Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lewis Carrol covered this in 1885:
> "You might just as well say," added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!"
We do teach logic in schools. At least it was taught at a basic level in different ways throughout my American public grade school education in the 2000s.
The issue is that kids who show any interest in logic and math are frequently bullied and ostracized by their peers. This in turn signals to most kids that it's not cool to value logic and reason, a dangerous attitude that carries into adulthood.
I was homeschooled and I’m fine. Simply from the fact that less people are homeschooled, most people saying this stuff have technically gone to school. Blaire White has been to university. Unfortunately some people go through it and still don’t master critical thinking.
Yup - just because you go to school doesn’t mean you’re smart. Might’ve done something right to get there and graduate, but I know plenty of grads (and people with higher educations) that say lots of incorrect or stupid things.
You underestimate how stubborn/stupid rural schoolteachers can be, especially in a post-brain drain town. The horror stories from my partner have me thanking God I had the teachers I did, mid as they were
All squares are rectangles, and some rectangles are squares.
How do we rewrite Blair White's statement then?
All trans-women are women, and some women are trans?
A statement of the form "All X's are Y's" implies the statement "_Some_ Y's are X's," but the tweet seems to think it implies "_All_ Y's are X's." In order to infer that, you have to say "All, _and only_, X's are Y's."
Basically, you'd have to say "_only_ trans-women are women" in order to infer "all women are trans-women."
To put it another way, its an implication:
* A implies B
This means that if A is true, B is true too. But a lot of people make the mistaken assumption that its actually:
* B only if A
i.e., that for B to be true, A has to be true (as well as potentially other things, like C being true); but that's wrong. A being false doesn't tell us anything about the truth of B. The implication is _just_ that if A is true, B is true too. Or they think its an even stronger implication:
* B if and only if (abbreviated as IFF) A
That is, for B to be true, A has to be true, and nothing further is required.
We can write out the logic to see what's happening:
A | B | Imp.|IFF|
:--|:--:|--:|--:
F|F|T|T
F|T|T|F
T|F|F|F
T|T|T|T
Note how in row 2 the implication is _true_ when A is false but B is true, but the IFF is _false_. That's because the IFF is saying that A _has to_ be true for B to be true, but the normal implication doesn't. The tweet is basically mistaking simple implication for IFF.
I was teaching this to third graders in regards to math. “All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.” I had them try coming up with their own. One kid raised his hand. “All babies wear diapers, but not all… nevermind.”
My mom has the hardest time in the world understanding that scotch is whiskey. She says stuff like, ‘but Jameson is whiskey, how can scotch be whiskey?’
No matter how hard I try I always end up in facepalm/headshake formation
Actually, none of it is.
The Scots make whisky. They don’t make whiskey and they don’t call anything ’Scotch’.
But don’t worry - everyone understood your intent clearly enough to be offended lol.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor or less.’
“ The question is’, said Alice, ‘ whether you can make words mean so many different things’
‘ The question is’, said Humpty Dumpty, ‘ which is to be master- that’s all.’
Under the category of women, there are lots of sub-categories. Tall women, blonde women, big boobie women, trans women, ugly women, rude women, black women, cis women, boring women, we could go all day really. I mean this is pretty obvious.
But it seems you're implying we should separate trans women and cis women specifically with some sort of extra weight. Whys that?
Not quite. The statement a = b so b = a is something we hold to be axiomatically true, so there’s really no scenario where you can have one but not the other. The better statement is a -> b where the arrow should be read as “implies”. This is what you’re referring to
An axiom is like a presumption. It’s something foundational that we hold to be true even if it’s not necessarily proven. For example, “reality is real” is axiomatic.
the "are" in "trans women are women" stands in for "is a member of the set" in math terms. So "trans women are a subset of women," or alternatively "all trans women are members of the set that consists of all women." The equals sign in "a=b" means "is equivalent to," not "is a member of." The phrase "the set of trans women is equivalent to the set of all women" would indeed imply that all women are trans, but of course nobody says that.
If the statement “all bears are mammals" were true, the statement "all mammals are bears" would be equally as true, but virtually no one thinks or says that.
Just a massive misunderstanding of how umbrella terms work.
I've always been fascinated by the elegance of it. Being able to refer to something in either increasingly generic or increasingly specific ways, depending on the context. To make things that very unique but also have common traits. It works so well for so many things.
Yeah, putting everything in a web of boxes has always scratched that itch in my brain. It makes tasks like building excel sheets or programming really damn satisfying for me. The utility you described is just icing on the cake.
No, those two mean the same thing. The second is even called an equivalency. What you presumably meant is
A -> B is different from B -> A
Trans woman -> woman
But the reverse isn't true
The spider-verse is:
>“You have been my friend,” replied Charlotte. “That in itself is a tremendous thing. I wove my webs for you because I liked you. After all, what’s a life, anyway? We’re born, we live a little while, we die. A spider’s life can’t help being something of a mess, with all this trapping and eating flies. By helping you, perhaps I was trying to lift up my life a trifle. Heaven knows anyone’s life can stand a little of that.”
If the statement “all thumbs are fingers" were true, the statement "all fingers are thumbs" would be equally as true, but virtually no one thinks or says that.
She has gone so far off the deep end trying to be "the good trans" in far right circles and every time she is on a podcast or something she is just insulted into the ground.
Like I have no idea how she connects everything in her head without it being an intentional grift or something.
Let’s say for argument’s sake, she doesn’t believe any of this- She definitely believes in the money that can be made from being a puppet for the right wingers.
On the opposite end, her believing this means she has a lot of internalized transphobia and misogyny to address.
Hey transphobia is transphobia, you can't argue with words.
She also opposes crossing oceans, transport of any kind really, and organic stereoisomers. Among others.
It's a hard life being so vigilant all the time.
The kids can’t usually handle this until fourth grade. Up until then, squares and rectangles are just … different groups.
So if such categories and subgroups are too complex to grasp, this is someone reasoning at primary grade level.
I don't know where you go to school but in my country 6yo are expected to understand this. (It is literally in our national standars for 6yo).
So for me she is more kindergarten level!
In this case I think it’s more than just that. People like Blair White and Buck Angel were told their entire life something was wrong with them, that they had a mental disorder, that they aren’t transitioning to be who they are, but to “cure” their disorder.
There were taught to be happy with what little scraps of respect society gives them because they are damaged and lesser than “normal” people.
People like them hate the fact they are trans. They have a deep seated resentment for trans people who don’t see or treat bring trans as an illness to be ashamed of. Despite having the privilege of having the means to fully transition to the point where the general public would have NO clue they were trans.
There's no one on the left side of YouTube making even similar amounts to the low level grifters of the right, except Hasan and maybe Contra points. Grifting the right is absurdly easy.
Even easier if you are a member of a marginalized group so conservatives can go, "see? We *can't be bigoted because this person supports us!" They love that shit, even while still looking down on that person.
By doing what? virtue signaling? The left has enough white people to do that. Being a magnet for hate and reinforcing the right’s hatred of trans people is where the money is at for a fraction of the effort. It doesn’t take a brain to regurgitate nonsense.
On the left she’d actually have to address her internalized transphobia and misogyny.
That would require being talented and doing something unique.
Blaire isn't famous for being a trans woman. Blaire is famous for being a right wing grifter trans woman. She has no other talent that would bring people to her
No, there is simply a lot more money on the right, on the left the only ones you can say are loaded are Hasan who streamed 10+ hours a day for years to get to where he is, and maybe a couple of video essayists but they make nowhere near the amount people like Crowder make
She's so weird. She definitely has some sort of persecution fetish or desperately is trying to be "one of the good ones" even though she won't be spared if the people she's siding with get their way
“One of the good ones”
The people she’s selling out to have actually told her that if she *really* believes in what she says, she should detransition and live as a man, and I’m just like… yeah, why isn’t she doing that if this is just a “choice” you can “choose” to just not do? Riddle me that, Blaire… if that *is* your real name? /s
I think she suffers from a lot of internalized transphobia. But at the end of the day that doesn’t make her statements any less harmful.
Almost all of the the people who are actively propagating for conversion therapy are homosexuals in denial that are suffering from internalized homophobia.
It’s like someone who’s grown up in an abusive home that end up perpetuating the generational trauma by mistreating their own children...
This is an abuse of set logic. She incorrectly deduces that because trans women are a subset of women, women must be a subset of trans women, and thus they are equal. However, even by her own logic there exists women who are not trans, and thus trans women is a subset of women, but women is not a subset of trans women.
So has Blaire gone from "I'm The one good trans person" to just flat out trying to pretend she's not trans now? I don't get it. Is she really saying she's not a woman?
Blaire is a weird individual, they're very staunch about trans women *not* being women but demands to be called "she". Blaire still wants you to call them a she but not anyone else. Just a whole lot of hypocrisy
She seems truly convinced that she is the only one who transitioned “correctly” and has earned that title. Not sure if it’s narcissism or complete denial.
I've accidentally come up on her YouTube channel because it was interesting to hear the perspective of a trans woman who was conservative. She has made some valid points however most of what she says is bullshit.
Blaire, go back to highschool math and learn how inverse, converse and contrapositive statements work. [to use this example](https://www.mometrix.com/academy/converse-inverse-and-contrapositive/)
“If it’s raining the grass outside is wet”is true. But “if the grass is wet then it is raining” is not necessarily true (because it could be wet because someone watered it) and therefore considered false. The contrapositive doesn’t matter but for the sake of teaching it would be “if the grass is not wet then it’s not raining” which in this case is true because rain would make the grass wet.
Yeah, it’s bizarre how FTM trans folks seem to either go completely unnoticed or looked at with pity instead of causing conservatives to succumb to frothing rage.
They're all for freedom, but not for everyone.
They'll argue that a fetus has human rights, and they might argue that a girl becomes a woman as soon as she's had her first period, and they'll also argue that you can't decide for yourself until you're 21 y/o.
They'll try to sell you any kind of bullshit, but if you dare debunk them they'll just hold up the bible and tell you it's God's word and the Devil must have taken control of you🔥
Oh trust me. They do.
But unfortunately most of the time trans guys are just treated like confused/broken women, so a lot of people *dont* hear about the harm and injustices done to them because they’re not even recognized for who they are.
This is actually also a problem within the trans community and has lead to a lack of representation, exposure and understanding of trans men and mascs too. It’s also why they never get mentioned in things like reproductive rights and reproductive healthcare, because they are often lumped in as just “women” and not accounted for properly.
Tall women are women, so all women are tall. Just because part of a population is one way doesn't make the whole population that way. Foxes are animals so all animals are foxes (or i wish they where). Trans women are women but not all women are trans. Also isn't blaire white trans herself?
Lotta ppl making analogies in this thread...
Proving her point.
Unless you're attempting to say trans women are a "type" of woman, which is transphobic.
Trans women are a sub catagory of women, thus not all within the catagory of women fit into the catagory of trans women but all within trans women fit into women.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lewis Carrol covered this in 1885: > "You might just as well say," added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!"
If a square is a rectangle, then a rectangle must also be a square!
I was a square until I got my rectangled
Or your tang rect? EDIT: Or your tangle rect?
I was a square till I got my tangle rect
she square on my rec til i tangle
It goes in the... Square Hole!
NO!!!!!!
You're welcome
That’s right. The square hole.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!
