The Stephen Woodford "Incident"/Trans rights | Brenda - Minneapolis, MN | Talk Heathen 03.21
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2019
- Talk Heathen 03.21 for May 26, 2019 with Jamie Boone & Matt Dillahunty.
Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/talkhea...
Sign up for the ACA monthly newsletter: aca.activehosted.com/f/1?fbcl...
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
CONTACTS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram:
Eric Murphy: Erictheheathen
Jamie Boone: Jamietheheathen
Twitter:
Eric Murphy: @dirtyheathen
Jamie Boone: @reason_evidence
Facebook.com/talkheathen
Reddit.com/r/talkheathen
NOTES
TalkHeathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
I'm trans and I've never once thought his statements were transphobic only misinformed which isnt being phobic at all
Thank you for being brave enough to express your opinion. You will probably catch flak for it. We have to allow the issue to be discussed, by all people....so we can all learn and explore the issue. An issue that I myself would never have explored or known about, till now.
watch essenceofthought on youtube’s videos about this topic please.
SPREADING LIES ABOUT US GETS US KILLED AND THAT IS TRANSPHOBIC
@@wanettarenay8215 misinformation doesnt not equate to lies please sit down
@@rosiethereaper299 WHEN YOU LIE ABOUT A MINORITY GROUP YOU ARE INCITING VIOLENCE, SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS
I am the trans woman Steve referred in his apology video and I authorised him to use parts of my video in his. That's an important inside information that most people don't know: the decision was ultimately mine.
And I think using my video helped showing to his audience that there's a variety of opinions among trans people and that not everyone is on board with accusations of phobia when people make mistakes.
Brenda has unfortunately bought into a narrative that Steve is a transphobe without considering the implications of those very serious accusations to Steve's reputation. Some trans people and allies seem not to realise the seriousness of publicly denouncing someone as phobic. It's not an accusation to be taken lightly, it has to be very well justified.
Which is why I advocate that we should only call people as such once we have sufficient evidence that their intentions are malicious and their tactics are dishonest (like Ben Shapiro for example).
Thank you, Sarah. It's sometimes very challenging for those of us who are outsiders to this unique reality that so many people experience to fully appreciate the range of perspectives. Your comments in that video were very helpful.
mymindistv
❤️
@@SarahMichel86 Finally some sense in this comment section. Thanks so much for the insight! I couldn't agree more.
You disagree with the fundamentalist position. How dare you. Prepare to be burned at the stake.
In all seriousness, thoughtful analysis is preferable to the kind of fundamentalism espoused by Brenda and Grand Inquisitor Essence of Thought.
@@sypherthe297th2 Scary, right? I thought atheism was a way to escape dogma. Silly me...
So what I'm supposed to take from Brenda's argument is that... if you fuck up but realize you fucked up and want to correct it after learning more, you should still be demonized?
We seem to have a fair amount of people with lurking narcissistic-like tendencies which really incapacitates us in working toward our goals.
Jamie appeared to be terrified by this call. Uncomfortable to watch.
I agree. I think for much of this call Jamie was frightened both in tone of voice, hesitancy, eye contact with Matt and those present, and his body language. His behavior was like a member of a cult who is afraid to challenge the priesthood even with one of the high priests of the movement present. Famous atheist Ayn Rand's Objectivist cult was similar, denouncing those who deviated from the official dogma. Such an incident as the ACA denunciation demonstrates that you don't have to be a theist to want to burn witches.
@@MontyVierra I think you guys are Projecting. A Gestalt psychology term, look it up.
It damn well wasn't hateful.
@Bruce Wayne Yeah, remove those Joe Rogan clips and you have far less of a case for calling him hateful or transphobic, that was a real blunder. He sincerely apologized for it but you can never completely put that genie back in the bottle and pretend like he didn't consciously choose to use the clips that he included.
Bruce Wayne a trans woman is a guy
Jamie was painful in this.
I have found Jamie to be rather ineffectual in most of the shows.
Root Canal without novocaine painful....
He's painful in everything
Not to defend Jamie, but he is in a difficult position in that his words can be considered to represent both his position as well as the position of the ACA in that he serves as president of the organization. As such, he does have a responsibility to choose his words carefully.
EoT made like 4 vids about this subject and Matt says he knows EoT's videos are crap by watching most of 1...
Matt is purposely arguing in bad faith here... Who is paying them to put out this defense of trans hate?
"If he felt attacked, that's his problem."
Maybe I missed something, but isn't the caller outraged because she felt attacked?
he was attacked for his views.She was attacked for what she is
He
@@basic6154 only she is actually a he putting on a females voice 🤣🤣🤣
Facts will be facts
@@jamesknitworth5591 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
@@basic6154 Yes, thats my state of mind when I hear people harp on about how opressed men in dresses are.
Talking through issues transparently with people willing to admit when they’re wrong, is one of the many characteristics that makes the atheist community special.
It would be so if they did so and it should be so but it isn´t, obviously. It´s a disgrace.
Not anymore.
The Woodford debacle is a textbook example of how you turn a misinformed almost ally into an enemy. If Woodford were anything other than a decent guy that would have been the result. When given the choice between having this be a teachable moment and having a conversation or turning into an angry mob a whole lot of people chose option two. Unless you're dealing with a zealot, option one is always better. It's harder. It takes both sides swallowing their pride to work. But it's also the only way to have a positive outcome. The other way just creates resentment. You don't win hearts and minds by tearing someone's life apart.
the depressing thing was watching people like Tracie Harris and Jen Peebles and John Iacolletti joining the angry mob side.
Scratch "almost" from "Steve is almost an ally".
Rationality Rules is an intellectual who obviously doesn't contain any kind of social phobia and fuck anyone who says so.
He is a man willing to admit his ignorance when provided evidence, and willing to make a video to clarify it.
That's a fucking advocate.
Also, I find his original stance to contain some salient points, aside from his misconceptions.
@@johnjamele They didn't join the angry mob side. They actually rejected the angry mob of RR's audience who literally marched on their meetings to elect someone they favored despite not meeting the requirements of their bylaws. All while RR whined about how unfair a small-audience transwoman was being mean to him and siccing his audience on her.
@@draxxthemsclounts2478 I challenge you to watch his responses. When he makes the same baseless arguments after admitting they were incorrect and makes the exact same intellectual mistakes yet again after saying he messed up....where is he an advocate? He literally tried to pull a theist move by trying to shift the burden of proof onto a marginalized group to prove why they deserve equal human rights.
@@RavenGlenn As someone who has watched the response videos, you're lying flagrantly and blatantly.
The caller says Stephan’s feeling are his problem, but then wants to make their feelings everyone else’s problem. Emotionally manipulative hypocrisy plain and simple. Stephan was in no way transphobic (which is inappropriate), or even gender critical (which is appropriate). Stephan took a moderately pro-trans position on a very narrow issue and yet it somehow was transphobic? Ridiculous.
Well isn't that just par for the course when it comes to these ideological zealots? From my experience most of them are narcissists and love to feel like victims
how dare he have a wrong opinion that was stated multiple times that he understands he was in the wrong and wanted to fix it. Hate when people respond to controversy this way, its thinking that's basically along the lines of sin. You've sinned and now you are damned, no matter what you do or say from this point you are damned and nothing can be done to fix that.
intersectionality is a quasi-religion
Demon Deity he never actually fixed it and then he doubled down on it
@@AshatheNomad Indeed he has, as well as the apology video he said he would do.
He wasn't wrong though. This trans stuff is pseudoscience.
Spanish inquisition all over again supported by ACA
Well... the ACA/AXP banned me because in the live chat right after the "incident" i called for the ACA to directly talk to Stephen about what was going on. To create a dialog. The mods in the live chat perma-banned me for this. I am _still_ banned from commenting on the AXP youtube channel. I have asked to have my ban removed _multiple_ times. Through the live chat in other videos, through trying to talk to Eric during a live chat (he said he felt bad for me), through trying to get Matt's attention via his comment section, and through about 6 or 7 emails to the ACA/AXP. With the exception of Eric during a live chat saying "i feel for you, and would help if i can but im no longer in a position to do anything directly about it" i have heard _nothing_ from them. Not even a rejection of my plea.
I feel like i lost my community. Like because of a simple disagreement (that was shared by it seems about half their audience at least) i was shunned. It really hurts that the community that helped me leave religion would just turn its back on me over something this small. Ill continue to email them till i get an answer one way or another.. but its been like 4 months now and i doubt they actually care about me.
What ACA did, I wouldn't care about it. Would you?
Take it as a learning experience, and move forwards
@@Dewsta26 Uh yeah, i did. I just do not watch the AXP anymore and i learned once again that even people who try to pride themselves on open conversations can have glaringly large blind spots and be a tab hypocritical. The larger the organizations, the more moving parts, the less likely they are to actually right some wrongs they did internally. Something sorta (not not really) similar happened recently with Jimmy Snow and he addressed it the best he could and afterwards actually un-banned anyone that had moderation applied to them during the situation. That was a proper way to deal with it. The way the AXP did by lashing out at people who even mildly disagreed and then not taking steps to fix their mistakes was not the correct way to do it. Of course banning me and others will probably have zero impact on how they operate or are seen in the future, but it does not make their actions anymore correct.
Its just a shame because i used to always point to the AXP as a good example of people who want to have the conversation in the first place, that are open to talk about things without a stigma attached and even if you disagree with the person, you want to be sure you understand the argument they are making.
@@__Andrew bro I get it. I've been banned from many groups and channels for asking uncomfortable, but important and relevant questions, and it can be really infuriating. As discussed in this video, atheists can be from all political persuasions and social backgrounds, so you're going to bump into pricks.
I say to move on, not in a flippant way, but as a positive. You've tried. Don't put yourself out about it anymore.
@@Dewsta26 What is frustrating is that the ACA (at least through the AXP) paints themselves not just as atheists, but as open-minded rational skeptics. Andrew's story proves they are not this in actuality.
We shouldn't be shutting down conversation with anybody
Sit down and shut up! ;)
GeneralZod99 open discussion
@@GeneralZod99 stfu
Do men ever shut the fuck up?
@@tuttt99 That's ironic.
Anyone else think that Matt would like to punch Jamie?
This young man may have skills but being the president seems to be a.bit over his head.
The fact that Jamie is the president when he sucks so bad on the show is hilarious. Every time I see him and Matt on the show together Matt has to hold back from telling him to shut up. It’s like Jamie is his red headed step son.
Obviously.
I'm sorry but Stephen Woodford made a video based on the evidence he had at the time. He then acknowledged his video was incorrect and resolved to fix that, which he did. At 11.50 she has no proof but repeats slurs. He also did apologize, so Brenda is a liar.
As far as I know he didn't take back any of the evidence he presented..... he just apologized for the WAY he presented it. The evidence and the opinion still stands.... from what I gather.
@@upplsuckimcool16 it really depends on what you think the opinion he has is, I think he has the opinion that it sometimes unfair for trans people to participate in a women's sport category due to biological advantages, that occur in some but not all cases. And at no point did he say trans women should not be allowed to compete.
@demigodzilla I'd argue he said that our current system is illequiped to handle trans women partially because he has said as much
@demigodzilla I would be willing to agree to all of that or at least the distinct possibility that most of that is true except for him using "selective evidence."
@demigodzilla you have me there
I thought the ACA's statement was a denouncement. I think there is a rush to denounce RR as a transphobe. By some people's definition, if you disagree with the current PC on any trans topic, you are a transphobe. By adopting such an absurdly broad definition of transphobe, you completely dilute the real meaning of the word, so it becomes meaningless.
If you disagree with RR's facts, or interpretation of facts, fine! debate him. But don't muzzle him, and call him nasty names.
Don't you WANT to have interesting discussions about complex timely topics? Then don't start screaming "transphobe!" at the drop of a hat.
I recently just saw this spat and t
Read up on it and I gotta say I'm quite disappointed at the blatant fallacy and ignorance that matt and the aca are having by blindly defending issues about whether he is a transphobe or not.
Look, a man that transitions into a female still has physical benefits on average compared to born female females. It clearly is a difference that does not make any statements regarding females being less than, or trans people not being equal as HUMANS. It simply says that a person with an unfair advantage like 30 years of testosterone and bone mass and chemicals that are more geared toward physical performances, then has a unbalanced starting ground when going to a UFC fight to fight a woman without those benefits. Just like someone micro doping or using steroids creates an unbalanced starting point. This shit is not transphobic, its fucking measurable facts. Anything that interferes with your ability to do what you love is always shitty to deal with, but if Brock Lesner decides he is now a female and has always had to hide it, but it is really who they are... then goes to fight women in wrestling/mma/boxing... it will be a bad time for the female. Its forcing women to be at an unfair disadvantage and take it with a smile or be called a transphobe or bigot. That's fucking idiotic.
@@SpankyJ and andyiswonderful, You guide your thoughts and words with a combination of open-mindedness and skepticism. Adhering to the empiricism is how we make sense of the world and ourselves. So, I concede your point in how the term transphobe gets thrown around willy-nilly especially when people are merely presenting observations. Similarly, I hate it when the term racist/racism gets thrown around willy-nilly. It gets watered down and loses its meaning and impact. Seeing it from the eyes of a black man going against the grain in religion and social issues I can see how it controls minorities. Anyway, we all need to meet in Austin and drink beer until the sun comes up.
That´s the right position to be on. There is no critical thinking shown at all in how they treated Stephen.
@demigodzilla To which he openly agreed with to the ACA and promised a correction video when he got home which meant traveling halfway across the planet. The ACA didn't give him that chance and instead waited for him to leave so they could stab him in the back. They didn't apply skepticism towards his motivation like they ask everyone to do with religion.
@demigodzilla Speaking of vapid, I was exaggerating some. Now, would you like to comment on the rest of what I said?
As a trans person, myself, I get really annoyed by others in my community who simply cannot thrive without there being some perpetuated conflict, who always have to be in a constant state of "I'm offended". The situation was problematic, but was it not dealt with? What's the point of this call besides to wail and fret?
Agreed. It’s just way too much drama. Thank you for your comment.
So do you think transphobia and misinformation should go unchecked? Go hang out with Blaire white she's a self hating trans woman as wel, which was obvious in her last panel debate when she sat there and let that conservative blonde woman call her nasty, a pedo, and everything else and wouldn't even defend herself.
Sucks you hate yourself so much, and it's hilarious how cis ppl like Jen Tracie and Claire speak out against transphobia and fight for YOUR rights more than YOU do.
No. It wasn't dealt with. Go watch RR's videos on it and the responses other creators made. He doubled and tripled down on baseless claims about transgender women and then acted like HE was the attacked party.
@@jonnaking3054 Well, the misinformation coming from the sexist "trans" side definitely shouldn't go unchecked, as much as you lot try to shut people down as "transphobes" for pointing out the sexism and lies coming out of the TRA camp.
I am squarely on Mr Woodford's side in all this.
Being a Gay man, I know what *real* discrimination and hatred feels like, see the likes of Matt Powell, for details.
I've also experienced ignorance and misunderstanding and misinformation from well meaning people, who don't "hate" me or mine and who have, after a bit of level headed discussion and exchanging of ideas (and that's the crucial part for me) re-evaluated their positions.
But, it seems to me that we are increasingly, living in a world of knee jerk reactions to these issues, be it in the areas of race, gender, or sexuality and are in danger of heading down a path that leads all the way to Animal Farm.
We should never, IMO, be afraid to discuss issues openly and honestly.
That way, we learn.
We don't so by screaming at people and shouting/shutting them down.
So far as I can see. Stephen Woodford has *more* than gone out of his way to redress this situation.
@Jonathan Edward Citations Needed. How is Steve in a echo chamber and why is he being a hypocrite?
But you’re not a trans athlete. I’m a gay male as well and shouldn’t speak.
@@jareddepew1467 Women athletes who are affected by biological males competing against them have every right to speak on this, and their voices should be given precedence above everyone else in this, as they are the ones who face the biggest impact from this issue.
@@jareddepew1467
No, that is a pathway to tyranny Jared. We will be arguing about all of these irrelevant issues when the bombs start dropping, or when the aliens invade, take your pick. As to your "point," by that logic, no one should explore beyond their own little bubble, and we are all reduced to our individual spheres of interaction. This is no better than churches isolating their children from the broader world. Is that what you want? To cut off any and all discussion and research unless you, yourself have a PERSONAL stake in that issue?
