[–] furyosa MERF 4 points

I love debates, and I'm so happy that the 'no debate' era is over for this topic. I was so disappointed when Grace Lavery bailed on his debate opportunity with Helen Joyce earlier this year.

This debate was a bit disorganized with taking randos that had no time to prepare and that probably added to the heated emotional levels seen on the 'strongly agree' side to let TIMs play in women's sports. But I enjoyed it nonetheless and I want to see much more of these kinds of disorganized, as well as organized, debates. I know from experience that I'm swayed by logical inconsistencies that are exposed in these kinds of debate so I say the more of them we have, the better!

A philosopher who has a background in academia sets up a social experiment where people of opposing views organize themselves along several lines ranked from strongly agree to strongly disagree based on the question of the video. Throughout the experiment, he interviews these people about their thoughts, asking them to be more specific when they are vague, and then asks the people on other lines if anything they heard would convince them to move to a different line.

He also asks both sides what evidence they would need to hear to budge one line towards the opposite side.

In this segment, the TRAs took up most of the time, but in doing so, his interviewing them exposed the depth of their internal misogyny and the behaviour by which they treated the women who disagreed with them and how they treated anyone who questioned them.

When you see it in person like that it’s just so obvious that TRAs have nothing except anger and insults to beat everyone else into social submission. Kudos to the ladies who kept their calm.

the TRA who says that elite sports depend on inherent genetic advantages is correct. that was a good starting point. pity she reasoned from there to 'therefore lets make said genetic advances irrelevant for women but allowing men to compete in their sports.'

i loved him asking the TRA 'how do you know she's a cis woman' and that girl being like 'because i can tell' exposed the fundamental hypocrisy of that late comers position.

then the other TRA "don't use a google definition" - almost certainly cos she knew that the definition wouldn't meet her criteria.

"words have meaning" - lol except google definitions.

she really doesn't understand what philosophers actually do. i did a bit of philosophy a long time ago and the 'hard question' is almost entirely debating definitions- 'knowledge,' 'consciousness' etc once we can define them that's half the battle. if you're not clear in your own meanings you can't make a coherent debate.

only one of the TRAs would update their opinion in the light of new evidence. that says everything.

they devolve into insults, surprise surprise. and then say 'i will not take that blatant disrespect.'

then they move onto XXY/XXX

Wow, so some people really do act in real life how they act on Twitter...

I'm not surprised the TRAs had their faces blurred out. Just like I'm not surprised at the TRAs who disrupt women's events and protests with their faces covered. At some level, or at some point, they know they are full of BS, and that their ways of 'engaging' with others in civil society about their beliefs are childish, irrational and unacceptable to the majority of people.

The girl in the blue sweatshirt is going to look back at this video in a few years and cringe so hard.