There Are Only 2 Genders | Change My Mind - Louder With Crowder - General

[QUOTE=sgman91;52952682]I guess the hard part is that people push really hard for a distinction between sex and gender. Anyone who confuses the two is jumped on, but it seems like, for a lot of transgender people, they are very related concepts. The two can't be separated out nearly so easily. Transitioning one's sex is often a necessary part for a total transition of one's gender to feel complete. [/QUOTE] It is kind of a sticky thing to navigate, for trans and cis people alike, so I won't pretend like it isn't. We're just in a period of time where we have to feel things out and try to be open about concepts that are foreign to us and try to find the proper language and expressions for those concepts. We're in a - forgive the pun - transition period and have been for a good few decades now, where trans people are much more open and comfortable with being open about who they are. So it'll take some time before it's just kind of a fact of existence that trans people also exist and the concepts behind their existence will slowly become a little less confusing as we go. [quote]Are there any cases where a person has dysphoria with their born sex, but agrees with their born gender. So, for example, let's say I was born with the male sex, but felt that I should have been a female, while also feeling that I am a man by gender[/quote] Uhhhh I honestly don't think I've heard of that happening but I can't really say it's not possible. There definitely could be someone out there who prefers a different set of genitalia or other body features but are okay with their perceived gender identity. Though I imagine a feeling like that would definitely be strange to someone who has no real precedent and they'd likely not be very forthcoming about how they're feeling. But yeah, definitely not impossible.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52952682]I guess the hard part is that people push really hard for a distinction between sex and gender. Anyone who confuses the two is jumped on, but it seems like, for a lot of transgender people, they are very related concepts. The two can't be separated out nearly so easily. Transitioning one's sex is often a necessary part for a total transition of one's gender to feel complete.[/quote] The push is so that people stop automatically associating the two with each other. I have a sister - that doesn't mean we're the same person even though we're related, to analogize. Transitioning one's sex is sometimes a necessary part of transition for someone to feel complete -- [I]if[/I] the person in question feels that it's necessary. You're kind of forcing this concept of 'everyone who is transgender must want to change their sex' but that's not really true. [quote]Are there any cases where a person has dysphoria with their born sex, but agrees with their born gender. So, for example, let's say I was born with the male sex, but felt that I should have been a female, while also feeling that I am a man by gender.[/QUOTE] If you feel like you should've been born female but are comfortable with being male then I suppose you could consider yourself transgender, yes; perhaps even trans-sexual. I've not heard of any such cases but I don't think it'd really raise many eyebrows in 'the community'. Edit: Well, I suppose thinking about it some folks could call that out as someone trying to 'fake their way in' but I think that's more because they've fought their whole life against this where you were 'born correct' and so they might feel uncomfortable with you.

[QUOTE=Extronic;52952609]I am a liberal who supports universal healthcare, LGBT rights and all the other stuff, and I don't understand how there can be more than 2 genders, like it literally does not make sense to me. I understand a person can be the opposite gender that they were born or can feel like neither, but I genuinely have trouble comprehending all these new terms that seem invented just so people can tag themselves as unique. Guess I'm just a conservative retard huh[/QUOTE] GLAAD has a pretty good definition of gender and sex [QUOTE] Sex The classification of a person as male or female. At birth, infants are assigned a sex, usually based on the appearance of their external anatomy. (This is what is written on the birth certificate.) A person's sex, however, is actually a combination of bodily characteristics including: chromosomes, hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics. Gender Identity A person's internal, deeply held sense of their gender. For transgender people, their own internal gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. Most people have a gender identity of man or woman (or boy or girl). For some people, their gender identity does not fit neatly into one of those two choices (see non-binary and/or genderqueer below.) Unlike gender expression (see below) gender identity is not visible to others. Gender Expression External manifestations of gender, expressed through a person's name, pronouns, clothing, haircut, behavior, voice, and/or body characteristics. Society identifies these cues as masculine and feminine, although what is considered masculine or feminine changes over time and varies by culture. Typically, transgender people seek to align their gender expression with their gender identity, rather than the sex they were assigned at birth.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52952682] What's the difference between a feminine man and a transgender man who only feels that they ought to be more feminine, but not that they want to transition to being a female sexually? Please don't take any of this as an attack. I want to understand what it means to be transgender.[/QUOTE] A feminine man is comfortable being a man. A transgender man is not. They would want to be called a female, and referred to as she, and be seen as a female. They don't need to go through surgery to achieve that. A feminine man would be fine being called a man. [QUOTE=sgman91;52952682]I guess the hard part is that people push really hard for a distinction between sex and gender. Anyone who confuses the two is jumped on, but it seems like, for a lot of transgender people, they are very related concepts. The two can't be separated out nearly so easily. Transitioning one's sex is often a necessary part for a total transition of one's gender to feel complete.[/quote] It's not though. Lots of trans people don't go through surgery. Just being called the opposite gender and being treated as such is enough to make them feel comfortable living again. This isn't every case, but it's possible to not go through surgery and still have your dysphoria successfully treated.

