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

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950630]Just doesn't seem this system you speak highly of actually stops the problem. Just makes it go underground but it can and quite often becomes a bigger issue in the future if you want to take a brief look on the history of censorship.[/QUOTE] but you are describing exactly what has happened in America? the place with the freedom to say whatever, that you hold so dearly. [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52950630]You are for a authoritarian/totalitarian system then since it is the only way to implement such a policy. [/QUOTE] you are like one post away from declaring yourself a sovereign citizen [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BANNED USER;52950639]What do you gain by limiting the rights of people you don't like Tudd? [editline]5th December 2017[/editline] By the way, [i]nobody[/i] is trying to limit your rights in any way, shape, or form by choosing to identify as something you don't want to understand or comprehend.[/QUOTE] I just don't get why Tudd is so against being a good person. Have some more compassion my man, why do you have to argue for the rights of bigots?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950630]You are for a authoritarian/totalitarian system then since it is the only way to implement such a policy.[/QUOTE] Such hyperbole isn't really necessary is it. You can disagree with those ideas and try to justify it, but don't be disingenuous.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950666]Such hyperbole isn't really necessary is it. You can disagree with those ideas and try to justify it, but don't be disingenuous.[/QUOTE] The best descriptor is that it's like a cult. He won't be swayed by reality or common sense. He considers himself an intellectual and praises rational debate, but himself spews rhetoric and talks in circles and says little more than nonsense, and thinks that counts. There is this unwavering dedication to something that is very plainly not wholesome. He's the victim of a cult

There's absolutely no reason not to protect people from discrimination with hate speech laws. The free speech argument is pretty flimsy. There is no worthwhile contribution to the free market of ideas I could make by calling someone a nigger, it's just being a dick

Disingenuous should be the title for Tudd. admins make it happen.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950620]I actually I think our system is better in principle and I am much happier living under it since it grants the most amount of freedom for others and I. Also those countries still have problems with bigots, and actually seem to talk about the rise of them a lot, so I guess it doesn't really work when you really think about it.[/QUOTE] Why? Because it allows legit terrible people to spout their hate-speach? [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Kiwi;52950477]I can appreciate the question and the debate but something that really irks me is the amount of interruptions and the assertive nature that Crowder does. I would not want to debate with that person at all.[/QUOTE] It should be painfully obvious that people like Crowder and his fans aren't actually in it to properly debate and listen to the other side

why are so many conservatives obsessed with transpeople?

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950666]Such hyperbole isn't really necessary is it. You can disagree with those ideas and try to justify it, but don't be disingenuous.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't call it disingenuous. Narrow-minded more like. Like, if you were to build a time machine and bring a person back from the fifties, this is how you'd expect them to act. They'd just call you a communist and call it quits.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52950685]why are so many conservatives obsessed with transpeople?[/QUOTE] because they make them uncomfortable for living their lives

Reminder that Crowder is a complete embarrassment that will challenge someone to a debate, and then weasel out of it when it becomes clear that he couldn't possibly make himself look good in it. Weird how Tudd seems to like his show so much.

