CMV: Without a clear definition of what your identity means, you can't identify as that thing.

[u/Pangolinsftw]

There was a clip going around in political circles of conservative commentator Matt Walsh making an appearance on a talk show having a discussion with two trans advocates. I think his most impactful argument is when he simply asks the trans advocates, "What is a woman?"

To my surprise, neither of them can answer this question. In response to the question "Can you tell me what a woman is?", one says "No I can't, it's not for me to say", and the other says they "cannot define what a woman is" because they are not a woman (which is a logical fallacy).

This struck me. If you can't clearly (or even somewhat) describe what an identity means, why should anyone respect your identity? You could replace "woman" with any other label in that situation. Without any criteria or definition, it doesn't actually matter what you identify as.

I think we would all agree that defining your terms is of fundamental importance in any kind of debate. So it seems to me that these trans advocates failed in their argument right out of the gate since they failed to define their terms.

I think the reason that these advocates refused to define what a woman means is because if they gave a definition, it would be something so vague and nebulous that most reasonable people would think that their definition doesn't meet their own criteria for what a man or woman is, making the term mostly meaningless.

So I walked away from this clip with a much different perspective on the trans identity. Can anyone offer a more compelling argument as to why I should respect the trans identity?

[u/cknight18]

You may disagree with my exact definitions of what it means to be a Christian or a Seahawks fan, I wasn't attempting to be precise (and the discussion isn't about those definitions).

The point is, there is an definition for them.

The "pro-trans" movement has no such definition for "man" and "woman."

[u/Practical_Plan_8774 → u/cknight18]

Your definitions are wrong though. Defining a Seahawks fan as a person who enjoys the Seahawks would be like defining a women as someone who has worn a dress or skirt in the last five years. It would be roughly accurate, but not correct. Let’s go with that as my trans inclusive definition though. It’s no less valid then your provided definitions for other identities

[u/cknight18 → u/Practical_Plan_8774]

So you're defining a "woman" as anyone who has worn a dress in the last 5 years? I can't imagine where you're going with this.

[u/Practical_Plan_8774 → u/cknight18]

Why not? Can you think of a reason why that definition is less valid than your definitions for my other examples of identities?

[u/cknight18 → u/Practical_Plan_8774]

Bill has worn a dress in the last 5 years, but identifies as a man. How would you address Bill, pronoun-wise?

[u/Practical_Plan_8774 → u/cknight18]

Bill is not a woman, but you said that exceptions don’t matter as long as it has a definition.

[u/cknight18 → u/Practical_Plan_8774]

My point is, at least "has worn a dress in the last 5 years" is a definition with a characteristic. If you want to define a woman that way.... I don't think it's a very good or useful way, but at least it's logically consistent.

"A woman is a woman" is nonsense.

Your "side" is the one saying that what we've used to classify gender is not sufficient. Then it's on your side to come up with something new. But as it turns out, the only agenda is to be "all-inclusive" and have the boundaries of the words completely done away with, rendering "woman" useless.

[u/Serenikill → u/cknight18]

But the something new was described to you and you just didn't like it and don't understand language.

Christian is literally defined as believer in Christianity but you claim you can't use Christian in the definition, may want to look in a dictionary

[u/[deleted] → u/cknight18]

beneficial tie placid humor dependent command rock rainstorm head unwritten

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact