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

[QUOTE=Killuah;52950883]Tbh I think he is a sad person that deep down just enjoys the attention. Any attention.[/QUOTE] If it were up to me and I were a mod, he would've been banned long ago for trying to bait people. I don't understand why we can't just all agree to completely ignore him and never give a single thread of his any views.

[QUOTE=Shakma;52951106]I treat them like any other people, don't take me wrong I got nothing against them and bully/mistreat them is wrong. I just fail to see how having unlimited gender will change or improve anything. And "there are some facts" is true, like I wish I could fly like birds, having super powers or be more handsome. Now this is some poorly and extreme wishes and should not be compared with wanting to change sex/gender, but the point still stands in my opinion. For me at least, I would rather deal with living with a cold hard truth, then some made up paradise lie.[/QUOTE] When we refer to a person, such as when I am refering to "you" or "me" or "I"- what is it that I am actually refering to? If a person gets in an accident and loses their arm, we do not say that they are no longer the same person, right? We do not say that they are no longer the same person when they lose a leg either, yes? So if a person loses their arms and their legs and they're still the same person, what about if they lost their torso? If we were to, hypothetically, be able to keep them alive without a body as just a head, or to somehow upload their brain into a computer, they would still be the same person, would they not? In that sense, the brain is the person. Your brain is "you". My brain is "me". What makes a brain male or female? If a brain 'thinks' that it is male, how can we say that it is not male? If a brain 'thinks' it is female, how can we say it is not female? A human brain cannot be a dog- because a human brain is not a dog brain. However, a human male brain and a human female brain are both human brains. There is no difference between them except that one is 'wired' in such a way as to perceive itself as male and the other is 'wired' to perceive itself as female. There is no delusion involved, because there is no deeper level of complexity necessary for a brain to 'be' male or to 'be' female, it just is what it is. Every person that exists is a brain. The point of modern medicine isn't to decide what is or should be 'normal' or 'natural', it is to find the best possible way to reduce suffering and allow a healthy, productive life for the patient. In the case of gender dysphoria, the patient has chronic stress related to the disconnect between their body and the way their brain perceives itself. Transgenderism is the most medically advantageous solution that enables them to live a happy and fulfilling life.

[QUOTE=Shakma;52951106]I treat them like any other people, don't take me wrong I got nothing against them and bully/mistreat them is wrong. I just fail to see how having unlimited gender will change or improve anything. And "there are some facts" is true, like I wish I could fly like birds, having super powers or be more handsome. Now this is some poorly and extreme wishes and should not be compared with wanting to change sex/gender, but the point still stands in my opinion. For me at least, I would rather deal with living with a cold hard truth, then some made up paradise lie.[/QUOTE] What cold hard truth. Can you spell it out? Specifically?

[QUOTE=Maximo13;52951120]If it were up to me and I were a mod, he would've been banned long ago for trying to bait people. I don't understand why we can't just all agree to completely ignore him and never give a single thread of his any views.[/QUOTE] He's not necessarily breaking any rules, though. Just because his opinion differs from yours, it isn't a reason to ban him. I'm center on nearly everything and I've never felt baited by Tudd. This kind of thinking is bad, and outright dangerous to the community. If you don't like him, you can ignore everything he posts, but trying too censor or straight up banning his account is quite irrational and hypocritical.

[QUOTE=Shakma;52951106]I treat them like any other people, don't take me wrong I got nothing against them and bully/mistreat them is wrong. I just fail to see how having unlimited gender will change or improve anything. And "there are some facts" is true, like I wish I could fly like birds, having super powers or be more handsome. Now this is some poorly and extreme wishes and should not be compared with wanting to change sex/gender, but the point still stands in my opinion. For me at least, I would rather deal with living with a cold hard truth, then some made up paradise lie.[/QUOTE] For me personally, whether or not it will make things better or worse isn't relevant. I'm concerned with the validity of gender expression. Your contention seems to be that genders besides male and female do not exist. Could you define male or female for me?

[QUOTE=Spleet;52951137]He's not necessarily breaking any rules, though. Just because his opinion differs from yours, it isn't a reason to ban him. I'm center on nearly everything and I've never felt baited by Tudd. This kind of thinking is bad, and outright dangerous to the community. If you don't like him, you can ignore everything he posts, but trying too censor or straight up banning his account is quite irrational and hypocritical.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical. Every forum/message-board has to set some limit on what constitutes reasonable discussion, otherwise flamming/gimmicks, callout threads and open racism would be a thing on this forum, you'd see more posts like [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=50880230#post50880230]this[/url]. Even places on the internet that are cited as being bastions of free speech still ban people for breaking the rules- which are subjectively interpreted by a team of moderators.

