There's literally tens of us!

@@CH-pr2ubwonderful turnout! Incel here🙋🏻‍♂️

Exactly, and yet it is the left who is always accused of "cancel culture"

I’ve noticed. It’s so unfortunate. 😒

I've noticed comparatively few and tame comments, too - maybe support for gender ideology has reduced as a result of greater public education and recent scandals in Scotland and the Tavistock; also, maybe a lot of trans advocates were, in fact, bots or have gotten cannier in their comments. Whatever it is, it sure is quiet around here compared to a year ago, as if the circus has moved on.

Sad because we'll never move forward without open dialogue. We'll have public speak and that which we use privately.

Its because there are so many little snowflakes in the world these days that will have a meltdown if you say something they feel like hurts their feelings. And unfortunately many large companies and .govs are ingratiating these clowns.

That’s how you know Wokes are fascists - they want to re-racialise society except this time to discriminate against the majority and they want to pretend it’s still the 1950s and society still holds the attitudes toward race and sex that brought about the civil war. Victim nostalgia…

No one can be "born in the wrong body", our brains ARE our body just as much as any other part of it. We are the sex we are, regardless of what our personal relationship is with the sexist stereotypes in society. "Trans" ideology, is regressive and sexist, as there is no "correct way" of being a boy or girl, man or woman, all those terms do is indicate sex and stage of maturity - decoupling sex and gender and trying to make gender into this ludicrous concoction of personality and sexist stereotypes is beyond regressive - it actively harms people who buy into it - the idea that there is something wrong with a kid's body that needs to be chemically altered because they believe living up to sexist stereotypes is some real measure of whether they are a boy or a girl (and man or woman for adults obviously), is insanity. I have asked hundreds of "activists" and "allies" to explain what they are measuring themselves against to determine that they have a need to transition - NOT ONE person has been able to articulate what that is - not one person is able to distance themselves sufficiently to realise that THEY are the ones with a regressively sexist idea of what it means to be a boy/girl or man/woman and that that is the issue causing all the problems - their own misunderstanding and severely limited perspective/sexist misunderstanding of what sexist stereotypes/"gender norms" actually entail - they are not rules, they are not real boundaries, they are regressive ideas and generalisations - no one needs to live up to any such utter nonsense or feel comfortable with those stereotypes to be a boy/girl/man/woman - all those terms represent, and all they should represent, is sex and stage of maturity - by creating this whole "gender identity" nonsense, THAT IS WHAT CAUSES ALL THE DISTRESS, THIS FABRICATION OF A FRAMEWORK WHICH DISTORTS REALITY. No one - NO ONE - in the movement has been able to explain or articulate what this supposed "womanly essence" or "manly essence" is that they feel/know/need to transition in order to represent etc. actually is - yet you all actively believe in it and push for it to be accepted. That is ludicrous.

You have no clue what fascism is

@@x16881 I'm literally referencing Umberto Eco, dude

@@x16881 The second somebody types that you are either close to it or you're a undercover fascist saying you're a centrist , DEAR X166881. Fascism is a permanent being, it is everywhere and in everything now.

But they seem to forget the other POV - the biologial POV. If I were to be put in a prison with a transgender woman who was born a man, I would feel very unsafe.

Unironic leftist audio 😅

right? it’s like…you had one job…

Audio guy probably campaigns for a 0 day working week

I would be so gutted to get Judith Butler in and totally scuff the audio like this. What she’s saying is so important, and here’s the audio editor sweating bullets to make it usable

That is wanting to live in a simple world. It matters because the culture wars are a bad faith attempt to divide people for political ends.

I completely agree but I think the identity debate isn't solely about gender/sex, it's about choice and what choices can be made and which choices can not. That's the push back, choice has become a dirty word. We are all transient, moving from one place to another, the notion of trans identity interrupts the notion that we are all on a single track, and are fixed into a singular way of being. We can live in this simple world together. 💕 to all

@@ThankYouAndHello What choice do women and girls have when men intrude on their private spaces, sports competitions, changing rooms, prisons, rape crisis centers? We are not just "uncomfortable" by a man in our changing rooms we are threatened, scared and pissed off. Men, no matter how they identify, have since time immemorial used their power to abuse women. Good men, no matter how they identify or dress, understand women's need to be safe and to feel safe.

@@opinion3742 100% agreed, but if that is so why do we at the majority give the time of day to the extreme ends of the argument. I would like to think most people could see past the headlines and blatant attempts of manipulation. Maybe wishful thinking

@@tomwood8153 I think that most people do. Especially the young, and it is their world after all.

Yet, I saw your other comment which pretty much contradict what you've said here where you very much have conflated sex and gender

Hear, hear. These morons don`t even know that biology is DESCRIPTIVE not prescriptive.

@@calumlambertwhat comment?

From her very first pronouncements - 'that the way in which feminism began, was by calling into question received notions of what a biological woman is' and, 'it's not the specific biology - alone - that defines you as a women...' Just stop right there. a) I disagree; feminism was NOT originally a battle about perceptions of identity or characteristics. It was about SURVIVAL. Women already knew what they were made of, they weren't interested in personalities, they were quite aware each woman had their own traits. The genesis of feminism was compelled by the collective experiences of women as a whole - and what all women required to survive and to protect themselves - and ultimately their offspring too. It was about rights and protections to support all women, based COMPLETELY on their biological sex - not on identities or orientations or a word game about feelings and characteristics. Really basic rights that were necessary that give autonomy and power to any female that a man also has. Many rights that were not afforded women, strictly because they were women. b) Saying biology alone does not define you as a woman is duplicitous word-play when you know that the point of the discussion is; what is the importance of biology in defining a woman? IT IS EVERYTHING. Biology defines the reality. All other feelings about identity are secondary criteria that are as abstract or ephemeral as the wind. The rights and protections women are losing are SEX BASED rights. I haven't even managed to get past the first 5 minutes of this interview without serious mistrust of Butler who is so intent on disowning women.

This shows you've not read anything written by feminists

I agree I’m so sick of these waste-of-time intros on videos I’m seeing these days

Just skip that bit then 😂

I believe its due to how youtube works; when scrolling through video suggestions it will start playing the first few seconds, so they put an interesting clip there to get people to click through.

If the interviewee is talking gibberish, that is often highlighted at the beginning and so acts as an early warning system not to bother watching

you need a hobby

@@theoutsider6191 Where is the evidence that puberty blockers cause untold damage?

