In case you missed Matt Walsh on Dr Phil last week (I didn't even know Dr Phil was still on TV), here's a clip of him breaking down his debate with a couple of trans activists. Sorry if this was previously discussed, Forum 16 is primarily preoccupied with the political fallout of Covid and I might have missed it.

Ultimately, the heart of the disagreement with people who think gender is fluid comes down to terms. When one of their XY's says, "I identify as a woman," what does that even mean? Walsh does a nice job simplifying it down to one thing: a woman is an adult biological female human. THAT'S IT!

The rational side, rooted in historical gender classifications and biology, is a simple thing. The other side, where there is no consistency or logic, can't even define terms without using them in their own explanations. My third grade teacher taught me that this is false: if you can't define a word without using that word in its own definition, then you haven't defined that word.

To many of you this may be obvious, but I believe we have lost the ability to slow down debate and simply ask the opposition to define their terms. When words don't have meaning, no ultimate consensus can be determined. So the statement, "Trans women are women" doesn't make sense or hold any water until the person saying it can even define what they mean by the word "woman".

In conclusion: God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.

Guy on a Buffalo said:

---

In conclusion: God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.

---

What more needs to be said?

Biological exceptions exist to to your basic XY statemen5, including the existence of XXY people.

Historically speaking, if you want to talk gender rolls, major societies from all over the globe have recognized more than two genders. Many cultures, including at least one Christian nation, still do.

Dr Phil is a philandering hypocrite that is barred from practicing in Texas (and another state if I remember right) after he was both sleeping with and employing a patient. I would not look to his shock-jock TV show as a font of knowledge. If you post here at all, you also know this topic is one of this boards preferred social "discussions"

"Trained seals in the audience"

lol

Great video. Thanks for sharing.

I think our problem is allowing a very few individuals to redefine the words man and woman.
We need new words to describe trans gender people.
I suggest Herman and Hiswoman.

Any Hermans out there will have to change their names

Quote:

---

Historically speaking, if you want to talk gender rolls, major societies from all over the globe have recognized more than two genders.

---

Examples?

(And rolls are what you serve with your meal)

Guy on a Buffalo said:

---

In case you missed Matt Walsh on Dr Phil last week (I didn't even know Dr Phil was still on TV), here's a clip of him breaking down his debate with a couple of trans activists. Sorry if this was previously discussed, Forum 16 is primarily preoccupied with the political fallout of Covid and I might have missed it.

Ultimately, the heart of the disagreement with people who think gender is fluid comes down to terms. When one of their XY's says, "I identify as a woman," what does that even mean? Walsh does a nice job simplifying it down to one thing: a woman is an adult biological female human. THAT'S IT!

The rational side, rooted in historical gender classifications and biology, is a simple thing. The other side, where there is no consistency or logic, can't even define terms without using them in their own explanations. My third grade teacher taught me that this is false: if you can't define a word without using that word in its own definition, then you haven't defined that word.

To many of you this may be obvious, but I believe we have lost the ability to slow down debate and simply ask the opposition to define their terms. When words don't have meaning, no ultimate consensus can be determined. So the statement, "Trans women are women" doesn't make sense or hold any water until the person saying it can even define what they mean by the word "woman".

In conclusion: God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.

---

That's a great point about making others define their meaning. Christian apologists teach that you shouldn't start by arguing another's point with your own counterpoint. When someone declares something the first question you should ask is "That's interesting, how did you reach that conclusion?" or "What do you mean by that?"
When we immediately come back with our point of view to refute theirs it puts us in a position of arguing instead of forcing them to define what they're talking about. The same principle applies to conservative apologetics.

It's just as simple as this; 'should we celebrate mental illness, or try to treat/help people dealing with it?'

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Biological exceptions exist to to your basic XY statemen5, including the existence of XXY people.

Historically speaking, if you want to talk gender rolls, major societies from all over the globe have recognized more than two genders. Many cultures, including at least one Christian nation, still do.

Dr Phil is a philandering hypocrite that is barred from practicing in Texas (and another state if I remember right) after he was both sleeping with and employing a patient. I would not look to his shock-jock TV show as a font of knowledge. If you post here at all, you also know this topic is one of this boards preferred social "discussions"

---

Of course biological exceptions exist. Those exceptions probably account for 1/100th of 1% of those who are part of the trans-mafia.

