Helen will go down in HISTORY as many WONDERFUL WOMEN battling this IDEOLOGY. Thanks so much for this I'm becoming more & more able to articulate my stance ❤
It's "closed minded", and no, sweetheart. Believing in objective reality is not a definition of closed mindedness. In fact, the stance of "No debate" is, by definition, closed mindedness.
They can't debate any clearly thinking woman ("terf" in their terminology) because this whining community has no arguments, but just a hateful ideology.
I'm not fond of Helen. I like my arguments irrational and without evidence or reason. EDIT: But seriously, the TRAs are full of verbal gymnastics with very little substance.
A few months back I noticed that on the NHS website menopause page, there was no mention that menopause is an issue that affects WOMEN. They squeamishly avoided any mention of the word.
All these institutions are cowards and they need to remember that they benefit from the tax paying woman. I will boycott any institution who adheres to this travesty, the abuse of women
Yet if you go onto the pages for prostrate cancer or testicular cancer the word man is well and truly there!!!!! At its heart this T stuff is female-hating.
It's not difficult to see why trans activists don't want Helen Joyce to speak, let alone debate her! She's so on the money with all of this and I'm so grateful we have her.
Very good isn’t it? I’ve just finished it. I’ve just bought Kathleen Stocks book Material Girls and I’m going to read Hannah Barnes book Time to Think on the Tavistock clinic scandal.
This whole "what is a woman" debate hasn't really changed my original thinking on the subject - however, I've certainly fine tuned my definition of - "what an 'idiot' is."
Helen brings up such a great point at 15:44 And it's one that I've often tried (and usually failed) to explain to other people in conversation: The very idea that a certain trait is more expected from women or more associated with women vs men (what we consider to be "feminine"), for example, presupposes the existence of the category of woman as materially distinct from the category of man; and that distinction is a function of reproductive sex. So even if gender and sex are separate concepts-- which they are, as evidenced by the fact that a statement like "he is an effeminate man" is coherent to us-- they do absolutely correlate; the former maps onto the latter. When you try to divorce the definition of the words "man" and "woman" from the concept of reproductive sex, not only does the conceptual and linguistic distinction between "man" and "woman" (thus male and female) break down, but likewise for "masculine" and "feminine". They become nothing but empty linguistic constructs, entirely bereft of substance, and therefore robbed of the ability to communicate anything meaningful. Human society-- from the very beginnings of human existence-- organized itself around the male/female dichotomy, an the different reproductive roles and thus physical needs and capabilities that exist as consequence. As societies became more advanced, this basic idea was extrapolated and extended into increasingly complex, and sometimes arbitrary ways (e.g. blue being a "boy" color and pink being a "girl" color), but the underlying substrate-- which these gender roles are built upon-- is reproductive sex. So, gender/sex roles exist as a consequence of reproductive sex: women weren't historically denied the same rights and opportunities as men because they "identified" as women, or because they were all just so girly and femme-- but because they are *female*
@@Kelsea-im8ob I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Are you saying that you don't think that statement-- "he is an effeminate man" -- makes sense? I would argue that we all implicitly understand what that means/implies: i.e. a man (an adult human male) who displays certain traits or behaviors that are typically or stereotypically associated with women/females. However, that obviously doesn't make said man a woman; but it does show that there is some distinction between the concepts of reproductive sex and "gender" (i.e. masculinity and feminity), even though they do correlate. But mostly I think gender is a largely amorphous concept that really doesn't serve any current purpose besides allowing TRAs to confuse people and obfuscate what they are really claiming.
>if gender and sex are separate concepts-- which they are, as evidenced by the fact that a statement like "he is an effeminate man" is coherent to us I've never seen gender and sex as separate concepts, these have always been synonyms to me. "Effeminate" to me, only means "like a female". The problem all TRAs have, and the reason they can't define "women", is that they want to say two contradictory things at the same time: that "women" means female and that males can be "women"
@@fredjimbob2962 Yes: "like" a female, not *actually* a female. The point I was making is that if a male can be considered feminine, for example, then clearly the word "feminine/femininity" is not necessarily synonymous with the word "female", and masculinity and feminity, or sex roles, is essentially what I mean by the word "gender"; therefore it is not synonymous with reproductive sex. The problem is also that there are different conceptions and usages of the word "gender": prior to about the 1950s, the typical use of the term "gender" was to indicate a noun class system for agreement found in many languages (e.g. the Romance languages). It was only with the work of certain academics (e.g. John Money) that there evolved a conception of "gender" as being a set of behavioral traits divorced from the material sex of an individual; and then after that you have a lot of people (especially Americans) simply using the term as a more "polite" way to indicate sex (bc they don't want to say the word "sex")-- if you read many novels or books written before the 1950s you'll mostly see the word "sex" used when referring to one's status as a man or woman, and rarely ever "gender". I would quite like to return to that prior usage, i.e. using sex to mean man/woman or male/female, then we have "masculine/feminine" to describe certain traits and behaviors even when they apply to the opposite sex, and "gender" simply to refer to the grammatical construct. Also, most TRAs don't, in fact, try to claim that "woman" means female-- most try to claim that a woman is simply "anyone who identifies as a woman", and there's has been a campaign of attempting to divorce the concept of "woman" from anything to do with biology and material reality.