@@theoutsider6191 Nice straw man. Try actually saying something factual.

@@squatch545Pathetic answer, but i guess that was what you are going for.

@@theoutsider6191 So you've got nothing then? Thought so.

@@squatch545I've got the ability to read and understand information, which clearly is something you lack. Perhaps the only thing allowing you to even interact on sites like this is predictive text and other such aids for the feeble of mind.

I would on the contrary claim it's inherently illogical if not dishonest to make the argument that any communication can be free from political influence or subjectivity

That, and rights won were sex based rights. The minute you make then gender rights,we'll as we can see it's incredibly problematic.

many early second wave feminist academics debated gender including ann oakley, angela davies and judith butler themself - I'm not sure how far back you are considering 'original' here but Judith is nearly 70, and has been debating this for quite some time. The debate hasn't always been as huge in activist circles as it now is but trans issues have been in public debate to at least some degree since the 50s (perhaps earlier). Debates are always shifting and progressing too and I dont think there is anything wrong with that - the earliest feminists for instance weren't debating rape culture or gender roles because getting the vote seemed like a pretty preeminent issue at the time obviously lol, nothing wrong with shifting the goalposts of the debate and considering needs for inclusivity now people have more capacity to do so. I know from my own studies many trans activists and feminist activists in the 70s and 80s did work together so its probably not as modern as you think, just trans people are the new media bogeyman.

the original feminist movement was also super racist. white women were mad that black men got the right to vote before they did. they took it as a huge offense, so they organized and got themselves the right to vote. maybe don’t use the morals of people from a hundred years ago? the original feminist got a lot of shit wrong

There have always been women that sell other women. So, I believe a lot of privileged women relish in how they manage to put men in the same bathrooms as our daughters.

When one thinks of 'original feminists' one thinks of Simone de Beauvoir (her 'The Second Sex' is the feminist Bible) and she is most famous for saying "one is not born but becomes a woman". De Beauvoir stated that although there are biological differences among the sexes, women only become women through social constructions and circumstances (i.e., they are fundamentally defined as relative to men, as 'not men', or, earlier in history, as 'imperfect men'- Thomas Aquinas). According to De Beauvoir, biological facts are never JUST biological facts but they take on the values of social norms. In fact, she busted open the essentialisation of biological facts, and exposed this essentialisation as the prime ideological tool used to justify the oppression and suppression of women. 'What a woman is' was a question and a subject of philosophical investigation for the most 'original' among 'original feminists'.

You do know KZfaq automatically deletes comments for random ass reasons don’t you? I’ve had incredibly non hostile pro-trans comments disappear with no reason. You aren’t special

Who's removing them? That's not this channel doing that. It's happening all over this site.

And ending with "sad"? Who are you, Donald Trump? Lol

Literally my comment saying that some comments get deleted automatically by youtube got deleted. I'm getting notifications for the replies but can't even see my own anymore. Deluded mate. Sad.

@@MrMyers758 any time I even say the name of this website I get hidden

Clearly not.... hence The Tavistock et al....

No, that is what the whole idea of "lived experience" is about. It invokes a heirarchy of veracity and meaning. This is how the queer assert dominance and shame you or beat you into silence.

@@ivermec-tin666love your moniker.

@@ivermec-tin666: The very same can be said of those who identify as heterosexual.

Wow. I hope that's true.

@@pupppt I think that because she is one of the half way sensible ones in the TERF pack, and she was not a TERF from the beginning.

@@miriamlana833 JAA TERFS, DAS SIND DIE TERFS, LINKS ZWO DRIE VIER, JUDOLPH BITLER HAS DECLARED, VEE MUST FOLLOW!

It's terrible isn't it. Making it hard to listen to which is a massive shame

Imagine argueing that being tolerant of others is actually intolerance towards the intolerant.

@@MCArt25 imagine replying with basic white chic replies and never thinking for oneself.

Gender critical isn‘t the correct term - we criticise the ideology, not necessarily the term gender. Gender is just a term that is used in many different ways and contexts. One person means sex by gender and the other one means a social role and a third means an innate feeling or perception of self, a fourth one says it‘s the chosen sex AND role you want to become. So there always are many misunderstandings and misconceptions in these discussions bc no one is defining „gender“ when using it to present or defend a certain point of view related to „trans“ in legal matters, social matters, biological matters…

​@@OverOnTheWildSideimagine being a sexist? Oh, no you don't have to imagine do you.

@@powderandpaint14 my manliness offends you.

*drivel /pet peeve

How does gravity work? Why is the sky blue? What is the simplest question that a human can ask?

@@zacharybosley1935 asking simple questions with complicated answers, does not a simple thing complicate. What time is it?: look at a clock - answer given simple question with simple answer. being able to ask things like "is the clock correct?", "what even is time?" does not complicate the original simple question or the answer.

​@@cyfangz9238 so you recognize that simple questions can have complicated answers?

@@cyfangz9238 taken a step further, you recognize that simple things can be complicated upon further examination? Things like Money, Dreams, Gravity and Light are all more complicated than a single sentence can answer, the same seems to hold true for sex and gender.

>talk without interrupting. Aka, a clueless grifter and a coward.

Are you saying that you don't think there are poor kids who experience gender dysphoria?

​@@B99994 I'm sure there are. The bigger problem is we have poor kids.

@@the_smart_cookies_pod Can't we address both problems? Hunger can kill you, but so can gender dysphoria.

@@B99994 Absolutely. The problem is ALL I'm hearing is identity issues. Any sort of discussion about class politics is NON existent... which is absolutely perfect for global capital.

@@the_smart_cookies_pod I hear that. But is it the fault of trans folk and their allies? Isn't it politicians and mainstream media trying to create a diversion? And if so, wouldn't it be better to take them to task?

What would you have him push back?

​@@john.premose A few simple examples -Her absolute strawmanning of ppl who disagree with her -Her analysis of Latin America, Italy and Eastern Europe and equating them with the UK. She clearly doesn't speak languages from these areas. Including English. -Her claim that trans women are feminists -Her claims on past ideas of facts and the ramifications of what that means. Essentially that gender identity exists on a non-factual basis whereas sex exists factually. He should at least bring up when sex is far more important than gender. As in for basically everything. He should challenge her on single-sex female spaces and the indisputable history of crime. Also that gender is inherently regressive and why most ppl in the West were steadily moving away from treating ppl based on gender. Frankly he could just occasionally say, I'll stop you there cos you've made no points and what you have said is objectively false and shows a historical ignorance that you should be ashamed of.