This seems to be a great example of the exception proving the rule.

Matt Walsh on Dr Phil was nails.

The crux of the debate is forcing people to accept a delusion.

nortex97 said:

---

It's just as simple as this; 'should we celebrate mental illness, or try to treat/help people dealing with it?'

---

When there are differences between the body and the mind and how the mind perceives the body, we should go with the mind's perception, just like we do when we treat anorexia or hypochondria.

Oh wait..

Guy on a Buffalo said:

---

In case you missed Matt Walsh on Dr Phil last week (I didn't even know Dr Phil was still on TV), here's a clip of him breaking down his debate with a couple of trans activists. Sorry if this was previously discussed, Forum 16 is primarily preoccupied with the political fallout of Covid and I might have missed it.

Ultimately, the heart of the disagreement with people who think gender is fluid comes down to terms. When one of their XY's says, "I identify as a woman," what does that even mean? Walsh does a nice job simplifying it down to one thing: a woman is an adult biological female human. THAT'S IT!

The rational side, rooted in historical gender classifications and biology, is a simple thing. The other side, where there is no consistency or logic, can't even define terms without using them in their own explanations. My third grade teacher taught me that this is false: if you can't define a word without using that word in its own definition, then you haven't defined that word.

To many of you this may be obvious, but I believe we have lost the ability to slow down debate and simply ask the opposition to define their terms. When words don't have meaning, no ultimate consensus can be determined. So the statement, "Trans women are women" doesn't make sense or hold any water until the person saying it can even define what they mean by the word "woman".

In conclusion: God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.

---

While I don't disagree with your sentiment concerning the importance of the meaning of words, I think it is important to point out that in the context of current society, this concept is unfortunately irrelevant.

If it was relevant, words such as homophobia or transphobia would never have gained traction or be utilized to define corporate policy or behavioral standards. Those words have social meaning, but do not possess the legitimate or clinical meaning of similar words (claustrophobia, arachnophobia, etc.). If there was genuine integrity around the definition of those words, phrases such as homo-discrimination or trans-oppression would be more prominent or commonplace. Instead these hollow words are used (which in my view, is nefarious intent).

I think the main point that is highlighted by the video and debates like this is that there are those who will argue facts and those who will argue feelings. You cannot rationally reason with those who build the structure of their argument on the ever shifting foundation of feelings. Even if you start the argument in the approach thats being advocated, its an ever losing battle because they always spin back to personal feelings and perspectives, even if it has no merit in reality (which Walsh touches on). The problem is that society as a whole has accepted the premise that personal feelings trump facts, and it is necessary for all of society to accommodate individual feelings.

If I was blatantly wrong, words or phrases such as "insensitive", "my truth", etc. would never gain traction in society.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Biological exceptions exist to to your basic XY statemen5, including the existence of XXY people.

Historically speaking, if you want to talk gender rolls, major societies from all over the globe have recognized more than two genders. Many cultures, including at least one Christian nation, still do.

Dr Phil is a philandering hypocrite that is barred from practicing in Texas (and another state if I remember right) after he was both sleeping with and employing a patient. I would not look to his shock-jock TV show as a font of knowledge. If you post here at all, you also know this topic is one of this boards preferred social "discussions"

---

Exceptions exist but they are rare

XX = female

XY = male

Is consistent, factual and works for the vast majority of the population and that's the best we can ask for since no system works for everybody

But our definition is based on biological fact

Your definition is based on non-scientific feelings

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Biological exceptions exist to to your basic XY statemen5, including the existence of XXY people.

Historically speaking, if you want to talk gender rolls, major societies from all over the globe have recognized more than two genders. Many cultures, including at least one Christian nation, still do.

Dr Phil is a philandering hypocrite that is barred from practicing in Texas (and another state if I remember right) after he was both sleeping with and employing a patient. I would not look to his shock-jock TV show as a font of knowledge. If you post here at all, you also know this topic is one of this boards preferred social "discussions"

---

1) rare exceptions to a rule do not disprove the rule, so your first paragraph is nonsense.