@@connernickerson5509 "Women athletes who are affected by biological males competing against them have every right to speak on this"
"No, that is a pathway to tyranny"
The tyranny of letting women speak about being forced to compete in sports with people who are (on the whole) bigger, faster and stronger than they are. It's SO tyrannical to let them have a say (or even an opinion) on this matter, right? Let's exercise the non-tyrannical option and shove it down their throats. Don't let them have a voice.
BTW, have you read 1984? Remember the Ministries of Love, Truth, Peace and Plenty?
Basically, Stephen ballsed up. He admits it and has been “educated” and has changed his opinion. Is this not a good thing? Do we not want people to change their minds about god. Why can they not change their mind about other issues. I yearn for people to be educated and change their mind, rather than the rabid double downing that seems to be happening. Please, allow a good man to be educated. We need everyone we can get on our team.
R'amen to that, I think you hit the nail right on the head. Brenda's opinion aside, anytime someone does research, realizes they're wrong, acknowledges it, corrects what he got wrong, and apologizes, that's all that is necessary. This Brenda person is NOT doing that, she continues to garner a hatred that is based on old information. Sounds kinda biblical to me.
@@iancastor69 he didn't apologize, he just went on a rant about how mean ppl were treating him and how he has a trans friend who agrees with him
@@jonnaking3054
Grow up.
@@nickguy8037 so like not even a rebuttal to what I said? No even addressing what I said? Just more transphobia huh?
@@jonnaking3054
Some friendly advice, which you sorely need.
Grow up. Had you actually listened to what he said, without your childish determination to blame others for the way you feel and assume anyone who disagrees with you is “transphobic “, you would realise your comment is ridiculous.
finally get to hear matt on the subject! thanks!
This all boils down to a group of people thinking that their opinion is the only thing that matters and if anyone disagrees with them they will be ostracized and smeared for their difference in opinions, funny how this group has turned into something very similar to a bigoted religious group.
Many atheists are also dogmatists.
Even politically, not enough emphasis is placed on anti-authoritarian vs authoritarian (social) compared to right vs left (economic).
Leftist & Rightist Identitarianism are both rooted in Authoritarianism.
+ many identitarians miss that Classism is the main & worst form of Bigotry.
It more than that. Every time someone attributes a belief about what atheist think, they say atheism is JUST the single idea there is not enough proof for that God exists. Other times they will go on and on about what atheist believe. They use the narrow definition to hide behind when they can't win the argument. How does the belief that trans women have an advantage in sports an atheist issue?
@@axer3515 in this instance it's not about what atheists believe but more what the ACA's policy is about. I'm sure they would denounce me if i hit someone on their meetings even thou pacificm has nothing to do with atheism.
@@TheTpointer I have seen host ask a caller "why are you calling an Atheist show to discuss a topic that has nothing to do with atheism. Not all atheist believe in gay rights, or ghosts,or many other social issues. Woodford call his show Rational rules ( something like that) He was on the show as an atheist. Atheism has nothing to do with trans-rights. I am pro civil rights for all,but I draw a line with people who were male competing against bio females. My objection is based on my years of coaching co-ed youth leagues in many sports. That opinion doesn't make me transphobic. The point is moot now because Matt has now stated that the ACA is going more SJW in format. The show has lost my favorite host ( who btw disageed with me on trans sports).
@@qxuzovyj1568 yes many atheist are many things. That's the point. A white supremacists could be an atheist and a black panther could be an atheist. I heard every host say that atheism is based on the lack of proof about the existence of God or gods. Other than that believe atheist are as deverse as is possible. Matt has recently said the ACA is winding it's scope to include more SJW topics. I believe this will cause more discent on the show.
Am I the only one who noticed the irony of the caller refusing to accept Stephen's apology, then apologizing to a call screener with the apparent hope that her apology would be accepted?
apologies don't always have the expectation of forgiveness behind them.
Wow, i could be wrong, but it appears as though Jamie is getting frustrated. I respect Matt. I hate to sound like what some would call a "Fan boy", but i have a huge respect for his straight forward, and informed manner of discussion.
Jamie was frustrated because he didn't want it to be talked about on the air. You know why? Because Jamie is a good friend of RR's. He is one of the people who actively pushed for him to be apologized to and helped push out a large portion of the ACA.
@@RavenGlenn How did you acquire this insight?
It was quite pathetic. Jamie didn't need to virtue signal by facepalming everything Matt said.
I'm not for being unsympathetic, but it was cringe to watch him walk on eggshells to the extent he did.
Just painful listening to Jamie Boone. Being articulate isn't his thing.
I think it's a tough, uncomfortable subject and he wanted to choose his words carefully. I get that.
He usually handles calls preety well , but you can tell he's uncomfortable with matts reasoning and the whole situation
Look how clumsy and clunky the conversation is. And how patient Matt is with Brenda. I’m not saying that he shouldn’t be patient, but it’s because he’s talking to a trans person. These two things are because of a bigotry of sorts. It’s not intentional or out of malice. They don’t realize that they’re “otherizing” trans people by not treating them as they would anybody else. They speak to, and about, trans people as if they’re so fragile that interrupting them or telling them that they’re wrong will break them into tiny pieces. There’s a double standard when dealing with them. That means that you yourself think less of them and for them. Like I said, it’s all done with good intention, but it’s not treating them equally.
When you walk around repeatedly saying to people “trans people are humans that should be allowed to exist”, whom are you really trying to convince? The same goes for blacks or any other group.
When you’re arguing with somebody about trans people in sports, and you feel the need to say that they’re human too, and your opposition never said that they aren’t human, you’re trying to convince yourself. The opposition has never argued that they’re not humans with a right to exist too.
Treat trans people (and any other group) the same way and then will you be an egalitarian. Otherwise you’re not.
One last thing, look at when Brenda makes a joke. They don’t know how to react. “What if she’s serious? How can I make sure that I agree”. The ass kissing is something that wouldn’t happen if they were talking to a straight white guy. Matt would be interrupting without apology. He wouldn’t be afraid to say that the person was wrong. The other dude wouldn’t be repeatedly saying that Matt doesn’t speak for the ACA. The call would have put on hold while Matt spoke and the call would have ended a lot sooner if they were on a different subject while talking to a straight white guy.
I hear what you're saying, but equality is hard to reach when you don't even have equity yet. I think it's important to know how to talk to people, and not every person should be talked to the same exact way. Hopefully we can keep moving the needle towards equality, so we don't have to focus so much on equity in the long run. But we're not there yet.
Honestly. This is most patient i’ve ever seen Matt handle bs, and it’s probably because he knows he’d be labelled a transphobe if he yelled at the caller and/or hung up on them
@@Seethi_C
Yep. That’s my point. Why does he handle this person differently? We all know why. Treat trans people as you would anybody else. If you don’t, you’re infantilizing them. Taking away agency. Paternalistic bigotry.
@@foley15136
It’s the bigotry of low expectations or benevolent bigotry.
Matt has never been so patient with anyone else and Jamie is shell shocked and barely dares to breathe.
That’s what you get when you create an environment where identify politics and victim culture determine the worth of your views.
Unfortunately even scientific studies no longer seem to matter when the the results are in conflict with their ideological views… it’s almost like a new religion.
But this seems to be a normal development… Christians have their creationists and Atheists have their woke people.😂
We don't treat trans-gender people, "too well". Having patience for someone isn't giving them undue privilege. Instead of baselessly asserting the persecution of straight white males, try giving evidence beyond your personal opinion.
“If Stephen feels attacked, by the ACA that’s HIS problem...”
Can’t the same thing be said about YOU if you feel attacked by his video/opinions?
The real question is, what does any of this have to do with Atheism? If the Atheist community of Austin cannot abide the fact that Atheists encompass the entire political spectrum including conservatives and libertarians, then is isnt an Atheist “community” at all.
Sure but that's irrespective of whether or not what he said was fucked up. Someone might call me ugly out of the blue and that is wrong IMO whether or not it gets to me.
Your first part was mostly on point. Your second part was not. While their primary focus is on atheism, they have no obligation to be neutral on every single other issue. If they want to focus on humanist values in addition to atheism, that does not suddenly make them not a community.
The cliff notes for this video.
Brenda: I’m angry cause Stephen Woolworth is a transphobic.
Matt: something logic sensible and sympathetic to the caller and her needs.
Jamie: uh uh uh Matt doesn’t speak for the ACA!
On an issue that has a lot of people reacting with strong emotions, on both sides of it, I think it was responsible of Jamie to make that statement. He was not doing anything to minimize Matt's statements, and the impression I got is that he agreed with them. However, it is also important to make clear that it is not the stance of the organization but the statements of a private individual.
Matt is 100% in the wrong here...based on his own standards. He wants to defend something without a good reason to: trans women and biological women are the same. I really would love to see Matt in sound mind debate this Matt of dogma.
Edit - heard his exact wording. Better than people mentioned; but he is still in err on the whole subject if he doesn’t flat out support the FACTS that men are stronger than women.
Everyone has something to bring to the conversation, I suggest Jamie brings silence
Wish I could double like this comment. It made me laugh...very well said.
Red Dwarf?
If Matt’s there, it’s better to let him talk. Jamie brings nothing of value that can touch Dillahunty. He should be bringing Matt a Coke Zero.
corona Bery how did you draw that conclusion?
Lmao, going to use this one.
Christopher Hitchens said “Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.” This is stupid. I thought this show was about Atheist. WTF. Get with he program.
Yes!!!
touche to that
"You see how far the termites have spread, and how long and well they have dined." Christopher Hitchens
Fits perfectly!
Jamie I like you brother but sometimes you need to grab your balls and say what you have to say regardless of what other people or the ACA thinks...that is why I respect Matt. some constructive criticism
Here is the thing, Jamie can't do that without a huge disclaimer at the start of that; as he currently is the president of the ACA.
I feel this video, sums it all up. This is the correct perspective on the whole "schism" (for lack of a better word). No one aside from RR and EoT know the entirety of their interaction. No one aside from the ACA board and Matt know the entirety of their interaction.
I have sided with EoT on this particular issue, but that does not mean EoT doesn't make mistakes. Nor would i ever be 100% behind all views of anyone but me at the current moment. That's just the reality of individuality.
@@sfamerken12 The president should not be on air, for that reason.
And if you are on air, don't take the job of pres.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 No, that's not correct. If you are elected, anything you say reflects on the whole organisation.
Same as now, across the entire world, people laugh at the US because of the dumb shit Trump says.
Everyone is so afraid and we need to experience life walking around on eggshells for the feelings of mentally unstable overly sensitive people. They push their personal life out into society and then bitch up a storm after inciting opinions.
...as you're watching a video about someone being cast out by our own for saying what he felt at the time.
Freethinkers not allowing free thought, imagine that...
How have they not allowed free thought?
there's a difference between 'not allowing' and 'criticizing', don't be obtuse
@@crandlesticks
There is also a difference between "criticizing“ someone for spreading partially wrong information in a video and "excommunicating“ someone for disagreeing with the dogmatic but factually wrong beliefs of the ACA.😂
You're allowed it, but when you get in the public sphere and say dumb transphobic crap, be prepared for a backlash of ppl calling you out
@@jonnaking3054
Sure… if you say something that is actually transphobic then you deserve to get called out for it.
But if you are accusing someone of being transphobic for presenting verifiable facts just because he got minor details wrong and you didn’t like the way he presented those facts… then you deserve all the backlash you get.
And the Atheist Experience learned that the hard way.😂
Matts break down of EOS video is exactly how I felt about it.
I think this trans person is being hyperbolic and too happy to jump on Steve's head after he got pushed under the bus. If Trans people are not responsible for his hurt feelings, then Steve is not responsible for the hurtful comments made to the caller. It is good for Steve to be treated as a human, just as the caller wants to be.
is stephen woodford the british(or australian, i'm not good with accents) atheist guy who said trans women have an unfair advantage in sports and should maybe have leagues of their own?
because if that was him, i completely agree with him.
sabin97 He’s British
He's British, he did say that but I think a lot of the problem and anger it provoked in people came about as a result of the tone of his video. He played some clips of jokes that were in very poor taste, mocking trans people. It was very unnecessarily hurtful. Jokes are fine if the person you are joking about is laughing, but when you're making a video that is already going to be quite painful for a person to hear, even if it is fair and accurate, and then you decide to throw on some mockery of them, that's not very fair or kind.
@@katie6384 are we talking about the same video? The one I watched was well thought out and respectful. I have coached many youth sports and have a degree in psychology and physiology, and I can tell you that it is years before puberty that most males are stronger and faster than females. Coach a co ed youth team and you will quickly learn this. The advantage is obvious. Also obvious is the fact that trans women are braking records in track and power lifting events, while no trans man has broke a bio male record. Why is that? Go to a co-ed youth basketball game for 9 year olds and watch the difference in how the girls and boys shoot foul shots or do lay ups. Watch the NBA and the WNBA, it the same game,but one league fills the arena and the other league can't support itself. Both leagues have talent,but the male league plays a higher and faster game.
@@axer3515 I'm not entirely sure why you are explaining the difference between men and women in terms of sport to me. I don't mean that to be as patronising as I'm aware it sounds through text, but I never mentioned in my message anything about agreeing that trans women and cis women should compete in the same category. I am very aware of the psyological advantage men have over women in most sports.
The only thing I can think of is perhaps you saw the other comment I left on this video that says "I don't agree with Woodford" - I should have clarified that as I disagree with Woodford's stance in the original video - that being that the male sport category should act as the "all" category, and women's category should be just for cis gender women. Apologies if that was indeed the source of the confusion.
I personally take Matt Dilahunty's view on this - there should be a few categories and you compete in the category that you meet the criteria for, regardless of sex or gender.
Female sport is becoming drastically more popular, despite the fact that women are still not as strong as men are, so I'm not sure that that alone can be distinguished as the cause for the difference in viewing ratings. I recognise this is an anecdote but I used to never watch women's rugby (despite loving men's rugby) because I was under the assumption it would be slow and boring. I watched it last year because it got a place on the major sports channels in the UK and realised that actually it was so good! Just as exciting as the mens. When people are playing at a mutual disadvantage it sort of nullifies the disadvantage, like with the paralympics or something. When the team you're supporting manages to get the ball to one of the fastest players on the pitch, it's so exciting to watch the opposition desperately trying to charge them down, watch the skill and team work, the close calls, the near misses, etc. All of that is still present in women's sport. It certainly doesn't look slow to me. I think one of the big things though that has improved women's Rugby in the UK is that the sportswomen have now been given contracts, so instead of playing rugby part time and having to have a full time normal job to pay the bills as well, they can focus solely on the game which has helped make it more skillful and coordinated. The more money is invested in women's sport the better coaches they can get, the more sportswomen they can give contracts to so the more time these women can actually put into training, etc and the more people give it a chance because there is nothing else on, the more I think it will rise in popularity.
Now finally, to address your very first point, I don't know if we are talking about the same video. If you mean any of the ones currently up on his channel now, then no, we aren't. Those videos I find very respectful and reasonable. The one I'm referring to is the one being referred to in this video - the initial one that, along with some decent points, had clips mocking trans people. I can't remember the exact content of the clips but, if I remember correctly, it was something about calling a trans woman "a man in a dress", and some other insensitive jokes. He's since taken the video down and made a new video about his views that I think is perfectly respectful and reasonable.
@@katie6384 When I was in high school I preferred to watch the women's soccer and basketball games because it was more about skill and teamwork than power.
I like how Brenda feels that the ACA isn't responsible for Woodford's feelings but also very clearly feels that both the ACA and Woodford are responsible for her feelings.
Typical narcissism and total lack of self-awareness. "Trans women" activists so often display astounding levels of male entitlement. Seeing as "trans" ideology is regressive and sexist, and perpetuates sexist gender stereotypes it's amazing how many people have been fooled into thinking it is the morally correct thing to support it.
Man, the hypocrisy is cringeworthy
If you're referring to Jamie, I agree.
"you should have me on, I am wonderful" and Brenda accused Stephen of being a narcissist or having an ego. BTW, the testosterone requirement set by the Olympics is a leveling that needed done.
Poe's Law.
Why did it need to be done? Do you actually have evidence for that claim?
@@comradenb1261 Because testosterone is an anabolic/androgenic steroid hormone. Either allow everyone to use steroids or realise that the equivalent to taking steroids is also an unfair advantage.