@@robertmarshall2502 well, I found nothing objectionable in anything she said, and I find it surprising that anyone really would to the extent you seem to. And I'm by no means particularly "pro train" (I won't spell it right so I don't get taken down). I mean, I am 100% for acceptance and political rights of trains, but I don't necessarily buy into all their ideas. I do agree with you on one point. That is that I agree that society was on track to stop fixating on these distinctions, and I do find a lot of the current debates being brought up to be regressive in that sense. But I have a different perspective. I believe the commodification of identities is a techniques of current consumerist capitalism, which attempts to sell people identities, and thus control them. So I see the train ideology in the popular media and academia to be basically bourgeois and reactionary. That's why the media promotes it so much. If it truly were revolutionary or radical, the establishment media would be trying to suppress it, not sensationalise and popularise it.

@@robertmarshall2502 so yeah, if there was one thing I would have had him ask her, it would have been "do you think the current explosion of identities is a commodification of our very personalities and identities, a very extreme form of alienation?" That is the aspect of it that interests me.

@@robertmarshall2502 but also I will say, you seem guilty of straw manning yourself. I never heard her say "train women are feminists". What she said is that feminists have always played with and tried to expand what it meant to be a woman, and challenged the traditional notions, and that's also top some degree what the train movement does. Remember this isn't just about women. I find it interesting that, according to the way most people talk, it would seem that the only train that exist are the female ones. There are also men and all sorts of other non-conforming varieties. But to hear you lot, it's always only about the women. That's revealing.

Such a manipulative woman! It is not just in the UK that women are feeling angered by this movement.

Flat water not earth.

I am completely blown away at how much time is spent talking about this issue .. so much of the discussion just goes in circles - nothing gets resolved.. I want this issue to go away already

@@brianmeen2158 I know right? It's a tiny tiny little group of peopl,e % in society. Why do we have to hear about it so much? I could care less about them, I'm sure they could care less about me. I wish the whole subject would go away.

It's a grift, and it pays well.......Simples!😉

If by 'I'm napoleon' you mean you're the corsican general born in 1769, then you would be incorrect. If by 'I'm a woman' you mean you prefer people call you a woman, prefer to dress a certain way, than that may very well be correct, and perfectly believeable.

Lol.

@@Celestina0 Both are delusional ideas.

@@catwoman7462how can preferences be delusional? Can I be deluded about the fact I prefer chocolate to vanilla icecream?

But you can't argue with your chromosomes and your lady or man parts. Muscles, lung capacity, height. ​@@Celestina0

what is wrong with the audio?

Easier to ignore that, pretend they don't exist, or just dismiss them as not 'true left'. Which, ironically, would be anti-thesis to their claim that you are what you identify as. Tad hypocritical, don't you think? Also, it plays on ever present dominant narrative force in our corporate media space - Conservative and right = bad. By doing that, they don't need to put much effort to shun people away and portray them as undesirable.

@@mi__ran There is plenty of in fighting in leftist politics and culture.

But who are these left leaning people? Because I have seen a fair amount of criticism of people within these wide boarders. In fact there has always been plenty of criticism and disagreement within leftist circles.

@@opinion3742 give me a few concrete examples.

@@mi__ran Lol. Joking right?

How is what Butler says contradicting material reality?

Nothing they said denies material reality. Many of you are just crude materialists and naive realists.

Talking about the "sex assignment" of infants as if it were just as arbitrary and made up as an infant's name is denying material reality.

@@puppptnobody's denying that penises and vaginas exist, they're denying that a woman is necessarily defined by having a vagina. We don't disagree over empirical reality, but how we categorise that reality.

@@puppptso many of you are just so confused. No one has denied anatomical material/physical facts. We do disagree on how we should draw the distinctions in classifying and distinguishing between those material facts though in terms of what the referents of the terms woman/man should be.

while i largely agree with your take, i think this is a pretty common disease on the right, center, and left in the social sciences.

Agreed, very disturbing trend in general. But personally as a fairly old school lefty of the Chomskian sort of variety, I find it most disturbing of all when people who are claiming/trying to be champions of working class emancipation allow themsleves to fall into doing that sort of thing. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards than that if we're going to keep any hope of succeeding.

Yes. But we should not be afraid to take that logic to the end. If Chomsky only dealt academically with social affairs he would be out of a job before he ever got one. Linguistics is how he held on and stayed out of trouble. As the price that comes with their stand, activists drive taxis, or go to jail or the morgue, or sell 5000 books on a small press, while teaching at a community college somewhere. It should be suspicious that Butler is somehow a radical marxist leftist, but famous, and not persecuted. It has to do with the sloppy obscurantism and gender feminism (which is a very corporate friendly ideology) and so on. @@anthonyderosa7757

@emilianosintarias7337 Fully agree, only I'd say even more directly and generally what I think you're driving at, that it's more than just suspicious. I think the case that Chomsky made some time around the mid 60's that the rapid growth of the whole Foucoult type fux accademic fux radical incoherent obscuritanist theoretical trends that became major if not dominant in many social science departments of many academic institutions resulted from a natural informal alliance forming between people who wanted academic and heroic status while having little of the required intellect and none of the required integrity, and wealthy institutions that were desperare to redirect the growing actual radicalsim they feared away from threatening the control and power of corporate and poitical elites and towards issues that threatened little to no impact on the actual centers of power. I think that assessment is as correct now as it was then in general, although, of course, there are plenty major exceptions. I don't think it would be wise or fair for me to categorise Butler squarly in that kind of hack fux radical academic catogory on the basis of a single interview, but it was the strong impression I was getting from the endless sophistry she seemed to genuinly think counted as profound philosophy.

except all of mainstream science agrees with trans people, gender and sex are not binary. No need to play with words when the science is on her side

Not even an icon. Just a dummy.

They're the same thing

@@RealFemale69 Nope

@@ComplexConfiguration they've been intertwined for like 50 - 60 years

@@RealFemale69 It's not necessary. You can advocate for women's (female's) rights without saying that males should have a right to female spaces or legal recognition as women. In fact, you can argue the opposite from the standpoint of female rights. You can even separate it from gay rights. So they are not the same thing.