It is as simple as men will always be catered to, so now men that think they are women are being catered to and to do that “what is a woman” must be redefined. Men will always make the world revolve around their egos just because he is in a dress it doesn’t mean the ego is removed. The definition of man doesn’t need to be redefined as it is already about them. men that are terrible at a sport against other men become women, ego trip. The men that feel inferior to other men have always and will always attack women either physically or emotionally.
I don’t necessarily disagree with many of your points, but I’d recommend avoiding the collectivist language or else you’ll alienate lots of people who would otherwise be on your side. “Men will always make the world revolve around their egos” makes you sound tribalist and lacking in appropriate discrimination.
Well I know that Female/Woman/She/Her are used synonymously. If others choose to deny this, that doesn't concern me. I will continue to use those words correctly to the correct people 🤷🏾♂️
Woman is literally the term for an adult, human, female. Female is adequately explained in biology as is Human. Adult is perhaps more socially affected but still has a biological basis. That’s it, it’s that simple! That definition includes all the people that need that definition and excludes males, just as bitch and dog are adequate when buying or breeding a dog! Beyond that it’s all stereotypes, social, historical and cultural constructions which are both limiting, damaging and exclusionary.
I may disagree with some of Helen's comments about MRA's, but such petty disagreements are completely irrelevant right now, given the war that woke ideologues and trans-activists are waging against the definition of the word "woman", which is a vicious attack on our identity and on our protected spaces. Thank you so much Helen for standing up for a sane world and the protection of all biological females.
Helen Joyce is the most important thinker in the last 100 years and will save us from this madness. This is genius and hystericle; in a postitive way. 😂❤
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:33 🚺 *The traditional definition of "woman" as an adult female human is now seen by some as hate speech due to exclusion of biologically male individuals who self-identify otherwise.* 02:13 🔄 *Critique of a philosopher's definition of "woman" as one experiencing female-associated norms, highlighting the problem of circularity and the exclusion of non-normative experiences.* 03:37 🔁 *Discussion of another definition that bases womanhood on personal feelings, pointing out its circular logic and the subjectivity issue.* 05:00 🧩 *Comparison of the word "woman" to the concept of "prime numbers" to illustrate the absurdity of overly inclusive definitions which make the term meaningless.* 07:44 🔄 *Analysis of gender identity definitions showing a trend where the category of "woman" is being redefined while "man" remains relatively unchanged.* Made with HARPA AI
I have spent 60 years as a man and boy. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how it would feel like to be a woman. I do know that there are three testosterone jolts in a male’s life: two in the womb, one to change the default female genitals to male genitals, the second to create a male-pattern brain, and the third at puberty. In a very, very rare circumstance, a male embryo may miss the second jolt, and thereafter not feel like a male. There is no evident equivalent for females. But these days, it’s more like a trendy lifestyle choice, and i can’t help but think that the pressure to support all these “gender affirming” surgeries are an attempt to reduce the global population, since transsexual people who go the whole way will never reproduce.
Men who experience a DSD condition where they do not get the testosterone increases are no less men than men who do. In trans identifying men, there are no differences between the testosterone they produce and any other man. Some women produce MORE natural testosterone than some men with DSDs yet this does not make them men.
John Nicolson is the MP for my constituency. I wrote to him a couple of days ago and told him 'If you take a moment to think about it, Mr Nicolson, you know men can't be women and you know that's a biological fact.' I have the email if anyone thinks I'm full of it. I didn't know he held the position stated in this video. I wrote to him hoping that he was, actually, a reasonable man who could see sense. I asked him to vote against self ID. It's clearly not going to work for me, but I'd still recommend writing to your MP/member of congress etc. with your concerns. Anyway. Thanks for the video Quilette.
@@annarboriter ummmm..that was because of their pedoughfeelya scandal if you will recall. If the GS hadn't joined they would have been bankrupt,. You guys always conveniently forget THAT ONE. men should be kept away from women and children. we used to know this........
@@HolicChan They don't have male genitalia and they don't even know that they're male until they don't go through puberty properly. As far as they know, they've been a female all their life. I wouldn't expect them to start using the men's room when they get the diagnosis as a teen.
That's not the definition of female. Nor should it be as it would exclude FEMALE humans born with x or xxx that are still female. Female humans are a sexual reproduction, born with the sex plan around production of ova.
