Talk:Hunter Avallone
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This YouTube related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
This talk page is already an unreadable mess[edit]
Can we start simple? What's the single most important change to make? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe in addition to identifying the fact that he is a conservative/alt-right blogger/satirist you should explain that his claims do in fact have a valid scientific basis. It is totally okay to argue that while biochemistry and neurobiology work strongly against the transgender cause, Avallone expresses his opinion in a non-constructive manner. While I have not seen what he has to say about homosexuals, if he does in fact argue that homosexuality is scientifically non-viable that would be an issue. Homosexuality is viable and an expression of someone's biology. This may not be what he argues in his videos however. Most importantly, I'd find a way to rephrase "transphobia" - if he is making an argument based on factual evidence it isn't transphobic. If it was, you'd have to label the biological evidence as transphobic which is altogether ridiculous. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is Hunter Avallone expressing what seems to the opposite of homophobic behavior: https://twitter.com/AvalloneHunter/status/792474335587946496. This should be enough to at least limit the name calling to "Anti-Transgender" and remove the tag of "homophobe" from the bottom of his page. Though I disagree with calling him transphobic in the first place I'd accept a version of the article, which limited his "phobia" to transphobia. He doesn't seem to have an issue with the fact of homosexuality. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- You might not believe this, but I'm not of the reputation of agreeing to what Ikanreed et al fabricate. I also don't like it when terms are cheapened by throwing them around in abandon. However, the term transphobic is entirely deserved in Mr Avallone's case and this is not for being wrong on the internet. He says on transgender "you are opening the door to insanity [3:46] and retards can be animals [3:55] transgender is a mental illness [05:07] uncomfortable with a transgender in their bathroom ... who's to say that this isn't a predator [06:18] fix the problem". In other words, he treats a whole group as mentally challenged and sexually predatory, and this regardless of the biology (or science) in question. ~ Aneris ✻ 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gender dysphoria is by definition an abnormality of neural processes and cognition. It should be engaged as a mental disorder, but due to its low prevalence and benign effect on society it most likely won't receive necessary funding for drug development. Secondly, you didn't even read what I wrote above. Homophobia and Transphobia are two completely different things. Please address what I wrote. Your opinion is irrelevant if it doesn't foster responsive debate. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- I perfectly addressed what you wrote, just not everything. Or didn't you write "[m]ost importantly, I'd find a way to rephrase "transphobia" - if he is making an argument based on factual evidence it isn't transphobic". And I explained to you, with time-stamps what exactly makes it transphobic. I also specificially pointed out that it has nothing to do with the scientific basis of his arguments, whether true or false. I'm not interested in this debate. He's portraying trans people as sexually predatory, and that is transphobic. ~ Aneris ✻ 22:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- You replied to my post in which I requested the tag of Homophobe to be removed. Further, I explicitly stated that the article should "limit the name-calling to 'Anti-Transgender'". So no - you didn't read carefully and you didn't actually address what I wrote. This is not surprising however considering the fact that you misrepresent and hyperbolize what Avallone is saying in general. Your conclusion that he paints all transgender people as sexual predators isn't even justified by the cherry picked evidence you've put forth. At 6:18, he poses the hypothetical "who's to say that this isn't a predator" - this point should be fairly straightforward as even supporters of the transgender movement accept this as a valid point of contention. The point he is making: if we agree to segregate bathrooms according to a social construct and not biological sex, a man or woman who is a sexual predator could take advantage of these blurred lines and convincingly argue that they are "transgender" in order to achieve their malicious intent. It would take a fairly simple minded person to argue that this point is "portraying all trans people as sexually predatory". He goes onto provide evidence at 6:22 of men who weren't transgender taking advantage of the loophole in the bathroom laws in order to film women changing - please note bathrooms laws further apply to lockerrooms, lockerroom showers and changing rooms. Hence - as you pointed out - "you are opening the door to insanity". As for Avallone's claims of mental illness - on a cellular and molecular level it is in fact accurate that there is abnormal development of neural tissue in Transgender people. Please feel free to read any of the long explanations I have written on this talk page. Please stop filibustering the main point of contention - the false accusations of homophobia.