2) You forgot to state which major societies believe this lie, and what percent of the world's population they represent...as is the case with point #1 exceptions do not disprove rules.

3) Attacking a show, or a host, instead of responding to the actual argument Walsh made is intellectually lazy.

I'm being nice, but your bad faith arguments that distract from the pursuit of Truth, are going to get run through a meat grinder on this site. Silly emotional arguments like that belong the sociology classrooms.

rocky the dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Historically speaking, if you want to talk gender rolls, major societies from all over the globe have recognized more than two genders.

---

Examples?

(And rolls are what you serve with your meal)

---

08 - you posted well over an hour ago, where are your "many" examples?

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Biological exceptions exist to to your basic XY statemen5, including the existence of XXY people.

Historically speaking, if you want to talk gender rolls, major societies from all over the globe have recognized more than two genders. Many cultures, including at least one Christian nation, still do.

Dr Phil is a philandering hypocrite that is barred from practicing in Texas (and another state if I remember right) after he was both sleeping with and employing a patient. I would not look to his shock-jock TV show as a font of knowledge. If you post here at all, you also know this topic is one of this boards preferred social "discussions"

---

Really doesn't matter what any nation or man thinks or deems acceptable. God only accounts for men and women, no exceptions

doubledog said:

---

I think our problem is allowing a very few individuals to redefine the words man and woman.
We need new words to describe trans gender people.
I suggest Herman and Hiswoman.

Any Hermans out there will have to change their names

---

You nailed it with the "...allowing a very few individuals..." part.

Social media and overly vocal groups with a need to shove their views down your throat are cluster f'ks on their own. Combine the two and you get disastrous things like this. By as this particular group is, you'd think you'd walk into one every few feet. Hell, you would have a hard time running into one that often in San Francisco or Austin.

This country needs a giant meteor strike; maybe two.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Biological exceptions exist to to your basic XY statemen5, including the existence of XXY people.

Historically speaking, if you want to talk gender rolls, major societies from all over the globe have recognized more than two genders. Many cultures, including at least one Christian nation, still do.

Dr Phil is a philandering hypocrite that is barred from practicing in Texas (and another state if I remember right) after he was both sleeping with and employing a patient. I would not look to his shock-jock TV show as a font of knowledge. If you post here at all, you also know this topic is one of this boards preferred social "discussions"

---

Did not define what a woman is.

Iowaggie said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

It's just as simple as this; 'should we celebrate mental illness, or try to treat/help people dealing with it?'

---

When there are differences between the body and the mind and how the mind perceives the body, we should go with the mind's perception, just like we do when we treat anorexia or hypochondria.

Oh wait..

---

No, no, no. We should keep giving the alcoholics more drinks!

There is not a single plausible scenario in which the trans group cannot reinforce gender stereotypes in support of their lunacy. Have a pecker but want to wear dresses? Fine. Youre a boy…that likes to wear dresses. You are not a girl now.

I read something that part of the trans movement actually oddly has homophobia as a basis. Meaning for example a male is so scared of being gay that he would rather claim to be a girl.

Its a mental illness for sure.

I think Thailand got it right. Men are men. Women are women, and ladyboys (katoeys) are their own thng. Their Theravada Buddhist culture is very much live and let live, but they don't go around pretending men are women or vice versa.

Guy on a Buffalo said:

---

The other side, where there is no consistency or logic, can't even define terms without using them in their own explanations.

When words don't have meaning, no ultimate consensus can be determined.

---

I stripped this down. Above is the crux of every current debate between conservatives and progressives.

Progressives are "the other side", obviously. They now live in the Far-Left Matrix where they have defined a reality that does not proscribe to natural law and science. Of course, their reality can only exist by standing on the shoulders of actual reality and real science where the rest of us still reside.

If we walked away, their reality would dissipate like a fart in the wind.

jonj101 said:

---

Guy on a Buffalo said:

---

In case you missed Matt Walsh on Dr Phil last week (I didn't even know Dr Phil was still on TV), here's a clip of him breaking down his debate with a couple of trans activists. Sorry if this was previously discussed, Forum 16 is primarily preoccupied with the political fallout of Covid and I might have missed it.

