Say what you want about trannies but every single "academic" in this hangs themselves with their own rope...

Yeah. The transgender ideology is nonsensical, you can't really defend it. Nothing wrong with a man dressing or acting in traditionally feminine ways, but trying to argue a transwomen is actually a woman in any meaningful way is crazy. They can only argue that by conflating unrelated definitions and categories. Even looking at just gender as a social class, self-identification isn't the only factor in defining a social class.

They're demanding that people accept their answer to philosophical questions about categories, and to make things worse, the answers they demand people accept are absurd. Matt Walsh isn't the best guy to make this documentary, but I'm glad somebody made it.

You make a reasonable assumption, but the reality is what it is regardless of your knowledge. You might mistake a wasp mimic for a wasp, but that doesn't mean it's actually a wasp and not a fly.

Attached: Helophilus2_no+filter.jpg (1716x1154, 1.43M)

Is Hunter Schafer really not a woman in every practical sense? Could you really treat her as one of the dudes?
>can't bear children
that doesn't define womanhood

>Is Hunter Schafer really not a woman in every practical sense? Could you really treat her as one of the dudes?
I don't define man or woman based on personality or clothing. Men and women come in a variety of shapes and sizes, with all kinds of personalities.

>but the reality is what it is regardless of your knowledge
so when we found out about chromosomes and began to define sex differently, did that happen because reality changed or because we decided this new way of looking at sex is more useful?

Knowing about chromosomes is useful for many things, reality didn't change. The chromosomes were always there (sexual development is obviously more complex than chromosomes alone before people go there).

nobody mentioned personality or clothes. how do you determine on instinct who's a man or woman when walking down the street

I watched it and yes you could. I'm pretty sure religious people have made anti-evolution "documentaries". Large corporations fund documentaries to sway public opinion so they can sell more stuff.
A part of the framing is also about what questions are asked. He didn't ask questions that would actually lead a person to the heart of the issue.
To give the documentary some credit, it was pretty well made. It's like a hand-crafted mural made of thousands of tiny little mosaic pieces arranged to spell out the sentence "fuck trannies". And also yes, blue haired gender studies professors are pretty much incapable of phrasing things in a way that a conservative audience will appreciate and understand.
This is a propaganda piece that was made with the set purpose of making trans people and people who defend trans people seem as bad as possible. That's not to say the documentary couldn't propose interesting questions worth discovering and answering, but it is to say that you can't expect this documentary to answer those questions fairly.

I make a best guess based on how they look and act. My point is that my instinct is irrelevant to the reality of their biology. Somebody could create a statue that's convincingly appears as a woman from a distance. Doesn't mean it's actually a woman and not stone.

>Knowing about chromosomes is useful for many things
right, sooo definitions take into account what's useful and what isn't. Imagine a world where everyone passed perfectly and the only thing trans women couldn't do is have children, but they were perceived as women otherwise. wouldn't it be useful to call them women and not men? I'm not suggesting we live in a world in which this happens, but if we did, it would be useful, right?
>reality didn't change
it did though, our understanding of what a man and woman is changed... unless you think there's some kind of reality we can interact with without perceiving any of it

I'm not trying to say you can't treat transwomen as you would women in many social situations. Just that they don't belong to the same category of people, and trying to claim that they're female in the same sense of the term is nonsense. Trying to pretend, and forcing other people to pretend, that they're the same group is inevitably going to cause issues.
If transwomen passed "perfectly," they'd be nearly identical in ways they aren't now. It would be more useful in most contexts calling them women than it is now, but not strictly accurate.
>it did though
>unless you think there's some kind of reality we can interact with without perceiving any of it
Yeah, I happen to believe in objective reality. A square can never be a circle, contradictions and rules for reality exist. Perception isn't everything.

What changed about reality is people's knowledge and perception. The basic biology was always there even in caveman times. Hell, you can look at preserved remains and prove that it existed before we knew about it.

>If transwomen passed "perfectly," they'd be nearly identical in ways they aren't now. It would be more useful in most contexts calling them women than it is now, but not strictly accurate.
okay, so if it's more useful calling them women, we'd just call them women because that's how categories work
>Yeah, I happen to believe in objective reality. A square can never be a circle, contradictions and rules for reality exist. Perception isn't everything.
that's fine, I believe in objective reality too, but this is about categories and every single category is socially constructed and most of what goes into constructing a category is whether or not a term is useful
yeah, the basic biology was still there, but we began to think about it differently and define men and women differently. you're arguing that we can't do that because muh reality

>okay, so if it's more useful calling them women, we'd just call them women because that's how categories work
More useful than it is now, depending on the situation. If you were
>every single category is socially constructed
Not totally. There are rules that exist regardless of social construction, and these rules play into how the categories are constructed.
>most of what goes into constructing a category is whether or not a term is useful
And right now "a woman is anybody who says they're a woman" isn't a very useful category compared to the other definitions in many contexts. If you want woman to mean that, you ought to have a single term for adult human females, which is still a valuable category.

>you're arguing that we can't do that because muh reality
No I'm not.

You’re right user and people will hate you for speaking the truth just like the documentary does

>More useful than it is now, depending on the situation. If you were
okay great so someone who walks the walk and talks the talk in the vast majority of situations is a woman
>Not totally. There are rules that exist regardless of social construction, and these rules play into how the categories are constructed.
such as? pls don't say maths
>And right now "a woman is anybody who says they're a woman" isn't a very useful category compared to the other definitions in many contexts. If you want woman to mean that, you ought to have a single term for adult human females, which is still a valuable category.
idc about self id desu

>I'm pretty sure religious people have made anti-evolution "documentaries".
they've never made anti-evolution documentaries where the experts were unable to answer the simplest question so no lol

okay well whatever dude!