To understand the trans phenomenon, is absolutely vital to understand her position. Once you grok this, it becomes clear why evidence is irrelevant—the belief about trans women in sports is held for moral and not epistemological or evidence-based reasons.

submitted by Chipit from (twitter.com)

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ClassroomPast6178 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Peter Boghossian is someone who is worth listening to. His non-confrontational approach to argument using the Socratic Method is a real breath of fresh air and something that the media could really learn from.

I especially like his “Street Epistemology” series which involves asking controversial questions and having discussions where people discuss why they believe something and it is eye opening.

I’m not surprised that he has picked up on that clip of that woman going apeshit in favour of trans in women’s sport, he has done a lot of work looking at religious belief.

Good catch u/Chipit

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

He is one of the three, along with Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, who collaborated to submit absolutely outrageous, stupid fake & made up "scientific" papers to critical theory journals - and got them published. They coined the term "Grievance Studies".

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, and he did the “Conceptual penis” article with James Lindsay before that before they brought Helen Pluckrose in.

Mike Nayna has a brilliant series of films about the whole affair that he made with them as it was all unfolding.

Matt Walsh picking a fight with Peter Boghossian over one of Boghossian’s tweets was a real mistake on Walsh’s part, and I think it was down to a failure to research.

[–]hfxB0oyADon't piss on my head & tell me it's raining. 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's a religion and they get very upset when you question their idols.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even questioning the idol isn't enough because their idol is themselves. As such, the whole thing is based on "I am always right because I am me, and thus I am perfect. For me to be wrong would be to claim I'm not perfect, and it is not possible for me to not be perfect because I'm me."

It was the same thing with why the "What is a woman?" question failed, because inevitably a troon like this would simply say "I am. I am a woman, and I am one because I say I'm one, and because I say I'm one I am one. The definition of woman is me and people or things that are like me."

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Isn't morality supposed to be founded on some form of logic?

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The original writings might be based in logic but for followers there is no logic in religious morality. It's just do as the scripture says.