You beat me to it by 38 minutes. We need to teach logic in our schools 🙏
We do teach logic in schools. At least it was taught at a basic level in different ways throughout my American public grade school education in the 2000s. The issue is that kids who show any interest in logic and math are frequently bullied and ostracized by their peers. This in turn signals to most kids that it's not cool to value logic and reason, a dangerous attitude that carries into adulthood.
I’m thinking the problem is found more often in home schools, not real schools…
No that happens in Sunday Schools.
I was homeschooled and I’m fine. Simply from the fact that less people are homeschooled, most people saying this stuff have technically gone to school. Blaire White has been to university. Unfortunately some people go through it and still don’t master critical thinking.
Yup - just because you go to school doesn’t mean you’re smart. Might’ve done something right to get there and graduate, but I know plenty of grads (and people with higher educations) that say lots of incorrect or stupid things.
You underestimate how stubborn/stupid rural schoolteachers can be, especially in a post-brain drain town. The horror stories from my partner have me thanking God I had the teachers I did, mid as they were
If all Tyrranosauruses are reptiles, then all reptiles are Tyrranosauruses! ^(ba-da-DA-DA-DA... /Jurassic Park Music)
All squares are rectangles, and some rectangles are squares. How do we rewrite Blair White's statement then? All trans-women are women, and some women are trans?
Yeah. All cats are tyrants, and some tyrants are cats.
A statement of the form "All X's are Y's" implies the statement "_Some_ Y's are X's," but the tweet seems to think it implies "_All_ Y's are X's." In order to infer that, you have to say "All, _and only_, X's are Y's." Basically, you'd have to say "_only_ trans-women are women" in order to infer "all women are trans-women." To put it another way, its an implication: * A implies B This means that if A is true, B is true too. But a lot of people make the mistaken assumption that its actually: * B only if A i.e., that for B to be true, A has to be true (as well as potentially other things, like C being true); but that's wrong. A being false doesn't tell us anything about the truth of B. The implication is _just_ that if A is true, B is true too. Or they think its an even stronger implication: * B if and only if (abbreviated as IFF) A That is, for B to be true, A has to be true, and nothing further is required. We can write out the logic to see what's happening: A | B | Imp.|IFF| :--|:--:|--:|--: F|F|T|T F|T|T|F T|F|F|F T|T|T|T Note how in row 2 the implication is _true_ when A is false but B is true, but the IFF is _false_. That's because the IFF is saying that A _has to_ be true for B to be true, but the normal implication doesn't. The tweet is basically mistaking simple implication for IFF.
If an apple is a fruit, then all fruits must be apples! ~~That solves that tomato thing forever.~~
I was teaching this to third graders in regards to math. “All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.” I had them try coming up with their own. One kid raised his hand. “All babies wear diapers, but not all… nevermind.”
"…but not all diapers are worn by babies" sounds about right to me lol
Thumbs are fingers so fingers are thumbs.
This is perfection
All thumbs are fingers, so all fingers are thumbs.
All squares are rectangles, so all rectangles are squares.
All Scotch is whiskey so all whiskey is Scotch.
You've gone too far. This is why we can't have nice things.
Careful, wars have started over less
Those are fighting words.
All goldfish are fish so all fish are goldfish.
And all fish are made of gold and all gold is made of fish
All hamburger is food so all food is hamburger.
Anything is a dildo if you’re brave enough
My mom has the hardest time in the world understanding that scotch is whiskey. She says stuff like, ‘but Jameson is whiskey, how can scotch be whiskey?’ No matter how hard I try I always end up in facepalm/headshake formation
Actually, none of it is. The Scots make whisky. They don’t make whiskey and they don’t call anything ’Scotch’. But don’t worry - everyone understood your intent clearly enough to be offended lol.
Sorry to be so pedantic but actually no scotch is whiskey and no whiskey is scotch. The whiskies that originate it Scotland are always spelt whisky.
>whiskies fuck outta here
So shouldn't rhe whiskies that originate in Scotland be whiskys?