@@lillywest9204 i'm sure you know what i mean, but if you feel the need to be obtuse to not extract any context in my condensed version, heres a longer version "anyone with XX chromosomal functions, and people with trisomy X (theres no possible way to have 1 as each DNA strand needs 2 strands to replicate one another) and all encompassing XXY genetic deformities, such as hermaphroditism and lack of uterus, non-working thyroid, lack naturally building hormones from birth defects, early and or late development, extra natural testestorone, a female is NOT anyone born with stable XY chromosomes, or XYY or YY. only XX, XXY, XXX including genetic deformities such as; but not limited to, hermaphroditism, thyroid problems, hormonal imbalances, loss of reproductive organs. but the DNA makeup must include more than 2 X's. females usually on average have lower muscle density without enhancers than males, higher red blood count, larger tear ducts, absorb vitamin B more, and in 89% of cases can have the capacity to bare children" is that better?
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all." ~Lewis Carroll
It's crazy that we have gotten to this point in discourse. One side says "Don't proselytize children". The other side gives a strawman and says "You're literally saying trans people don't have the right to exist". Search "right to exist" if you want see who created the fallacious strawman.
Ah, logic! So rare to encounter it being used in the majority of public discourse . . . Had I my life to do all over again, I would have sought out more training in its practice, instead of wasting so much of my time at University exchanging mealy-mouthed platitudes in written form with other academics. I found myself underemployed for years, until I was able to go back and get another degree in something at least slightly practical which made me eligible for a job with benefits and a good salary for awhile.
check out the recent Washington Post story about the definition of "woman" in the Cambridge dictionary: Cambridge Dictionary updates definition of ‘woman’ to include trans women, By Timothy Bella, December 13, 2022 at 12:05 p.m. EST
Can someone link me to anything where they said northern working class women are aggressive? I REALLY want to see that! Including apologies and promises to do better!
Sorry, woman hasn't been redefined, it's still an adult human without a Y chromosome. As for all the others, well, when I was eight I identified as a witch but I still couldn't fly a broom.
I wish I was handsome, brave, intelligent, great at cooking, kind, thoughtful and articulate... but however hard I wish it, it aint going to happen. I've been offered lots of surgery and a ton of drugs by some right dodgy "doctors", but alas, nothing's going to change...
It's funny how if you had a campaign, prostate havers check your prostate... okay, who is the target of the ad, where do we buy this prostate? We use "men/women" as an umbrella for the biological reality, which is self evident if you go to a country that doesn't speak English and want to translate "women"
Truth may be perceived differently subjectively, but the methods used to find it should follow UNIVERSAL criteria. „For where one considers the person of the thinker and not his thoughts", as Karl Popper says, „ becomes a question of affect - and thus itself relative.“ Positions that can be assigned to a „false“ identity or even supposedly reproduce it are quickly disqualified here. Men are explicitly encouraged to appropriate women's identities and their spaces (also against feminist criticism), while the appropriation of ethnic identities is considered a scandal, as the case of Rachel Dolezal shows. This is not only questionable because superficial features such as skin color are jazzed up as a natural barrier between people, while natural differences between the sexes are denied.
Also basic biology because a healthy 1m + 1f of the right age & *any* surface colour combination can procreate a new human. That’s not true of “gender identities”
Why does everything have to be “inclusive” anyway? Most vegetarian restaurants don’t serve meat. Most professional orchestras don’t include people who can’t read music / play an instrument. Water polo teams don’t include non-swimmers. Mosques don’t allow Christians to sing hymns & pass round communion wine in the middle of their religious ceremonies. I don’t let random people off the street wander into my house or drive away in my car. Primary school classes don’t cater for adults with learning difficulties, smokers don’t get to smoke in theatres anymore and cat shelters don’t rehome stray dogs. Not everything is for everyone, and that’s OK.
I think part of the reason why that trens individual who passes is uninterested in redefining womanhood is because it suits them just fine to keep the original definition. A trens individual who doesnt pass has more need to make the word woman more "inclusive".
You're a person who says they're a man. Why do we need white supremacist, colonial ideas of science to use observation, logic, and rationality to inform our worldview. Reality is whatever you would like it to be.
We have become a dirty word . So dont say women, cos its so difficult to define... Apparently.!!! Insulting to think that 68 yrs as one of those , needs redefining to suit a tiny minority. Gross.
Feminism - Human biology must be transcended in order for women to be free-indeed, that there needs to be a wholesale revolution against biology and human nature itself if women are ever to be free Sex and gender are a social construct - Judith Butler
@@dragonfox2.058 and yet her books are required reading in feminist studies. What irony. It must be due to the patriarchy again. The most cited feminist writers are, in fact, quite insane
@@dragonfox2.058 Yeah, you've avoided the reality that she and the other crazies like Dworkin, Solanas, Firestone, Millett et al form the core reading list of the feminist curriculum in every liberal arts college. She's hardly worse than the others. But it feels better to pin the blame on one solitary outlier of a fully corrupt and unassailable cult that has infiltrated academia. How else do you think this nonsense spread so quickly into GenZ? Did they all sit in Butler's class?
