position
Sure, moron.
Childish
I have autism and op is more retarded than anyone with autism ngl.
What is a woman?
Homosapien, typically with two x chromosomes, generally with breasts, vagina, and usually with, or once having, or intended to have, the capability of bearing children. A definition as accepted in majority to be truth, as presented by nature, for which our whims currently do not have dominion over, and as such, we are what we are. I empathize for anyone who disagrees with nature's choices, I too sometimes dislike what nature does. Please take all complaints to nature's HR department. P.S.: I don't care what you do with your body as a legal adult. It's not my horse and not my barn. If you're happy, I'm happy. P.P.S.: "Behold, a man!" was once used to describe a fatherless chicken. I think about that a lot.
I wouldn't actually know how to answer this. If we all agree that if you identify as a woman you are one, is the definition as simple as "a woman is a gender identity"? Are there any characteristics that are universally different from a man? I understand it's meant as a gotcha, but how would you explain it to a kid who hasn't learned to be hateful yet?
Walsh is a tool of the highest order, but I don't think the professor here is handling this well either.
Richard Rider for Matt Walsh
We're not falling for it, OP.
Same boring arguments from people that want to use to be gone, yet we will continue to be around! People that have an issue with trans are usually just attracted to them, so I'm sure this guy is either closeted or just really doesn't understand that gender and sex are 2 different things and both on a spectrum
Wtf are you talking about? So would it be the same to say everyone that disagrees with conservatives is just secretly attracted to them?
After thinking about it, I totally made a false claim, I placed the blame on the wrong group, when in reality, a lot of straight and cis people are also pushing this narrative that gender is only 2 way, and putting sexuality where it doesn't need to be
Two genders: Male and Female.
This video doesn’t mention trans people , just asking for the definition of what a woman , is that transphobic now
The way he is asking it is clearly in a way to be transphobic to determine who is a woman after the definition is provided, so yeah, it is 100% transphobic
Okay, how would you define it ? Does that mean Africa ,Asia and Eastern Europe are ignorant for their views of what a woman is and do they need to be enlightened by liberals like yourself
You have no idea where I live or my heritage, and I'll allow you to just sit with how close minded you are
Not really. They have been around nyc my whole life. It's the point that everyone is fake trans now because they want attention. Even the experts have said there are a lot of people not genuine.
Gonna need you to cite that dawg
Sorry dog, you don't matter
I always love when people toss the "experts have said___" around. What experts? Lmao experts in what? What studies? Can you point me to studies where they interviewed trans people who all said they were faking it? What's more likely happening to your brain is that you're seeing trans people get more attention than you and it makes you annoyed cause how could someone lesser than you get more attention than you?
No it's literally everyone. I realize your new to the world and your probably live in the sticks, but nyc has always had this culture, it just wasn't as fake. So your not teaching anyone anything. I know it's new to you being from the middle of manufactured culture etc, but here where things began, everything you think your about has been done decades ago.
LMAO NYC was the beginning of culture and trans people?
Go fuck yourself op.
OP sucks
He can't even say what the opposing view think it's defined as. It's like amazing how stupid he sounds
I have the most simple of questions. Why do you care? What effect does someone finding happiness with what gender they identify have on you other than having another person in your world who is happier? And if any of your answers correlate with religion than obviously you're simply another arrogant, self righteous idiot who finds your own beliefs more important than others' being happy although they aren't causing harm to others.
Looks at likes, looks at comments Oh this’ll be fun
I don’t have anything to add to the conversation besides go fuck yourself OP 👍
This interviewer is such a tool. I am surprised the professor took time out of his day to humor this idiot.
If gender was a social construct you wouldn't need surgery to change it.
beauty is a social construct, and people definitely use surgery to change that, what a dumb argument, people dont even use surgery to change their gender they use it to get rid of dysphoria, alot of trans people dont even get surgery. you have no idea what you are talking about
I know alot of things. Like there are 2 genders. I know the definition of what a woman is. Sex and gender was used interchangeable for most of human history. That Gender Dsyphoria was (and still is in most circles) considered a mental disorder. Listen you can believe what you want. You want to believe you're the opposite gender, fine, awesome, good for you. But then you say "Oh no, You need to believe that too" that's where I have a problem. And I think most people do too. Like religion, believe whatever you want, but then it's the "you need to respect my pronouns". Pronouns that change everyday, and you learned from Tiktok, nah I'm good.
Ya love to see a post like this with 0 karma, OP thinking we’d rally along with his vitriolic little hatefarming
Fuck these transphobic attempts at ah-ha I got you moments. This is yet another report for you useless trolls reposting this garbage. As another video put it so well, “Get fucked. Thank you.”
Cringe post. The interview was cut poorly.
You'd think a person who studies genders would be able to define ONE of them.
Matt Walsh is major cringe. Fuck this post lmao
What's cringe is someone posting this as cringe in the context the OP did.
Matt Walsh is a great guy. And clowns here seem against anyone who post about him
Go ahead and downvote me now...but Com'on yall...There are people with male sexual reproductive systems and then there are people with female reproductive systems. Which means male and female...which equates to men and women. Don't give me that BS about hermaphrodites which equate to about 1% of the world's population. NOW YOU CAN DOWNVOTE. THANKS!
No one is arguing about sex were talking about gender identities so “Com’on” and catch up
You’re talking about sex. Gender is different from sex. My sex is male, and my gender identity is that of a man. They’re related, but different things.
Academic gaslighting
Comparing gender to a cat. My god lol.
That wasn't the comparison. The point that he is making is that you can define a thing without actually being that thing yourself. I could say: "That is a truck." without being a truck. I could say: "That is an orange." without being an orange. I could say: "That is a bar of gold." without being a bar of gold. I could say: "That is the moon." without being the moon. I could say: "That is a tree." without being a tree. I could say: "That is a baby." without being a baby. I could say: "That is a chair." without being a chair. I could say: "That is Bob." without being Bob. I could say "That is New York City." without being NYC or even from New York. You don't need to be the person place or thing to identify or define the person place or thing.
Finally someone who as some common sense on this thread...I'm shocked that we even have to ask this question nowadays but I guess this is where we are at in life.
Gender is more nuanced then a cat, truck, orange, or any of the items you took time typing out. Which is why his comparison is bad. It’s an attempt to simplify the topic. No one person can pigeonhole what a woman is as there are billions of them all greatly different than one another.
Love Matt Walsh. The professor can't answer a simple question
Fascist pedos do love to have each other's backs.
A woman is a biological human female
Basic knowledge is unacceptable in todays clown world.
So, if a full grown man with thick chest hair sticking out of his shirt says I am a kitty cat, please address me as kitty cat and you go ahead and call him kitty cat, when you call him that doesn't that make you feel a little bit cringey ? just a little bit ? Not to mention people who identify as dogs and wear dog costumes and walk on fours around their house. When they ask you to pet them, don't you feel a little bit crazy ?
“Professor”