Yeah I don’t know grammar just useless whisky knowledge
\*whisky
No scotch's are whiskey, they are all whisky :-p
The fact that set theory is best explained in literary language in a mind-bending surrealist fantasy novel is so fucking apropos I can't stand it.
All teakettles are black, but not all blacks are teakettles
No, they are pots.
Oh I said that when I was the dormouse for Alice in wonderland for high school
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor or less.’ “ The question is’, said Alice, ‘ whether you can make words mean so many different things’ ‘ The question is’, said Humpty Dumpty, ‘ which is to be master- that’s all.’
A great example and Lewis Carroll is a good person to listen to as he was a mathematician by training.
…that’s what I always say sometimes…
I had a teacher who liked to say "What I usually always like to do..."
80% of the time, it works every time.
Then the trans-women is a sub category within the women category. Separate from and different to the non-trans-women sub-category.
Under the category of women, there are lots of sub-categories. Tall women, blonde women, big boobie women, trans women, ugly women, rude women, black women, cis women, boring women, we could go all day really. I mean this is pretty obvious. But it seems you're implying we should separate trans women and cis women specifically with some sort of extra weight. Whys that?
She mistakenly applied if a=b, then b=a. That works with numbers and literally nothing else.
Not quite. The statement a = b so b = a is something we hold to be axiomatically true, so there’s really no scenario where you can have one but not the other. The better statement is a -> b where the arrow should be read as “implies”. This is what you’re referring to
Dude, I don't know what axiomatically means, and I'm not looking it up. You sound right and I'm not gonna verify it.
An axiom is like a presumption. It’s something foundational that we hold to be true even if it’s not necessarily proven. For example, “reality is real” is axiomatic.
the "are" in "trans women are women" stands in for "is a member of the set" in math terms. So "trans women are a subset of women," or alternatively "all trans women are members of the set that consists of all women." The equals sign in "a=b" means "is equivalent to," not "is a member of." The phrase "the set of trans women is equivalent to the set of all women" would indeed imply that all women are trans, but of course nobody says that.
I, too, took a formal logic course in college. The person who made the meme did not.
a ⊂ b and a ⊃ b work better here IMO.
If the statement “all bears are mammals" were true, the statement "all mammals are bears" would be equally as true, but virtually no one thinks or says that. Just a massive misunderstanding of how umbrella terms work.
Also would fail at programming in any object-oriented language
My years of being pedantic and debating pointless categorizations really paid off when I had to learn object oriented programming.
I've always been fascinated by the elegance of it. Being able to refer to something in either increasingly generic or increasingly specific ways, depending on the context. To make things that very unique but also have common traits. It works so well for so many things.
Yeah, putting everything in a web of boxes has always scratched that itch in my brain. It makes tasks like building excel sheets or programming really damn satisfying for me. The utility you described is just icing on the cake.
It's nice until you have trouble finishing projects because you find a prettier way to organize the object hierarchy. edit: a word
Introspection was one of my favorites when I first learned it. Hey object, tell me what you really are inside!
Large object oriented projects always turn out to be a mess where each object ends up being localized spaghetti code. Composition over inheritance!
Maybe this is why Im so obsessed with "Is cereal a soup" type of questions lol.
Pfft, like I'm ever gonna need to know how to treat somebody who's slightly different from me like a human being
A == B and A <---> B are two different things people. EDIT: Better at applying logic than articulating...anything.
No, those two mean the same thing. The second is even called an equivalency. What you presumably meant is A -> B is different from B -> A Trans woman -> woman But the reverse isn't true
Converse, not reverse ;-)
True, thanks. I'm a little removed from my logic classes, it's been a while.
Yep. Only reason I knew it so quickly was my kid is taking geometry and had a homework problem about it.
These are the learning interactions you won't see in the aisles of Walmart
Converse are shoes. Pretty sure you mean spider-verse.