[QUOTE=cbb;52950510]Yes. It's just as disparaging as believing that black people are less than human. In some ways it might be even worse because it implies that non-cis people do not exist, that they are mentally unstable for identifying outside the norm.[/QUOTE] This doesn't really make sense at all. Like, really, "just as disparaging as believing that black people are less than human"? That is a hugely false equivalency. There's a huge difference between believing there are two genders and going around saying black people are "less than human", and saying that the two genders thing is somehow [I]worse[/I], if anything, really downplays that aspect of racism. There's nothing inherently harmful in the concept of believing there are only two genders. It certainly doesn't "imply that non-cis people don't exist". Transgenderism (a non-cis concept) still falls under the gender binary, and as such it's a perfectly possible (and somewhat common) belief for someone to believe that, while transgenderism is legitimate, nonbinaryism is not. I, myself, largely subscribe to that belief. I fully believe transgenderism is a legitimate concept and have no issues with it. On the other hand, I generally have a hard time believing non-binary genders or "genderfluid" and such are real, legitimate ways the human mind can work. The thing is, though, I don't have a problem with that, either. I acknowledge I'm no expert on gender identity and as such I don't go around trying to tell people their identity is somehow wrong. If someone identifies as non-binary, I fully respect that. I'll call them whatever pronouns they ask me to. I certainly don't think they're "mentally unstable" nor do I imply such a thing. I know I could be completely wrong about the concept and thus I don't act like a dick about it. I find it hard to acknowledge the idea that, despite my acceptance of people who identify as nonbinary, I (or many others with similar beliefs) am somehow a "bigot" just because I don't completely believe in the concept of nonbinaryism itself.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950595]I am actually not aware of previous legislation in America that specifically targeted certain groups for protection against the first admendment. I know plenty of other countries that do such a thing, but I think in principle they are wrong and largely don't eliminate cases/the issue they set out to stop. You can't kill and idea; and restricting speech actually has a tendency for groups to push back in the long term in unexpected ways when we look at history.[/QUOTE] Are you serious? It's called the fucking [I]Civil Rights Act[/I]. Have you never heard of the term [I]protected classes[/I]? If an employer routinely and consistently calls a black coworker a nigger, and the coworker decides to sue for racial discrimination, suddenly holy shit! The government is involved, [I]telling[/I] the employer that [I]they can't say that without facing legal consequences for their speech[/I]. All anti-discrimination legislation implicitly involves speech. These laws are the same type of thing - if a transgender (or non-binary) employee gets routinely teased and bullied by their employer, who doesn't believe in their gender, they are [I]being discriminated against[/I]. If the employer doesn't stop, they could face legal consequences. If you call someone a racial slur, or a religious slur, or any other type of slurs, that's evidence of discrimination. Would you really consider it a "violation of free speech" for me to be punished by the law for repeatedly and consistently using racial slurs against my black employees? Or should that be okay, too? [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52950605]Actually from what I can gather from this post, you just fundamentally don't believe in freedom of speech like I do. There is nothing disingenuous going on here actually. I do have to say tho; if you can't figure out why inciting violence through speech is a line crossed, but discriminatory speech is okay, we will just have a fundamental problem of talking through each other. I can tell you it is as simple as hateful ideas and racials slurs are not going to kill you, but calls to action can lead others to physically harm you. Also it doesn't matter if I am compelled to say something or compelled to not say it. That is infringing on the principle of freedom of speech. If I can't say something without a punishment, it is still infringing on my ability to vocalize ideas. Also using private company examples isn't relevant at all to what I am getting at for people using those. We're talking about the government enacting laws over this, not what a private company can do to you. Trust me, that private company can totally fire you for all I care. Getting a government fine is what I and many other Americans have an issue with.[/QUOTE] Oh, okay, got it. If a black employer told you "we don't promote whities, get out cracker," that'd be A-OK because words don't hurt. If you got a really promising job offer, and went to the interview, but the trans interviewer took one look at you and said "nah, fuck off cis male scum, get out" it'd be A-OK, because there's only a line with [I]violence[/I], not discrimination. These private companies shouldn't ever remotely be punished for doing this kind of thing, right? The free market will fix it, because people will just choose not to shop at those companies, right? That worked out great for black people and women in the past, right? Come the fuck on. The irony is that you'll call liberals and leftists "too idealistic" and then spout shit like this - that [I]all types of discrimination are protected by free speech on principle[/I], and that anti-discrimination legislation is a violation of free speech, but [I]only if it is the government[/I] doing so. Employer? Private entity? Feel free to not hire blacks anymore, on principle that's fine.