[QUOTE=Spleet;52951137]He's not necessarily breaking any rules, though. Just because his opinion differs from yours, it isn't a reason to ban him. I'm center on nearly everything and I've never felt baited by Tudd. This kind of thinking is bad, and outright dangerous to the community. If you don't like him, you can ignore everything he posts, but trying too censor or straight up banning his account is quite irrational and hypocritical.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure trolling is a bannable offense, and he keeps posting these topics to get a rise out of people. As many people in this thread have pointed out, he's pretty disingenous and will never ACTUALLY argue to the counter arguments other people reply with. I'm not calling for him to be banned, but if it were up to me I'd consider that trolling.

[QUOTE=Spleet;52951137]He's not necessarily breaking any rules, though. Just because his opinion differs from yours, it isn't a reason to ban him. I'm center on nearly everything and I've never felt baited by Tudd. This kind of thinking is bad, and outright dangerous to the community. If you don't like him, you can ignore everything he posts, but trying too censor or straight up banning his account is quite irrational and hypocritical.[/QUOTE] this has been discussed to death, but making obviously controversial posts with often inflammatory viewpoints under the guise of 'differing opinion' only holds up if you're willing to defend that opinion in good faith, not create a shitstorm of terrible argument technique and then run off when you get exposed for the nth time.

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;52951111]My take on the '200 genders' idea: So what? Imagine if you had to type a paragraph into google every time you wanted to find a similar perspective. These terms facilitate communication and have literally zero downside to others except the salt they generate in themselves because it's different.[/QUOTE] And really the "200 genders" probably exist because our culture and language don't properly address a need. Kind of like how we have 10 ways in English to say plural you. If from the start our culture had a non-binary or gender-queer term for people who don't quite associate with male or female, most of these gender-inventors would probably just stick themselves under that. But right now we have a lot of weird words that largely just mean the same thing expressed slightly differently.

[QUOTE=Shakma;52951106]I treat them like any other people, don't take me wrong I got nothing against them and bully/mistreat them is wrong. I just fail to see how having unlimited gender will change or improve anything. And "there are some facts" is true, like I wish I could fly like birds, having super powers or be more handsome. Now this is some poorly and extreme wishes and should not be compared with wanting to change sex/gender, but the point still stands in my opinion. For me at least, I would rather deal with living with a cold hard truth, then some made up paradise lie.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly sure I'm correct in saying that your "cold hard truth" line is that, in your mind, transgender people aren't the gender they say they are. Which couldn't be further from the truth and is counter factual as the other posters in the thread have pointed out.

[QUOTE=cbb;52951142]For me personally, whether or not it will make things better or worse isn't relevant. I'm concerned with the validity of gender expression. Your contention seems to be that genders besides male and female do not exist. Could you define male or female for me?[/QUOTE] Its all about biological•sex at birth. [QUOTE=Killuah;52951133]What cold hard truth. Can you spell it out? Specifically?[/QUOTE] Am talking about as "i want it to be x but in the reality it is y".

[QUOTE=Shakma;52951247] Am talking about as "i want it to be x but in the reality it is y".[/QUOTE] Really? This is your smoking gun of an argument?

[QUOTE=Shakma;52951247]Its all about biological•sex at birth. Am talking about as "i want it to be x but in the reality it is y".[/QUOTE] Sex and gender aren't the same thing.

[QUOTE=Shakma;52951247]Its all about biological•sex at birth. Am talking about as "i want it to be x but in the reality it is y".[/QUOTE] Good thing being transgender is a neurological condition and not simply a desire. But please, deny my womanhood if you feel like it makes your life easier.

[QUOTE=Shakma;52951247]Am talking about as "i want it to be x but in the reality it is y".[/QUOTE] Normally truths comes in the form of citing studies and stuff like that

Well i guess i was wrong. Sorry for wasting your time.

It's incredibly disheartening that there is such a large audience that share bigoted views like this. My hope is that as older generations die off we will become more inclusive and accepting as a whole.

[QUOTE=Derpalicious;52951345]It's incredibly disheartening that there is such a large audience that share bigoted views like this. My hope is that as older generations die off we will become more inclusive and accepting as a whole.[/QUOTE] Certainly these views will become less and less accepted, but they'll always be there.