@@michaelmay5453 Well, I would agree that people should be able to take performance enhancing drugs.
EVERYONE has inherent genetic advantages in pro sports. In basketball, people are taller, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if women dominated Formula One if the sport became more diverse because women tend to be lighter than men, and those cars are so light that this is actually a significant difference.
Separating out trans athletes arbitrarily is just anti-trans.
@@comradenb1261 I wouldn't agree with it because it would push people to kill themselves. It would be the richest people who have access to the best doctors and the most money that would win all the time.
Separating based on biological sex is what has always been done, you may not like that reality is real but it's still fucking real.
You sound a LOT like a Trumpista here with your science denial and denial of reality.
Virtue signaling is not a virtue.
*At the time of calling*
President Jamie: (At least 5x) “Matt doesn’t speak for the ACA.”
*As of June 01*
*Former* President Jamie: “Matt Dillahunty now speaks for the ACA. He’s President.”
He's earned it.
@@TemenosL time and timd again. He didnt make it big on his own but he is a large part of the reason.
He’s the only reason anyone still cares about AE. Matt is carrying that organization. They’re lucky to have him after this nonsense.
parametalhead
💯
Can we just accept that people can have opinions and some of which can be wrong about stuff that can hurt others and some that are right and still hurt others. But what’s the point of being concerned or angry or frightened about it or a person? Only getting a discussion is going to get us anywhere as group or society.
Speaking as someone affected, the LGBTQ community likes to shoot itself in the foot by fully unleashing the guns on people that reasoned discussion can work with. It's a very 'either you're with us or you're against us' attitude, not very amenable to people's mind changing, and outright unfriendly towards people who are on their side but not 100% educated on a matter, or perhaps even disagreeing on an internal issue. The entire community, at least online, seems to be on a hair trigger.
@@GhostedJackal Yep, Matt is trying to be diplomatic here tolet it die so lets no accuse each other needlessy. Lets accuse those who really do bad things, together.
@@jonsnor4313 There are bigger, greater threats to gays, lesbians, trans folk, etc, ones that actually harbor malicious, harmful intent instead of being uneducated on semantic points. Maybe we should start with them.
@@GhostedJackal I agree.
@@GhostedJackalwe ARE on a hair trigger. Literally, we are, things have never been this tense
Jamie, you are usually quite eloquent and lucid but you sure fumble around on this topic. I watched your visit on the non seq show as well. Speak from your heart man and stop worrying so much about saying something that may be perceived wrong by some one. Your heart is in the right place you don't have to worry so much.
It's not about saying something that might be perceived wrong by someone, it's about saying something that's actually wrong but may be incorrectly perceived as right.
That was the actual harm of Stephen's video. Not that it was offensive to trans people (even though it was), but that it made transphobes feel validated in their bullshit opinions.
@@brifox You realize that the backlash and the overwrought response to Stephen has, by your definition, caused far more harm to the trans community than the original video, right?
Tom H And to some people there is no difference between those three videos.
To them it’s all the same hate speech.🤔
@@ramigilneas9274 Yes, some people have lost touch with reality and think taking a position on trans participation in women's sports contrary to their's kills trans folk and the equivalent to supporting slavery. They make vindictive purple prose-filled arguments for their position but the arguments are simply post hoc rationalizations for their initial knee jerk reactions. It's counterproductive, to say the least.
@Tom H I haven't seen the original video, and I think it was deleted? What was so bad about it?
Now if only the entirety of this whole drama had unfolded in this spirit, it would have never become the shitshow it ended up being.
Kudos to all in the video for the sincere effort to talk to each other and not at each other.
I love how she says, 'The ACA has no responsibility for RR's feelings,' while simultaneously demanding they cater to hers.
That is not a transphobic statement. I'm non-binary myself. I've had people call me all the horrible names. This is a complicated issue, new ground for humanity, and nobody is going to get it all right all the time. People from all walks of life really need to be a lot slower to take 'offense'. If someone reveals to you that they don't respect your identity (and are not actually harming you or doing something illegal), the solution isn't to demand their exile. The solution is to stop caring about the opinions of people you don't need to care about.
I personally feel it's not worth causing an already marginalized group more stress but even if you say "fuck trans people's feelings" why then would you bend over backwards to make sure this one privileged white men does not feel alienated?
Also what do you do when those people who do not respect your identity make the laws?
@@MrElionor Note where I said "actually harming you." If someone is passing laws that would violate rights a trans person should have, then we fight that, of course. But this idea that someone had a wrong opinion, and therefore needs to be vaporized or wear a scarlet letter on their chest is taking us backwards, not forwards. It's worse than ineffective, it's counter-productive. I do care about transpeople's feelings, and if someone asks me to use a gender pronoun, I'm happy to comply.
But everyone on Earth needs to get with the program and realize you don't have a right not to be offended in life. Part of becoming an adult is learning when NOT to take offense to bullshit that doesn't matter in the bigger picture.
@@CausalityLoop
So something like the president forbidding trans people from serving in the military? Or making it so you need to show your birth certificate to use the bathroom being banned from sports what kind of rights do you mean? It should also be noted that as of yet nothing has happened to RR ACA condemned him which they were then forced to take back sure people don't like him but that is there right and it's their right to express it but fine what can we do to make his life more comfortable?
MrElionor no one is advocating banning anyone from sports
It's crazy how things get so blown out of proportion in these kind of communities. Stephen for sure made some problematic statements in his original video. But the personal attacks and malicious motives being ascribed to him are out of line.
It makes people a lot less likely to join these kind of communities when purity tests are being applied to all the members. It comes accross as gatekeeping and is very off putting.
Sounds like bullying to me.
@Glid I wouldn't be so blunt as you, but I tend to agree. IDK what SJW is but not sure I'd say trash....... And I wouldn't say deformed i'd say Aberrant.
The main problem here is that the ACA are trying to bully Stephen into apologising for having a valid view on Trans issues......In reality his views on Trans issues are none of the ACA's business!
No, that's not the main issue at all. That's the oversimplification that you've come up with and convinced yourself of.
They are, if they have him on. Because if you have someone on as a host, you are by default associating yourself with them.
and thus, endorsing their views somewhat.
Because people are not rational in that way, and 'tarred by association' is a real thing.
Antediluvian Atheist...…...I see your point, thank you for setting me straight on a subject that I really need to learn more about!!
@@m.b.g.musicproduction9658 Yeah. It ain't rational, or right, but it's there.
For example: the ACA has Richard Spencer on. He's a great host, and they don't touch race or nationality at all.
How do you feel about the ACA now?
Who the fuck is Richard Spencer?
I really don't understand which part in that video is transphobic, can anyone please help me?
I get it. She watched too much Essense of Thought.
@Rhuthwik Suresh Any essence of thought is too much lol
@@jollytemplar3670 I watched some of his response video and as someone who actually looked into this I found it drawn out, self aggrandising, and worst of all deliberately misleading.
Whenever I try to ask a trans person an honest question because I don't fully understand their claim, they usually respond with a harsh, defensive "How dare you question me!?!!" and assert that I'm transphobic. I don't trust any group that demands absolute loyalty and respect while refusing to show any in return. If they haven't at least filed to change their birth certificate through the proper channels, how can I respect the claim that they are oppressed and not being recognized? I haven't met a single one who's even tried, they chose to become part of the "oppressed" class for the immediate flood of attention and get offended if I suggest that they can't just assume that the government will recognize that they identify as a different gender because they posted it on social media, the government only speaks bureaucrat.
Welcome to the club. Theres certainly bad faith actors that are condemned by their own, but the squeaky wheel blah blah blah.
Have you considered the fact that maybe people can't be bothered one by one convincing every anonymous individual on the internet "sceptical" of transpeople? You gotta admit, you guys get rather tiring. It's a never ending wave of ignorance and bullshit. Each new person is as oblivious as the last and carries just as much entitlement to be argued with and personally convinced as if the world held its breath for whether you specifically approve of transpeople or not. Sometimes it's just easier, and more satisfying, to say fuck off.
Just sounds like you haven't met the right trans people.
Tim MD Sounds like you are part of the problem.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 Well, yeah. To a transphobe I would be part of the problem because they have a bigoted vision for the world that I am against. I don't mind being a problem to you.
