Social Constructs (or, ‘What is A Woman, Really?’)

VROOM VROOM!

Silly Opinion and Foul judgement has such an impact on our lives, thus I feel being alone is better.

A woman is an adult human being inclined toward gestation. A trans woman is an adult human being inclined toward insemination but believes they are a woman, see precious definition. There. You’re welcome.

Theseus' silver car

funny huh, to all these young priveleged Marxists at college 'white man are the oppressor' ,even the ones born to poverty, victims of the system… but look ! Of course! Unless your actually a man who is really women huh . and then you must be defended at all costs!! .. Ooooooh ok how convenient😂😂.this is what happens when you try to twist reality round an ideaology

Earth -1 is a f'ckin VIBE

That professor seemed to have gone to the gandalf school of scheduling and planning

Hi Abi, i love this video and your channel. Im wondering if Andrew Gold is on breadtube's (is this breadtube?) radar? He platforms a lot of awful people and is a disingenuous pot stirrer. Doin my head in

0:00 Prologue: Mumsnet
2:24 Under The Hood
9:16 Nuts & Bolts
15:27 Head-On Collision
21:23 Credits

This made me think of Dr. Suess's "The Sneetches". They had constructed a social order where the ones with stars on their bellies were privileged and those without weren't. Then they allowed an outsider to come in and declare which type was newly on top and repeatedly charge money to use his machines to put on and take off stars from their bellies.

you remind me of phoebe waller-bridge!

I've watched this video a few times now and I only JUST realized that the word "Shmight" is just "height" with an added an "S" at the beginning and an "m" instead of the "e", LOL! How did i miss this play on the word height?!!! i'm a dumb dumb…. LOL!!

botulism makes your face look wierd. Your mouth hangs over now…

You may have some wisdom to share….

You don't really show it like this.

So if the property of “being Italian” is having “Italian heritage” does that mean an Indian can’t claim to be Italian?

Just wanted to let you know that you are such an intelligent person (at least based on my metaphysical concept of intelligence LOL). But jokes aside, you rock so much, girl!! I always put a lot of thought on this “What is a woman” debate and this video just explains a lot of my thoughts and beliefs with such great examples that I never thought of before. Definitely going to start adopting the Platypus as a mammal example for now on. Thank you for delivering incredible quality content, as always!

It if is established through analogy that gender is a social construct, then how is that establishment related to the way we perceive gender? it is undoubtable that gender is a social construct, but then again, we cannot ignore why these social constructs were constructed in the first place. you talked about duckbill platypuses and how despite their oviparous parturition they are considered mammals. but the definition of mammals– which is of course a social construction– is not rooted on the way of parturition– as you yourself mentioned. therefore, we realize that for an animal to be a mammal, it does not have to be give birth to babies necessarily. but this argument is not an analogy for what it means to be a woman, or man or any other social construction because despite the fact that these categories are to some degree arbitrary, there is a basis for this arbitrariness that is biological, in that, gender is not only a social construct, it is social construct + something else. gender may be a way of categorizing somebody, but just because naming a category is arbitrary, does not mean that the categories are in themselves arbitrary, because the tokens that cluster together to form a type, have certain universal features. now, when it comes to men and women, these universal features have been, for centuries secondary sexual characteristics, by which we judge whether an individual is a man or a woman. the fact that a large number of people find it difficult to call a transwoman woman is because the way the person appears and presents herself is secondary to her secondary sexual features, and therefore they make a distinction between women and trans-women. i think most of us find it difficult to swallow that a transperson who identifies as belonging to another sex actually belongs to that sex because that person lacks the qualities or markers that we are used to seeing in people typically belonging to that sex. also, if we take butler's idea of performativity, we delve into a circular argument, where to become of a particular gender, i am supposed to perform the roles of that gender. but where do these gender roles come from in the first place, not through performativity, since if to create a gender one must follow a pattern of activities, those patterns of activities must rest outside of the domain of performance in order to emulate them. the chief question in number theory is more analogous to the question "what is a woman?", where it is asked what is a number. just because our number theory is a social construct, it does not automatically mean that that construction is arbitrary. in the same way that numbers 0 and 1 are social constructs but immutable in form, because they have a definite function, sex is a social construction but immutable in form, because the two sexes are inherently different. we may say that just as a number can be represented by variables, the sexes too can be represented by variables, the selection of which is quite arbitrary, but these variables cannot possibly mean anything when they are entirely divorced of what they are representing.

Lovely , empowering video- sliving heels

As a short ass trans guy I'd kms on earth two if my height mattered that much

I noticed how the criticisms of the video do not actually engage with any of the actual talking points, rather, they just get made and call Abigail a man. Pretty revealing of the average education level of most transphobes.

Your platypus argument is clever and i agree with it, buuut, platypuses are actually monotremes. Same goes for echidnas.

Love those ankles and the camo shoes!

Now then… Because you seem to savor critical thinking and thorny social issues — together apparently — I have a discussion topic for you.

I recently learned that the Paris accord assumes a fair amount of CO2 removal, along with quitting fossil fuels.

I did some reading and I now think we've misled ourselves with a tragic and stupid logic error.

I submit for your curiosity the following:

(1) To get back to pre-industrial CO2 levels, we need to take nearly a trillion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. That's the sum of what we have to take out if we DO hit our emission goals, PLUS the backlog amount to get back from where we sit in 2024 to where we were before the iron age. (The target moves beyond a trillion if we miss our emission limits.)

(2) People seem to think that preventing emissions is much less costly and …well, better than trying to pump CO2 Into salt mines forever.

(3) The thinking has stopped there. Now we're using the issue to drive fear and loathing. Of course the fear is what stopped the thinking. So let's try again here:

(4) I say it's unrealistic to think that we can reduce emissions far enough. Just because it makes more sense to drive elwctric cars instead of pumping CO2 down a well doesn't mean that's our solution. We need to look again.

(5) If we only look at reduced emissions, what's the backup plan? 😢 I'm not okay with only one chance for survival.

(6) Given (5), we need to get busy on carbon sequestration. What do I mean by sequestration?

(7) We need to reduce the amount of CO2, but it would be okay to have lots of O2 and a big pile of graphite.

(8) The cost and/or efficiency of our solution seems quite beside the point, given extinction is the alternative.

(9) If we take our 19th century blinders off, what do we see? Naah… Let's think in terms of the Manhattan Project. There is no "try" and we may have to cut corners. And I don't want to ever hear about "biofuel" or "net zero" because that is the sound of somebody trying to profit from the adversity of others.

(10) The only option remaining is to strip the carbon from the CO2 in the air. A trillion tons of CO2 in the air. Quickly, mind you. Lets say it's 300 million tons per year, just so we can get the scale right. (I think estimates are that we burn another 200 million tons a year, net… about. So 300 tonsof carbon removal only barely gets the slope going the right way.)

Discuss…

24 minutes of psychobable.. let me save you the time "Don't trust your lying eyes and ears, history, or observable reality!"