[quote=sgman91]What's the difference between a feminine man and a transgender man who only feels that they ought to be more feminine, but not that they want to transition to being a female sexually? Please don't take any of this as an attack. I want to understand what it means to be transgender.[/quote] One's a man who was born somewhat feminine looking (and presumably either ignores this feminine-ness or embraces it while retaining that they are nonetheless male in gender). The other is a man who desires to appear or feel more feminine than they presently are.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52952693]It is kind of a sticky thing to navigate, for trans and cis people alike, so I won't pretend like it isn't. We're just in a period of time where we have to feel things out and try to be open about concepts that are foreign to us and try to find the proper language and expressions for those concepts. We're in a - forgive the pun - transition period and have been for a good few decades now, where trans people are much more open and comfortable with being open about who they are. So it'll take some time before it's just kind of a fact of existence that trans people also exist and the concepts behind their existence will slowly become a little less confusing as we go.[/QUOTE] It doesn't feel like that, though. The terms are treated as scientific terms with hard definitions, and anyone who confuses them is wrong and needs to learn the correct terms. I'm not trying to pick on cbb, but they previously said: [QUOTE=cbb]Sex and gender are two different things. You can read up on this just by reading this thread or googling "What is the difference between sex and gender" or something obvious like that. Trans people are not under any illusion about their body. That's the source of the problem. The purpose of HRT is to help the patient deal with their gender dysphoria by altering their body in such a way that it better reflects their gender. Surgeries can be performed in addition to the HRT if the patient feels that they're necessary.[/QUOTE] This paragraph doesn't really make sense to me. If gender is a mind thing and sex is a body thing, then how can one's body (sex) match their gender? Isn't the whole point that you can have any gender/sex combination because they are separate concepts? [QUOTE]Uhhhh I honestly don't think I've heard of that happening but I can't really say it's not possible. There definitely could be someone out there who prefers a different set of genitalia or other body features but are okay with their perceived gender identity. Though I imagine a feeling like that would definitely be strange to someone who has no real precedent and they'd likely not be very forthcoming about how they're feeling. But yeah, definitely not impossible.[/QUOTE] I know it sounds kind of like a silly example, but it really isn't if gender and sex truly are unlinked. It's just one of the many combinations. I don't know why it would be more rare than any other combination. Thank you for your answers. [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52952723]One's a man who was born somewhat feminine looking (and presumably either ignores this feminine-ness or embraces it while retaining that they are nonetheless male in gender). The other is a man who desires to appear or feel more feminine than they presently are.[/QUOTE] Is wanting to appear more feminine the same as wanting to be a different gender? I don't see how it could be. Why isn't the person just a man who wants to look like more of a feminine man, just like some men want to look more masculine, with big muscles? [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] I think part of my confusion is the purpose of sex-reassignment surgery. Is it for the person having the surgery to feel more comfortable with their body (this is what I've always thought) or is it so the world around them will more correctly identify their gender without being corrected?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52952727]This paragraph doesn't really make sense to me. If gender is a mind thing and sex is a body thing, then how can one's body (sex) match their gender? Isn't the whole point that you can have any gender/sex combination because they are separate concepts?[/quote] You can, yeah. The thing is that gender isn't [I]entirely[/I] a mind thing - not for everyone. Some people feel like they need to be addressed differently in order to feel comfortable with their social identity. Some people feel the need to change their body to match their internal identity. Some just want permission to be more feminine/masculine than their 'public sex' would normally allow/'announce' them. There's a range here of problems. It all falls under the 'umbrella of transgender' but there's a whole spectrum of people there with individual problems that would normally beg for further subcategorization. To (and I love my analogies) analogize: There isn't just 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual'. There's also bi-sexual, asexual, poly-sexual, omni-sexual... we'd still classify all those as 'sexual preference' even though they'd probably naturally fill into separate categories even though they all address a particular singular subject of who is attracted to what and by how much. [quote]I know it sounds kind of like a silly example, but it really isn't if gender and sex truly are unlinked. It's just one of the many combinations. I don't know why it would be more rare than any other combination.[/QUOTE] Well, the reason it'd be more rare, I'd think, is that most people don't have a 'feeling for how they were born'. It's more that 'this is how I am' versus 'this is how I should be'.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52952727]Is wanting to appear more feminine the same as wanting to be a different gender? I don't see how it could be. Why isn't the person just a man who wants to look like more of a feminine man, just like some men want to look more masculine, with big muscles?[/QUOTE] No, they aren't the same, you're correct. If a man wants to look more feminine but are not trans, then they just want to look more feminine similar to your other example of wanting to look more masculine. Here's a way of putting it. Imagine both the trans man and the man who wants to look feminine could instantly look completely female. The trans man would still be uncomfortable with being called "he" or "him". They would want to be called "she", and "her". On the other hand, the feminine man would be fine being called "he" and "him" because he's not transgender. He's comfortable with being called a man. Hopefully that makes sense.