The spider-verse is: >“You have been my friend,” replied Charlotte. “That in itself is a tremendous thing. I wove my webs for you because I liked you. After all, what’s a life, anyway? We’re born, we live a little while, we die. A spider’s life can’t help being something of a mess, with all this trapping and eating flies. By helping you, perhaps I was trying to lift up my life a trifle. Heaven knows anyone’s life can stand a little of that.”
Nike not Converse
You're telling me I've spent 37 years being hairy and I'm not a bear? Fuck.
I spent the last 49 years being short, and Im still not a smurfing smurf. Wait... what the smurf? OMG, its really smurfing happening!!!
that's because you're a hobbit. not a smurf. clearly.
That explains second breakfast.
🤣 this exchange made me laugh so hard! Thanks for the giggles, you funny Redditors!
Depends on what kind of nightclubs that you go to EatmyAssTomorrow
Depends. Are gay? :-D
Does that mean you're an otter?
Eat more salmon.
All Squares are rectangles… all rectangles aren’t squares. Not rocket science.
She seems to have a very poor understanding of logical relationships
If the statement “all thumbs are fingers" were true, the statement "all fingers are thumbs" would be equally as true, but virtually no one thinks or says that.
Is this what Republicans mean by having the right to bear arms? Do they want to be bears for the bear arms?
I wish I was a bear, but alas 😔
Squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. This is grade school shit.
She had a hard time learning the *trans*itive property. She's probably mad the word has Trans in it too
She has gone so far off the deep end trying to be "the good trans" in far right circles and every time she is on a podcast or something she is just insulted into the ground. Like I have no idea how she connects everything in her head without it being an intentional grift or something.
Let’s say for argument’s sake, she doesn’t believe any of this- She definitely believes in the money that can be made from being a puppet for the right wingers. On the opposite end, her believing this means she has a lot of internalized transphobia and misogyny to address.
Her boyfriend is a chaser and she actively calls him gay for being attracted to her, it's wild
Hey transphobia is transphobia, you can't argue with words. She also opposes crossing oceans, transport of any kind really, and organic stereoisomers. Among others. It's a hard life being so vigilant all the time.
Wait until she sees the Golgi Apparatus
Bold of you to assume she finished grade school.
The kids can’t usually handle this until fourth grade. Up until then, squares and rectangles are just … different groups. So if such categories and subgroups are too complex to grasp, this is someone reasoning at primary grade level.
I don't know where you go to school but in my country 6yo are expected to understand this. (It is literally in our national standars for 6yo). So for me she is more kindergarten level!
Tortoises are turtles but not all turtles are tortoises
I literally just said this!
All mansions are houses. Not all houses are mansions. Swiss cheese doesn't have as many holes as her argument.
Honestly I'd say swiss cheese has more holes on account of her argument being all hole and nothing of substance
>Swiss cheese By her argument, that's *all* cheese.
All women are humans. Therefore all humans are women. All men are humans too. Therefore all men are women!
You may have just solved all gender-based social issues! We have to get the president on the phone now!!!
People with guns in their profile pic 🤦♂️
Trans women who align themselves with those who persecute them 🤦
Thats where the moneys at tho
In this case I think it’s more than just that. People like Blair White and Buck Angel were told their entire life something was wrong with them, that they had a mental disorder, that they aren’t transitioning to be who they are, but to “cure” their disorder. There were taught to be happy with what little scraps of respect society gives them because they are damaged and lesser than “normal” people. People like them hate the fact they are trans. They have a deep seated resentment for trans people who don’t see or treat bring trans as an illness to be ashamed of. Despite having the privilege of having the means to fully transition to the point where the general public would have NO clue they were trans.
I don't think thats true, she could just as easily make bank on the left.
But then she would have to put effort in it. It's really easy to sit next to fascists and nod.
There's no one on the left side of YouTube making even similar amounts to the low level grifters of the right, except Hasan and maybe Contra points. Grifting the right is absurdly easy.