What was the first title? Click bait is very effective though you have to admit

Let's not...

reading all the pithy comments that don't address the specifics of anything she says. Really gives you faith in the world...

@@Celestina0 I’ve listened to her word salads on more than one occasion where she disregards boring old science in favour of a world where 1+1=3 and XY=XX.

@@antonydavis2764 I wish I had the selfconfidence of someone who completely misunderstands a philosopher and thinks that the philosopher is the one who's completely mistaken, and not them lol

@@Celestina0 curious that you keep trying to bring this round to philosophy instead of science. Is this because you recognise JB’s ‘science’ is shaky and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. By the way I’m an admirer of philosophy too but not when it seeks to undermine basic scientific principles with gobbledygook. I’m sure you can find some philosopher telling us all that the earth is flat.

@@antonydavis2764 the question of whether the earth is flat is an empirical question the question of how we categorise people into 'man' and 'woman' is not. This is the foundation of your misunderstanding of Butler.

That sounds good, but I don’t think it’s true. That only applies to select historical periods and select aspects of the nature of organisms, including humans. The history of life on this planet is a waxing, waning and yet greater waxing of biodiversity as ecology and cataclysm force species in and out of existence and in and out of conflict with one another. The same is true of the tribes and nations of humanity over our existence.

In the podcast he said he'd been drinking heavily ) He's hanging

2 bottles of red, in need of a steam room/sauna, but you add the payer of not wanting to look like a tit Infront of someone he respects

Omg, imagine discussing materialism hungover xD

@@veggienugnugs Imagine being a smug victim of Marxist brainwashing!

That’s insane for wht reason ? There are ppl that identify as a mother and let’s face facts breastfeeding is breastfeeding

​@@niyyy2667In order to pander to/for fear of threats from the trans community. For example the NHS doesn't claim to assign sex at birth. It does however use that language for trans ppl because that "audience" is more comfortable with that language. There was also a recent pseudo scientific claim that males could breastfeed equally to females (in Sussex I think?). No mention of the clear safeguarding red flag that should be raised by any male that tries to was mentioned.

@@robertmarshall2502 Well, Nominal Naomi is managing to breastfeed, and she was amab.

@@paulhammond6978 Maybe I wasn't clear. The benefits of breastfeeding come from the mother naturally breastfeeding her child. A male using drugs to excrete from his nipples isn't equal in the sense it doesn't have the same benefits to the baby. I'm thinking about the baby not the male using a baby to either feel "affirmed" or act out a paraphilia. Women are also warned about what they eat or take as medicine when breastfeeding. These rules don't seem to apply to trans identifying males. Who can't produce enough to feed a baby even with the drugs. Or are you arguing that all males regardless of gender identity are equally as good at breastfeeding as women?

​@@niyyy2667it doesn't matter what someone identifies as. Only women can be mothers.

Well easy, you dont condition rights on gender. You only condition on capacity. You can Bear children ? Here are associated rights. You can't walk ? Here are specific rights... But, gender exists in people mind like money or race, so discrimination based on gender exists eventhough gender itself doesn't have to. In this framework, the only gender you have to recognize is the one that's used to discriminate. A women is someone who is discrimated as a women. That's all society need to consider, the rest is poetry.

Who said we can't define what is a "woman"? last time I checked, only the most dumb of fanatic conservatives can't define what a "woman" is, even when repeatedly explained and provided sorces. But then they are conservatives, so they don't count.

You can bear children? Now how do we call these people again…? I’m sure we had a word for it.

@@impossibleagent3663 Adult human females

@@NoLefTurnUnStoned.With no specific condition.

For people with Gender Dysphoria gender affirming care is not harming them quite the opposite including most people who go on to fully transition.

For a junkie taking heroin is not harming them its making them a hero. That is your logic. I weep at your reasoning capacity. But as long as you make people feel good you dont care if you talk out of your ass, do you? @@MrRailjunkie

"If biological sex has nothing to do with gender identity, why take hormones?" Yeah... Puberty causes permanent irreversable changes. That's why puberty blockers exist.

"(hint: adult human female)" And what is a female, except what society considers a predominance of characteristics that are socially accepted as feminine.

@@arturferrao7353 Even a dog knows what a female is.

Careful now, someone might not get the joke and think you're being serious (great parody btw).

@@Pedro17841 I think it's the actual quote for which Butler won the 'Bad Prose Award'...

@@daramccluskey If not, it most definitely should be.

I think that’s from Kafka right

It's a staple of "trans" activism.

Ask the cow if she understands herself (i.e., if she is aware of her own existence) as a woman -cow, whatever it is she makes. Eagerly awaiting the cows response (which, I'm sure, you'll relate verbatim without your own embellishments).

​Biological fact is not dependant on self awareness

@@cathalbuckley3606 Human's are (self)related to their bodies (i.e., they experience their bodies as their own, and that embodiment is an issue for them)...unless you are the exception to that. And nobody is saying there is no biological facticity, is how that 'fact' is experienced that fires the whole debate. Being fatuous does not count as a contribution to the debate. Cancel Reply

@allegory6393 I appreciate your attempt to bombard people with word salad so they assume you're correct and bow out....I am not one of those people Address my above point please and address it devoid of ideology

@@allegory6393We structure society around empirical reality not around how people with obvious mental health issues misinterpret it. I don't get to inherit billions of dollars because I think I'm Bill Gates, I don't get to demand women find me attractive because I think I'm Brad Pitt and men don't get to access women's spaces and resources because they think they're female.

It will be in your watch history. Or you can just write down the title of the video and search again. KZfaq normally remembers how far through the video you got even if it isn't in a playlist.