[QUOTE=kariko;52952743]No, they aren't the same, you're correct. If a man wants to look more feminine but are not trans, then they just want to look more feminine similar to your other example of wanting to look more masculine. Here's a way of putting it. Imagine both the trans man and the man who wants to look feminine could instantly look completely female. The trans man would still be uncomfortable with being called "he" or "him". They would want to be called "she", and "her". On the other hand, the feminine man would be fine being called "he" and "him" because he's not transgender. He's comfortable with being called a man. Hopefully that makes sense.[/QUOTE] That makes sense, and is what I would have thought previously. Firgof Umbra had confused me a bit with: [QUOTE]One's a man who was born somewhat feminine looking (and presumably either ignores this feminine-ness or embraces it while retaining that they are nonetheless male in gender). [B]The other is a man who desires to appear or feel more feminine than they presently are.[/B][/QUOTE] It was probably just a misunderstanding.

[quote=sgman91]I think part of my confusion is the purpose of sex-reassignment surgery. Is it for the person having the surgery to feel more comfortable with their body (this is what I've always thought) or is it so the world around them will more correctly identify their gender without being corrected?[/quote] Then this answer should clear it up for you, I'd hope: That depends on the person. Some people do it to feel more comfortable with their body - others might do it so that the world 'sees them for who they are'. But the latter doesn't necessarily require surgery so much as it does patience and occasional correction; in sum, it might not be worth all the hooplah to go through sex-reassignment surgery to do something that could be corrected with words and so forth for some. How much the person doesn't match their body and how much their body announces to the world that they're something they don't identify as is a large range - as is how tolerant/accepting the world they live in is to change how it views them to match how they'd like to see themselves. There's also further conflating problems of 'They'd like to get surgery because their partner is into their gender - but not their sex' (some people do have hangups about these things, unfortunately for both parties) and other such things - but those are usually less of a focus to begin with.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951470] Well I don't believe in the idea of protected classes, but instead the idea of equal opportunity. Also you need to point out that the civil rights act is to prevent businesses that do [b]public[/b] accommodations from discriminating, and that is in their for a specific reason. You do realize that Jim Crow laws was the government forcing businesses to segregate right?[/QUOTE] Protected classes are groups defined under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that private businesses and state governments are not allowed to discriminate against, including "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin". Protected classes and Hate Speech laws have nothing to do with restricting freedom of speech. In the same way that laws regarding libel and slander protect a person from personal, financial or reputational damage due to false accusations, protected classes and Hate Speech laws protect individuals from personal, financial or reputational damage caused by claims targetting one of the protected classes. Neither has anything to do with restricting what a person is allowed to believe or say, they do however create a punitive action against language that is intended to harm or otherwise denigrate an individual based on their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. That's why the Westboro Baptist Church can legally stand outside funerals and condemn dead gay soldiers, but