A table has 4 legs and a plate on top. A chair has 4 legs, a plate on top and a plate on the side. If we cut the plate on the side we get something that has superficially the same characteristics as a table, something with 4 legs and a plate on top. But for some reason a chair without a plate on the back is a stool and not a table. Strange how things work in real life, hm?
@@tangerinetangerine4400 there's no point - most of them have been bullied into silence by the ideologically captured among them. Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston are among the few scientists who'll openly say that sex is binary and gender identity ideology is nonsense, and that's probably only because they're big names and close to retirement. Few of their younger colleagues have the courage to counter the BS of Queer Theorists, even though they've got science on their side.
Ugh, Joyce's casual injection of garbage feminist talking points is too annoying. Frequently she is engaging in exactly the sort of rhetorical nonsense she is rallying against, which is very frustrating because she is otherwise very astute. "Which norms? Wearing lipstick? Not voting? Getting paid less?" Women got the vote in 1928 in the UK, so she'd need to have been at least 18 years old in 1928 (which would make her 113 years old today) to have been affected by that. Joyce has never been prohibited from voting in her lifetime (except as a minor, which applies to everyone equally). Also prior to 1928, a significant proportion of men couldn't vote either. But why let any of that ruin a good story? And the causes of the gender pay gap aren't something that can be adequately addressed in pithy three word statements. Women aren't paid less. It is immoral and illegal. Do women make less in lifetime earnings? Yes, but sexism as a force behind that is a vanishingly small if not completely irrelevant driver.
@@eb3222 As were the vast majority of men, if you actually bother to look the history of voter rights reforms in the UK. You should stop making on arguments that rely on historical ignorance to make a claim of victimization against a class of people you are not part of, that only occurred for a vanishingly small period of time, in order to claim some form of oppression in the present. I could equally claim that I've never been forced to go to France to be gassed by the Germans in a trench, but other men have. Meanwhile women were wandering around the home front pinning white feathers on men they deemed to be cowards for being in the UK instead of in a hole in the ground at the front - you know, accusing men of cowardice for not doing the very thing the women themselves were in no way required to do. The vast majority of men of that time weren't standing around flexing their freedom, power and wealth - they didn't have any either.
Helen will go down in HISTORY as many WONDERFUL WOMEN battling this IDEOLOGY. Thanks so much for this I'm becoming more & more able to articulate my stance ❤
Or: she will be remembered as a close-minded person.
It's "closed minded", and no, sweetheart. Believing in objective reality is not a definition of closed mindedness. In fact, the stance of "No debate" is, by definition, closed mindedness.
@@deborahyoung3794 Yes. It was totally intentional and premeditated. Thanks for noticing.
Trans activists hate Helen but they won’t debate her. I can see why.
They cannot sting a sentence together helen is intelligent
They can't debate any clearly thinking woman ("terf" in their terminology) because this whining community has no arguments, but just a hateful ideology.
I'm not fond of Helen. I like my arguments irrational and without evidence or reason.
EDIT: But seriously, the TRAs are full of verbal gymnastics with very little substance.
@@paulondawula1011 I love any argument that screams “you don’t want us to exist”.
@@littlecatfeet9064 or that just slaps ____phobic on the end of it
A few months back I noticed that on the NHS website menopause page, there was no mention that menopause is an issue that affects WOMEN. They squeamishly avoided any mention of the word.
They are so scared that they would rather be seen as cowards instead of realists.
All these institutions are cowards and they need to remember that they benefit from the tax paying woman. I will boycott any institution who adheres to this travesty, the abuse of women
So silly isn’t it?
@@oliverhug3 And they are so scared of hurting the feelings of a minority that they would rather offend and alienate the realistic majority.
Yet if you go onto the pages for prostrate cancer or testicular cancer the word man is well and truly there!!!!! At its heart this T stuff is female-hating.
It's not difficult to see why trans activists don't want Helen Joyce to speak, let alone debate her! She's so on the money with all of this and I'm so grateful we have her.
I just finished reading this part of Joyce's book. The whole thing is just extraordinary. She's a wonderful writer.
Very good isn’t it? I’ve just finished it. I’ve just bought Kathleen Stocks book Material Girls and I’m going to read Hannah Barnes book Time to Think on the Tavistock clinic scandal.
This whole "what is a woman" debate hasn't really changed my original thinking on the subject - however, I've certainly fine tuned my definition of - "what an 'idiot' is."
Agreed. Idiots believe a woman is anyone who says they're a woman.
Idiot is much much harder to define than woman.
Helen brings up such a great point at 15:44 And it's one that I've often tried (and usually failed) to explain to other people in conversation:
The very idea that a certain trait is more expected from women or more associated with women vs men (what we consider to be "feminine"), for example, presupposes the existence of the category of woman as materially distinct from the category of man; and that distinction is a function of reproductive sex. So even if gender and sex are separate concepts-- which they are, as evidenced by the fact that a statement like "he is an effeminate man" is coherent to us-- they do absolutely correlate; the former maps onto the latter.