Very, very interesting essay by Nussbaum and thank you for posting it. Unfortunately it confirms my worst - non-scholarly - intuitions about Butler and the gender theorists, based not so much on theory but on the indifference to harmful outcomes for women and children. I can feel in the discourse a sado-masochism whose masochism is expressed in the rush of young women to renounce their rights to their own identity, speech, privacy and bodily integrity and in the violent, sadistic fantasies of many trans activists when attacking what they call terfs, also in the indifference to the obvious risks and harms to very vulnerable children. At the centre of every revolution, as Orwell depicts in 1984, is a torture chamber and I think we will find that the torture chamber at the centre of this revolution is the gender clinic. I wasn't aware of the quietism at the centre of Butler's writing, which Nussbaum points out, which encourages women to be passive sufferers and which values pain and victimhood itself as a good - this, frankly, is psychopathic thinking. While one can't always draw a straight line between philosophers' lives and their philosophies, in the case of gender theory, which draws so heavily on an avowed misogynist like Nietzsche, a Nazi such as Heidegger, a sadomasochistic, paedophile anti-human like Foucault, and which, in Butler, not merely describe but recommends the world as a hellish zone of domination and depravity, one really is entering into a very disturbing area of thought and, lately behaviour and medicine. I have noticed the disturbing effect exposure to gender theory and radical feminism can have on the minds and emotions of certain types of vulnerable young women, particularly those raised in a somewhat sheltered environment. I didn't realise precisely why, but listening to Nussbaum, one can see that the effect of Butlerian thought is to make certain young women feel they are being permanently held down and violated by the world and - incredibly - that to remain in that position is a good and necessary revolutionary activity. This clarifies my own intuitions that a lot of gender studies have devolved into a sort of giant rape fantasy, a sadomasochistic game between professors who stoke the minds and emotions of virginal young students as formerly male professors preyed on their bodies. That might sound like an overly Gothic reading of the field, but there is a very strong element of the Gothic and of the bodice-ripper in Dworkin's writing going back to the 80s and what Nussbaum was complaining of in the late 90s has surely intensified and metastasised in the decades since into a system not just of thought but of government and medicine that, frankly, resembles that of certain German doctors who thought they could change people's races by changing the colour of their eyes. Thanks for posting that essay - it makes for depressing but clarifying listening. I've been saying for years that Butler vs Peterson is a necessary debate, but Butler is unlikely to accept the challenge of a qualified opponent. Maybe Nussbaum could do the job if she's still around...

@@daramccluskey Wow. Good insights. Butler has a responsibility to speak out against what is happening to kids with gender dysphoria today. She is ground zero for this transgender explosion. You may want to check out Gender Dysphoria Alliance on KZfaq. It’s an organization headed by 2 transmen that gives me hope. They were recently a part of an opinion piece in The NY Times. They were taken in by gender theory as they wrestled with their gender dysphoria. One of their goals is to address the reality of the exponential rise in gender dysphoria today by supporting evidenced-based research regarding its many causes - in order to provide effective individualized treatment, especially for kids.

@@dcostarasHow one identifies is fantasy.

Never. Idealogues like Butler never expose themselves to critique. They are dishonest and cowardly.

I hope you don't mean debate with transphobes because that is pointless & she would destroy their bigoted propaganda anyway.

Sex is real. Philosophy is just words on paper.

@@PoliticalRegality Philosophy is the practice of advanced human thought

@@Coelacanth1 That's stem, peasant. ;D

@auriga2461 Yes, it is - when it comes with a whole heap of 'shoulds'.

Don't you mean talking for an hour without saying what you wanted to hear?

Likewise... I think there was a sniff of it perhaps. Maybe...

@@jnielson1121 deffo moments it showed lmao

Outside of technical, scientific terms the meanings of words are user- and context-dependent. There is a technical, medical use of the term 'phobia' and then there is its normal use in the English language, which most people understand and agree on. Most people understand what is meant by transphobia as used in this interview and would use it to mean much the same thing. It's clearly not intended as a medical diagnosis in this context. (Similarly, if somebody asks me my weight, I don't normally give my answer in newtons.)

@@brianpatterson7332Accurate to certain point. The problem in this context though is the use of the phobia add on is to shut down and cancel any other person's point of view, be it correct or not. So it is not a simple case of oh well people know what is meant by transphobia... the label is designed to prevent anyone asking a really difficult question such as the one mentioned herein by the presenter and guest: what is a woman? A really demanding question is it not? And this weaponising of language has resulted in some of the landmines that have been stepped on by various parts of the "medical" community in the UK for example. So to dismiss it casually as you have i think does not give enough weight to why this sort of problem needs to be better handled than it has been.

I think that women in prison may fear trans women being allowed into their prison. The question is whether all types of fears are phobias.

@theoutsider6191 No, the label is designed to - quite rightly, in my opinion - call out bigotry for what it is. From a biological perspective, what defines a woman is actually extremely complex; so much dmso that several biologists have written entire books on the subject. In terms of gender, it's different again and not something a politician should be expected to articulate off the top of his head in Parliament. Such a question coming from Sunak - a man who has never shown the slightest concern for women's rights in any other context - is clearly motivated by anti-trans bigotry (ie transphobia) and it's naive to the point of idiocy to think otherwise.

So a social phobia requires not being able to leave the house? Who made you an expert? Phobia has to match the specifics of your case? Check ANY dictionary... You dont get to redefine words with yourself as the reference point for everything 😂

There comes a point when we abstract ourselves so far away from the concrete world, that we cant see the ground anymore.

The ultimate meaningless comment.

I can't believe people are slippery-sloping the social values argument. 50 years ago we believed it was OK for black people to go to shittier schools than white people 100 years ago we fought a pretty significant war over the idea that some people deserved to be slaves 200 years ago people were convinced that kings were chosen by God to rule over their fellow man. What exactly is the problem with evaluating what values may be flawed today, when evaluating what values were flawed centuries ago led to this?

One might argue that freedom is the ability to deconstruct values that don't meaningfully benefit one's existence, and reconstruct values that do. We've done it before with the Revolutionary War, the Civil Rights Movement, and even during the Vietnam Protests. Strikes, Protests, Sit-ins, all attempts to rebuild a better world from the broken edges of a society that doesn't quite fit right.

@@zacharybosley1935 Why is your existence more important than someone else's? If you have values, that means you value one thing more than another. That implies you find truth and meaning in some things more than other things. That's a hierarchy. That's a narrative. That's a power structure in Post Modernism and deconstruction. Never forget that everything can be deconstructed, even the things "you" find valuable. You don't find freedom in deconstruction. You find nothing.

The only person here not having a firm grasp on reality is you, where in the video do they say reality is 'just an idea'? Yes, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand sexism. And what do you mean by 'sexual perversion'? Because it never seems to mean the actual agents of sexual violence does it.