The best part about watching this video is watching Jaimie grovel to the caller and shit his pants waiting for Matt the say the wrong words.
The new religion of liberalism. As a liberal myself, this is beyond problematic.
This caller is a bigoted asshole. Literally a cisphobic individual.
Hah yeah, it's so utterly pathetic.
Ya he’s a joke
So just to confirm..Matt doesn't speak on behalf of the ACA? Can it be repeated more often pretty please for in case we forget. Maybe Jamie can make a t-shirt..and wear this slogan. The dude seems to have an inferiority complex when he sits next to Matt.
Nah, think it's more that Jamie just has to cover his rear as the ACA president. Th joys of politics.
Jamie is just weak in general. He has no confidence and his attempt to tip-toe and wordsmith makes him weaker. He needs to either grow a pair, or step down because he is not displaying the characteristics of a president and leader.
@@Ebiru2387
You got your wish.
He stepped down.
@@stickiedmin6508 I am glad. I wish Jamie the best, but he just wasn't cutting the mustard. He was too young and too immature. As we are all once. Hopefully in a few years if he sticks with it he will learn and grow and take another stab if he feels it the appropriate thing to do.
@@Ebiru2387
Me too - I do like the guy, but he showed how much he struggles to handle a crisis.
When he's working in his comfort zone, particularly if he's with Eric, I love watching / listening to him. When he gets angry, he can cut a bad argument dead, almost like Tracie Harris, but so often now, he seems so afraid that someone's going to yell at him and spends more time policing his own speech than trying to get his point across.
I'm happy Matt's in charge again but the wounds and losses The ACA had to endure to get back here are no less heartbreaking.
I’m a trans woman. Stephen may have been wrong in the beginning, but he corrected himself, at least to my personal satisfaction. People should be given a chance to clarify and apologize. People make mistakes, but they should be able to correct themselves.
So... You are a dude?
I agree with you and I agree with Matt, this thing turned into an over-reactionary shit-show.
@Corvo@AZ Not all of them, as Matt just pointed out.
he has literally made the same arguments & fallacies & his apology was a non-apology. if he had actually taken responsibility instead of protecting his ego it would not have blown up the way it did
demigodzilla the very obvious answers to that is yes. What a horrid little troll they are.
"Hateful, insensitive, ignorant, and transphobic." This is either a listening comprehension problem or you just have no clear idea of what any of those words mean as not one of them can accurately be applied to the video in question..
The Stephen Woodford witchhunt has been absolutely ridiculous. And the hypocrisy when Brenda talks about not having an obligation to pander to people's feelings is out of this world. Leave Stephen alone, he's a good person with a skeptical mind. Any mistake he may have made was born out of misinformation, not malice.
let me splain it to you; misinformation about the trans community causes transwomen to be murdered out of ignorance, and, yes, we do take that seriously, transphobes do not
@Corvo@AZ look it up yourself, dick head
@@wanettarenay8215 See thats the issue. You cannot just claim something and when asked for evidence or even just a clarification insult someone and say "It's out htere go search it for yourself" That is not how rationality works. And I have to agree with Althea, while he may have been wrong on some subjects, he had a valid point in expressing his concerns about the fairness of the competition. But instead of saying "Hey Stephen you got that wrong and here's why" Some people just plain out calling him transphobic is absolutely irrational, ridiculous and disgraceful.
@@berkeleyblue4247 THE HELL I CAN'T, YOU DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT TRANS PEOPLE AND YOU WANT ME TO JUSTIFY MY EXISTENCE TO YOU, FUCKER?
@wanetta renay
Whanetta, do you need someone to call you a whambulance you fucking cry baby?
Lumping everybody who isn't a transperson into the transphobe category does not help your case, you fucking moron.
I have found that Jamie Boone has cheapened the legacy of the ACA and the people who made it what it was.
Since he is a close friend of RR's and helped get new leadership elected that are friendlier to people like RR, I would agree.
Jamie at this time seemed far more worried about offending people than addressing topics. He got better in time, maybe this experience helped him put the importance of facts over possibly offending someone.
Brenda is wrong. She’s basing her accusations off feelings.
That's a fallacy. Whether she is or not, does not make someone wrong. You can be emotional about something and still be right. Not saying that's the case here, because you failed to even state what Brenda is wrong about.
@@urquanseven2332
Actually no.
You may be right about him but until you have evidence the accusation is wrong.
In recent years there has been a parade of accusations based on feelings. The internet has become a tool for harrassment for the extremists on both sides. If anything this call proves that it's important to measure twice before you cut, because internet people think they can read minds, and Matt tends to expose this frequently from christian callers.
Just for clarity I will repeat myself. Brenda might be justified to feel the way she does, and it's understandable for her to lash out and throw accusations. Understandable. Not justified. She is wrong in this one for doing this out of feelings.
This was, however, not unprovoked and that's why discussion must happen without coddling anyone so that everyone, including the one who messed up in the first place, can grow.
@@joulian What relevance does this have to the comment I made? The TP said Brenda is wrong because she's basing her accusations on her feelings. That's a fallacy. Feelings can coincide with truth and reality. For example, if someone's loved one is murdered, you are very much emotionally invested, but just because you are emotionally invested, that doesn't mean that your accusation of the murderer is necessarily wrong especially if they have concrete evidence that the accused is guilty. In other words, the TP failed to provide a substantive argument as to why Brenda was wrong, and instead said she's wrong because she's emotional. That does not logically follow.
If you don't understand how that's a fallacy, then you aren't logical and don't understand fallacies.
Now I didn't see the original video, only the revised video. The revised video, I agreed with completely. However, I saw clips of the original video, and many things in it were extremely concerning and absolutely can be construed as offensive. I also watched a video of him debating sargon of akkad, a well known white nationalist, and he failed to call him out on sargon equivocating white privilege with white people being richer than everyone else. And he was oddly nice to a well known racist. People's biases can be betrayed by how they deal with racists and other bigots.
@@urquanseven2332
Feelings can be coincidentally be related with reality. But sometimes they aren't, and accusing based on them and not evidence is actually a fallacy. The "it feels right to me" kind of fallacy. Remember she is doing much more than saying the video was wrong. She also claims to be able to read his mind and see his intentions and that she is sure his social messages are full with hateful retoric. And in your murder scenario, it could very well be the case that it was not a murder at all, and that it was just a freaky accident or something unrelated and you're just jumping to conclusions. I'll have to remind you that nurses are being attacked in my country right now because people that felt mildly sick went to the hospital never returned home, and people taking this miracle medicine have gone to the hospital and they have to be intubated quickly, in the end they have had their throats severely lacerated. Obviously there is a very concrete evidence people in the hospital have been killing and hurting patients. No one is allowed to be with the patients and once they die they present you with the ashes. Clearly they might be doing something wrong with them or else why would they hide? And you didn't get to see your daughter/mother/granny's last minutes. It was very obviously the doctors and nurses. They did something and they're hiding it. Obviously. Because it feels wrong to me.
@@joulian No, not coincidentally. A coincidence does not mean the same thing as coincide. If you're emotionally invested in a homicide case, and you use logic and evidence to determine who the real murderer is, it's not a coincidence that you found the real murderer. You're intentionally using weasel words which discredits your position.
This is a red herring fallacy. I am pointing out the fallacy in the TP's argument. He said Brenda is wrong because she's emotional, and failed to address anything she actually said. That's a fallacy, and everything you brought up, is irrelevant to that fact.
Dude I'm trans. He apologized for his mistakes. Don't want anything more than that. Idk why you making big deal brenda.
I am also trans. He didn't change his transphobic opinions at all. I don't think you know what he actually said
When you're so open minded your brain falls out.
It doesn't fall out of an open mind. It falls out of an open mouth.
Questioning dogma is more important than taking sides. (compassion notwithstanding)
I'm still learning. Sometimes I get my vocabulary wrong and I'm lucky enough to have friends that correct me, knowing I dont have bad intentions. I am black, and have heard people use the wrong terminology. If their intentions are good, I will correct and not think they are racists.
I've noticed that some people are desperate to be angry and express opinion with anger at the drop of an accidental word. Intention should be the main focus, especially where people are willing to learn.
Intention can only really be established in the response to a “mistake”. Although how we treat the person in the aftermath can sometimes inform how they react.