if someone was to go up to a gay soldier and start shouting epithets at them they would be arrested for hate speech. And if you went on a street corner and started yelling at a black man and calling him "nigger", he could beat you up and not face any legal consequences, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words]on the basis that you were instigating the fight[/url]. In neither of those cases is someones freedom of speech being infringed. The civil rights act of 1964 didn't just undo Jim Crow laws, it included punitive action against the state government and private businesses who discriminated against people based on those protected classes. The federal government didn't force businesses to segregate, private businesses in the south were already segregated before the civil rights act of 1964 created a punitive action against them. There's nothing that says that only minorities can be affected by hate speech either, [url=http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/white-teacher-wins-350000-for-discrimination/?utm_campaign=2328471&utm_content=13593319476&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Emailvision]here's a case of a white teacher winning a discrimination lawsuit against a black principal[/url]. It just so happens that someone saying "all men are sexist" or something similiar is also covered under freedom of speech because it isn't targeting an individual, just like in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church. There is no double standard here, no one is having their freedom of speech silenced. You probably just don't hear about these cases because you only read posts on /r/thedonald or /pol/ or wherever it is you get your cherrypicked articles. [b]To say that you "don't believe in the idea of protected classes" implies that you wish to return to the days when businesses were allowed to discriminate against black people. I'm going to assume that you are simply ignorant of the laws of your own country and of its history rather than conclude that you believe black people should be discriminated against.[/b]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52952727] I know it sounds kind of like a silly example, but it really isn't if gender and sex truly are unlinked. It's just one of the many combinations. I don't know why it would be more rare than any other combination. Thank you for your answers. [/QUOTE] I don't think it's a silly example. Just not something I've personally seen before. Someone else might have different experiences. Considering I'm hiding my own gender identity in a household of republican conservatives in south Texas, my view of other trans or gender questioning individuals is extremely limited to the people I encounter online. So it's gonna be a little more narrow than some other people.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52952083]I actually never posted that video. :v: I don't post everything Crowder makes. There are even some videos I don't like. Like this one would be a example.[/QUOTE] What do you disagree about? Like what crowder vids have you watched and diagreed with?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52951721]if you go on a corner in downtown LA screaming Nigger at the top of your lungs, what do you think is going to happen?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tudd;52951749]Not going to get charged a hate crime I know that.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=AtomicSans;52951758]-Screaming NIGGER -Won't get arrested :huh:[/QUOTE] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1588084]Can't make this shit up[/url]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951586]I am for equal opportunity to the max instead of trying to socially coerce a result when possible.[/QUOTE] do you think black people have equal opportunity? is the disproportionate poverty facing blacks a product of poor life choices?

