Chaya Raichik left sputtering when asked what “wokeness” is as the audience bursts out laughing
Chaya Raichik left sputtering when asked what “wokeness” is as the audience bursts out laughing
Hate influencer Chaya Raichik – who goes by “Libs of TikTok” online – is trying to take her show on the road, and it doesn’t appear to be going well.
Raichik gave a speech yesterday at the Indiana Memorial Union at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, alongside Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN).
During her speech, she ranted about “pornographic” books in schools and moved on to her hatred of everything “woke.”
…
Some students started laughing.
“Um, do you have a question? Is something funny?” she asked, apparently not expecting people to find her over-the-top concerns funny.
“How do you define wokeness?” someone in the back asked.
Raichik tried to respond: “Wokeness is the destruction of normalicy [sic] and… And… Um… Uh…” More students started laughing.
“… of our lives,” she said, apparently thinking she was finishing a sentence.
You're viewing a single thread.
ah yes, the brand new "what is a woman"
They will never see it coming.
In the new vernacular a woman is somebody who identifies by societally constructed gender norms often seen as female
In the old vernacular a woman is of the feminine gender.
Also Matt Walsh is a walking talking trash can lid!
Also Matt Walsh is a walking talking trash can lid!
That's not true. Trash can lids are useful
I stand corrected!
Semantic point:
Your two points are the same thing. In the old vernacular, a woman is someone who was born with the outward appearance of a biological female.
Biological sexes aren't transphobic to acknowledge, it's just transphobic to insist biological sex match expressed gender. Gender is purely the socially constructed identity side of things, so saying the feminine gender is the same thing as saying the societal constructed norms often seem as female.
Right, which is why I mentioned the vernacular.
It is interesting to point out if you look up definitions from very old dictionaries for example from the first few editions of Webster gender and sex basically mean the same thing it wasn't until recent years that they got separated in definition. (And by recent years I mean in the last few decades)
My point is it's not difficult to define what a woman or a man is. It's just that Matt Walsh doesn't know what a woman or man is which is beside the point because he's an idiot.
i think fundamentally, if we're arguing what the definition of a woman is, we need to consider social gender constructs, because female is to do with sex. Womanhood is more about maturing and coming of age. I.E. what is socially expected.
Basically, it's dependent on current sociological theory and definitions, as well as the commonly accepted terminology. So to quote matt walsh "nobody fucking knows"
Genuinely cannot stand matt walsh.