When you try to divorce the definition of the words "man" and "woman" from the concept of reproductive sex, not only does the conceptual and linguistic distinction between "man" and "woman" (thus male and female) break down, but likewise for "masculine" and "feminine". They become nothing but empty linguistic constructs, entirely bereft of substance, and therefore robbed of the ability to communicate anything meaningful.
Human society-- from the very beginnings of human existence-- organized itself around the male/female dichotomy, an the different reproductive roles and thus physical needs and capabilities that exist as consequence. As societies became more advanced, this basic idea was extrapolated and extended into increasingly complex, and sometimes arbitrary ways (e.g. blue being a "boy" color and pink being a "girl" color), but the underlying substrate-- which these gender roles are built upon-- is reproductive sex. So, gender/sex roles exist as a consequence of reproductive sex: women weren't historically denied the same rights and opportunities as men because they "identified" as women, or because they were all just so girly and femme-- but because they are *female*
Well written 👍
You don't even need to go that far. "He is an effeminate man" doesn't have to be coherent. It's equally as coherent to say that doesn't make sense.
@@Kelsea-im8ob I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Are you saying that you don't think that statement-- "he is an effeminate man" -- makes sense? I would argue that we all implicitly understand what that means/implies: i.e. a man (an adult human male) who displays certain traits or behaviors that are typically or stereotypically associated with women/females. However, that obviously doesn't make said man a woman; but it does show that there is some distinction between the concepts of reproductive sex and "gender" (i.e. masculinity and feminity), even though they do correlate. But mostly I think gender is a largely amorphous concept that really doesn't serve any current purpose besides allowing TRAs to confuse people and obfuscate what they are really claiming.
>if gender and sex are separate concepts-- which they are, as evidenced by the fact that a statement like "he is an effeminate man" is coherent to us
I've never seen gender and sex as separate concepts, these have always been synonyms to me. "Effeminate" to me, only means "like a female".
The problem all TRAs have, and the reason they can't define "women", is that they want to say two contradictory things at the same time: that "women" means female and that males can be "women"
@@fredjimbob2962 Yes: "like" a female, not *actually* a female. The point I was making is that if a male can be considered feminine, for example, then clearly the word "feminine/femininity" is not necessarily synonymous with the word "female", and masculinity and feminity, or sex roles, is essentially what I mean by the word "gender"; therefore it is not synonymous with reproductive sex.
The problem is also that there are different conceptions and usages of the word "gender": prior to about the 1950s, the typical use of the term "gender" was to indicate a noun class system for agreement found in many languages (e.g. the Romance languages). It was only with the work of certain academics (e.g. John Money) that there evolved a conception of "gender" as being a set of behavioral traits divorced from the material sex of an individual; and then after that you have a lot of people (especially Americans) simply using the term as a more "polite" way to indicate sex (bc they don't want to say the word "sex")-- if you read many novels or books written before the 1950s you'll mostly see the word "sex" used when referring to one's status as a man or woman, and rarely ever "gender". I would quite like to return to that prior usage, i.e. using sex to mean man/woman or male/female, then we have "masculine/feminine" to describe certain traits and behaviors even when they apply to the opposite sex, and "gender" simply to refer to the grammatical construct.
Also, most TRAs don't, in fact, try to claim that "woman" means female-- most try to claim that a woman is simply "anyone who identifies as a woman", and there's has been a campaign of attempting to divorce the concept of "woman" from anything to do with biology and material reality.
Helen is so brigand and succinct in her arguments; which is why no trans apologist will debate with her.
I had to look up the definition of ‘brigand’ and now I’m more confused than before
@@slacktoryrecords4193 Me too. "Helen is so cutthroat and succinct in her arguments"?
Helen is brilliant.
I think women are magical droplets from outer space. My definition is a valid as these ones.
It is as simple as men will always be catered to, so now men that think they are women are being catered to and to do that “what is a woman” must be redefined. Men will always make the world revolve around their egos just because he is in a dress it doesn’t mean the ego is removed. The definition of man doesn’t need to be redefined as it is already about them. men that are terrible at a sport against other men become women, ego trip. The men that feel inferior to other men have always and will always attack women either physically or emotionally.
I don’t necessarily disagree with many of your points, but I’d recommend avoiding the collectivist language or else you’ll alienate lots of people who would otherwise be on your side. “Men will always make the world revolve around their egos” makes you sound tribalist and lacking in appropriate discrimination.
Well I know that Female/Woman/She/Her are used synonymously.
If others choose to deny this, that doesn't concern me. I will continue to use those words correctly to the correct people 🤷🏾♂️
Helen was fabulous. Definitely need more from her.