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52958301]do you think black people have equal opportunity? is the disproportionate poverty facing blacks a product of poor life choices?[/QUOTE] I feel like the notion that things like affirmative action are 'anti-white' or that there is a large conspiracy to silence right-wing 'truthseekers' stems or push forward an [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1579736&p=52714327&viewfull=1#post52714327]evil communist agenda[/url] comes from this- the belief that minority groups are not at all disadvantaged in society and that anyone who says so must be lying/fabricating something for personal gain. I cannot see any other way that someone would believe and be able to rationalize a belief that consists of large bodies of academic institutions, not to mention scientists and doctors in medicine, neuroscience and [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1579143&p=52696054#post52696054]environmental science[/url], all working in tandem to lie/fake/overplay concerns or coverup wrongdoing (which is what is necessary for climate change/trangenderism/etc to be a grand leftist conspiracy) and must be constantly questioned, while politicans and political pundits who have been shown to repeatedly use disengenious tactics and misleading or outright fabricated claims are to be immediately trusted instead unless proven otherwise. It's the foundation of any conspiracy theory, that the government/elite/establishment are not to be trusted, and that everything they say must therefore be a lie and part of the conspiracy. Not that government/elite/establishment means anything, because the believer can define anyone they want to be as a part of the establishment- political activists, college students, random people on the internet- while also defining certain people who would normally be considered a part of the elite- billionaires, politicians, the president- as not being a part of the establishment because it doesn't suit them. In any case, by doing so, they can push a biased political agenda while (in their own mind) being a neutral voice of reason. It's what you see this with certain YouTubers, like Chowder, Dave Rubin or Sargon. They start off by essentially being comedy channels making fun of stupid people (e.g. "the crazy SJWs") and use that to sucker in people who think that they're too smart to ever be manipulated, and then they gradually shift into ranting about the horrors of creeping 'Cultural Marxism' and the 'SJW' threat, cherrypicking examples to make it seem as though everyone at any university is being assailed by 'culture warriors' who are going to destroy all of western society, and both them and the viewer are the only ones smart enough to realize it. I know this because, for about six months, I bought into this crap, before I actually went to university and realized that nobody actually gives a shit about the 'SJWs' (and people who act like that actually do exist on campus) except extremely paranoid right-wing people who are equally as crazy as the 'SJWs' and are looking for something to allow them to act like a victim (again, just like the 'SJWs').

[QUOTE=cbb;52951809]What the people in this thread are interested in are the moral arguments, not the legal ones. It isn't relevant to anyone in this thread except you if there's a precedent for the legality of hate speech. What astounds me is that you started out in this thread decrying the bills you cited for limiting your speech and yet you're now arguing that your speech isn't limited at all in the United States. Really makes you think.[/QUOTE] Epic zinger, but really makes you think about the fact that freedom of speech is freedom from govermental prosecution. [editline]8th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52951832]I do I'm just honestly tired with your trying shit. It's two faced, disingenuous, and impossible to believe. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but you're ignorant of the concept of protected classes to the point where you literally don't understand why people are upset. And you've never faced any form of hardship that involves you being discriminated against so you're not really fit to be the one arguing this shit in the first place due to your stifling lack of perspective. I mean your very existence on this site is contrary to your arguments. You aren't granted freedom of speech here. You're limited, but you, YOU specifically, have a pass from the team here as a protected class because many people here are unable to deal with you as a rational adult. People have utterly lost their patience with you. From you routinely posting Project Veritas's verifiable lies, posting Crowder every chance you get despite him being a highly flawed, disingenuous and poor debater. I don't think your defense of freedom of speech is genuine, because it really just seems to be about what you, and your ilk can get away with. You're not worried about protecting people like Colin Kaepernick from the wrath of the literal fucking president trying to silence him, no, you're worried about neo nazis being told they can't be publicly inciting racism.[/QUOTE] Maddening. Its like everybody else gives Tudd attention. If people like you claim are indeed sick of Tudd and his shitposting extravaganza, what the fuck are you doing in this thread? Just to suffer? While Tudd plays you like a damn fiddle and entertains the likes of me with his silly arguments against your walls of text.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;52958384]Epic zinger, but really makes you think about the fact that freedom of speech is freedom from govermental prosecution.[/QUOTE] It isn't really possible to protect someone from all social consequences caused by the things they say because then you'd be restricting the freedom of other people. Imagine you were the manager of a business and one of your employees started leading racist tirades in the middle of your store, it will make your company look bad and people won't want to shop there anymore, but you aren't allowed to fire that person because the government is forcing you to protect the employee's freedom of speech. Not to mention, that in practice a malicious government could be selective of just whose 'freedom of speech' they decide to protect, meaning that anyone aside from a select few privileged individuals could quite literally have no freedom at all under the guise of protecting 'freedom of speech'. Such was the case under real-world communist regimes, which claimed to be protecting the rights of everyone by silencing their political opposition. That's why we make the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights]distinct between negative and positive rights[/url]. Positive rights are things the government does FOR you, negative rights protect you FROM the government.