Posting stupid, wrong shit like this is awful and shouldn't be tolerated on this site, and it's a complete embarrassment that the individuals who keep posting it are tolerated here. I'll literally talk to someone all day to show them why gender and sex are different, why there isn't a gender-binary, why transpeople deserve our respect, why being transgender isn't a mental illness, etc. I just won't talk to someone who won't listen.

In the past year or so, I have yet to see a reference to "Free Speech" that wasn't used as "Freedom to hate and discriminate" Maybe it's because no one has to it bring up Freedom of Speech when we respect and treat everyone like human beings.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950630]You are for a authoritarian/totalitarian system then since it is the only way to implement such a policy.[/QUOTE] you voted for trump, a man who literally wants to shut down media corporations for not reporting positively about him, and you criticize other people for being pro authoritarianism/totalitarianism aight

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950599]You said gender is based on sex, referring to anatomical sex I assume. And even "gender is a social construct" people don't tend to deny the influence of sex in gender. That doesn't make them indistinct. [/quote] What Lambeth said was, "It astounds me how many conservative dumbasses out there don't understand the difference between fucking sex and gender.... ....This isn't that complicated". It was a very vague statement, when in fact shown to be complicated and while can be confusing (which is likely a ploy by chowder in this video), and similar. Let's take Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition which was in that link. [quote]gender [jen′dər] Etymology: L, genus, kind 1 the classification of the sex of a person into male, female, or ambivalent. 2 the specific sex of a person. See also sex. Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.[/quote] and looking up what sex is using that same website [quote]sex Etymology: L, sexus, sex 1 a classification of male or female based on many criteria, among them anatomical and chromosomal characteristics. Compare gender. 2 coitus.[/quote] Am I wrong while I can see the differences, that I can see the similarities? Now to be double clear, I used based on as in main ingredient, doesn't mean exclusively based on. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950599] What? [/quote] honestly, I was confused for a second or two and wanted to make effort to clarify. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950599] Vaguely appealing to expert opinion is pretty bad when you give contradicting accounts of expert opinion. [/quote] I made a mistake, "definitions not definition" What each book, (unless I'm wrong), that website was citing from involved sex to describe gender, I feel like I'm repeating myself. What common ground they did have matched my original statement. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950599] What's the purpose of the contradictory statement if not to discredit something? [/quote] discredit the statement of "x is different to y, it's simple". For instance, "cars are different to suvs, it's simple", I get can get confused. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950599] If someone says the earth is flat and you give him a source saying it's round, you did it to discredit his idea. [/quote] If someone says, "you couldn't fake the moon landing because the light would have to be perfectly straight which is not in studio lights", and I would say, "you could perhaps get straight enough light with today's modern high powered LEDs, here's how". I'm discrediting part of the statement, not all of the statement. Lambeth's statement on the select conservatives being dumbasses, sure, being not that complicated to tell the difference between sex and gender, no. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950599] Cite which part, exactly by the way? That researchers often define things before they head into their studies? [URL]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4807860/[/URL] here's one i got just from typing in gender identity into ncbi. In the background section they give a basic tl;dr. If it's on gender identity, the DSM-V straight up talks about it and there's plenty of papers talking about non-binary [URL="https://www.academia.edu/1468940/Exploring_gender_identity_and_community_among_three_groups_of_transgender_individuals_in_the_United_States_MTFs_FTMs_and_Genderqueers"]people[/URL] if that's what you're interested in. That one is pretty interesting too, non-binary identities seem most common amongst people born female. [quote] This is great, you don't need to cite the source I'll look through it when I get the time, thank you. I haven't read up on DSM-V. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950599] A lot of people get pretty frustrated, some with good reasons. Society actually cares quite a bit about these things so it directly impacts trans/NB people quite a lot. [/QUOTE] I would prefer the world have more empathy, dispassionate form of caring, and be able to take some criticism while hugging afterwards then the current state people live in.