Woman is literally the term for an adult, human, female. Female is adequately explained in biology as is Human. Adult is perhaps more socially affected but still has a biological basis.
That’s it, it’s that simple! That definition includes all the people that need that definition and excludes males, just as bitch and dog are adequate when buying or breeding a dog!
Beyond that it’s all stereotypes, social, historical and cultural constructions which are both limiting, damaging and exclusionary.
In a Nutshell!
Hysterical 🙃. That's what this nonsense is
Entanglement 🙃
Helen. Recently PhD on women only cancer. Sorry can't post unless I tag to this poster
Adult, in this sense, just means “has reached child-bearing age or beyond”
Trans women are Not women
I'm gonna have to appeal to authority. If college professors say it. I believe it. Science is done by proclamation, not eveidence
Love the music that plays during the "definitions":
Such an intelligent rational Woman, fitting representation.
I may disagree with some of Helen's comments about MRA's, but such petty disagreements are completely irrelevant right now, given the war that woke ideologues and trans-activists are waging against the definition of the word "woman", which is a vicious attack on our identity and on our protected spaces.
Thank you so much Helen for standing up for a sane world and the protection of all biological females.
Helen is a treasure. Thank you Helen.
Look up Kelly-Jay Keen on TH-cam, she's another warrior against this madness x
She’s great. She’s currently on tour in Australia. I’m watching all her videos
Helen Joyce is the most important thinker in the last 100 years and will save us from this madness. This is genius and hystericle; in a postitive way. 😂❤
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:33 🚺 *The traditional definition of "woman" as an adult female human is now seen by some as hate speech due to exclusion of biologically male individuals who self-identify otherwise.*
02:13 🔄 *Critique of a philosopher's definition of "woman" as one experiencing female-associated norms, highlighting the problem of circularity and the exclusion of non-normative experiences.*
03:37 🔁 *Discussion of another definition that bases womanhood on personal feelings, pointing out its circular logic and the subjectivity issue.*
05:00 🧩 *Comparison of the word "woman" to the concept of "prime numbers" to illustrate the absurdity of overly inclusive definitions which make the term meaningless.*
07:44 🔄 *Analysis of gender identity definitions showing a trend where the category of "woman" is being redefined while "man" remains relatively unchanged.*
Made with HARPA AI
I have spent 60 years as a man and boy. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how it would feel like to be a woman. I do know that there are three testosterone jolts in a male’s life: two in the womb, one to change the default female genitals to male genitals, the second to create a male-pattern brain, and the third at puberty. In a very, very rare circumstance, a male embryo may miss the second jolt, and thereafter not feel like a male. There is no evident equivalent for females.
But these days, it’s more like a trendy lifestyle choice, and i can’t help but think that the pressure to support all these “gender affirming” surgeries are an attempt to reduce the global population, since transsexual people who go the whole way will never reproduce.
Men who experience a DSD condition where they do not get the testosterone increases are no less men than men who do. In trans identifying men, there are no differences between the testosterone they produce and any other man. Some women produce MORE natural testosterone than some men with DSDs yet this does not make them men.
The soft piano is a nice touch.
Woman is not an outfit!!
"you're calling me a bloody menstruator"
This sounds doubly funny as an american.
John Nicolson is the MP for my constituency. I wrote to him a couple of days ago and told him 'If you take a moment to think about it, Mr Nicolson, you know men can't be women and you know that's a biological fact.' I have the email if anyone thinks I'm full of it. I didn't know he held the position stated in this video. I wrote to him hoping that he was, actually, a reasonable man who could see sense. I asked him to vote against self ID. It's clearly not going to work for me, but I'd still recommend writing to your MP/member of congress etc. with your concerns. Anyway. Thanks for the video Quilette.
John Nicholson is one of the worst misogynistic scum you'll ever see. Together with Michael Cashman.
Helen Joyce is as VOCALLY lucid as ever. Thank you.
God I love the gentle piano in the background!
You can’t identify as a body part - but some people identify as assholes.
Let us start defining men in the exact same way and see how they like it.
They wouldn't tolerate it
@@eyesnme Exactly but so many women just lie down and take it and try to force the rest of us to do the same. Feminism has achieved this?
@@TheSapphire51 feminism literally means woman centered...this is not that. Just being a woman does not make a feminist
Are you referring to the way in which the the Boy Scouts of America were required to include girls in the definition of boy scouts?
@@annarboriter ummmm..that was because of their pedoughfeelya scandal if you will recall. If the GS hadn't joined they would have been bankrupt,. You guys always conveniently forget THAT ONE. men should be kept away from women and children. we used to know this........
a woman can be defined by "adult human who was born with XX chromosomes" its that easy
I'd be willing to grandfather in people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome even though they're technically men.
@@Primalxbeast i definitely wouldnt
@@HolicChan They don't have male genitalia and they don't even know that they're male until they don't go through puberty properly. As far as they know, they've been a female all their life. I wouldn't expect them to start using the men's room when they get the diagnosis as a teen.
