Should Transgenderism be Regulated by Law?

[@Umbrella2]

Loooool that woman being triggered by the word “tits”…😅😂

[@mooncricket8551]

it is demonstrably evil that drag queens perform for chidren, but real women performing in a similar vein is not allowed. looking down a drag queens dress is not nearly as enticing to me as looking down a real woman's dress, while reading a book. who would care what book is being read?

[@coleman.b]

Transgenderism is, of course, relatively new to mainstream politics. So I don't mean to shoot down healthy conversation. But why should I - or anyone - listen to a single second of Michael Knowles "debating" on jurisprudence? He's not a lawyer. He's a blogger. He didn't even study political science in college, but rather Italian and acting before failing out of Hollywood. We all gain from respectful conversation. Michael Knowles has made a living arguing - in bad faith - about issues he has hardly any authority on. Save him for conversations about supporting casts of low-budget films.

[@craigknoche3597]

Pure ad hominem

[@MrAdamo]

@@craigknoche3597 no, ad hominem is when the insult has no relation to the subject matter. This is an argument from lack of education, which is actually valid inductive reasoning. Similarly, arguments from authority are valid as long as the authority studies the relevant field.

[@muffaloaf]

@@MrAdamo if appeal to authority is valid inductive reasoning then, you’d have to argue that an ad hominem is also valid inductive reason. The truth is,they are both invalid, for finding truth! They are both inductive and can lead to false conclusions. Better not to use logical fallacies at all. Stick to deductive reasoning

[@SwingTheChoppa]

Why should I or anyone listen to a single second of Michael Knowles on jurisprudence? Because contrary to what you suggested, he is a philospher., and jurisprudence is the philospy and understanding of law. You then say that Michael Knowles has made a living aruging in bad faith and about issues he has hardly any authority on. Firstly, you did not even attempt to refute any point he made or elaborate on how he is aruging in bad faith, even if that is your very subjective opinion about him to begin with. Secondly, you say that we all gain from respectful conversation, yet you suggest that somehow is it bad that he is having this debate with no authority on it. Each of those points you made are directly contridictory, so which one is it? I would also like to add that is it irrelevant if he has authority on it or not. This debate revolves around a topic that the everyday person should or could come to conclusions to about themself.

[@coleman.b]

​@@SwingTheChoppa Why is he a philosopher? Because you say he is? He doesn't have any credentials to designate him as such. Which is fine - "loving knowledge" shouldn't be confined to esoteric discussions in expensive, elite Ivy universities. Anyone can "love knowledge" and work to discover truths. Which is my point: He's just another guy. When it comes to discussing trans issues in 2023, he's no more qualified than anyone else. But he's also much less qualified than a number of people. I don't think I contradicted myself at all. I didn't refute any of his point because, like I asked, "why should I listen to a second of what he has to say?" Because he works for the Daily Wire? Of course he's arguing in bad faith. He might generally have reservations about trans issues, but undoubtedly he exaggerates them for clicks: For years, he played LGBT roles on the camera to make a living. Now he makes much more money playing anti-LGBT roles on camera. I'm not trying to knock failed actors - I'm knocking those that do a complete 180 when the only discernible reason is a better salary. As an aside, there are numerous commentators who lash out against Hollywood, art institutes, stand up comedy, higher education etc. after failing to make it in those spaces. Ben Shapiro, with all his degrees, left LA after failing to impress as a writer. Charlie Kirk routinely rails against colleges - after he was rejected from them. It's not stretch to suggest today's right wing media is mostly just bitter people preaching to bitter people. Not exactly Platonic. I personally believe there are limits to transgenderism. It will take difficult, honest conversations to find them, and to create a fairer, healthier, more virtuous society. It starts with humility and respect. Michael Knowles is clearly not the person to lead those conversations.

[@bigz5262]

Re-upload?

[@CathyKitson]

"If you told me a woman was sugar and spice and all things nice, that to me is a more precise description." You don't know many women, then, Michael? Being a woman, educated in a all-girls' school, I can assure him that many, MANY women are not like that! That is the problem with Michael's arguments, he does somehow seem to think women are a different species.

[@ToadenK]

Tudor did run on exceptions to rape and insist. So this guy believes lies? If that guy is from Michigan, he must not pay attention to the politics in the state.

[@marchess286]

Thank you

[@timkern462]

You cannot regulate fantasy.

[@sherlockwright7105]

What a disgusting debate that everyone involved should be ashamed of

[@muffaloaf]

Why?

[@Moonlight-řæven]

Mind explaining why? Because I can’t think of a single reason why