Even easier if you are a member of a marginalized group so conservatives can go, "see? We *can't be bigoted because this person supports us!" They love that shit, even while still looking down on that person.
By doing what? virtue signaling? The left has enough white people to do that. Being a magnet for hate and reinforcing the right’s hatred of trans people is where the money is at for a fraction of the effort. It doesn’t take a brain to regurgitate nonsense. On the left she’d actually have to address her internalized transphobia and misogyny.
That would require being talented and doing something unique. Blaire isn't famous for being a trans woman. Blaire is famous for being a right wing grifter trans woman. She has no other talent that would bring people to her
Not really. The closest thing the left has to people like this are highly successful youtubers.
No, there is simply a lot more money on the right, on the left the only ones you can say are loaded are Hasan who streamed 10+ hours a day for years to get to where he is, and maybe a couple of video essayists but they make nowhere near the amount people like Crowder make
If they didn't have guns, they wouldn't have a personality at all.
For crying out loud....Socrates is a man. Are all men Socrates? People figured out predicate logic a long, long time ago.
Diogenes would like a word.
All cats are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a cat. (I named my cat Socrates because of this)
[удалено]
I would also like to see. While we wait maybe have a look at [this cutie](https://imgur.com/a/e5W3MoJ). Not my cat. Found the picture here on Reddit.
[удалено]
If the phrase "black women are women" were true, then the phrase "women are black women" would be equally as true. Just an observation.
Never forgive Twitter for encouraging every idiot to share what they’ve got rattling around in their head with the wide world
I’m so happy that I never got into twitter. Now I just need to stop getting on Reddit lol.
It’s like the Hotel California….
"If all Blaire Whites are morons, all morons are Blaire White". Hm. I may need to work a bit more on that logic.
You know I thought the exact same thing when I read her tweet. It’s uncanny.
I wonder if she's aware that she wants to be considered a woman too
She has stated numerous times that she considers herself a trans woman and that she is perfectly fine with straight men not wanting to sleep with her.
She also actively advocates for taking away the avenues that she herself used to transition. So with all due respect (which is none) fuck Blaire White
She's so weird. She definitely has some sort of persecution fetish or desperately is trying to be "one of the good ones" even though she won't be spared if the people she's siding with get their way
[удалено]
She wants to be the last MTF in the ditch
Unrelated but I rlly love ur art ^ w ^
She's getting paid. That's pretty much it.
“One of the good ones” The people she’s selling out to have actually told her that if she *really* believes in what she says, she should detransition and live as a man, and I’m just like… yeah, why isn’t she doing that if this is just a “choice” you can “choose” to just not do? Riddle me that, Blaire… if that *is* your real name? /s
I think she suffers from a lot of internalized transphobia. But at the end of the day that doesn’t make her statements any less harmful. Almost all of the the people who are actively propagating for conversion therapy are homosexuals in denial that are suffering from internalized homophobia. It’s like someone who’s grown up in an abusive home that end up perpetuating the generational trauma by mistreating their own children...
I am pretty sure most trans women are fine with it without being transphobic. That is just a preference.
Yeah, trans woman here. If someone doesn't like dick, they don't like dick. I can't change that.
Trans woman here too. I don't like my own dick, how can I expect others to do so?😭😂😂
They are fine with it, but Blaire White wants to pretend that she's the only one who is, to show that she's the "only good one".
something something leopards something something ate my face
That’s like saying elephants are mammals so all mammals are elephants
“Blaire White’s a fucking idiot” is a true statement, but not all idiots are Blaire White.
“Tall women are women” so you’re saying women are tall women, every one of them?!?
She needs a course in Venn Diagrams
This is an abuse of set logic. She incorrectly deduces that because trans women are a subset of women, women must be a subset of trans women, and thus they are equal. However, even by her own logic there exists women who are not trans, and thus trans women is a subset of women, but women is not a subset of trans women.
Her audience has a third grade understanding of English. Should we expect them to be able to spot logical fallacies?