If they don’t change or seem uninterested in understanding why they are wrong it’s probably because they hold some bigoted beliefs. Aka wrong negative beliefs about a group of people I hold without evidence that informs or reinforces negative feelings towards that group.
Sounds like someone made a mistake, owned it. and now people Are not letting him put it behind him. Nothing changes if nothing changes
Getting up and basically saying "hey, I have a trans friend who agrees with me" is hardly owning his mistake
The double standards when Brenda talks about there being no obligation to manage people's feelings are extraordinary. What a hypocrite.
💯👏
I totally agree with you. I understand she is upset but still.
exactly
@@nates9029 he i mean she had a good joke tho
@@sickboy666fu - It was certainly better than yours. Or perhaps your comment wasn't meant as a joke but was instead just a demonstration of your ignorance.
This is the only time I have ever seen Matt abandon reason and logic. To say "...well, I don't care about sports...just have men and women compete together..." is just putting your head into the sand. I totally agree with Jaime's face palm. Men are bigger and stronger than women. That is not a sexist statement, it is a scientific fact. Look at the records for track, swimming, weight lifting, etc. There is a good scientific reason why men and women do not compete together in most physical sports. So if a man transitions to a woman, he carries those advantages with him. Why is Rationality Rules a bigot to just ask questions about the fairness of this and how sports are handling it? If you look into women who have become men and compete in male sports, you'll find that they routinely get crushed. That is why they have never even been discussed as an issue. Why can't there be a fair and honest discussion of this topic without calling someone a bigot? The ACA and Matt are allowing themselves to be bullied by the PC police.
I'm very mediocre in all sports but with a little training and switching to the female category, I can probably earn an olympic medal.
Yeah, I think he messed up there.
One of the first times I disagree with him. But he's not a sports guy. This was cringy.
And there is nothing transphobic about this. So I don't see what's all the fuss about.
@@divxxx I would I agree I do not find it transphobic. I think there is an honest discussion to be had here at some point in time. However, I do find the timing to be insensitive. RR should have just pulled the video and put up an apology only. The trans rights supporters should have not thrown around transphobic and bigot. I firmly believe the vast majority of the atheist community stands by equal rights for all people. Sports is a trivial issue that can be ironed out at a later time. Can we fix the discrimination in the areas that 99% of transpeople will face first? Then you can continue to cannibalize liberalism.
Isn’t it obvious that trans people who were born male shouldn’t be allowed to compete in female sports/competitions?
Why is that a controversial thing to say? They have an unfair advantage. It’s just common sense…
That whole idea is transphobic because it isn't true, and going so far as to blanket ban an entire group of people based on your incorrect feelings about them is inherently bigoted. You'd have to be numb in the brain to think otherwise. Would you ban black people too if you thought you had a reason to think they had a biological advantage? Would you ban gay people from using public changing rooms? If your answer is yes to either of those questions, you have a serious problem you need to think through.
@@GigaDonk99The very existence of sex segregated sports is “blanket bans”. There is already a blanket ban on males in females sports and vice versa
The ACA fucked up more than Stephen, also using the word "transphobic" is a amateurish word made to trigger as many people possible. Also being hyper sensitive and not listening to corrections or apology's does not help one bit. And the caller shows exactly no willingness to accept others make mistakes to.
Does anybody have a link to this video?
A link to what video?
@@peapotfairy the video that started all of this
Does anybody know why I can't get Sunday the 9th of August show..It keeps telling me it is private. ?
Irony at 6:30:The aca is under no obligation to manage Stephen Woodford's feelings. They denounced him, and if he feels attacked that's his fault.Well, they are under no obligation to managed over-sensitive offended-championship ppl's feelings either. They had him on the show because he's a great voice in the Atheist world, and if you got offended, that's your fault.
A strange observation on this whole bizarre incident is how atheists are by far the more marginalized group of the two, yet they are twisting themselves into pretzels to appease folks who are disproportionately rabid about a largely innocuous offense.
This whole thing is beyond ridiculous... it seems like if your opinions are not 100% the same as mine I have the right to feel threatened, marginalized and call you names...
maybe Steven isn’t as woke as you want him to be, but what happened to nuance and levels of degree, is he a person that needs to be fought and denounced or maybe he is actually one of the good ones who deserves being talked and listened to...
I personally think he was not entirely wrong with his original video and all that says is that I understand the physiological differences of male and female bodies. Your rights or identities have nothing to do with that.
P.S. Jamie is just the worst, unbearable, wtf
The caller didn’t even look at his supposed transphobic statements.
I don't understand why this was not put to rest ages ago - his apology video was so thorough I ended up subscribing to his channel, even though I didn't agree with his first video.
It was made pretty clear when she brought up Essence of Thought. EoT started (as Matt pointed out) assuming the worst of Steven and continued looking at everything through a very biased lens, and a lot of EoT's viewers are going to have their own lens tinted as a result. A lot of this debacle was pushed forward and worsened by EoT.
WolforNuva His comment section is worse than that of a creationist channel.
A heavily moderated echo chamber.
@@ramigilneas9274 It is indeed. I was blocked in the first salvo of conversations for not instantly agreeing. There is a need for some moderation though as many responders are doing nothing but saying deliberately offensive things.
Make sure you check off all the right boxes before calling, hosting or being a guest or the mob will get you. You're only allowed to be irreverent toward religious people, but not liberal dogma.
I agreed with everything Matt said except the bit about gender being removed from sports. Removing gender from most sports is a pipe dream. Take tennis, for example. Serena Williams said she couldn’t beat any of the men in pro tennis.
Renée Richards was a great mens player prior to transitioning. After she transitioned at age 41, she ranked as high as 20th in the WTA in her 40’s. Here’s a quote from her:
(Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying) "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renée_Richards
how many navy seals have be women?
Nuns Of Your Business Demi Moore?
@@TheDizzleHawke Well then the navy seals should be more inclusive
Nuns Of Your Business Apples and oranges. My comment was about sports fairness, not military. Take it up with the USMC.
@@TheDizzleHawke I would say that both exactly the same thing in reference to man having advantage over all when it comes to physical ability.
Regardless of the subject or context screaming "phobic" at anyone who expresses opinions you don't like has the opposite effect than what you intend. It hardens the opinions of people who are against you and alienates those who were already on your side.
This call was on point, mostly. It all boils down to what Brenda said "I dont care about Stevens feelings, his feelings are HIS problems - but MY feelings are paramount and I want Steven to burn at the stake!"
we can't have an environment where no one can ever question and no one can ever fuck up and still call that an environment that fosters free thought.
"Ego and narcissism?" Ha ha.
so I get, and sympathize with, that trans people are hurt by this but what else do they want? Stephen has already apologized for this, acknowledged his mistakes and has taken steps to correct it. Stephen is hardly the poster kid for transphobia. Please don''t paint him that way.
That’s a good question. The problem with the outrage culture is it’s never enough.
Legit question: Do you think transphobia as a result of ignorance (Steven) is any better or worse than transphobia that is driven by hate (which is a type of ignorance I suppose but not the same as being misinformed)? Because to me, dead is dead. It don't matter if you shoot, kill or stave me. Transphobia is transphobia for the same reasons.
His video will be used by those that hate trans-people as evidence against them. It's another video that drives fear into the trans community. Whether you do it based on ignorance or hate doesn't really seem to matter.
Jebuslives yes. I think intent matters. That’s the only thing we can control. We can not control reactions or somebody’s feeling towards a comment. Dead is dead but transphobia has a definition and being misinformed does not necessarily qualify you for that label.
I honestly feel Steven was pretty spot on with many of his points but he definitely could have been more sensitive. Obviously he did make some mistakes with some of the points but I feel his response video was well thought out and thorough.
@@drfeelgood5340 Whether you agree with bigoted video or not really doesn't matter.
The ACA, RR (Steven), you or myself are not experts in biology let alone Trans-people. Watching a CZcams video or scouring over google searches makes you an expert in nothing. It doesn't even qualify you to render an opinion on the issue without first stating "I have no fucking idea what I am talking about."
Being misinformed does not make you a bigot or transphobic. Making a CZcams video that spreads lies and misinformation does.
"Transphobia is the range of negative attitudes, feelings or actions toward transgender or transsexual people, or toward transsexuality. "
Spreading negative attitudes, check.