- I did not see homophobia in that video, and the tweet you provided makes it seem implausible, though I did not even argue about it. I was under the impression that “most importantly” means what it seems to mean, i.e. the thing that you dispute the most. I pointed that out. But you seem to have a different understanding of language. Likewise, I now have doubts that arguing over the transphobia assertion is productive with you. Do you understand context? Do you understand the juxtapositions of sexual predatory, person identifying as a cat with trans people? This all seems to fly above your head, and I have no interest to waste my time with pedantic people who don't even try to see the problem. Whipping up fears of being harassed in bathrooms is a case where “phobia” is also legitimate. Also, what is “anti-transgender” supposed to mean? This is not an ideology, even by your own account. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to makes of this response. It fails to respond to any of my points and the general issues being discussed on this talk page. You're previous post was a blatant ignorance to the context of Avallone's statements. He wasn't juxtaposing trans people with sexual predators - he was very clearly making a distinct and independent point about people who exploit the loopholes in the bathroom laws by pretending to be transgender. It is incredibly ironic that you mention individuals with SID (commonly referred to as certain behaviors of "other-kin") as they demonstrate the same tissue deficiencies that Transgender people do - that is - inhibited turnover of cells in the vasolateral prefrontal cortex. I make this very clear in the evidence I present in other sections of this talk page - however considering you've decided to suddenly pop your head into this debate totally ignorant of what we've already established - I'm not surprised that you would be kind enough to provide an example of a disorder (person identifying as an animal) that demonstrates the exact neural tissue deficits as individuals with Gender Dysphoria. As for anti-transgender - at the moment he is labeled as "anti-LGBT". Is LGBT an ideology? Of course Anti-transgender is a viable term. Here are 10 articles from established sources that use the term anti-transgender - there are thousands more you can search on the internet: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/29/north-carolina-s-anti-transgender-bathroom-law-just-got-worse.html ; http://www.hrc.org/resources/unprecedented-onslaught-of-state-legislation-targeting-transgender-american ; https://thinkprogress.org/anti-transgender-campaign-aims-to-gain-support-by-harassing-women-in-restrooms-4cec202220a5 ; https://thinkprogress.org/trump-transgender-hypocrisy-cd7d1d82b188#.ky8jzxvmr ; http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/02/11/anti_transgender_bathroom_bills_are_clearly_unconstitutional.html ; http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17-anti-trans-bills-that-could-become-law-next-20160328 ; https://mic.com/articles/147928/donald-trump-flip-flops-on-north-carolina-s-anti-transgender-law-says-he-now-supports-it ; https://www.glaad.org/tags/anti-transgender-violence ; http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/article/trans-violence-faq ; http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/18/canada-prepares-nationwide-ban-on-anti-transgender-propaganda/. Do I need to validate the existence of the term anti-transgender for you any further? PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Try the following: please check your own links to what they refer to. Do they refer to an anti-transgender law, legislation, campaign etc. (i.e. to a thing), or do they refer to a person holding or promoting certain views? I did that for the first three links, and if I'm not mistaken, all instances refer to things. —✻
- Deflecting by drawing non-existent distinctions doesn't do you any good. Don't fall on your own sword - an anti-transgender activist is a perfectly legitimate term to refer to someone who opposes bathroom laws, etc. I think you're blatantly wrong on this point. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't get it. I address your "most importantly" point, and you have even time stamps, and yet you claim it "fails to respond to any of my points". This is obviously untrue. And no, I don't buy it that he makes distinctions. I know that he tries to say that if there are laws for trans people then voyeurs and sexual predators (i.e. purported other people) might exploit them, and thus it's not really about trans people, but people who only appear to be trans, but are actually just fakers exploiting the law. As if this makes the argument any better! The problem is that this still conflates all of this in practice. Because it says that when you encounter someone in the bathroom, it might be one of those perverts, doesn't it? Well, that's transphobic. QED. It's also extraordinarily thoughtless. You can easily discuss the design and division of bathrooms; ask what's the point at all (they are unfair anyway); or muse whether chromosomes or appearance decide in which door one must go etc. This is all possible without conflation. I also wonder what you expect me to do? I can only give you a hint how persuasive some arguments are (which I chose to address). —✻
