Debate: Steven Crowder v transactivist Julie Rei Goldstein

[Ereshkigal]

This is a really good watch. Crowder really knows his stuff. They debate the science on trans suicide, puberty blockers, desistance and trans brains. I have to comment that I have debated with Julie Rei as have other women on Twitter and JRG was a lot more polite and reasonable with Crowder.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=CO3utRT3Hwk

I'm sure he was a dickhead. I don't feel the need to support his other views, it's just that he is good on this one issue.

I am a little tired of the idea that we have to paint people as "evil" or "good" and therefore discount everything they have to say.

Crowder is a conservative shit-stirring comedic Christian commentator. He is anti-Left, anti-abortion, anti-feminist, and believes that sex-stereotypical behaviour is mainly biologically driven. He definitely crosses a lot lines, but is relatively respectful to guests with opposing views. His "Change My Mind" videos are really good to watch, if only to hone your own thinking on the issues.

If feminism is to be effective, then we need to really understand the arguments of our "ideological opponents". Not pretend they don't exist. Otherwise we are just as bad as the people smearing us as terrible "TERFs" and trying to silence us.

Although I am still pissed at him for calling Julie Bindel an ugly feminist b*tching about marriage. That video was replete with unnecessary ad-hominems on her appearance.

These threads always seem to go the same way. Someone posts something entirely on point, the content is useful, and then we stop discussing it and start a debate about whether or not the person or publication source is pure enough by going through all the things that are wrong with them.

The behaviour is common among political purists, transactivists and heck, I've seen it frequently in Christian fundie evangelical circles which is really where I expect to see purity drives and purges.

Crowder is a rational individual with whom I disagree profoundly on some things and agree on others. He had a useful debate in the video posted.

Yes to everything the wise FloralBunting said.
Good video, good arguments, and the debate has been watched half a million times.
Thanks for posting Ereshkigal

I agree womanformallyknownaswoman he is an anti-feminist conservative who believes in brain sex and women’s innate inferiority. He may also believe that people should not be given hormones and surgery to deal with dysphoria, but that is the only thing he agrees with GC feminists on. I think it is good to note that some right wing anti-feminists take this view, but people like him are very limited in the help they can provide to GC feminists, the comment on brain sex alone proves that. It is similar to when right wing groups from the US oppose the sex industry, they oppose it for different reasons to feminists. I think it very important to make the distinction between why we oppose certain things and why people like him oppose them, I certainly don’t think it has anything to do with ‘purity’ to point that out. If feminists uncritically embrace people like him and don’t note these men’s limitations then we will just end up with a anti feminist backlash from the male right, which would not be much better than the anti feminist backlash we have now from the male left.

Feminists are getting backlashes from all quarters, mostly from people who have the bare view of Feminism=Equality. WokeBros and MRAs are no different, and yes, Crowder is closer by far to an MRA than he is to any kind of Feminist at all. But he has hit the right note in this video and a number of others on the core topic, and that's useful, because the crux of the issue is that this is not a niche thing.

It has implications for all women - right wing, left wing, religious women, etc. and if we cannot move it beyond a narrow section and the perception that it's a RadFem minority thing, no one will see that.

As unpalatable as it is to be associated with people we disagree with profoundly, Crowder has influence, the DM has influence, so many people have influence among those who will not listen to liberal-leaning lefty feminists.

Let's face it, we are politically homeless, with no funding, and no platforms... So many people are dismissing this as "loony left infighting," but the ideology has enormous consequences for society. Women's rights are my primary worry, but also freedom of speech and association, etc. It's gone way beyond a right/left issue.

heresy, I completely agree. This is the issue of my life now, women's rights are absolutely the hill I will die on. I haven't a clue what to do when I vote next, and it was Labour last time. It won't be again as far as I can see.

I value liberty, and I value the safety of the truly vulnerable, and I will not let those things be taken away without a fight. If that means I have to say a man I disagree with made a good video outlining the serious issues I am angry about, then so be it.

