What is a woman?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Not that I disagree with your assessment of the the article, but does PJ Media claim to be doing journalism?
@Axtremus said in What is a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Not that I disagree with your assessment of the the article, but does PJ Media claim to be doing journalism?
Yes because they're completely off the hook so long as they don't explicitly claim anything of the sort and they're "just asking questions because they have concerns."
-
You can still criticize PJ Media for bad at journalism or characterize it as not doing journalism at all. When I see “PJ Media”, I think of it as just another opinion website with a certain partisan and ideological slant. So I do not expect good journalism from it.
-
Good for Matt Walsh, but what the hell was that "writing" supposed to be? "Getta loada mah boi! Yah das RIGHT, das RIGHT!"
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
Good for Matt Walsh, but what the hell was that "writing" supposed to be? "Getta loada mah boi! Yah das RIGHT, das RIGHT!"
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Your missing part of the point. Consider the platform, the audience and current national zeitgeist.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
Good for Matt Walsh, but what the hell was that "writing" supposed to be? "Getta loada mah boi! Yah das RIGHT, das RIGHT!"
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Your missing part of the point. Consider the platform, the audience and current national zeitgeist.
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
Good for Matt Walsh, but what the hell was that "writing" supposed to be? "Getta loada mah boi! Yah das RIGHT, das RIGHT!"
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Your missing part of the point. Consider the platform, the audience and current national zeitgeist.
No amount of context is going to inject any kind of value into what she wrote.
Please love yourself.
-
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
Good for Matt Walsh, but what the hell was that "writing" supposed to be? "Getta loada mah boi! Yah das RIGHT, das RIGHT!"
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Your missing part of the point. Consider the platform, the audience and current national zeitgeist.
No amount of context is going to inject any kind of value into what she wrote.
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
Good for Matt Walsh, but what the hell was that "writing" supposed to be? "Getta loada mah boi! Yah das RIGHT, das RIGHT!"
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Your missing part of the point. Consider the platform, the audience and current national zeitgeist.
No amount of context is going to inject any kind of value into what she wrote.
So, what you have her write on the subject?
-
You can still criticize PJ Media for bad at journalism or characterize it as not doing journalism at all. When I see “PJ Media”, I think of it as just another opinion website with a certain partisan and ideological slant. So I do not expect good journalism from it.
@Axtremus said in What is a woman?:
You can still criticize PJ Media for bad at journalism or characterize it as not doing journalism at all. When I see “PJ Media”, I think of it as just another opinion website with a certain partisan and ideological slant. So I do not expect good journalism from it.
Yet you constantly quote from the Washington Post, a known partisan yellow journalism rag with absolutely no credibility as if it were an actual news source.
-
To the actual content, in a way the evasion was just another way of saying ‘whomever claims to be a woman is a woman’ so in that sense it captures their true belief.
However they never say it so explicitly because they also wish to believe that transwomen TRULY ARE women in some deep ontological sense, which would require some sort of Aristotelian essence of woman-ness, not just a label one puts on.
So yeah, it’s one of the many contradictions in modern trans ideology.
-
To the actual content, in a way the evasion was just another way of saying ‘whomever claims to be a woman is a woman’ so in that sense it captures their true belief.
However they never say it so explicitly because they also wish to believe that transwomen TRULY ARE women in some deep ontological sense, which would require some sort of Aristotelian essence of woman-ness, not just a label one puts on.
So yeah, it’s one of the many contradictions in modern trans ideology.
@jon-nyc said in What is a woman?:
To the actual content, in a way the evasion was just another way of saying ‘whomever claims to be a woman is a woman’ so in that sense it captures their true belief.
However they never say it so explicitly because they also wish to believe that transwomen TRULY ARE women in some deep ontological sense, which would require some sort of Aristotelian essence of woman-ness, not just a label one puts on.
So yeah, it’s one of the many contradictions in modern trans ideology.
Yes, but why is the rest of the world embracing this absurdity?
-
Combination of:
-
People don’t really buy it but don’t want to appear “transphobic”
-
People haven’t thought about it enough to spot the glaring contradictions
-
People have been successfully seduced by the so-called “scientific” justifications of “sex as a spectrum”. Combine this with general ignorance about definitions of sex (biologists base it on gamete size, lay people on chromosomes or gonads or secondary sex characteristics, all of which are more variable - there are XXY and intersex people, but there are no “intermediate” gametes)
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
-
- General confusion about categories, confusing fuzzy boundaries with non-existence of the categories themselves. But this is applied selectively, race and sex don’t exist, yet species and dog breeds and even hills do exist, all of which are subject to the same fuzzy boundary problem.
-
I’ve tried really hard to read the best “scientific” support for trans ideology. Can’t say my search has been exhaustive, but everything I’ve read boils down to one of two things:
-
Intersex people exist, ergo trans ideology.
-
[Arcane but interesting fact about embryology], ergo trans ideology.
Reading these causes many people to fall into categories 4 and 3 above, respectively.
-
-
-
What do you think about what Walsh said?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
And this is why I prefer Walsh's definition vs. the current nonsense...
-
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
What do you think about what Walsh said?
So far very little, though to be fair I haven’t really look into the totality of what Walsh has said on the subject, just skimmed through snippets of PJ Media/Megan Fox’s creation to what Walsh supposedly have said.
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
Not in our current transgender discussion.
Do you feel the same about Walsh’s answer for “what is woman”?
-
Pretty much.
It's a simple, irrefutable answer to an uncomplicated biological question. Anything else is a bizarre social construct superimposed by people desperately seeking acceptance and validation.
Not to mention, being fucked up in the head.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