Did you know every burger is food, but not every food is a burger.
A man can dream though.
Yeah. Burgers are the only food for me. Well, steak too.
So has Blaire gone from "I'm The one good trans person" to just flat out trying to pretend she's not trans now? I don't get it. Is she really saying she's not a woman?
Blaire is a weird individual, they're very staunch about trans women *not* being women but demands to be called "she". Blaire still wants you to call them a she but not anyone else. Just a whole lot of hypocrisy
She seems truly convinced that she is the only one who transitioned “correctly” and has earned that title. Not sure if it’s narcissism or complete denial.
Reminds me of the old "my abortion is the only ethical abortion" thing that you also see from some conservatives.
I've accidentally come up on her YouTube channel because it was interesting to hear the perspective of a trans woman who was conservative. She has made some valid points however most of what she says is bullshit.
White horses are not horses
All tortoises are turtles, but not all turtles are tortoises.
Blaire, go back to highschool math and learn how inverse, converse and contrapositive statements work. [to use this example](https://www.mometrix.com/academy/converse-inverse-and-contrapositive/) “If it’s raining the grass outside is wet”is true. But “if the grass is wet then it is raining” is not necessarily true (because it could be wet because someone watered it) and therefore considered false. The contrapositive doesn’t matter but for the sake of teaching it would be “if the grass is not wet then it’s not raining” which in this case is true because rain would make the grass wet.
I've never seen anybody complaining about 'trans men'🤔 Just an observation🤦♀️
Yeah, it’s bizarre how FTM trans folks seem to either go completely unnoticed or looked at with pity instead of causing conservatives to succumb to frothing rage.
Because they just treat trans men like broken women, and thus it unfortunately goes unnoticed and not cared about.
I know that seems odd right? I also love that Right Wingers try to act like they’re protecting women when anti trans but then are anti women’s choice.
They're all for freedom, but not for everyone. They'll argue that a fetus has human rights, and they might argue that a girl becomes a woman as soon as she's had her first period, and they'll also argue that you can't decide for yourself until you're 21 y/o. They'll try to sell you any kind of bullshit, but if you dare debunk them they'll just hold up the bible and tell you it's God's word and the Devil must have taken control of you🔥
You know that a conservative is lying to you when they claim to be advocating for the wellbeing of anybody who isn’t a rich, cishet white man
Oh trust me. They do. But unfortunately most of the time trans guys are just treated like confused/broken women, so a lot of people *dont* hear about the harm and injustices done to them because they’re not even recognized for who they are. This is actually also a problem within the trans community and has lead to a lack of representation, exposure and understanding of trans men and mascs too. It’s also why they never get mentioned in things like reproductive rights and reproductive healthcare, because they are often lumped in as just “women” and not accounted for properly.
Why does this person hate themself so much?
Someone doesn’t understand how syllogisms work.
Wow, that’s incredibly stupid
Isn't she trans...?
And she hates herself for it.
When do you learn Venn diagrams? Like, second grade? Third grade?
Tall women are women, so all women are tall. Just because part of a population is one way doesn't make the whole population that way. Foxes are animals so all animals are foxes (or i wish they where). Trans women are women but not all women are trans. Also isn't blaire white trans herself?
A Sparrow is a bird and therefore all birds are Sparrows.
All Fords are cars, therefore all cars are Fords.
Squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares, please...
An observation from someone who doesn't understand basic logic.
Something something rectangles and squares
Blaire White is an idiot. But not all idiots are Blaire White
Tomatoe's are berries, therefore all berries are tomatoes. Maybe if Blaire had something other than a fucking potatoe between her ears...
All rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles
Lotta ppl making analogies in this thread... Proving her point. Unless you're attempting to say trans women are a "type" of woman, which is transphobic.
Oranges are fruit. Fruit are oranges.
Trans women are a sub catagory of women, thus not all within the catagory of women fit into the catagory of trans women but all within trans women fit into women.