Frankly, if Corbyn is still being vociferously defended by his cultists for standing on platforms with people who said vile stuff he obliquely intimates he probably didn't agree with, then I think it's far less of a associative guilt thing (and more honest) for me to say "I disagree with Crowder on his stance against Julie Bindell, but in this particular video, he's in the right (and I would imagine that Julie Bindell would think him a giant arse and no great ally, but see the usefulness of the posted video in reaching people who wouldn't listen to her. I could be wrong about that of course)"

FloralBunting Yes I agree with much of what you say, I have been saying similar things for many years.

However, feminists should at least be able to point out that this is an anti feminist man who is saying this, without being accused of being purists, particularly in the feminist section.

Feminists have never supported sexist ideas of brain sex, I really don’t think this man is anything special just because he opposes hormones and surgery for dysphoria, certainly it should not render him immune from feminist critique.

There are many ways to move the debate into the open without thinking anti feminist right wing men should be immune to criticism if they agree with us on one element of one issue. I have talked to many women and men about the GRA, from all over the political spectrum and all but 2 have agreed with the GC position, it doesn’t mean I agree with all their other views or refrain from criticising them on those other things because we happen to agree on this though.

Many people don’t even realise they are agreeing with the rad fem position when they do, all you have to do is talk about safeguarding and some of the things TA’s do and are proposing and they usually agree with the GC view. It doesn’t matter if they consider themselves religious, right or left wing or whatever.

It is important though that feminists don’t put too much faith in other groups because they usually have their own (often anti feminist) agendas and that must be remembered. We can (and I think should) point out where we agree and where we disagree with their views.

StopThisNow, I agree with your post, yes, we should certainly be open about where we differ with people, no question. I've just seen time and again useful things coming from voices we aren't comfortable with that are just dismissed out of hand, and I honestly don't think we have that luxury any more.

I agree with Floral.

Personally I think it's going to come down to a choice between complete submission to the transagenda and a right wing backlash. And I think that backlash is pretty much inevitable and women won't benefit either way. Identity politics has gone too far to be ousted without a fight.

The reason I posted this video is because in and of itself it's a great exposure of poor science around the trans issue.

I don't comprehend why we can't agree to disagree about things - I gave my opinion on him - you are very welcome to disagree. My opinion wasn't being critical of the post nor OP - I don't agree that I am being purist nor dismissive of all men like him. That's not what I said.

I have watched JP, Ben Shapiro etc - and occasionally quote them. But I have never heard any of them be so extreme on their views of women. The latter are the old-fashioned patriarchs imo, but his rhetoric went much further. Go listen and see.

So whilst I respect JP et al, and don't agree with most of what they say, I could see an alliance if necessary. With this guy, I couldn't. On any terms. I was absolutely shocked by his rhetoric towards women hence I won't recommend him. In line with my value system, I won't watch him again - I have seen enough of him to make up my own mind up thx.

For all his rhetoric he's very closed minded imo - It's his game, by his rules ...

It is important though that feminists don’t put too much faith in other groups because they usually have their own (often anti feminist) agendas and that must be remembered. We can (and I think should) point out where we agree and where we disagree with their views.

YY - great comment in total even though I've quoted just a part of it..

womanformally, perfectly fine to disagree - does that really need to be said? We're not supposed to be in lockstep conformity.

You're free to entirely dislike Crowder and say what you want about him. I've just seen so many of the threads like this go along common lines that obscure the useful content of what is posted and I made comment on that phenomenon. I don't think it's a good approach overall. I know people who will 'get' this because they respond to Crowder's style and that's useful as far as it goes. I'd probably even say to them that he's a total arse in other videos, but that this was useful.

womanformallyknownaswoman who is JP, please?

Italiangreyhound
Not sure, but would guess Jordan Peterson from context.

Ah yes.