I probably disagree with all of you, but as an ex-feminist and still leftist, I don't see how most feminist intellectuals or feminist activists can understand violence or sexism. Feminists literally cause quite a lot of both, in criminal justice for example@@isaacmarsh6025

@@isaacmarsh6025 who are the "actual agents of sexual violence"?

its 2024, caring about kids is so 1990es.... 😐

@@isaacmarsh6025 ''Yes, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand sexism.'' No to this all, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand or devalues the importance of biological, undisputable sex on human behaviour. Fixed that for you, you're welcome.

Yes. And her comment about exiting the stage quickly due to the 'anxiety of being confronted in unwanted ways' is quite ironic considering the topic.

That is exactly the word.

@@jorvikaengelskvinna7157 That was notable!

She is unbelievably manipulative, and misrepresents the arguments of the gender critical feminists in shocking ways.

Spot On!

@alisonteal2317 This ^^^

"The project of feminism is about the destruction of preconceived ideas about what a woman is capable of even though she produces large gametes." Why women though? Why not everyone? I understand both feminists and some non feminists once focused on women in the sense that women were not organized after being brought back into the labor force, or maybe did not get the vote as early as most men got it. But once those are achieved, it seems feminism essentially IS just acting out of sex stereotypes, including the flawed idea that most women are oppressed relative to most men

Buy no other mammals have a neo cortex, and can't do art, mathematics, or classical music, or computer science, physics, chemistry, chess etc. Or am I just making shit up? Do.youbstand by that assertion, that we are "nothing but mammals", meaning there is no difference between, cats, dogs, chimpanzees and humans? Of course you don't, because you're not that smart .

Not all humans produce gametes. Genetic abnormalities or conditions, such as Turner Syndrome in females (where there is a missing or partially missing X chromosome) and Klinefelter Syndrome in males (where there is an extra X chromosome, XXY instead of XY), can affect gamete production.

​@@leonepearsall5067exceptions do not annul a biological fact.

There can be no gay or straight, only bisexuals are allowed….?

What I find hilarious is how Butler drones on about challenging freedom, social construction, gender performance, sex expectations and then presents herself as a stereotypical lesbian in a short haircut, hiking books, no makeup, slightly masculine manner. She's talking about freedom and breaking out of boxes while remaining firmly in hers. It just shows her own banal thinking and lack of imagination that her 'performance' of gender offers nothing new or interesting....

⁠@@daramccluskey she didn’t put herself in a box. you did. she did what she wanted, and your response is “ugh how stereotypical”. ffs do you give straight ladies that much shit for wearing makeup too? what if a straight man likes working with tools. do you get pissy about him freely choosing to be “stereotypical”?

@@aaabbc379 I didn't say 'ugh', which is an expression of disgust; I said that if someone tells me that women are under terrible pressure to conform to narrow stereotypes from which they need to be released and against which they must rebel, I might ask why that person hasn't released themselves, instead of reinforcing long-existing stereotypes. Likewise, if someone tells me women are under terrible pressure to conform to narrow stereotypes from which they need to be released, against which they must rebel, and that person is sitting there wearing an inch of conventional female makeup, push-up bra, cleavage, a micro-mini, sheer tights and 6-inch heels, I may ask myself how serious she can be about her beliefs given the complete conformity of her behaviour. Most people would ask themselves how seriously she takes her beliefs, given her presentation in precisely the form against which she rails. I don't care what people wear, but if what they say and what they do are entirely different, most people are liable to think they might be hypocrites. I'm just off to get my Leprechaun outfit to go to the protest against the historical stereotyping of Irish people...

@@daramccluskey i’m starting to get what you’re saying, and it’s not a great point. people don’t have to be nonconforming to say “compulsive gender conformity is bad”. it’s perfectly fine for people to fit a stereotype, it’s only when those stereotypes become enforced that there’s a problem. the whole point is that people have a choice in how they express themselves and their gender, not that they have to personally break the barrier.

not only that. i know what a female cat is. i know what a male cat is. and i don't ask the cat if it identifies as a male cat. so yes, it is biology alone that decides whether you're a female human (woman) or a male human (man).

Or do you know what a male and female are?

You must've watched Question Time when they had Professor Robert Winston on.... a pre-eminant UK Scientist and Biologist and you had people like this wordplaying tool arguing this sort of point with him.... Unfortunately far too many institutions/companies and Govs have been way too quick to pander and get their virtue points, and have disregarded the consequences of allowing ideologies like this one to go unchecked. And so what you end up with is the Tavistock scandal.

@@theoutsider6191 Quite the opposite - bigots and people who dont understand science are allowed to write scientifically illiterate opinions pieces in the UK press on a daily basis. Tavistock was a badly managed, underfunded and understaffed institution, like many others in the UK today.

@@thomaspolasik6235Do you think a cat identifies as a cat? There is good reason to believe that in making an animal, whether of the furry kind or human, by assigning to it either a male or female role in order to procreate may not come out as cleanly as you imagine it does. We start with the potential for either, something which is determined by the genes in the chromosomes and takes place during gestation, creating both the physical apparatus and the sexual function as determined in the brain. What makes anyone believe that any crossover wouldn't happen? Especially given the obvious reality that is intersex people?

Very curious what constitutes "better credentials", and in what way Butler's credentials are lacking?

She says what some people want to hear

@@johnsmith7140And I gather, what you don't want to hear?

@@Coelacanth1 naive young ideologue with so much to learn and so much to UNLEARN. ;)

Agree - taking medical advice from a philosopher is like taking legal advice from a chiropodist...

Yes, nuance will prevail. Like understanding that one generally needs to learn and synthesize information from multiple disciplines in order to attain something like knowledge or wisdom on a subject. Do you understand what ontology or epistemology means? Because no where in this video does Butler make a metaphysical argument or any argument for the way in which we acquire knowledge. If you understood theories of social construction, you'd understand that they do not make ontological arguments, because there is nothing metaphysical about suggesting that concepts are socially constructed. Believing that social construction negates existence just means that you don't understand what social construction is. Theories which discuss social construction simply describe relationships between people, how we conceptualize them and how that affects social, cultural and political relationships and power. As Butler mentioned (literally in this video) the discipline of biology is hugely influenced by who is doing the biology and for what purposes. Just consider the way the Atlantic slave trade was in part 'justified' by the then emerging discipline of biology and 'race science'. As Butler points out (again, in the video) the problem with a positivist argument is that what is considered settled facts changes. Most of society once believed the earth was flat, based on the both the tools and the dominant political order of the time. When our instruments got better, the 'fact' that the earth is spherical didn't immediately become settled fact. There was a great deal of political and religious backlash to the idea for a long time. Also, again very basic philosophy, but knowing what is (i.e. settled fact) doesn't automatically therefore follow what to do about that. It's the Is/Aught gap. That's why theories of social construction - and synthesizing information from many disciplines - is so important. Scientists can make all kids of discoveries, but it is what we do with them that actually makes the largest difference to our society.

