Kavsuvb
Forum Captain
- 309
- 52
- 28
Matt Walsh wrecks this dude who claims to be an EMT
- Thread starter Kavsuvb
- Start date
RocketMedic
Californian, Lost in Texas
- 4,997
- 1,462
- 113
I’ve worked with more than a few LBGTQ partners. We’re all people and this Matt Walsh dude is kinda a malignant growth on the butt of humanity.
DrParasite
The fire extinguisher is not just for show
- 6,278
- 2,152
- 113
You might not like him, you might disagree with him, but is he wrong? He never said LGBTQ people aren't people...
I hear this a lot from people, where they are ignoring the statements a person makes because they don't like the person, or they are on the other end of the political spectrum, and instead of dealing with the actual facts being said, they start with personal attacks on the speak (as happened with the two posters above).
I have 0 issues with LGBTQ people, I support a person's right to be who they are and do what they do. But that's my opinion, and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Matt's perspective (in this clip) is regarding human biology. Is he wrong? I don't think so, nor do I think we should be treating anyone differently based on their orientation. I think his question is a valid one... if a trans woman says she is having a baby, how do you medically manage their condition?
I don't agree with many of Matt's opinions, or his perspectives, but in this case, is he wrong? don't just say he's a bigot, or racist, or right wing, or a malignant growth on the butt of humanity... respond to his claims, factually and objectively. Or are his claims more accurate than you want to admit?
If you really want a clear question, which was what he was asked, what is a woman?
I hear this a lot from people, where they are ignoring the statements a person makes because they don't like the person, or they are on the other end of the political spectrum, and instead of dealing with the actual facts being said, they start with personal attacks on the speak (as happened with the two posters above).
I have 0 issues with LGBTQ people, I support a person's right to be who they are and do what they do. But that's my opinion, and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Matt's perspective (in this clip) is regarding human biology. Is he wrong? I don't think so, nor do I think we should be treating anyone differently based on their orientation. I think his question is a valid one... if a trans woman says she is having a baby, how do you medically manage their condition?
I don't agree with many of Matt's opinions, or his perspectives, but in this case, is he wrong? don't just say he's a bigot, or racist, or right wing, or a malignant growth on the butt of humanity... respond to his claims, factually and objectively. Or are his claims more accurate than you want to admit?
If you really want a clear question, which was what he was asked, what is a woman?
- 4,520
- 3,243
- 113
Your Logical Fallacy is: Ad Hominem
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
Your logical fallacy is ad hominem
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com
CCCSD
Forum Deputy Chief
- 1,886
- 1,181
- 113
Nuke the post: You're Phobic.
Try and have an opinion: You’re phobic.
Womanhood: Zero.
Males: Back in charge.
All that work for naught. 2023. The Year Zero for females.
Try and have an opinion: You’re phobic.
Womanhood: Zero.
Males: Back in charge.
All that work for naught. 2023. The Year Zero for females.
- 11,084
- 1,546
- 113
Ignoring the problem doesn't solve it. So far, this thread hasn't violated any of our forum rules and until it does it will remain.
@DrParasite raises some interesting questions that have been ignored in our society's changing views on gender. Like it or not, biological differences between gender exist and must be dealt with objectively by those in medicine.
- 4,520
- 3,243
- 113
Why is an EMS forum the wrong place to discuss a relatively new topic that has important implications to EMS providers? Whether you are looking at the issue from a clinical or social context and regardless of how you feel about it personally, it is something that we all need to learn to navigate. It would probably help a lot to come to a common understanding of the relevant terminology, which we have yet to do and more than anything seems to be what the current debate is about.
Matt Walsh is clearly a polarizing figure who seems especially adept at getting under the skin of his ideological opponents, but I can't identify anything that he said in that clip that is incorrect or bigoted. Let's stop shying away from difficult topics and also stop trying to shut down people just because their views differ from our own. Even if a person is truly disrespectful and bigoted - and I think our definition of that has become way too loose - it doesn't mean that there is no validity or value to anything that they say.
Last edited:
E tank
Caution: Paralyzing Agent
- 1,619
- 1,476
- 113
What happens too often in these conversation is that they quickly reduce to a tribal, polemic and ideologic slug fest. Two conversations are going on when the sides think there is only one. Gender dysphoria is a brutal condition that compels people to make irreversible decisions most often at very young ages. That there are adults with ideological and financial motives to facilitate this is another conversation.