Does anyone expect him to actually be intellectually honest enough to ever change any of his opinions on ANYTHING? I sure as fuck don't

[QUOTE=cbb;52950628]The New York Bill that you cited added gender identity to the many protected classes we have in the United States. That is to say, it protects non-cis people from discrimination the same way we protect every racial group (and other groups) from discrimination. So how can your freedom of speech be suddenly restricted if no prior legislation existed that granted every other group in the United States these protections? We can argue semantics if you'd like but you're the one arguing that your speech is being limited.[/quote] Well pure freedom of speech doesn't exist, but the principle of it is what we should strive to maintain. As for the NY protections and fines that can be implemented on a person for discrimination, that is the problem I have. [quote] Can you give an example of this happening?[/quote] The history of censorship and its effects are long, but sure I can give quite a few. I just know someone is going to say strawman even though I am going to cite more real examples of censorship not working than anyone else trying to prove the opposite. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturkampf#Effects_of_the_laws.2C_contemporary_criticism_and_long_term_results[/url]Kulturkampf[/url] against the catholics saw political parties like the Zentrum to get a huge boost. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany]The attempt to ban the socialists in Germany[/url], which instead just kept socialists just as relevant. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954]The Communist Control Act in the USA[/url] even with the red scare tactics in [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare]general.[/url] suffice it to say that radical leftism and communism were not actually removed from American culture then or now by any laws passed. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial[/url]Holocaust Denial laws[/url] Yah, these people still sadly exist in the countries they are outlawed and pushing them from the public sphere to the underground or the internet isn't exactly a sign of working in the long term. Or even really recent [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/world/europe/the-catalonia-crisis-has-not-divided-spain-just-its-media.html[/url]Spain trying to shut down discussions on Catalonia[/url] Big note: Despite Soviet Russia effectively censoring fascist movements for generations and having a staunch history opposed to it, [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3718255&page=1]Russia today[/url] now some of the largest neo-nazis movements in the world are there. Not to mention the numerous anti-nazi laws that exist in places like western Europe that simply leads to these groups to exist by other means. And then we have modern [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-accused-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html]examples[/url] of Germany cracking down on hate speech. Meanwhile support for the right-wing parties AFD is going up and not down. There are still more examples we can go through of governments trying to censor an idea and actually getting blowback for it, but I think you should atleast make the case that censoring people actually works a little bit. [quote] This is a copout. You don't have an actual reason for making the distinction so you're giving up the argument by saying that we've reached an impasse. [/quote] No, I am just pointing out you don't really believe in freedom of speech like I do or in the American principle of it from what I can gather. [quote] So something should only be illegal if it will lead to physical harm? What if hateful ideas or racial slurs lead to segregation or non-violent harassment? That's all good? Your argument is completely arbitrary.[/quote] One is a direct call to harm/action. Asking your question at the beginning suggest anything that could [b]lead[/b] to being harmful should be illegal and that isn't what I am saying at all. Not to mention how untenable and indirect it is to base that as your reason to limit someone's speech. [quote] So why did you make the distinction in the first place if it doesn't matter?[/QUOTE] Actually I never made that distinction. In some weird way you think people being silenced isn't infringing on free speech. [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BANNED USER;52950639] 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] Actually laws with punitive action behind them for me intentionally not recognizing their identity they chose does exactly that. [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=REMBER;52950645]No. It's called democracy. You have a government, that passes laws and then those laws are enforced. That's called a democracy.[/QUOTE] You could implement a policy through democracy to say, "These bigots will never have a platform in public." But I hope you realize in the actuality this is just like Kulturkampf and Anti-socialist laws where you will get a blowback. These people simply don't just go away and tend to bounce back once they realize their existence and ideas are actively trying to be wiped. In reality to implement such policies where you can control who and what gets a platform, you truly have to implement authoritative measures or a totalitarian government. [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;52950749] Are you serious? It's called the fucking Civil Rights Act. Have you never heard of the term protected classes? 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, telling the employer that they can't say that without facing legal consequences for their speech. 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 being discriminated against. 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?[/quote] 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. [quote] 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.[/QUOTE] You do realize that Jim Crow laws was the government forcing businesses to segregate right?

Alright since we're having this discussion I might as well get informed. So... we're saying that there are lots of different genders. But that guy in the OP was arguing that there were only two. But if gender is more about who you're attracted to rather than your sex, then what does "there are two genders" mean? That gays don't exist? Or bisexuals? Or asexuals like me? On the other hand, if a gender is indeed about who you're attracted to, why should there exist so many? There can only be so many possibilities. What's the point in creating (recognizing) new genders? I'm sorry if I come out as ignorant on the matter, because I frankly am. I don't want to insult or hurt anyone's feelings, but I also want to avoid any abuse of the "infinite genders" thing, which has been bothering me for a while.