@@isaacmarsh6025 Do you have any recent examples - say within the last 50 years - of biology changing owing to the identity of the biologists? The example you cite from the 19th century is hardly useful in advancing your argument. At that time, evolution, DNA, germ theory, the periodic table, and pretty much all of modern biology had not been discovered. Can you point to a recent example of biology changing based on who was doing the biology? Many people still believe the earth is flat and are immune to contrary evidence-does that mean the question is still open or truth of earth-flatness depends on who asks the question?

something tells me this person already made up their mind a priori

@isaacmarsh6025 If you don't think post modern social constructivism has any has any underlying assumptions about and implications on epistemology you must have simply never encountered any serious epistemological critique of the idiology. You should go check out the old debate between Noam Chomsky and Foucault, might learn something about why so many non authoritarian egalitarians have no time for the incoherent circularity of postmodern ideological stances, despite fully understanding that much of how we think and value things contains elements of social construction

How you identify does not matter one iota! What matters is how people perceive you. And that is something you build, not something you demand! Does it matter you identify as important or it matters that you ARE important? @@dcostaras

The authoritarian Right tell us all, who and what we are, how to live, who to love, and what constitutes the "right" way to live and behave is...and say its all based on undisputable....facts.. with Right Wingers making their personal assertions....facts...

​@@kimberleyaxxxx934But I am left wing and dedicated to the idea that I and everyone else is entitled to be, say, dress and behave as they wish. But I will not be told that 2 and 2 makes 5. It is absolutely clear that biological sex is real and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. People should not be told they are transphobic or hateful because they say so. I don't know what causes the increasing numbers of people feeling they are in the wrong body. We have to be patient and try to work put what's going on. Certainly as a 72 year old woman who has never taken on board classic "female" characteristics, I think much of the problem arises because the idea of a woman in the media or a man in the media is so unattainable and unattractive! I would advise anyone to avoid those stereotypes and be yourself. You don't need to change your body necessarily.

@susiegreaves7283 I would agree with almost all you have set out Susie. But its what you want to leave out, and dont give any voice to that I would worry about. As "left leaning" people are usually more inclusive. So they dont generally start with a hate based (sex is a fact - so theres no such thing as Trans) attacks on Queer/Trans people. There have ALWAYS been people who have questioned their gender. That is a fact. The greatest threat of harm to women comes from hetrosexual men. Another Fact. But the church led Authoritarian crusade to say Trans people are a murderous ideological threat to society is a crusade of hate. They insist sex is all that matters in gender. Feminist dont bow to people telling tgem what a women is. Feminists self identify themselves as their type of women. Where sex is only one attribute if that determination. And people like yourself always want to fence in the debate to only talk of sex. Not sex plus, gender, gay love, gay parenting and societal gender roles. You claim to be left leaning? But left leaning people can be very Authoritarian in some of their views and realities. Authoritarian people tell other people to live under their Facts. There has been a big rise in those questioning their gender. And I would agree the reasons for that are not fully understood. But that is not reason or good cause to launch wholesale attacks on Trans folk with bigotry based, Authoritarian / right wing led transphobia.

I can't survive in the material world if I don't accept that the earth is round and gravity is real? I think you'll find those things will take care of themselves, whether we believe them or not! But biology can be altered, and self-definition is every human's right. Nothing to do with absolute facts at all. Not the most important part of it all, anyway. Even if you say biological sex is a 'fact', it's just about the body. I live every day as MUCH MORE than my body! @susiegreaves7283

unfortunately in the u.k... having any sympathy for the 38000 innocent people(most of them women and children sheltering in hospitals or refuge camps) that have been slaughtered with absurd reckless disregard for life by the IDF, is regarded as being antisemitic

If you really think that, how do you deal with the following: 1) statements by Hamas that quote the Quran to kill Jews, which was clearly written before the modern state of Israel. "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews"? 2) That there have been many terrorist attacks and attempts against Jews outside of Israel, AMIA bombing, Toulouse shooting, Hyper Cacher supermarket attack in Paris, Copenhagen Shootings, Djerba synagogue bomed in 2002 and then also a shooting in 2023, and arrests of hezbollah agents, in NY, thailand, Brazil, Greece, Peru and many more, but those were specifically where the targets of the planned attacks were Jewish but not Israel? 3) The Houthi motto specifically mentions Jews and Israel separately, how much clearer do you want them to make it that Jews and Israelis aren't synonyms for them? "God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam" 4) Why would you believe someone who claims they aren't racist just because they say they aren't? The most funny headline about this "KKK members insist they’re not “white supremacists”"

I don't think Hamas is sincere in their updated charter, to be frank.

Hamas, the organisation that had as it's explicit goals the genocide of Jews in the region but recently updated for pollical expediency (hard to claim the world's sympathy went it's in black and white you are the "bad" ones). Be better than this. Be on no one's "side". When you are impartial, then you have a chance of being an agent for peace in the region. Being utterly biased, you are part of the conflict.

@@user-gk1lo6ni1bdo you have any prove of this? As Israel is not targeting hospitals, and Hamas is using civilians as human shields?

Exactly.

if only, less garbage terminology and unfalsifiable drivel would flood the world.

When you say dominant - do you mean numbers wise or in aggression... I'm guessing you don't mean intellectually dominant intellectually by the rest of your comment. I wonder if you can evidence your views? In my experience lately the far right have been more active in marginalisation lately. Across several nations.

Do you mean anti-liberalisim or postmodernism?

That would be great! I'd also like to see Kathleen Stock, who is a trained philosopher; as is Judith Butler, to have a dialogue. Unfortunately, that is not happening because, AFAIK, Butler is not willing to do it. And that tells me a lot!

