Peterson's reply was great -- I've seen it a couple times.
I would suggest this response as well:
1. A "real woman's" DNA exhibits the XX (female) chromosome in every cell of her body.
2. A "trans woman" exhibits the XY (male) chromosome in every cell of "her" body, with the exception of "her" semen (if she can still produce it), which will be about half XX and XY.
3. So NO, a trans woman is not a "real woman" because she fails the DNA test. Period.
All true, and all would be good to say. But that's part of my point—they KNOW that. They know all the details. They are requiring you to believe things that they know are not true—and most importantly, they are requiring you to openly profess that belief to the collective.
Why? Perhaps to plant a seed of doubt in the mind of those who may hear the discussion?
I recall a description of a psychology experiment in which two lines, nearly equal in length, are shown to a small group of observers, strangers to one another. Line A is slightly but still clearly longer than Line B.
Everyone but the single "subject" is in on the ruse. After 5 or 6 people say Line B is longer, the test subject is asked. More than half the time (I don't recall the percentage) the subject will go along with the group, deny what he sees with his own eyes, and choose Line B. But if *just one* of the strangers will say Line A is longer, the subject will almost invariably choose Line A.
Fair enough. I guess on some level I am just sick of trying with most of them. First, you have the architects who will (almost) never give up their narrative, because they are part of building that narrative. But then even with those who could maybe possibly be convinced, it is so rare that you actually get anywhere. And even if you do, leftism seems to march inexorably towards the same goal, like lemmings to the sea. It's exhausting.
I'm sure it's exhausting, but folks like you, Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Dennis Prager, etc. keep doing it, and it helps all us poor zhlubs even if it seldom changes the mind of your antagonist! 8<)
Peterson's reply was great -- I've seen it a couple times.
I would suggest this response as well:
1. A "real woman's" DNA exhibits the XX (female) chromosome in every cell of her body.
2. A "trans woman" exhibits the XY (male) chromosome in every cell of "her" body, with the exception of "her" semen (if she can still produce it), which will be about half XX and XY.
3. So NO, a trans woman is not a "real woman" because she fails the DNA test. Period.
THIS is what they are doing. The only difference is that theirs is more subtle.
https://youtu.be/03OcBAbBank
All true, and all would be good to say. But that's part of my point—they KNOW that. They know all the details. They are requiring you to believe things that they know are not true—and most importantly, they are requiring you to openly profess that belief to the collective.
Yep -- as the saying goes --- "if they can get you to believe absurdities, they can get you commit atrocities".
Right. So then the question becomes, Knowing what they are actually up to, why are we discussing anything with them in a civil fashion?
Why? Perhaps to plant a seed of doubt in the mind of those who may hear the discussion?
I recall a description of a psychology experiment in which two lines, nearly equal in length, are shown to a small group of observers, strangers to one another. Line A is slightly but still clearly longer than Line B.
Everyone but the single "subject" is in on the ruse. After 5 or 6 people say Line B is longer, the test subject is asked. More than half the time (I don't recall the percentage) the subject will go along with the group, deny what he sees with his own eyes, and choose Line B. But if *just one* of the strangers will say Line A is longer, the subject will almost invariably choose Line A.
It's the old "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomenon.
Fair enough. I guess on some level I am just sick of trying with most of them. First, you have the architects who will (almost) never give up their narrative, because they are part of building that narrative. But then even with those who could maybe possibly be convinced, it is so rare that you actually get anywhere. And even if you do, leftism seems to march inexorably towards the same goal, like lemmings to the sea. It's exhausting.
I'm sure it's exhausting, but folks like you, Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Dennis Prager, etc. keep doing it, and it helps all us poor zhlubs even if it seldom changes the mind of your antagonist! 8<)
As much as I admire Peterson that was difficult to watch.
Yeah, the lefties are always excruciating. But JBP does so well—he reveals truth and exposes them, and teaches all of us in the process.