I think what draws people to events like this is the occasion for bias confirmation and triumphalism over being right. And people end up attacking people. While Matt Walsh is capitalizing on this, he is providing a forum for rational conversation that is contrary to the prevailing, dominant cultural narrative to which we're all supposed to give our assent. The groups that work furiously to advance the gender/race ideology do the same thing on their side.
There's a lot antagonism from the crowd going on at that event, which I think is regrettable, and I have to give the questioner credit for having the courage to stand up there and speak, but Walsh answers credibly, professionally and politely. A lot more than I would get at my hospital for making the same points he does.
I think what draws people to events like this is the occasion for bias confirmation and triumphalism over being right. And people end up attacking people. While Matt Walsh is capitalizing on this, he is providing a forum for rational conversation that is contrary to the prevailing, dominant cultural narrative to which we're all supposed to give our assent. The groups that work furiously to advance the gender/race ideology do the same thing on their side.
There's a lot antagonism from the crowd going on at that event, which I think is regrettable, and I have to give the questioner credit for having the courage to stand up there and speak, but Walsh answers credibly, professionally and politely. A lot more than I would get at my hospital for making the same points he does.
Summit
Critical Crazy
- 2,701
- 1,322
- 113
I found their debate respectful except for the crowd. The EMT and Walsh actually exchange and react to each others points rather than merely talking at/over each other, as happens too often. That video was a measured exchange unlike many vids that the youtube algorithm will usually supply on this hotbutton subject that merely have one side (or both) acting outrageously. The algorithms want attention and drama gets clicks.
The EMT debater engaged in logical fallacies (appeals to complexity, appeals to uncited authority) in an attempt to invalidate biological sexual dimorphism in order to invalidate Walsh's requested and supplied definition of "woman" being biological. The EMT chose that avenue of debate about sexual dimorphism rather than, for example, alternative arguments like defining "woman" as a "gender" that is not reliant on biology. Instead EMT's position illustrates a particularly illogical reasoning methodology behind ideologically driven new culture such as radical gender ideology. This method uses outliers, obfuscation, and emotionally desirable misunderstanding to disestablish well understood principles. That tactic is achieved with a combination of willful misunderstandings of science and abuse of logic to reach a preestablished desired new definition. It is a tedious and frustrating way to have debate.
Example I just came up with: Imagine an ideologue has decided that slaying the concept of sexual dimorphism must be extended to other realms of science to supply ammunition in the form of fallacy by analogy:
"The sky isn't blue. It exists on a spectrum too."
"The sky is blue. Rayleigh scattering is the physical process that makes the sky blue by scattering shorter (blue) wavelengths of light."
"Wrong! At night it isn't blue! Clearly this is too complex to explain in our conversation."
"The night sky is also blue. Rayleigh scattering occurs at night too with starlight and moonlight. There simply isn't enough light hitting your cones to perceive the blue of the sky, but we can see it with spectrometry or a long exposure photo."
"Well then explain clouds. Those are grey."
"The clouds are not the sky. They block the sky. Just ride an airplane above the clouds and you'll find the sky is still blue up there."
"The clouds can be the sky!"
"When it is cloudy, we talk about 'cloud cover,' meaning covering the sky. Or we say the sky is 'obscured' or 'overcast' meaning you cannot see the sky, but it is still there above the clouds."
"Well then we need to stop saying those things about clouds and redefine what the sky is."
"Why would we need or want to do that?"
"Explain sunsets! You can't! I win!"
"You mean sometimes, for a few minutes, enough atmosphere is between the sun and the viewer that much of the blue light is scattered for just part of the sky, but that same light is making the the rest of the visible sky bluer?"
You get the picture.
The EMT debater engaged in logical fallacies (appeals to complexity, appeals to uncited authority) in an attempt to invalidate biological sexual dimorphism in order to invalidate Walsh's requested and supplied definition of "woman" being biological. The EMT chose that avenue of debate about sexual dimorphism rather than, for example, alternative arguments like defining "woman" as a "gender" that is not reliant on biology. Instead EMT's position illustrates a particularly illogical reasoning methodology behind ideologically driven new culture such as radical gender ideology. This method uses outliers, obfuscation, and emotionally desirable misunderstanding to disestablish well understood principles. That tactic is achieved with a combination of willful misunderstandings of science and abuse of logic to reach a preestablished desired new definition. It is a tedious and frustrating way to have debate.