That's not the definition of female. Nor should it be as it would exclude FEMALE humans born with x or xxx that are still female. Female humans are a sexual reproduction, born with the sex plan around production of ova.
@@lillywest9204 i'm sure you know what i mean, but if you feel the need to be obtuse to not extract any context in my condensed version, heres a longer version "anyone with XX chromosomal functions, and people with trisomy X (theres no possible way to have 1 as each DNA strand needs 2 strands to replicate one another) and all encompassing XXY genetic deformities, such as hermaphroditism and lack of uterus, non-working thyroid, lack naturally building hormones from birth defects, early and or late development, extra natural testestorone, a female is NOT anyone born with stable XY chromosomes, or XYY or YY. only XX, XXY, XXX including genetic deformities such as; but not limited to, hermaphroditism, thyroid problems, hormonal imbalances, loss of reproductive organs. but the DNA makeup must include more than 2 X's. females usually on average have lower muscle density without enhancers than males, higher red blood count, larger tear ducts, absorb vitamin B more, and in 89% of cases can have the capacity to bare children" is that better?
- A bloody mentruater - (18:44) Now that should be printed on t shirts!
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
~Lewis Carroll
🔢 Fittingly, Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) was a mathematician just like Helen Joyce is.
He was also a bit of a nonce. I love Helen, Charlie, not so much.
It's crazy that we have gotten to this point in discourse. One side says "Don't proselytize children". The other side gives a strawman and says "You're literally saying trans people don't have the right to exist". Search "right to exist" if you want see who created the fallacious strawman.
I love the gentle piano music with every absurd definition of the word woman. 😄👍🏽
Ah, logic! So rare to encounter it being used in the majority of public discourse . . . Had I my life to do all over again, I would have sought out more training in its practice, instead of wasting so much of my time at University exchanging mealy-mouthed platitudes in written form with other academics. I found myself underemployed for years, until I was able to go back and get another degree in something at least slightly practical which made me eligible for a job with benefits and a good salary for awhile.
How would these people define men?
A few that I have come across: oppressor, potential rapist, actually the world @16:45, the reason for all the world's problems, loser, etc
Adult human male.
No wonder the trans activists don’t wanna debate HJ 😂😊
check out the recent Washington Post story about the definition of "woman" in the Cambridge dictionary: Cambridge Dictionary updates definition of ‘woman’ to include trans women, By Timothy Bella, December 13, 2022 at 12:05 p.m. EST
Welcome to George Orwell's 1984. The soviet union regularly engaged in this tactic of redefining things on a whim. Now the west is doing it too.
Well that’s wrong. You cannot change your biological sex. A castrated male is still a male.
Advert for Blinkest...Helen's book is not on Blinkest!
Looking forward to your take on trans racial, age, and species ideologies...
Can someone link me to anything where they said northern working class women are aggressive? I REALLY want to see that! Including apologies and promises to do better!
Sorry, woman hasn't been redefined, it's still an adult human without a Y chromosome. As for all the others, well, when I was eight I identified as a witch but I still couldn't fly a broom.
I wish I was handsome, brave, intelligent, great at cooking, kind, thoughtful and articulate... but however hard I wish it, it aint going to happen. I've been offered lots of surgery and a ton of drugs by some right dodgy "doctors", but alas, nothing's going to change...
Listening to actually intelligent people. Nice change of pace
It's funny how if you had a campaign, prostate havers check your prostate... okay, who is the target of the ad, where do we buy this prostate? We use "men/women" as an umbrella for the biological reality, which is self evident if you go to a country that doesn't speak English and want to translate "women"
GREAT woman
I am an adult human female
Truth may be perceived differently subjectively, but the methods used to find it should follow UNIVERSAL criteria. „For where one considers the person of the thinker and not his thoughts", as Karl Popper says, „ becomes a question of affect - and thus itself relative.“ Positions that can be assigned to a „false“ identity or even supposedly reproduce it are quickly disqualified here. Men are explicitly encouraged to appropriate women's identities and their spaces (also against feminist criticism), while the appropriation of ethnic identities is considered a scandal, as the case of Rachel Dolezal shows. This is not only questionable because superficial features such as skin color are jazzed up as a natural barrier between people, while natural differences between the sexes are denied.
Also basic biology because a healthy 1m + 1f of the right age & *any* surface colour combination can procreate a new human. That’s not true of “gender identities”
Why does everything have to be “inclusive” anyway? Most vegetarian restaurants don’t serve meat. Most professional orchestras don’t include people who can’t read music / play an instrument. Water polo teams don’t include non-swimmers. Mosques don’t allow Christians to sing hymns & pass round communion wine in the middle of their religious ceremonies. I don’t let random people off the street wander into my house or drive away in my car. Primary school classes don’t cater for adults with learning difficulties, smokers don’t get to smoke in theatres anymore and cat shelters don’t rehome stray dogs. Not everything is for everyone, and that’s OK.