[QUOTE=DarklytheGreat;52950782]you voted for trump, a man who literally wants to shut down media corporations for not reporting positively about him, and you criticize other people for being pro authoritarianism/totalitarianism aight[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.dictionary.com/browse/delusional]Dictionary.com[/url] actually updated the first example for the use of the word "delusional" recently, and boy are you guys gonna love this one, especially you Tudd! DELUSIONAL [dih-loo-zhuh-nl] adjective 1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: [I][B]Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.[/B][/I] 2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: [I]He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him. [/I] [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] Tudd you and the party you stand with are so [i]objectively wrong[/i] with your positions, that actual [i]dictionaries[/i] are using your blunders as examples. Honestly, tell me how it [i]really[/i] makes you feel.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52950758]Posting stupid, wrong shit like this is awful and shouldn't be tolerated on this site, and it's a complete embarrassment that the individuals who keep posting it are tolerated here.[/QUOTE] Yup, another [del]inflammatory[/del] [I]meaningful[/I] thread where Tudd pokes everyone with a slightly bigger stick than last time just to see how much [del]horrible hateful rhetoric[/del] [I]differing opinions[/I] he can seep into this community while getting away with it. In this episode, Tudd posts [del]a hateful video against genderqueer people[/del] [I]a thoughtful look at a minority opinion[/I] and then [del][B]literally argues that the First Amendment protects his right to discriminate against said people[/B][/del] [I]gives insightful discourse about free speech in America[/I], as usual [del]conveniently ignoring all posts that sufficiently challenge his argument in order to perpetuate the thread and his rhetoric[/del] [I]providing a differing opinion from the majority so that we can have a healthy debate[/I]. Nothing wrong here, [del]content that openly spreads hate against genderqueer and transgender people[/del] [I]meaningful content[/I] and [del]disingenuously pretending to argue against said content while simultaneously defending it and spreading it[/del] [I]differing opinions[/I] are of course welcome on Facepunch.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950605]Actually from what I can gather from this post, you just fundamentally don't believe in freedom of speech like I do. There is nothing disingenuous going on here actually. I do have to say tho; if you can't figure out why inciting violence through speech is a line crossed, but discriminatory speech is okay, we will just have a fundamental problem of talking through each other. I can tell you it is as simple as hateful ideas and racials slurs are not going to kill you, but calls to action can lead others to physically harm you. Also it doesn't matter if I am compelled to say something or compelled to not say it. That is infringing on the principle of freedom of speech. If I can't say something without a punishment, it is still infringing on my ability to vocalize ideas. Also using private company examples isn't relevant at all to what I am getting at for people using those. We're talking about the government enacting laws over this, not what a private company can do to you. Trust me, that private company can totally fire you for all I care. Getting a government fine is what I and many other Americans have an issue with.[/QUOTE] This post perfectly showws how disconnected you are from what is happening in the world. Either by choice or by..no, by choice. Dude, in every every EVERY big attrocity that happened in history the first thing that changed before any "action" was taking place was speech. And you and I know EXACTLY why you are advocating for protecting the changes we saw in the last few years. God what a coward you are.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ocsid;52950737]Like, really, "just as disparaging as believing that black people are less than human"? That is a hugely false equivalency. There's a huge difference between believing there are two genders and going around saying black people are "less than human", and saying that the two genders thing is somehow [I]worse[/I], if anything, really downplays that aspect of racism.[/quote] You're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that one was worse than the other on the whole. I said that in some ways, one is worse than the other and I then went on to give examples of some of those ways. [quote]There's nothing inherently harmful in the concept of believing there are only two genders. It certainly doesn't "imply that non-cis people don't exist". Transgenderism (a non-cis concept) still falls under the gender binary, and as such it's a perfectly possible (and somewhat common) belief for someone to believe that, while transgenderism is legitimate, nonbinaryism is not.[/quote] In the context of this video (which is what we're talking about) when Steven Crowder says that there are only two genders, he is implying that being transgender is a mental disease and that people who identify as transgender are invalid. They aren't transgender, there's just something wrong with them. You can only be born male or female and transitioning is impossible because you aren't actually transgender, you just think you are. This is what I mean when I say "imply that non-cis people don't exist". [quote]I, myself, largely subscribe to that belief. I fully believe transgenderism is a legitimate concept and have no issues with it. On the other hand, I generally have a hard time believing non-binary genders or "genderfluid" and such are real, legitimate ways the human mind can work. The thing is, though, I don't have a problem with that, either. I acknowledge I'm no expert on gender identity and as such I don't go around trying to tell people their identity is somehow wrong. If someone identifies as non-binary, I fully respect that. I'll call them whatever pronouns they ask me to. I certainly don't think they're "mentally unstable" nor do I imply such a thing. I know I could be completely wrong about the concept and thus I don't act like a dick about it. I find it hard to acknowledge the idea that, despite my acceptance of people who identify as nonbinary, I (or many others with similar beliefs) am somehow a "bigot" just because I don't completely believe in the concept of nonbinaryism itself.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't go as far as to call you a bigot because you choose to act politely and accommodate people that identify as non-binary, but I would say that your belief that the way they identify is illegitimate is bigoted. To illustrate, I want you to imagine a world where we know for a fact that being gay/trans/whatever you want is 100% your choice. There is no scientific basis for it, no one is born that way, they choose to no longer be straight/cis/etc. For what reason would you claim that the way they feel and the way they choose to live their life is invalid? What harm are they bringing to others or even themselves? What argument could you mount against their life choices that would make the way they identify themselves illegitimate? Why must someone's gender identity be based entirely on science?