Example I just came up with: Imagine an ideologue has decided that slaying the concept of sexual dimorphism must be extended to other realms of science to supply ammunition in the form of fallacy by analogy:
"The sky isn't blue. It exists on a spectrum too."
"The sky is blue. Rayleigh scattering is the physical process that makes the sky blue by scattering shorter (blue) wavelengths of light."
"Wrong! At night it isn't blue! Clearly this is too complex to explain in our conversation."
"The night sky is also blue. Rayleigh scattering occurs at night too with starlight and moonlight. There simply isn't enough light hitting your cones to perceive the blue of the sky, but we can see it with spectrometry or a long exposure photo."
"Well then explain clouds. Those are grey."
"The clouds are not the sky. They block the sky. Just ride an airplane above the clouds and you'll find the sky is still blue up there."
"The clouds can be the sky!"
"When it is cloudy, we talk about 'cloud cover,' meaning covering the sky. Or we say the sky is 'obscured' or 'overcast' meaning you cannot see the sky, but it is still there above the clouds."
"Well then we need to stop saying those things about clouds and redefine what the sky is."
"Why would we need or want to do that?"
"Explain sunsets! You can't! I win!"
"You mean sometimes, for a few minutes, enough atmosphere is between the sun and the viewer that much of the blue light is scattered for just part of the sky, but that same light is making the the rest of the visible sky bluer?"
You get the picture.
Last edited:
- 11,084
- 1,546
- 113
Now that courts have backed firing employees over not using preferred names and pronouns (https://apnews.com/article/indiana-...tudent-names-883b50e19088614d71df25f0f835ed08) **, what should EMS be doing in these circumstances, and where is the line drawn? Could it become a Title VII violation for not performing a medical procedure that is not appropriate for the biological sex of the patient even if they demand the procedure to avoid being singled out of their claimed gender?
** Yes, I know the article refers to a teacher who was forced to resign despite his religious objections to using preferred names and pronouns, but the precedent is being set.
** Yes, I know the article refers to a teacher who was forced to resign despite his religious objections to using preferred names and pronouns, but the precedent is being set.
E tank
Caution: Paralyzing Agent
- 1,619
- 1,476
- 113
Valid concern. Brought a trans-man to the operating room for an unrelated issue. The patient was almost convincingly a bio male such that using the masculine name didn't feel too odd. Once the patient was asleep and completely disrobed, there was no question that a woman was lying on the table and on seeing that, everyone in the room despite sincere efforts to use the preferred masculine pronouns of the patient (even while fully draped and asleep) involuntarily fell into using female pronouns when referring to 'her' vital signs, 'her' lab work etc.
Willing suspension of intellectual acumen is distracting and takes intentional effort, and some would argue is harmful. Anyone that wanted to could have complained about 'misgendering' the patient and violating some hospital policy and there would be no defense.
Willing suspension of intellectual acumen is distracting and takes intentional effort, and some would argue is harmful. Anyone that wanted to could have complained about 'misgendering' the patient and violating some hospital policy and there would be no defense.
HardKnocks
Forum Lieutenant
- 121
- 33
- 28
One aspect that as Emergency Medical Providers need to recognize in dealing with this class of Patients is that they suffer from a high percentage of mental illness, one being delusional.
If have a Pt who claims to be an Elephant and, wanted to prove he was an Elephant by showing me his trunk, was AO x3 with no obvious signs of physical distress would then taken to the ER for a Psych Eval due to his delusional behavior.
A Biological Man who claims to having the ability to become pregnant and/or, is having a miscarriage, is no different the Pt above, who claimed to be an Elephant and will be referred to the ER for a Psych Eval.
You have to remember that Mental Illness manifests itself in a mirad of ways and sometimes is a CALL FOR HELP.
Here's a LGBT Advocacy Group who cites a valid medical study showing such high incidence ratyes of mental illness in the LGBT Community.
Startling mental health statistics among LGBTQ+ are a wake-up call
- 7,880
- 2,845
- 113
Holding predisposition towards a patient population will inevitably result in treating patients with unnecessary bias. Thinking that a the majority of patient population is delusional is a terrible attribute for a medical provider to have and I would encourage you to take an introspective look at what sort of ways that can lead to substandard care.
