Not relevant to being a woman
Such a nice man, and (as he doesn’t mind saying himself) such a feminist.
Huh. Tell that to a woman giving birth. Tell it to a woman in her 35th week of pregnancy. Tell it to a woman who’s been raped. Tell it to the women who lost medals to Veronica Ivy and Laurel Hubbard. Tell it, as another person on Twitter said to him, to the Taliban.
“ Biologically female isn’t relevant to being a woman.”
There has to be a word for this sort of blindingly nonsensical statement.
But if there isn’t a perfect one yet, I propose it be called a “dillahunty.”
Biological female is the only thing that is relevant to being a woman.
“Tell it to the women who lost medals to Veronica Ivy and Laurel Hubbard”
I get your general point, but I thought Hubbard lost and didn’t get any medals?
I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that Matt D. doesn’t have a definition of “woman” that isn’t circular.
Hubbard won gold and silver medals in various national and international competitions over several years leading up to the Olympic games. He didn’t get any medals at the Olympics, failing to advance.
Anna @ 3 – I had in mind the two Samoan women who lost gold and silver medals respectively at the Pacific Games in 2019 because Hubbard stole the gold, Feagaiga Stowers and Iuniana Sipaia.
J.A., I would be absolutely fascinated to see the dillahunty he’d come up with to define “woman,” once female biology is disallowed from reference as not relevant. I imagine it would just be an etymological merry-go-round of the word “woman.”
Oh, since we are now ditching definitions, I’m Matt Dillahunty, and I demand access to that Twitter account.
And I too am Matt Dillahunty, and I’m ditching his trans squeeze and apologizing for everything he’s said over the past 5 years, no make it 10 years.
As I understand it, Laurel Hubbard failed to advance because Laurel Hubbard attempted to lift an extremely heavy weight, which would have definitely put Hubbard far ahead of the actual gold medal winner weight-wise if Hubbard could have gotten the bar off the ground. If Hubbard had selected a more modest weight, Hubbard could well have achieved the podium, perhaps even a gold medal.
If either one of the two women Hubbard beat out for the Olympics had been able to compete in Hubbard’s stead, they may well have selected a more modest weight, and would have had a shot at getting a medal. So even though Hubbard didn’t wind up medalling, Hubbard could well have “stolen” a medal from a woman.
Matt Dillahunty @9: Thank you for taking first steps to undo all the damage that you’ve done over all that time. It will take a while to make amends; fixing thing isn’t immediately. Still, thank you for taking this first step.
So does this mean that Chevy Chase can no longer say “I’m Chevy Chase and you’re not”? Because that would deny the existence of any trans-CCs? And be real violence?
Here’s Matt Dillahunty going on about the sexed brain:
“The body does – specifically, the brain.. as that is where identity rests. It’s not a soul. It’s like id, ego, psyche, personality or countless other sloppy labels for what brains DO. Nothing magical, nothing in conflict with reality. Just not well understood”
Not by Matt, certainly. FYI, Psyche is the Greek goddess of the soul.
What, you expect him to know Greek? That seems like a big ask! (I actually love Greek mythology. It’s so much more interesting than the Christianity I grew up with, and no one really believes it anymore so it isn’t pushed in your face all the time.)
Matt Dillahunty:
“Biologically female isn’t relevant to being a woman.”
What planet is he on?!? “Biologically female” is the definitional foundation of “being a woman.” That’s what “being a woman” MEANS.
Dillahunty’s comments are a mess, but I have to give him a pass for using “psyche”, a word that is often used to mean “mind” or “spirit”.
I think a lot of atheists disavow mind/body dualism when it’s called a “soul”, but are perfectly OK with it when it’s called something else, like “mind” or “psyche” or even “personality”. Thanks to the gender ideology conflicts, I’ve read a bunch books and articles about the brain (focused on gender, but more generally applicable, too), and now have a better (and non-dualistic) handle on the concepts.
Dillahunty tweeted:
Maya Forstater explained some things in her interview with Freddie Sayers, right after she won her legal decision earlier this year, and I transcribed her position with my bolding:
That last paragraph is Dillahunty’s position. He may agree that sex is real (i.e. binary and immutable), but he denies that sex matters.
Forstater and her team were really astute to see this is a thing.
As usual we’re not told what is “relevant to being a woman”. If calling someone a “woman” doesn’t say anything about “their” physical traits, what does it say anything about? Why is it so vitally important to keep classifying people as “women” at all, if the only thing that can consistently be said about them (the only thing that separates them from non-women) is that they’re called “women”? What exactly prevents a statement like TWAW from falling into the “not even wrong” category?
Once again, the analogy to theology is apt. As I have said many times, from what I have gathered thus far, the only things that can be consistently said about whatever it is that “sophisticated” believers call “God” are:
1. It’s called “God”.
2. It has nothing to do with whatever it is you are arguing against, therefore everything you say can be dismissed as strawmanning.
3. It’s really vitally important that you call it “God”* (as opposed to “Ogd”, “Dog”, “Zook”, “the Great Green Arkleseizure” etc…)
I think it’s pretty clear that this vagueness is a feature rather than a bug. You cannot be caught saying anything wrong if you haven’t said anything at all. Other believers can easily interpret a supernatural, intelligent creator of the universe into whatever sounds are coming out of your mouth, but atheists cannot find anything specific to argue against, and any attempt to do so can easily be dismissed as strawmanning. Same with the TRA (non-)definition of “woman”: Outsiders still think you’re talking about biological females**, other TRAs can easily interpret whatever sexist stereotypes or male jerk-off fantasies they want into the sounds coming out of your mouth, and once again critics can’t find anything specific to argue against.
* Because then “theism” is right and “atheism” is wrong, and from there it’s a free-for-all.
** E.g. many people probably think “trans woman” means “woman (i.e. adult human female) who identifies as trans” (i.e. the same as “TIF” or “transman”) and believe that the dreaded “TERFs” are working to exclude this subset of females from “women’s” spaces.
Dave Ricks, thank you for pointing out the very important point Forstater made in her case. Sex does matter and that fact isn’t trumped by gender no matter how many may claim that it does.
Yes, second that. Sex, like truth, MATTERS.