[QUOTE=cbb;52950853] Why must someone's gender identity be based entirely on science?[/QUOTE] Um...Because science is about proven facts? O.o I mean, yeah, science is a constantly changing field and studies and facts change over time. If it isn't proven now maybe it will be proven later. Who knows? I got no problem treating people like people no matter who they are, but I like provable facts based on claims. If humanity didn't move beyond that phase long ago we'd still be looking at rain storms and be praying to god to "stop the Angels crying" in 2017. I think there is probably a middle ground to this where people can discuss this more freely, if you can get people who aren't going to freak out on both sides and get some data to back things up.

[QUOTE=Ithon;52950822]What Lambeth said was, "It astounds me how many conservative dumbasses out there don't understand the difference between fucking sex and gender.... ....This isn't that complicated". It was a very vague statement, when in fact shown to be complicated and while can be confusing (which is likely a ploy by chowder in this video), and similar. Let's take Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition which was in that link. [/QUOTE] "Guys it is a complicated issue!" And then you proceed to pull out some dictionary entries that don't even fully illustrate your point. Am I the only one thinking that this is a bit contradicting? Like, as if fighting with dictionary entries could solve anything.

[QUOTE=john711;52950859]Um...Because science is about proven facts? O.o I mean Yeah science is a constantly changing field and things change over time, If it isnt proven now maybe it will be proven later. Who knows?[/QUOTE] So because science is fact, all gender expression must be based on it? Does every other facet of human identity have to be based on science as well? Nothing can be left up to choice because science is fact? I don't understand your line of thinking.

[QUOTE=Killuah;52950865]"Guys it is a complicated issue!" And then you proceed to pull out some dictionary entries that don't even fully illustrate your point. Am I the only one thinking that this is a bit contradicting? Like, as if fighting with dictionary entries could solve anything.[/QUOTE] I definitely feel like it's a complicated issue. There a lot of poor arguments on both sides and one of the worst is this stupid dictionary crap. It would be so much easier to learn about each argument if there weren't so many obnoxious personalities in the mix.