[QUOTE=Zyler;52958397]It isn't really possible to protect someone from all social consequences caused by the things they say because then you'd be restricting the freedom of other people. Imagine you were the manager of a business and one of your employees started leading racist tirades in the middle of your store, it will make your company look bad and people won't want to shop there anymore, but you aren't allowed to fire that person because the government is forcing you to protect the employee's freedom of speech. Not to mention, that in practice a malicious government could be selective of just whose 'freedom of speech' they decide to protect, meaning that anyone aside from a select few privileged individuals could quite literally have no freedom at all under the guise of protecting 'freedom of speech'. Such was the case under real-world communist regimes, which claimed to be protecting the rights of everyone by silencing their political opposition. That's why we make the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights]distinct between negative and positive rights[/url]. Positive rights are things the government does FOR you, negative rights protect you FROM the government.[/QUOTE] I dont exactly understand what are you trying to tell me. I didnt say that business owner cannot fire you, only that the government cant fine/arrest/jail you, which is what i meant as a reply. That is exactly what the freedom of speech is about in America, yet people fail to recognize that.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;52958404]I dont exactly understand what are you trying to tell me. I didnt say that business owner cannot fire you, only that the government cant fine/arrest/jail you, which is what i meant as a reply. That is exactly what the freedom of speech is about in America, yet people fail to recognize that.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I thought you were criticising cbb for implying that freedom of speech was only freedom from government prosecution, not simply stating that as a fact.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;52958404]I didnt say that business owner cannot fire you, only that the government cant fine/arrest/jail you, which is what i meant as a reply.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure I haven't disagreed with this in this thread. The reasoning I was arguing with Tudd was because he was using the New York Bill which granted transgender people the status of protected class as proof of his free speech being restricted by the government. Edit: On a second reading I think you might actually be making the same criticism of Tudd that I am by pointing this out and not pointing out an inconsistency in my argument.

[QUOTE=Zyler;52958363]I feel like the notion that things like affirmative action are 'anti-white' or that there is a large conspiracy to silence right-wing 'truthseekers' stems or push forward an [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1579736&p=52714327&viewfull=1#post52714327]evil communist agenda[/url] comes from this- the belief that minority groups are not at all disadvantaged in society and that anyone who says so must be lying/fabricating something for personal gain.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't put it like that. I would say that people are against affirmative action because racial identity is a horrible way to figure out who's actually disadvantaged. There are LOTS of white people who are in just as bad a starting position as lots of black people, but racially focused affirmative action ignores this. It favors a middle class black guy over a poverty stricken white guy when the white guy is almost certainly more in need of extra help. It makes race, not need, the determining factor. [editline]8th December 2017[/editline] That also ignores the more fundamental problems of letting anyone get a position based on something other than ability (like black people having massively higher drop out rates from high level universities because the academic standard is lower for minorities).