Spreading lies, check.
Jebuslives so you know what they say about assuming. I’m not going to divulge personal info to some rage maniac on CZcams but my adult life and education has been devoted to biology, specifically immunology but nevertheless I have an above average understanding of this topic. Maybe you shouldn’t speak on this subject but the evidence is pretty clear on this subject. You can’t twist the science just to make people feel good. Classifying mammals as male or female is straightforward across the board and we as humans don’t have anything that makes us different when it comes to how they are identified.
Also, the physical advantage of post pubescent males is well documented. Sorry for the frustration.
ACA and Matt going completely Spanish inquisition on Steve. He recognized "he fucked up" and still the ACA went ballistic on him making him REPENT many times and still condemning him. Thu use of "phobia" nowadays is way "inflationed" . I would have liked to see debates and scientific evidence brought up, not opinions and condemnations.
Steven is not hating. He messed up. He apologized. He didn't fake the apology. He went over and broke down all parts and every time he highlights the fucked up parts and continued to apologise. This is not a fake approach and it should not be handled as one. He never gone back to similar type of approach and this is very important also. So, these facts are showing that Steve is far from being called as Transphobic. Everyone-with similar way of regret/apologizing-deserves another chance. His presence shows positivity and...rationality.
Someone help me with a question I have please. I just tried doing some research and I havent found what I'm looking for. Why are the only athletes succeeding male who transitioned to female? Where are all the women who changed to Male competing in Male sports? Can someone point me in the right direction?
Unfortunately because women who have transitioned to men and compete in male sports routinely get their asses kicked and rarely ever place. I'm just giving the facts, hate the facts not me.
The right direction?......Stop looking, because there aren't any successful ones. Which is why this is raising so much controversy on the male to female sports people
I feel like someone that just got hit with a lightning bolt. That question should have many people's sensors registering like an earthquake that demolished the Richter scale manufacturing plant. Kudos Thomas.
@@onlimi616 Do you care to source these "facts"?
Rational Rules has many links in last main video (including rebukes) that at least lightly touch on it, especially Noel Plum.
"his feelings are his feelings, The ACA has no responsibility to his feelings"... Wow almost there extend this point a little further and you'll get it. No one has responsibility for anyone's feelings, sorry that you had your feelings hurt by someone who didn't agree with you and later admitted to being wrong whether that was genuine or not. No one is responsible for anyone else's feelings, period.
Trans-phobia (Def): Any and all thoughts, statements and actions which do not praise the Trans community entirely.
the caller clearly called in to keep the controversy going by pretending to be an ally. She could not have been more transparent in my opinion. No matter how much time Brenda was given, I"m quite certain she thinks that she was cut off too early. Just on and on and on with hurt feels and whining. Pathetic.
Getting rid of gender in sports....haha. A rare moment when I disagree with Matt. He handled this call well though but that was too funny. I am sure most female athletes would disagree. That would eliminate most women entirely out of sport. Olympic hockey with the best athletes male or female, would be all male. There has to be separate genders when physical strength is a factor or else it will be 99% male.
@elitist douche bag I think Matt is very intelligent when it comes to logic and issues concerning morality. He is not a sports fan and I think he rushed an answer without pausing to really think about what he was saying in a moment. We all do this time to time. I don't think Matt's an idiot for this one comment.
it's not only about pure physical strength - for example there are 2 womans in top 100 chess players, or 0 female drivers in F1 or WEC. Pretty much the same situation in any of esports aswell.
Is there anything objetively "bad" about women hypothetically disappearing from Top Sports? I mean, if that seems to be the "fairest" solution, so be it.
Of course it'd be dumb and unfair to possibly all sportswomen, not to mention that most trans women would most likely not make it either to any relevant spot, but anything that prevents us from having this stupid argument all over
@@kimurico1 they aren't in top sports anyway. Who cares for woman's sport ? 5% of people's who care of sport at all.
@@ImperatorofNonsense sure, but I mean, women's sports and female categories do exist, regardless of their overall repercussion or the interest they generate in the general public. Many times they get funded or sponsored independently of their male counterparts, which means there's a lot of money invested in sportswomen particularly. I'm not saying it's too much or too little or enough or not enough. I'm just stating that's how things seem to be currently.
Now, if you wiped out the gender "value" and the categorization that stems from it, maybe some of those funds and sponsors would disappear, if they exist specifically with that gender value as motivation, but also maybe many will just pour into the "general" funds and sponsors.
Now this would mean that IF women athletes are relatively weaker or slower or just worse when talking about some sports in general, then many sportswomen would lose funding and sponsorship in favour of the male athletes and sportsmen that maybe today don't make it into the conversation when compared to their male oponents, but that still will probably outmatch many of the top sportswomen.
Again, I'm not saying this would be good or bad. That's just what would most probably happen in many sports.
Trans opinions are not the only ones that matter.
on this issue, they matter more than a cishet man
@@dannyslag
Oh for fuck sake, stop.
Stop hurling "SJW" as a buzz word towards anyone who champions against the status quo.
Social justice is important.
@@JanetStarChild he has an valid opinion while you are just complaining without providing anything to the conversation.
social justice is not important it is a nuisance to valid and important conversations
@@Xarai
Social justice is not important? What an asinine statement.
If everyone had that same callous, ignorant opinion about social justice, black people would still be slaves to this day.
Rosa Parks and M.L.King jr were among the first "social justice warriors", and it's a humanitarian duty that should be carried on to this day; especially with how increasingly regressive people have become. It's a scary beginning, this new millennium.
@F when you are priveleged equality feels like oppression.
You can tell there’s a lot of red tape in Jamie’s answers, and how he has to put a disclaimer up constantly. I can however understand the frustrations of both Matt and the caller. It’s a sticky situation to be sure.
I know I'm super late but I can't find what exactly this guy said. I found something about women's basketball but couldn't find any exact quotes.
The egg shells that were being walked around here though😅. I've never seen Matt like this😂
Jamie is the Wesley Crusher of the ACA.
I see Matt doubled down on his crap idea of combining men's and women's sports. So just because some trans or non binary people want to compete, we should make it so women have almost no chance of winning in sports again?
Terrible PR cleanup by the ACA. It may have been a mistake, but it still has tarnished their reputation.
Stephens video was not transphobic, it was factual, shame on the ACA, facts don’t get squashed by emotion.
Lol you're transphobic, dumbass
And you're not a walking book of FACTS, you are an ignorant BIGOT who has no idea what the CURRENT science says about this issue, Fu*k off
Identity politics is killing the atheist "community".
Transphobia hurts every community.
*"...knifed him..."* Yeah that's pretty much how it went.
I stopped listening when the person on the phone said that we don't need to consider Stephen's feelings. Okay, since we are so brazenly dismissing people's feelings here, I won't consider yours either.
Nicely put.
Agreed
I'm sorry that she gets a lot of hate for being trans, I can understand that she might be getting more due to that original video; but if the If the ACA isn't responsible for what Steven feels, then it's not responsible for what she feels either. It got even worse when she 'just assumed' that the initial statement was entirely correct without checking anything, proving why the denouncement was misleading in the first place.
I mean to be fair.... He wasn't considering the feelings or safety of trans people when he made his video.
THAT GENDERPHOBES LIES GET TRANSWOMEN KILLED, FUCK HIM
Oh please!! So this trans person is allowed to have hurt feelings and be offended but the rest of us must bend backward??? People get offended too easily.
bic boi Jamie is one of them
Is the new name of the show The Trans Experience?
@@Omrel No, it's Talk Heathen. Matt is a _guest_ .
That's the world we live in unfortunately
@bic boi What do you mean, WHOOSH? Did I miss something?
Watching them cater and bow done to this caller is ridiculous.
I agree, they needed to tell the caller he had enough time to talk, was just repeating himself, and it was time for him to move on or whine someplace else. And no, I don't give a flying damn if I got the gender wrong.
But William: Brenda beeing transgender has the "right" gender therefore she is correct, isn´t she? It´s so idiotic ...
How are they doing that? They are trying to explain a difficult and confusing situation that was the result of a series of bad decisions with good intent.
@@johnjamele You are an asshole for missgendering.
@@comradenb1261 Well,'Brenda'did admit that he is a biological male.