I was thinking about why Tudd would keep posting his awful, hateful videos and other bullshits, when nobody tolerates it and just makes him more and more reviled in the community. But it occurred to me, with all those 'guides on how to not seem racist and trick people into joining our cause' things you see on fuckin, pol or the donald or whatever cesspools these people post on, ways to disguise your nefarious intent in an attempt to sway people, I bet you he is following some 'spread the word' rule where you just keep posting this bullshit everwhere you can in the hopes it becomes accepted. I bet there's some thread telling you to spread alt-right content everywhere you can and frame it as politely as you can, like it's some sort of reasonable video "oh yeah pretty good debates, both sides could have improved" (and it's actually just a disgusting dickhead spreading garbage). Because that would explain so much of Tudd's behavior.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52950872]I was thinking about why Tudd would keep posting his awful, hateful videos and other bullshits, when nobody tolerates it and just makes him more and more reviled in the community. But it occurred to me, with all those 'guides on how to not seem racist and trick people into joining our cause' things you see on fuckin, pol or the donald or whatever cesspools these people post on, ways to disguise your nefarious intent in an attempt to sway people, I bet you he is following some 'spread the word' rule where you just keep posting this bullshit everwhere you can in the hopes it becomes accepted. I bet there's some thread telling you to spread alt-right content everywhere you can and frame it as politely as you can, like it's some sort of reasonable video. Because that would explain so much of Tudd's behavior.[/QUOTE] This is the strategy of the alt-right, white nationalists, neo-nazis, etc and has been for a pretty long time now. It's just now coming to light because people like Richard Spencer are popularizing it. The problem is that it's actually a really good strategy because differentiating between an actual bigot and someone that just bought into the strategy is borderline impossible.

[QUOTE=cbb;52950869]So because science is fact, all gender expression must be based on it? Does every other facet of human identity have to be based on science as well? Nothing can be left up to choice because science is fact? I don't understand your line of thinking.[/QUOTE] Because science is fact based everything should be based on it, shouldn't it? Its how we learn and explain whats what. If you can't prove it, then does it really exist? There are people who spend lifetimes trying to prove things only to have it proven like decades after they're gone. Is this something that might follow that line? who knows. If you don't want Gender expression to be based on science, then how can you prove it to someone skeptical? Whats wrong with facts and data? I'm very cynical and don't take things at face value anymore and like to have things concrete, just for the sake of my sanity because the worlds ALWAYS been a crazy place.

[QUOTE=Gbps;52950762]In the past year or so, I have yet to see a reference to "Free Speech" that wasn't used as "Freedom to hate and discriminate" Maybe it's because no one has to it bring up Freedom of Speech when we respect and treat everyone like human beings.[/QUOTE] relevant xkcd alt text: [i]I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.[/i]

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52950872]I was thinking about why Tudd would keep posting his awful, hateful videos and other bullshits, when nobody tolerates it and just makes him more and more reviled in the community. But it occurred to me, with all those 'guides on how to not seem racist and trick people into joining our cause' things you see on fuckin, pol or the donald or whatever cesspools these people post on, ways to disguise your nefarious intent in an attempt to sway people, I bet you he is following some 'spread the word' rule where you just keep posting this bullshit everwhere you can in the hopes it becomes accepted. I bet there's some thread telling you to spread alt-right content everywhere you can and frame it as politely as you can, like it's some sort of reasonable video "oh yeah pretty good debates, both sides could have improved" (and it's actually just a disgusting dickhead spreading garbage). Because that would explain so much of Tudd's behavior.[/QUOTE] Tbh I think he is a sad person that deep down just enjoys the attention. Any attention.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950536]Bill C16 in Canada.[/QUOTE] lol get to fuck, have you even read the bill? [URL="http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent"]here you go[/URL] Find me the bit where it says you'll be locked up for using the wrong pronouns. It simply adds 'gender identity or expression' to the list of things Govt. agencies and businesses can't use to discriminate. Where is the part about compelled speech? Not to mention almost every single Canadian legal org says the hysteria is total bullshit, including the Canadian Bar Association. But of course these unqualified [I]rational freespeechers[/I] have got it figured out. It's a totalitarian ploy!