- More deflecting and avoiding of Avallone's actual arguments. Just because two distinct arguments and actors appear within the same presentation doesn't mean they have been compared and conflated. That's thoughtlessness on your part. Just because you can't make the (fairly clear) distinctions in his argument doesn't mean you can project your own views or what you perceive to be the views of conservatives on Avallone. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Once more, I have no interest in discussing the other aspects, and it wouldn't help you anyway, as I also have no special knowledge about the condition, aside of what I picked up from Sapolsky's lectures or read here and there. It's also not important. You take people as they are, and try to be compassionate or at least not hostile. ~ Aneris ✻ 04:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Trust me, the hostility was started by others on this page. I cannot realistically differentiate between you and other users. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- If the terms had "non-existent distinctions" then I'm happy that we can keep transphobic and you, after all, agree with me. The other points are then no longer required, since you're fine with either term (after you established above that anti-transgender worked for you, too). This allows me to skip your confused reply. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to makes of this response. It fails to respond to any of my points and the general issues being discussed on this talk page. You're previous post was a blatant ignorance to the context of Avallone's statements. He wasn't juxtaposing trans people with sexual predators - he was very clearly making a distinct and independent point about people who exploit the loopholes in the bathroom laws by pretending to be transgender. It is incredibly ironic that you mention individuals with SID (commonly referred to as certain behaviors of "other-kin") as they demonstrate the same tissue deficiencies that Transgender people do - that is - inhibited turnover of cells in the vasolateral prefrontal cortex. I make this very clear in the evidence I present in other sections of this talk page - however considering you've decided to suddenly pop your head into this debate totally ignorant of what we've already established - I'm not surprised that you would be kind enough to provide an example of a disorder (person identifying as an animal) that demonstrates the exact neural tissue deficits as individuals with Gender Dysphoria. As for anti-transgender - at the moment he is labeled as "anti-LGBT". Is LGBT an ideology? Of course Anti-transgender is a viable term. Here are 10 articles from established sources that use the term anti-transgender - there are thousands more you can search on the internet: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/29/north-carolina-s-anti-transgender-bathroom-law-just-got-worse.html ; http://www.hrc.org/resources/unprecedented-onslaught-of-state-legislation-targeting-transgender-american ; https://thinkprogress.org/anti-transgender-campaign-aims-to-gain-support-by-harassing-women-in-restrooms-4cec202220a5 ; https://thinkprogress.org/trump-transgender-hypocrisy-cd7d1d82b188#.ky8jzxvmr ; http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/02/11/anti_transgender_bathroom_bills_are_clearly_unconstitutional.html ; http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17-anti-trans-bills-that-could-become-law-next-20160328 ; https://mic.com/articles/147928/donald-trump-flip-flops-on-north-carolina-s-anti-transgender-law-says-he-now-supports-it ; https://www.glaad.org/tags/anti-transgender-violence ; http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/article/trans-violence-faq ; http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/18/canada-prepares-nationwide-ban-on-anti-transgender-propaganda/. Do I need to validate the existence of the term anti-transgender for you any further? PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did not see homophobia in that video, and the tweet you provided makes it seem implausible, though I did not even argue about it. I was under the impression that “most importantly” means what it seems to mean, i.e. the thing that you dispute the most. I pointed that out. But you seem to have a different understanding of language. Likewise, I now have doubts that arguing over the transphobia assertion is productive with you. Do you understand context? Do you understand the juxtapositions of sexual predatory, person identifying as a cat with trans people? This all seems to fly above your head, and I have no interest to waste my time with pedantic people who don't even try to see the problem. Whipping up fears of being harassed in bathrooms is a case where “phobia” is also legitimate. Also, what is “anti-transgender” supposed to mean? This is not an ideology, even by your own account. ~ Aneris ✻ 01:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- You replied to my post in which I requested the tag of Homophobe to be removed. Further, I explicitly stated that the article should "limit the name-calling to 'Anti-Transgender'". So no - you didn't read carefully and you didn't actually address what I wrote. This is not surprising however considering the fact that you misrepresent and hyperbolize what Avallone is saying in general. Your conclusion that he paints all transgender people as sexual predators isn't even justified by the cherry picked evidence you've put forth. At 6:18, he poses the hypothetical "who's to say that this isn't a predator" - this point should be fairly straightforward as even supporters of the transgender movement accept this as a valid point of contention. The point he is making: if we agree to segregate bathrooms according to a social construct and not biological sex, a man or woman who is a sexual predator could take advantage of these blurred lines and convincingly argue that they are "transgender" in order to achieve their malicious intent. It would take a fairly simple minded person to argue that this point is "portraying all trans people as sexually predatory". He goes onto provide evidence at 6:22 of men who weren't transgender taking advantage of the loophole in the bathroom laws in order to film women changing - please note bathrooms laws further apply to lockerrooms, lockerroom showers and changing rooms. Hence - as you pointed out - "you are opening the door to insanity". As for Avallone's claims of mental illness - on a cellular and molecular level it is in fact accurate that there is abnormal development of neural tissue in Transgender people. Please feel free to read any of the long explanations I have written on this talk page. Please stop filibustering the main point of contention - the false accusations of homophobia.