Ultimately, the heart of the disagreement with people who think gender is fluid comes down to terms. When one of their XY's says, "I identify as a woman," what does that even mean? Walsh does a nice job simplifying it down to one thing: a woman is an adult biological female human. THAT'S IT!

The rational side, rooted in historical gender classifications and biology, is a simple thing. The other side, where there is no consistency or logic, can't even define terms without using them in their own explanations. My third grade teacher taught me that this is false: if you can't define a word without using that word in its own definition, then you haven't defined that word.

To many of you this may be obvious, but I believe we have lost the ability to slow down debate and simply ask the opposition to define their terms. When words don't have meaning, no ultimate consensus can be determined. So the statement, "Trans women are women" doesn't make sense or hold any water until the person saying it can even define what they mean by the word "woman".

In conclusion: God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.

---

While I don't disagree with your sentiment concerning the importance of the meaning of words, I think it is important to point out that in the context of current society, this concept is unfortunately irrelevant.

If it was relevant, words such as homophobia or transphobia would never have gained traction or be utilized to define corporate policy or behavioral standards. Those words have social meaning, but do not possess the legitimate or clinical meaning of similar words (claustrophobia, arachnophobia, etc.). If there was genuine integrity around the definition of those words, phrases such as homo-discrimination or trans-oppression would be more prominent or commonplace. Instead these hollow words are used (which in my view, is nefarious intent).

I think the main point that is highlighted by the video and debates like this is that there are those who will argue facts and those who will argue feelings. You cannot rationally reason with those who build the structure of their argument on the ever shifting foundation of feelings. Even if you start the argument in the approach thats being advocated, its an ever losing battle because they always spin back to personal feelings and perspectives, even if it has no merit in reality (which Walsh touches on). The problem is that society as a whole has accepted the premise that personal feelings trump facts, and it is necessary for all of society to accommodate individual feelings.

If I was blatantly wrong, words or phrases such as "insensitive", "my truth", etc. would never gain traction in society.

---

i don't think you're incorrect in that people do try to keep and frame these words and apply emotion to it. it's only irrelevant if you let it be.

i was told i made a transphobic comment last year. i asked "what did i say to indicate that showed i have an irrational fear of trans people?" they said "transphobic means you're hateful towards trans people." I clarified that that is NOT what transphobic means and they need to update their terminology. Also I think Trans people exist, they're God's beautiful children, and I love them. I just don't think that their current feelings on their gender should dictate public policy, and mistaking what somebody is currently identifying as when their obvious genetics make that ambiguous and isn't hateful.

they said well that's still hateful. you can't say you love them and then misgender them.

at that point, i don't suffer fools. that isn't a serious person and i'm not going to take them seriously.


don't back down. don't worry about changing your language to make yourself not as racist or bigoted. they think you are anyways. watching your language is just making it irrelevant as you said. so if it's irrelevant, it is because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Biological exceptions exist to to your basic XY statemen5, including the existence of XXY people.

Historically speaking, if you want to talk gender rolls, major societies from all over the globe have recognized more than two genders. Many cultures, including at least one Christian nation, still do.

Dr Phil is a philandering hypocrite that is barred from practicing in Texas (and another state if I remember right) after he was both sleeping with and employing a patient. I would not look to his shock-jock TV show as a font of knowledge. If you post here at all, you also know this topic is one of this boards preferred social "discussions"

---

You don't make rules based on very rare exceptions.

Klinefelter's syndrome is a very rare condition.

But I am your huckleberry. when making these decisions its important to understand biology.

In humans the X chromosome is the default.

If you have no Y chromosome you exhibit female characteristic and are female by default. Female is the default gender unless there is the existence of a Y chromosome to trigger expression of male traits.

Presence of the Y chromosome changes development from the default female to male and carries on it the genes for male development.

A quick google search can help anyone unfamiliar with this figure it out.

People with XXY- klinefelter's syndrome develop male characteristics, present as a male, and are male because they have the Y- male chromosome. They are considered to be males with an extra X chromosome.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Biological exceptions exist to to your basic XY statemen5, including the existence of XXY people.

---

Those exceptions are exceedingly rare. I would bet <0.1% of people.

I can agree those exceptions need to be treated thoughtfully because they are in fact biologically different from almost everyone else.