- 7,880
- 2,845
- 113
I think there is a legitimate discussion for medical providers to have regarding changes to commonly held beliefs on gender and sex.
I do not see how “Matt Walsh wrecks this dude who claims to be an EMT” shows how the OP is interested in having a legitimate discussion on the issue.
In general, while polarizing and bigoted people can provide factual information, what is the point of using then as examples? They aren’t out there for the sole purpose of displaying factual information and leaving it at that. They want reactions, uproar, etc. Why must we sift through this instead of just having the discussion? This is not new ground, this guy did not come up with any new research or opinions.
In general if you want to have a discussion with people who may feel differently than you, bringing in a guy who many think is uh, uncool, is not going to improve the discussion.
I do not see how “Matt Walsh wrecks this dude who claims to be an EMT” shows how the OP is interested in having a legitimate discussion on the issue.
In general, while polarizing and bigoted people can provide factual information, what is the point of using then as examples? They aren’t out there for the sole purpose of displaying factual information and leaving it at that. They want reactions, uproar, etc. Why must we sift through this instead of just having the discussion? This is not new ground, this guy did not come up with any new research or opinions.
In general if you want to have a discussion with people who may feel differently than you, bringing in a guy who many think is uh, uncool, is not going to improve the discussion.
DrParasite
The fire extinguisher is not just for show
- 6,278
- 2,152
- 113
I think carlos said it better than I could:
Your Logical Fallacy is: Ad Hominem
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
Your logical fallacy is ad hominem
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.yourlogicalfallacyis.com
You might not like Matt Walsh... you might consider him polarizing and bigoted... you might be right... is what he says wrong? If so, please explain how or why?
Here is the problem... one side of the aisle will gladly debate the other side with facts supporting their case (and not bringing up facts that don't); the other side either refuses to listen to those facts, because they directly conflict with their opinions, or actively work to prevent anyone from speaking a perspective that they disagree with (see the recent Stanford Law incident, and how Riley Gaines was assaulted at San Francisco university after she was invited to speak, and anytime Ben Shapiro or Charlie Kirk are invited to speak at a college campus).
I'm not saying Matt's opinion is right or wrong, but you are describing surrounding yourself with people who think like you, and creating an echo chamber where you never hear other opinions, because you are refusing to listen to those who you think are "uncool."
Instead of attacking the speaker, why not actually provide counter points to his arguments?
- 7,880
- 2,845
- 113
I don’t think you read a single thing I posted.
I am not suggesting that there is not room for discussion. I do agree that bigoted people can still state truthful things. But what is the point of using him as the authority? Why not just have a discussion and leave out the guy that many people are bigoted and hateful about a variety of topics. What value does he add to the discussion?
And no, calling out the RP's poor choice of titling is not an ad hominem attack.
I am not suggesting that there is not room for discussion. I do agree that bigoted people can still state truthful things. But what is the point of using him as the authority? Why not just have a discussion and leave out the guy that many people are bigoted and hateful about a variety of topics. What value does he add to the discussion?
And no, calling out the RP's poor choice of titling is not an ad hominem attack.
Summit
Critical Crazy
- 2,701
- 1,322
- 113
What specifically from that video was bigoted?
big·ot
noun
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced
It sounded like Walsh was being perfectly reasonable. It sounds like he gets called a bigot be cause it is a convenient ad hominem attack from people who are unreasonably attached to a belief and are prejudiced against those who hold other beliefs than their own.
We do agree that the OP's thread title is crap. "X wrecks Y" communicates a love of performative socially destructive identity politics being perpetuated by social media for people seeking their confirmation bias, even when the content doesn't match the title.
big·ot
noun
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced
It sounded like Walsh was being perfectly reasonable. It sounds like he gets called a bigot be cause it is a convenient ad hominem attack from people who are unreasonably attached to a belief and are prejudiced against those who hold other beliefs than their own.
We do agree that the OP's thread title is crap. "X wrecks Y" communicates a love of performative socially destructive identity politics being perpetuated by social media for people seeking their confirmation bias, even when the content doesn't match the title.
Last edited:
- 7,880
- 2,845
- 113
Nothing. But in general appealing to someone with a history of making what I would deem to be prejudiced comments doesn’t bring much to this discussion.
That’s really the take away of my point here.