Mmmm, what is a 'human'? A copulator, jestator, shopper and digester? The world is full of mysticals...
Yet we have known for millions of years what a woman is. LoL this is a medical cult.
I think part of the reason why that trens individual who passes is uninterested in redefining womanhood is because it suits them just fine to keep the original definition. A trens individual who doesnt pass has more need to make the word woman more "inclusive".
I identify as a man but what does that mean? What am I? So confused :(
You're a person who says they're a man. Why do we need white supremacist, colonial ideas of science to use observation, logic, and rationality to inform our worldview. Reality is whatever you would like it to be.
Do u has a penus
We have become a dirty word . So dont say women, cos its so difficult to define...
Apparently.!!!
Insulting to think that 68 yrs as one of those , needs redefining to suit a tiny minority. Gross.
Can trans vest tights men truate.?
It was always just anti-womanism.
Germaine Grier was saying this decades ago.
Feminism - Human biology must be transcended in order for women to be free-indeed, that there needs to be a wholesale revolution against biology and human nature itself if women are ever to be free
Sex and gender are a social construct - Judith Butler
Butler is NOT a feminist + she's insane
What nonsense.
@@dragonfox2.058 and yet her books are required reading in feminist studies. What irony. It must be due to the patriarchy again. The most cited feminist writers are, in fact, quite insane
@@annarboriter people like her are who wrecked feminism..have you ever tried to read her? word salad
@@dragonfox2.058 Yeah, you've avoided the reality that she and the other crazies like Dworkin, Solanas, Firestone, Millett et al form the core reading list of the feminist curriculum in every liberal arts college. She's hardly worse than the others. But it feels better to pin the blame on one solitary outlier of a fully corrupt and unassailable cult that has infiltrated academia. How else do you think this nonsense spread so quickly into GenZ? Did they all sit in Butler's class?
✔️
A table has 4 legs and a plate on top.
A chair has 4 legs, a plate on top and a plate on the side.
If we cut the plate on the side we get something that has superficially the same characteristics as a table,
something with 4 legs and a plate on top. But for some reason a chair without a plate on the back is a stool and not a table. Strange how things work in real life, hm?
How is it used?
@@amateurhour4394 You are onto something, continue thinking.
Man got redefined, too.
16:14 fail
Interviewer: So, Helen, what is a woman?
Helen: We have top men working on it.
Interviewer: Who?
Helen: Top...men...
People still believe in evolution 🙄.
And people like you still exist. 😒
@@tangerinetangerine4400 Those who know science, yes of course. Silly rabbit.
@@meandepiphany maybe you should present your breakthrough evidence to the scientific community instead of here on youtube?
@@tangerinetangerine4400 Why? Most of the dummies are here on TH-cam, obviously.
@@tangerinetangerine4400 there's no point - most of them have been bullied into silence by the ideologically captured among them. Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston are among the few scientists who'll openly say that sex is binary and gender identity ideology is nonsense, and that's probably only because they're big names and close to retirement. Few of their younger colleagues have the courage to counter the BS of Queer Theorists, even though they've got science on their side.
Learn how dictionaries work.
Ugh, Joyce's casual injection of garbage feminist talking points is too annoying. Frequently she is engaging in exactly the sort of rhetorical nonsense she is rallying against, which is very frustrating because she is otherwise very astute.
"Which norms? Wearing lipstick? Not voting? Getting paid less?"
Women got the vote in 1928 in the UK, so she'd need to have been at least 18 years old in 1928 (which would make her 113 years old today) to have been affected by that. Joyce has never been prohibited from voting in her lifetime (except as a minor, which applies to everyone equally). Also prior to 1928, a significant proportion of men couldn't vote either. But why let any of that ruin a good story?
And the causes of the gender pay gap aren't something that can be adequately addressed in pithy three word statements. Women aren't paid less. It is immoral and illegal. Do women make less in lifetime earnings? Yes, but sexism as a force behind that is a vanishingly small if not completely irrelevant driver.
"Joyce has never been prohibited from voting in her lifetime …" But other women have.
@@eb3222 As were the vast majority of men, if you actually bother to look the history of voter rights reforms in the UK.
You should stop making on arguments that rely on historical ignorance to make a claim of victimization against a class of people you are not part of, that only occurred for a vanishingly small period of time, in order to claim some form of oppression in the present.
I could equally claim that I've never been forced to go to France to be gassed by the Germans in a trench, but other men have. Meanwhile women were wandering around the home front pinning white feathers on men they deemed to be cowards for being in the UK instead of in a hole in the ground at the front - you know, accusing men of cowardice for not doing the very thing the women themselves were in no way required to do.
The vast majority of men of that time weren't standing around flexing their freedom, power and wealth - they didn't have any either.