But that's not what we're talking about here. "Trans" today is a label that gets applied to people who are inarguably a biological male or female but claim they're the opposite simply because they "feel" that way. It is a mental issue that needs to be recognized as such and dealt with accordingly.

Reinforcing a biological boy's belief that he's a girl is not kind to him... it is cruel. It's like feeding the dependency of an alcoholic or drug addict. And as noted elsewhere, it's incredibly unfair in the sports arena to girls who are getting beat by biological boys claiming to be girls.

c-jags said:

---

jonj101 said:

---

While I don't disagree with your sentiment concerning the importance of the meaning of words, I think it is important to point out that in the context of current society, this concept is unfortunately irrelevant.

If it was relevant, words such as homophobia or transphobia would never have gained traction or be utilized to define corporate policy or behavioral standards. Those words have social meaning, but do not possess the legitimate or clinical meaning of similar words (claustrophobia, arachnophobia, etc.). If there was genuine integrity around the definition of those words, phrases such as homo-discrimination or trans-oppression would be more prominent or commonplace. Instead these hollow words are used (which in my view, is nefarious intent).

I think the main point that is highlighted by the video and debates like this is that there are those who will argue facts and those who will argue feelings. You cannot rationally reason with those who build the structure of their argument on the ever shifting foundation of feelings. Even if you start the argument in the approach thats being advocated, its an ever losing battle because they always spin back to personal feelings and perspectives, even if it has no merit in reality (which Walsh touches on). The problem is that society as a whole has accepted the premise that personal feelings trump facts, and it is necessary for all of society to accommodate individual feelings.

If I was blatantly wrong, words or phrases such as "insensitive", "my truth", etc. would never gain traction in society.

---

i don't think you're incorrect in that people do try to keep and frame these words and apply emotion to it. it's only irrelevant if you let it be.

i was told i made a transphobic comment last year. i asked "what did i say to indicate that showed i have an irrational fear of trans people?" they said "transphobic means you're hateful towards trans people." I clarified that that is NOT what transphobic means and they need to update their terminology. Also I think Trans people exist, they're God's beautiful children, and I love them. I just don't think that their current feelings on their gender should dictate public policy, and mistaking what somebody is currently identifying as when their obvious genetics make that ambiguous and isn't hateful.

they said well that's still hateful. you can't say you love them and then misgender them.

at that point, i don't suffer fools. that isn't a serious person and i'm not going to take them seriously.


don't back down. don't worry about changing your language to make yourself not as racist or bigoted. they think you are anyways. watching your language is just making it irrelevant as you said. so if it's irrelevant, it is because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

---

But the self-fulfilling prophecy comment applies to greater society - not me as an individual.

Regardless of which words or phrases I refuse to use, society as a whole has embraced the path of being led by feelings instead of facts. Your anecdotal experience supports that, and even when you view the Walsh video above as an example, you see one guy against three others and presumably the entire audience.

The situation has progressed to the point where refusing to use preferred pronouns or not acquiescing to the world view of an individual can result in discipline or removal from organizations, institutions, and to an extent society. Years ago if someone insisted on the pronoun 'they' being used in reference to themselves, they would have probably been thought of as ignorant or schizophrenic. Now, they embraced as factual and courageous. This has been reinforced by those in positions of authority.

Recent current events have demonstrated that 'leadership' in many organizations is cowardly and would rather yield to the prevailing winds of sentiment instead what is factual and makes sense. If 'they' didn't have the power to force this perception amongst individuals, this discussion doesn't happen.

c-jags said:

---

jonj101 said:

---

Guy on a Buffalo said:

---

In case you missed Matt Walsh on Dr Phil last week (I didn't even know Dr Phil was still on TV), here's a clip of him breaking down his debate with a couple of trans activists. Sorry if this was previously discussed, Forum 16 is primarily preoccupied with the political fallout of Covid and I might have missed it.

Ultimately, the heart of the disagreement with people who think gender is fluid comes down to terms. When one of their XY's says, "I identify as a woman," what does that even mean? Walsh does a nice job simplifying it down to one thing: a woman is an adult biological female human. THAT'S IT!