[QUOTE=sgman91;52958841]I wouldn't put it like that. I would say that people are against affirmative action because racial identity is a horrible way to figure out who's actually disadvantaged. There are LOTS of white people who are in just as bad a starting position as lots of black people, but racially focused affirmative action ignores this. It favors a middle class black guy over a poverty stricken white guy when the white guy is almost certainly more in need of extra help. It makes race, not need, the determining factor. [editline]8th December 2017[/editline] That also ignores the more fundamental problems of letting anyone get a position based on something other than ability (like black people having massively higher drop out rates from high level universities because the academic standard is lower for minorities).[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.theroot.com/everything-whites-think-about-affirmative-action-is-wro-1797675386]The majority of affirmative action goes towards economically disadvantaged white people, mainly women[/url] [QUOTE]While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.[/QUOTE] It's a myth that only a person's minorities status gets considered when it comes to entry requirements of a university, there are many grants avaliable to people based on economic status. All of these factors are considered when it comes to affirmative action, so the situation you're using, a (non-disadvantaged) middle-class African american getting consideration while a (genuinely disadvantaged) poor white person not getting help doesn't/shouldn't happen, it isn't the goal of affirmative action- nor is it how current affirmative action policies operate, in reality a persons economic status is considered to determine whether/what kind of assistance they receive. That's not to say that affirmative action is anything more than a bandaid solution, it doesn't address the underlying causes of social and economic division within society. There's also the fact that, [url=https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/10/30/survey-draws-attention-white-perceptions-affirmative-action]in the states where affirmative action has been banned[/url], the number of white people who have been admitted into universities has not increased. There are no disadvantaged white people who are not getting into university who would otherwise get in if it were not for rich, non-disadvantaged African Americans taking their place. [QUOTE]And there is evidence that white people are not losing admissions slots due to affirmative action. Look at what happens when affirmative action is eliminated: in states that have banned the consideration of race in admissions -- such as California and Michigan -- white enrollment at highly competitive colleges did not go up after the bans were put in place. (Enrollment of Asian-Americans grew substantially, however, and that of African-Americans fell sharply.)[/QUOTE] In fact, Universities aren't even able to get enough people to fill enrollment positions in the United States- that's why the number of enrolled Asian-Americans grew substantially, the majority of Asian-Americans are first or second generation immigrants (hence why they perform better in tests) and [url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/12/new-report-shows-dependence-us-graduate-programs-foreign-students]the vast majority of many American university classes are made up of international students.[/url] They keep having to bring people in from overseas because there aren't enough American students to fill all of the places in classes.

why is it so hard to accept that when someone feels very much mentally that that person isn't male or female, that you should respect their views? First of all what impact does it have on you, and secondly you obviously can't place yourself in their perspective so why judge

[QUOTE=uitham;52959816]why is it so hard to accept that when someone feels very much mentally that that person isn't male or female, that you should respect their views? First of all what impact does it have on you, and secondly you obviously can't place yourself in their perspective so why judge[/QUOTE] "being decent" is a leftist position now.

Really good video, it was nice to see how some people who disagreed were willing to actually sit down and have a conversation and not just yell at each other. You can see why they do just yell though because sitting down and actually discussing their beliefs how easily it falls apart (the second person that is).

[QUOTE=Proj3ct_ZeRo;52960450]Really good video, it was nice to see how some people who disagreed were willing to actually sit down and have a conversation and not just yell at each other. You can see why they do just yell though because sitting down and actually discussing their beliefs how easily it falls apart (the second person that is).[/QUOTE] Being cordial is such a pathetically low bar to set and it becomes immediately irrelevant when you look at how Crowder deals with gender in other videos. It's like putting up the guise of being a genuine contrarian poster then behind the scenes bragging about how dumb the people you argue against are.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52959886]"being decent" is a leftist position now.[/QUOTE] Given the leaders that the GOP have elected, I have to agree.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52960474]Being cordial is such a pathetically low bar to set and it becomes immediately irrelevant when you look at how Crowder deals with gender in other videos. It's like putting up the guise of being a genuine contrarian poster then behind the scenes bragging about how dumb the people you argue against are.[/QUOTE] Your right, its a terribly low bar to set and it is rarely met. Also I haven't watched any other videos by this guy so on this video in this case I think it was well put together and didn't end in a shit fight like usual.

I have no problem with non-binary "gender", if you don't feel like either that's fine. But when there's 50+ types of non-binarys then I start to have an issue.