It seemed just try to be a jab against trans identity without even bothering to make an outright argument. You could do the same shtick with "What is a Republican?" or anything else.
I also don’t see how that is a bad faith question.
I think in certain contexts the question “what is a Republican” would be important, for example the right wing has been trying to answer that since Trump ran in 2015.
An informed take from Forest Valkai on Kirk’s “what is a woman?” Debate style:
Kirk was bad faith because he tried to distill a complicated, nuanced argument into TikTok clips.
He ran into plenty of college students who tried the thing you described, but he was equally dismissive of the people who knew more than him on the subject.
Marshall McLuhan would like a word with you
If a progressive were running the debate, they would never ask a question like, "what is a woman." They don't care that Republicans think trans women are men. They'd ask, "why should your conception of womanhood be used to determine who gets put in a women's jail when putting transgender women in male prisons measurably increases prison violence?"
"What is a woman" is a nebulous cultural question with no real importance compared to the actual lives and freedoms of transgender women.
And the Democratic Party still wonders why they lost. I’m saying this as not an American. The question is what’s 2+2 and the answer being it’s a social construct.
Brother, you'll never guess what type of construct numbers are.
If American voters prefer simple, incorrect answers over complex truths, that's a problem with their education system, not with trans rights.
These questions also admit "straightforward" answers ("what's 4?" raises 4 fingers "this many") ("what's a woman?" points to a woman "one of those"), but these don't really answer the deeper question being asked. They gesture at a preexisting category and demand that it be recognized without actually explaining the nature of that category or its boundaries.
Alternatively you could actual engage with the substance of the argument?
It’s clear to me that these people lack real problems and are creating their own.
That's not the same as saying that "everything is defined by society/culture?" That's a strawman - no-one was claiming that.
In some insect, reptile or fish, like the clown fish, sure.
In mammals? It’s not. And to be more specific, in primates, it’s not.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-s...
> Agustín Fuentes is a professor of anthropology at Princeton University.
You should actually read the opinion of a biologist:
> When biologists claim that sex is binary, we mean something straightforward: There are only two sexes. This is true throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. An organism’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) it has the function of producing. Males have the function of producing sperm, or small gametes; females, ova, or large ones. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes. Sex is binary.
> Gender ideology seeks to portray sex as so incomprehensibly complex and multivariable that our traditional practice of classifying people as simply either male or female is grossly outdated and should be abandoned for a revolutionary concept of “gender identity.” This entails that males wouldn’t be barred from female sports, women’s prisons or any other space previously segregated according to our supposedly antiquated notions of “biological sex,” so long as they “identify” as female.
> But “intersex” and “transgender” mean entirely different things. Intersex people have rare developmental conditions that result in apparent sex ambiguity. Most transgender people aren’t sexually ambiguous at all but merely “identify” as something other than their biological sex. Once you’re conscious of this distinction, you will begin to notice gender ideologues attempting to steer discussions away from whether men who identify as women should be allowed to compete in female sports toward prominent intersex athletes like South African runner Caster Semenya. Why? Because so long as they’ve got you on your heels making difficult judgment calls on a slew of complex intersex conditions, they’ve succeeded in drawing your attention away from easy calls on unquestionably male athletes like 2022 NCAA Division I women’s swimming and diving champion Lia Thomas. They shift the focus to intersex to distract from transgender.
Kirk would always use the first dictionary definition of “woman” while academics would incorporate both the first and second definitions. And the cultural effect ballooned when this specific question became a meme and a virtue signal.
Forest Valkai explains this all in a few minutes:
Define “woman?” It’s easy - it’s the traditional gender role for people AFAB. Do you understand how we arrive at that answer though?
This redefinition of "woman" comes from a fundamentally sexist and conservative perspective.
That’s the reason any of this is even an issue, conservatives still think cows are sacred, queers are hungry for steak!
Full, uncut video, or video edited and hosted by Kirk on his youtube channel?
I ask in good faith, I've seen him stumbling about badly in UK debating clubs where debate is an art form and I've seen "debates" on his channels that appear to have numerous edits.
In that production he was pretty engaged and most of the time seemed to be putting out relevant, thought out responses.
That's not to say there weren't any gotcha responses being thrown around but IIRC (it's been a while) it was coming from both sides of the debate. IIRC, there was some one of the debaters was actually more ,than Kirk (provided I'm not mixing up videos, healthy distrust for my memory lol).
I have not seen any videos from his channel, I wasn’t aware he had one though obviously in retrospect it is unsurprising.
I found it: https://youtu.be/WV29R1M25n8?si=N9dU3r4DxJzK1a2i
Perhaps if you watch it you’ll have a different impression than I did.
* this seems highly contrived, and
* "Now Casting 55+ year old Trump supporters for an upcoming SURROUNDED video" (on the home page)
supports that notion.
This isn't the format of Buckley V. Vidal (perhaps the start of the end of intellectual debate in the US) and nor is it a debate in the sense of equal time, three rounds (case, defense, conclusion), etc.
I've moved on to looking at:
The Problem with Jubilee’s Political Debate Videos - https://fhspost.com/10276/forum/the-problem-with-jubilees-po...
The ‘one voice against 20 extremists’ format is designed to monetise hate - https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-on...
which at a first rapid skim appear to flesh out many of the initial issues and feelings that I have.
Right now I have hedges to trim and a roof to tin so it'll be many hours before I can watch an hour and half contrived 'battle' and take notes .. but I will give it a shot.
Thanks for the link.
But I do think they are fairly neutral, and they get people who disagree to talk to each other, and I appreciate that.
I watched another video of theirs where it was inverted, with many conservative students debating one liberal pundit, and of course the students did worse- they’re just a bunch of kids. But good to be exposed to another point of view.
Best of luck on your hedges and roof! That sounds far more worthwhile than watching that video.
How many WASP mass shooters would you consider to be an acceptable amount?
How many ginger-haired mass shooters would you consider to be an acceptable amount?
Why is it suddenly a problem now, to the point of restricting the 2nd amendment?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Why don't you answer the question of how many is "many"? Isn't it because the number would absolutely ridiculuous when mass shooting count is in the hundreds without any reaction from you (and Charlie Kirk himself who said it was the price to pay for the 2nd amendment)?
Bad faith is not an argument.
In that instance, I have to say I saw no indication of bath faith; to the contrary, he seemed to listen very carefully, and would use the most charitable interpretation of what people were saying. I’d heard a lot of negative things about him, so I was actually impressed. I might not have agreed with him, but he was genuine and respectful.
I think his death is truly a tragedy. I worry about how this will further radicalize the right, and the chilling effect it will have on already chilled discourse.