The rational side, rooted in historical gender classifications and biology, is a simple thing. The other side, where there is no consistency or logic, can't even define terms without using them in their own explanations. My third grade teacher taught me that this is false: if you can't define a word without using that word in its own definition, then you haven't defined that word.

To many of you this may be obvious, but I believe we have lost the ability to slow down debate and simply ask the opposition to define their terms. When words don't have meaning, no ultimate consensus can be determined. So the statement, "Trans women are women" doesn't make sense or hold any water until the person saying it can even define what they mean by the word "woman".

In conclusion: God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.

---

While I don't disagree with your sentiment concerning the importance of the meaning of words, I think it is important to point out that in the context of current society, this concept is unfortunately irrelevant.

If it was relevant, words such as homophobia or transphobia would never have gained traction or be utilized to define corporate policy or behavioral standards. Those words have social meaning, but do not possess the legitimate or clinical meaning of similar words (claustrophobia, arachnophobia, etc.). If there was genuine integrity around the definition of those words, phrases such as homo-discrimination or trans-oppression would be more prominent or commonplace. Instead these hollow words are used (which in my view, is nefarious intent).

I think the main point that is highlighted by the video and debates like this is that there are those who will argue facts and those who will argue feelings. You cannot rationally reason with those who build the structure of their argument on the ever shifting foundation of feelings. Even if you start the argument in the approach thats being advocated, its an ever losing battle because they always spin back to personal feelings and perspectives, even if it has no merit in reality (which Walsh touches on). The problem is that society as a whole has accepted the premise that personal feelings trump facts, and it is necessary for all of society to accommodate individual feelings.

If I was blatantly wrong, words or phrases such as "insensitive", "my truth", etc. would never gain traction in society.

---

i don't think you're incorrect in that people do try to keep and frame these words and apply emotion to it. it's only irrelevant if you let it be.

i was told i made a transphobic comment last year. i asked "what did i say to indicate that showed i have an irrational fear of trans people?" they said "transphobic means you're hateful towards trans people." I clarified that that is NOT what transphobic means and they need to update their terminology. Also I think Trans people exist, they're God's beautiful children, and I love them. I just don't think that their current feelings on their gender should dictate public policy, and mistaking what somebody is currently identifying as when their obvious genetics make that ambiguous and isn't hateful.

they said well that's still hateful. you can't say you love them and then misgender them.

at that point, i don't suffer fools. that isn't a serious person and i'm not going to take them seriously.


don't back down. don't worry about changing your language to make yourself not as racist or bigoted. they think you are anyways. watching your language is just making it irrelevant as you said. so if it's irrelevant, it is because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

---

Agreed. We need to all start digging our heels in. What's the point of not doing it? They think we're racist and transphobic by default anyhow. There's just no budge with these people, just like there's little budge with us. When people are that far gone, it's useless to try and reason with them. Just lean into your beliefs and then go live a normal life and play golf and hike and take your kids to the park, etc. It makes us happy and they hate to see it

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Biological exceptions exist to to your basic XY statemen5, including the existence of XXY people.

---

This is a "red herring" argument.

There are exceptions to everything.

Some people are born with 6 fingers on one hand. That doesn't mean we redefine how many fingers "people" have.

We don't re-order society for the exceptions. Sure, make a place for them, treat them with dignity, don't discriminate, etc...

But the fact that on very rare occasion someone is born with xxy Chromosomes, or with ambiguous genitalia doesn't mean that we now have to accept every person's gender dysmorphia as truth.

If it were restricted to people with identified, documented, physically measurable traits, then I might have some sympathy.

The fact that obvious biological men are now competing against biological women, and forcing them to share intimate space merely because the man "feels like" he's a woman, is, to be incredibly understated, harmful to society.

The argument about "gender roles" in different societies is also not the same.

We've had society banging the drum for decades now that there are no strictly "gender specific" roles. If a man wants to be nurturing and work as a nurse, he is encouraged to do so. If a woman wants to work construction, she is encouraged to do so.

The transsexualist community are the biggest sexist group around today.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Biological exceptions exist to to your basic XY statemen5, including the existence of XXY people.

---

OK then, those 5 individuals get to choose. Everyone else, no, you go with your chromosomes. I think we've reached a compromise, agree?