[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] This is hilariously conspiratorial. I actually will admit I am quite fine with people disagreeing with me here. I just rather they own up that they aren't really for freedom of speech in how the United States implements it or sees it if they aren't being honest.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;52951537]Alright since we're having this discussion I might as well get informed. So... we're saying that there are lots of different genders. But that guy in the OP was arguing that there were only two. But if gender is more about who you're attracted to rather than your sex, then what does "there are two genders" mean? That gays don't exist? Or bisexuals? Or asexuals like me? On the other hand, if a gender is indeed about who you're attracted to, why should there exist so many? There can only be so many possibilities. What's the point in creating (recognizing) new genders? I'm sorry if I come out as ignorant on the matter, because I frankly am. I don't want to insult or hurt anyone's feelings, but I also want to avoid any abuse of the "infinite genders" thing, which has been bothering me for a while.[/QUOTE] Who you're attracted to is sexuality, not gender. Gender in this parlance is how a person sees themselves (psychologically) and how they sociologically fit into society. It's what you are, socially, pretty much. Non-binary is the most common, where people don't want to really be addressed as men or women. Also I wouldn't worry too much about infinite genders, most people just stick themselves under genderqueer or non-binary in real life if they don't want to identify as men/women, which are fairly generic terms that serve as a catch-all. Stuff like "cloudgender" is largely just internet shit from what I've seen.

[QUOTE=cbb;52950853]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] You did, though, say that it's just as disparaging. "In some ways" or "as a whole" worse, either way the specific wording there doesn't matter, and my wording doesn't really contradict that. That's more just arguing semantics if anything. [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 know the topic of this thread is the video, but in this instance I'm talking purely about the concept of believing two genders exist, nothing more. The guy who made the video seems like a jackass who has no idea what he's talking about, but I'm not really talking about him. Similarly, your response was in someone who only asked whether or not the belief in only two genders was bigoted. Nothing else, not even mentioning the video. Thus, I took the response for what it was on its own, and figured that it meant exactly what it said: Believing there are only two genders somehow implies that non-cis people don't exist. [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?[/quote] I'd say that in a situation like the one you presented, I would [I]not[/I] claim the way they feel is invalid. In a world where all that stuff is based purely on choice? Sure, whatever. It's perfectly valid. I don't think anyone is bringing harm to anyone, nor do I make arguments against people's life choices in a case like this in the first place. It's not my place to make people's identity feel "illegitimate", so I don't go around trying to argue nonbinaryism isn't real. Nor would I in the scenario you proposed. [quote]Why must someone's gender identity be based entirely on science?[/quote] The thing is, we're all humans, humans with psychology, and that psychology is based on science. That science dictates every little intricacy of how we think. The thing is, I don't believe gender identity is a matter of choice, nor necessarily a matter of what someone "feels like". As in, someone can be wrong about their gender identity. The way I've always viewed gender identity is this: People can be born to be mentally male or female. That's it. Of course, the gender mindset they're born with doesn't necessarily have to match up with the way their actual body comes out. Thus, someone could be born with a male body, but still be female mentally. And thus, a transgender person. The roadblock for me is that I don't believe that someone can be born with an identity outside of that binary. I believe the human mind can only really develop one of those two genders, mentally.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52950887]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![/QUOTE] Well if you intentionally refuse to use the pronouns a person chooses that can fall under the criminal code which has given out fines [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cases_under_the_Human_Rights_Act]before.[/url] So yes it is a punitive law that forces a person to speak and accept ideas in a certain way. I didn't really say "lock up" for your reference. Although not paying the fines wouldn't really help your case and extend into further punishments logically.

...You're actually against the idea of protected classes? Somehow I feel you wouldn't be if you were part of one of those classes.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52951562]Who you're attracted to is sexuality, not gender. Gender in this parlance is how a person sees themselves (psychologically) and how they sociologically fit into society. It's what you are, socially, pretty much. Non-binary is the most common, where people don't want to really be addressed as men or women. Also I wouldn't worry too much about infinite genders, most people just stick themselves under genderqueer or non-binary in real life if they don't want to identify as men/women, which are fairly generic terms that serve as a catch-all. Stuff like "cloudgender" is largely just internet shit from what I've seen.[/QUOTE] Thanks. Now I'd want to argue if it's a social construct, having an "unusual" gender may sometimes mean you may be trying to dodge the original, fundamental issue (the way society perceives the "usual" genders, or the way they're stereotyped or what is expected of them, which is definitely one of the most psychologically crippling problems of our age) but that would probably be a deeper topic to explore in another thread.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52951573]...You're actually against the idea of protected classes? Somehow I feel you wouldn't be if you were part of one of those classes.[/QUOTE] I am for equal opportunity to the max instead of trying to socially coerce a result when possible.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951586]I am for equal opportunity to the max instead of trying to socially coerce a result when possible.[/QUOTE] Protected classes aren't "socially coercing a result," they're putting in place customized legal protections to keep a group as safe as possible. They're in place because it's legally efficient to do so. This isn't part of some agenda, so don't treat it like one.

I personally do not buy into the whole non-gender/third gender/xe xir stuff, I think gender is indeed a spectrum, however that spectrum still has two distinct halves. That being said, MAN is Crowder kind of an asshole and I wish there were less douchey spokespersons that got the same attention.