- I perfectly addressed what you wrote, just not everything. Or didn't you write "[m]ost importantly, I'd find a way to rephrase "transphobia" - if he is making an argument based on factual evidence it isn't transphobic". And I explained to you, with time-stamps what exactly makes it transphobic. I also specificially pointed out that it has nothing to do with the scientific basis of his arguments, whether true or false. I'm not interested in this debate. He's portraying trans people as sexually predatory, and that is transphobic. ~ Aneris ✻ 22:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gender dysphoria is by definition an abnormality of neural processes and cognition. It should be engaged as a mental disorder, but due to its low prevalence and benign effect on society it most likely won't receive necessary funding for drug development. Secondly, you didn't even read what I wrote above. Homophobia and Transphobia are two completely different things. Please address what I wrote. Your opinion is irrelevant if it doesn't foster responsive debate. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- You write " his claims do in fact have a valid scientific basis." Which claim, and what basis? Please be specific, and don't waive your pretend degree at me. Hipocrite (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Don't insert yourself into a conversation you have been totally absent from and have offered nothing to. I have written entire paragraphs of evidence on this talk page explaining in precise detail the scientific basis for Gender Dysphoria as a disorder of meta-cognitive processes. Stop being lazy and go ahead and read what I've written - research I've personally produced. If you don't understand the jargon or the practical meaning of the research feel free to message me or ask me questions about it. This shouldn't be necessary, however, considering I've simplified the jargon and significance of the findings so it is more easily understood. I won't waive my pretend degree at you - I will waive my real degrees at you. I apologize if scientific evidence doesn't agree with your political positions. That doesn't justify you accusing me of lying about my authority within the Neural Science and Medical community. Rejecting scientific authority and consensus isn't a rational position, it's a self-destructive and regressive one. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sit and spin, shithead. Anonymous transphobe #5,001 doesnt have "authority within the Neural Science and Medical community." You are just some kid. Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do whatever it takes to ease your anxiety about holding false views even if that includes telling, yes, an "authority within the Neural Science and Medical community" to "sit and spin". What's more likely is you feel intimidated so you revert to middle school name-calling (sorta like the content of Avallone's article?).
- Sit and spin, shithead. Anonymous transphobe #5,001 doesnt have "authority within the Neural Science and Medical community." You are just some kid. Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Don't insert yourself into a conversation you have been totally absent from and have offered nothing to. I have written entire paragraphs of evidence on this talk page explaining in precise detail the scientific basis for Gender Dysphoria as a disorder of meta-cognitive processes. Stop being lazy and go ahead and read what I've written - research I've personally produced. If you don't understand the jargon or the practical meaning of the research feel free to message me or ask me questions about it. This shouldn't be necessary, however, considering I've simplified the jargon and significance of the findings so it is more easily understood. I won't waive my pretend degree at you - I will waive my real degrees at you. I apologize if scientific evidence doesn't agree with your political positions. That doesn't justify you accusing me of lying about my authority within the Neural Science and Medical community. Rejecting scientific authority and consensus isn't a rational position, it's a self-destructive and regressive one. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Conservative Wingnut[edit]
I don't think this is correct. Anyone else? — Unsigned, by: Doublethink / talk / contribs
I don't know how to change it. Doublethink (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- We have a citation on the page that provides the text "and I am still a hardcore conservative with the same exact opinions and views." How is it not accurate, if it dovetails into the kind of hateful shit we document? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry I can't find this in the refs, could you point out the number? Tabula Rasa (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- The last one. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok. Tabula Rasa (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- The last one. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry I can't find this in the refs, could you point out the number? Tabula Rasa (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
i thought...[edit]
...this was some sort of sea snail AMassiveGay (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hunter Avallone "no longer right wing"[edit]
Some of this article will need updating, since Avallone has publicly expressed he has changed his mind on a lot of issues such as LGBT rights. See this video... I wouldn't say he's a centrist really, but at least his views have evolved.-Debunky (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Why is he in the "Homophobes" and "Racists" categories?[edit]
His views have changed. Maybe change it to "Homophobia" and "Racism" instead? Catgrrl37-0 (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I fixed that :) Debunky (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- On that note, is he a food woo promoter or anti-immigration at the moment? I know he's vegan, but I don't know if he's said anything woo-ish, or against immigration. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)