I really don’t understand your reluctance to this particular feminist perspective. Back in the late 70’s, 80’s & 90’s when I was active on the scene there was not this level of outrage amongst feminists around gender fluidity. What is deeply sad is that lots of trans picketed & stood side-by-side for our freedoms un-yet today there appears to be a lot of resentment-shame because we are all other

Today on "The Paradox of Tolerance-"

L Didn't even read the book they're on about

good on you! You have more allies than youtube comments would have you think!

Do whatever the fuck you like with your body. Literally nobody cares. Just stay the fuck out of women's spaces and sports.

Yep...stay out of women's spaces....

Live your life free of terror and I wish the best for you. However I hope you support keeping women's sports for women and preserving women's safe spaces. If you care about women you will want to keep them safe. I also hope you support not performing medical procedures on children. In any case, good luck.

Instead of chemical mutilation, you should seek treatment to help you accept biological reality and live in concordance with the objective state of things. You are a male born in a male body. Your best possible outcome is to accept that objective fact, and find a way to live with THAT.

No, she doesn't.

Yeah... Yeah she does, and the more people this idiocy touches the more the counter you get... You had your time while most of the population was not aware of this idiocy spreading.@@powderandpaint14

I'm curious what you get when you Google "transgender"? My entire first page of results is from internationally and/or nationally recognised organisations all of whom define the word in roughly the same way as does Wikipedia: "A transgender person is someone whose gender identity differs from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth." On the other hand, when I Google the word "Earth" I get a whole page full of round Earths, again posted by internationally recognised organisations. It seems to me that these are both mainstream views, but maybe Google's algorithm treats you very differently from me? I'd be very curious to hear the results of your search.

The culture war gave you brain damage.

Should be titled "Woman Chewing Gum While Whistling"

Ain't much that's feminist about Butler. She's done more harm than good to the cause of female liberation, not to mention forcing actual feminists to waste time and energy debunking her post-modernist gibberish to prove what a waste of time and energy she is.

@@pluto9000Not a woman lmao

@@RealFemale69Judith Butler is not a woman?

thank you, all mainstream biology and genetics agrees with trans people. We are no longer in the 1700s mate

Idc who he/she/it(Judith) is, but its an idiot...

Whatever that means.

Biology has only ever been, at most, half of the equation. There's a reason no scientists believe that a man is made entirely of their nature.

Shes not impressive. Lets keep her away from 1619 which is worthwhile.

@@wingtipzzz See Peter Wood's book, 1620! (In other words sorry, can't agree about 1619).

@@MelissaKnoxwriter ok... will consider over the next few months

Your description of Butler is spot on. I do appreciate your ability to see through her self-aggrandizement.

@@stephanieroth16 You're both _very_ impressive. I wonder if either of you can present a reason to disagree with her about anything.

I think Rob Hastings did a nice job. As for me, trans ideology seems like misogyny dressed up like a male porn fantasy. Deeply harmful to women and children, and tremendously useful to pedophiles.

Yellow smells nice. Please present a reason to disagree with me about that. @@Disentropic1

@@ConceptNull That's easy enough. I don't know of any object called yellow. Since I can't rationally affirm that an object I don't recognize has particular properties, I consequently disagree with your claim that yellow smells nice.

Leftists like her have no integrity.

She did say the debate is fluid, so what!! 😮

That IS what the whole rhetoric, not scientific or philosophical strategy consists of. That is plainly it.

Sorry it's hard for you to follow conversations

I think she clearly acknowledges the shifting definition from the outset and I don't think your comment is in good faith for that reason.

Basic Sciences?

Oh god, the 4chan trolls are here

I’m curious what “basic science” you think people (presumably trans people?) don’t understand? Also have you read the WPATH files?

@BetteB999 Not just trans people but people in general. It's easy to convince science illiterate people or at least get them to tacitly agree that sex is a spectrum & blocking children's puberty is a healthy viable medical treatment for assumed gender dysphoria,oh & to lump autogynophiles,drag,kink & gender non-conforming persons under the term transgender ie: "you don't have to have gender dysphoria to be trans" ideaology pushed by trans activist today. For example to any person understanding the scientific concept of biological pathology & the what sex scientifically is can see the "intersex" explanations used to defend the "sex is a spectrum" primise are disingenuous at worst & poor science at the least.

@RealFemale69 oh god the trans religion fanatics are here defending their neo-religion with ad-hominem attacks because they intrinsically know their science is bogus

Bigger prisons. Wow how did you spot that one.. respect

Freud another fraudster!

Cow and bull…… x

Humans are not animals though. Try again. Think a little this time

@@Anonymous-xm8ir that statement is completely and utterly stupid, nuclear waste level, American stupidity. We are mamels, didn’t you ever listen to the Blood Hound Group. Hahaha We literally are bipedal mamels, with an obstetrical dilemma - mothers carry the infants, who can’t even hold up their own head during the altricial phase of life (unlike an elephant or a horse). Oh help us Jesus, from the collective stupidity and mind virus breading ground that is the internet, where people like Judith’s Butler aren’t immediatley dethroned for fundamental paucity

@@Anonymous-xm8ir Are we plants then? Fungi? Please do enlighten me

@@Anonymous-xm8ir: ''Humans are not animals though'' What the hell are you going on about? 😂

When do doctors view the baby's karyotypes at birth mate?

@@DavidGraeberWasRight sex observed then.

Assignment. That’s how we know trans people are about, because sometimes the assignment is wrong :)

you sound like somebody who aint never observed sex

Being trans is just an idea. Trans does not exist physically as sex does.

Shes so bloody banal - science doesn’t pretend to say who you are, but it can say what you are…

Sex feels good because that motivates us to procreate.

Sex is not binary, thats your first mistake.

@@daramccluskey thats why science, psychology, genetics and biology agrees with what trans people are saying.

@@DavidGraeberWasRight I doubt genetics & biology agrees they're women. Those fields wouldn't even have a proper measurement within their domain to measure anyone's or anything's psyche to ascertain gender identity.

Projection is amazing

Example?

Elaborate?

@@littleflagsEverything they say is something someone else has to change. Usually when I find myself feeling this way it's because I am the problem.

@@davidbrown7883 Why would you call yourself that?

Yes it's pretty ridiculous that people like this are given a platform to spread blatant lies and disinformation.

they want to control ppl, and when you define something you excerpt control

That's very well said. @@IcoOst

Luxury beleifs 🙄

Never use an argument that your enemy could use without changing a single word to mean the same. The fact that this can be done is a proof that there is literally no logic behind the argument.