Philosophy Tube / Oliver Lennard / Oliver "Olly" Thorn / Abigail Thorn - Breadtube's Patrick Bateman.

[scathefire]

His nose is mega-botched. Olly's not a nice man but I still either gasp or make a little frowny face every time I see a closeup of his face like this. He really, truly fucked his face.

His sub-cutaneal fat removal is worse than his nose, all it does is make your cheeks look oddly older and deformed. I really don't know why it's become a big plastic surgery trend.

 

[HarblMcDavid]

The photo at the end took me by fucking surprise. Yeah maybe you should be a little bit ashamed of that spandex swimsuit, son.
All for the message of the article, though. I genuinely believe that the fetish manifests so destructively precisely because of self-denial about it. If it becomes a widely-known mildly cringe fetish, like feet or nurses or w/e, society would be a strictly better place. Certainly less people lopping their balls off because their preferred method of cumming is while being in a dress.

Self denial or broadly, dishonesty, whether with oneself and/or the world.

So much of the issue people have with the tranny shit is that 95% or more of it is barely disguised lies about something and people can fucking smell it, which in my view feeds the significant vitriol in the backlash since people do not like being lied to or forced to knowingly lie, two hobbies TRAs have perfected the art of over the years.

TBF, I'll take an honest AGP over a lying TRA any day of the fucking week simply because at least there's a path to trust with someone who is honest, so while the author is a twink faggot, he seems to be a twink faggot that has a shred of intellectual curiosity and integrity, which is a damn sight better than 99% of gender bloviators.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Right, I don't give a shit, but that's what they hate even more, they demand I not only give a shit constantly but also that I have a duty to be dishonest to everyone.

 

[Excited Eraser]

Our dear Olly showed up at a church event, talking about diversity or something bla bla bla I'm not really all that interested. Here's the video, timestamped to where he starts speaking:

A transcript of his opening statement:

Spoiler

Hello, good evening. It's an honour to be here tonight and to be part of this panel and to kick off Pride Month by being part of it. As somebody who was rejected from Oxford University ten years ago, please allow me this moment of satisfaction to say, well, well, well, look who's come crawling back. My opening remarks this evening are addressed to all of the cisgender people in the room, which is to say all of the people in the room who are not transgender. I think that we are living through a very interesting time in human history right now, because cisgender people are finally starting to realise that you're cis. We, transgender people, have existed for as long as you have, in all societies and at all times. We have survived usually by hiding from you, and many of us believed that we were alone. But in the last century and the last two decades in particular, we've come to realise that there's actually a lot more of us than anybody thought, and we've started to claim our collective political subjectivity. But what makes this moment in history particularly interesting is that now there's a word for you, and previously there wasn't a word for you because you didn't think that you needed one. If pushed, you might have said, well, we're normal, and more likely you'd have used a word for us. You would have pointed and said, well, you're different. You're freaks, degenerates, perverts. You might have used medical language to try and pathologise us. But you didn't have a word for you because cisness was assumed to just be neutral, the default. Our genders needed to be explained, usually explained away, but yours were just a natural feature of the universe. But now there's this word, cisgender, which is neutral and makes no judgment, but rather points out that your genders are one way of being a human, not the only way though, and certainly not the best way. This word reveals that your genders, and indeed your sexes, are on the same level of existence as ours, no more real and no less real either. And learning something new about your gender that you didn't expect to know is quite a difficult thing, believe me, I would know. And I have to say most of you are dealing with this really, really well. You're starting to realise what we have known for a long time, which is that society was designed by and for cisgender people almost exclusively. And this has resulted in a great deal of unnecessary ignorance and injustice and suffering, which we can now put right by starting to work together at last. You can now, when you look around a room, maybe in your workplace or in the halls of power, you can have the thought, oh, everyone in this room is cis. 20 years ago you wouldn't have been able to think that, we could see it, but you might not have, and now you can, and that is really amazing. And some of you, it has to be said, have reacted to this astonishingly poorly. Some cis people really dig in their heels and do everything they can to cling on to the delusion that being cis is somehow better or more natural than being trans. Some cis people are so insecure about being cis that they won't even use the word. Every time I see somebody say biological women instead of cis women, I laugh because I am a biological woman. I'm not a robot or a ghost. I'm not made of gears or ectoplasm. I am in fact biologically female. I did it. But some cis people just are so afraid of using that word, so used to being normal and neutral. Even worse, some cisgender people project that insecurity onto us, say that we are threats, try to restrict our ability to live and work, deny us medical care and even commit violence against us. People are often afraid of what they don't understand, that's true, but unfortunately some people refuse to understand. Indeed what we are seeing from the gender critical movement is, I believe, a kind of organised, deliberate ignorance. And some cis people refuse so strongly to learn that they will even use violence to defend their own ignorance. And it will be up to you to call out your fellow cis people and bring them gently with compassion into the 21st century. Because at long, long last, the cat is out of the bag. You're cis and you can't unlearn that fact. And where we go from here is something that I hope we can begin to map out tonight.

Most of the stuff he says is his usual insane talking points, repeatedly referring to himself as a biological woman, attacking 'cis' people, complaining about the NHS, claiming certain people committed suicide because they were on a waiting list etcetera etcetera. The funniest part to me was someone asking him about the inherent dualism in the concept of 'gender identity' and he just didn't answer and instead attempted a lame joke. Very philosophical!

It's really not worth watching, that's why we did a watch party in the Choob discord! It was created during the Keffals downtime, worth joining if you hate having to go through TOR all the time.

 

[Clem Fandango]

If pushed, you might have said, well, we're normal, and more likely you'd have used a word for us. You would have pointed and said, well, you're different. You're freaks, degenerates, perverts.

<sigh> he's getting off on this, isn't he.

Edit:

Every time I see somebody say biological women instead of cis women, I laugh because I am a biological woman. I'm not a robot or a ghost. I'm not made of gears or ectoplasm. I am in fact biologically female. I did it.

The fucking state of philosophy

 

[Meaty Fresh]

Every time I see somebody say biological women instead of cis women, I laugh because I am a biological woman. I'm not a robot or a ghost. I'm not made of gears or ectoplasm. I am in fact biologically female. I did it.

Thanks for pointing it out Clem Fandango. This is such a reddit fucking nitpick statement. Like going to the produce aisle and going "so if these tomatoes are organic then what are those?? mechanical??? lol xDDDD" so tiring

 

[Shotgun Badger]

Every time I see somebody say biological women instead of cis women, I laugh because I am a biological woman. I'm not a robot or a ghost. I'm not made of gears or ectoplasm. I am in fact biologically female. I did it.

You know what Olly that's a good point, it would be better to say Real woman rather than 'biological woman', everybody knows its what people really mean when they say the latter and its more truthful to boot!

 

[KittyGremlin]

A transcript of his opening statement:

This is the most deranged thing I've read in a long while. Among the sea of insanity presented, a very simple question arises: If you can identify as *anything* can you not identify as neither "cis" nor "trans", just as a man or a woman? Furthermore, what prevents you from identifying as "normal"?

 

[Mayhem]

lol this "biological female" looks like Bruce Campbell.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

But you didn't have a word for you because cisness was assumed to just be neutral, the default. Our genders needed to be explained, usually explained away, but yours were just a natural feature of the universe. But now there's this word, cisgender, which is neutral and makes no judgment, but rather points out that your genders are one way of being a human, not the only way though, and certainly not the best way. This word reveals that your genders, and indeed your sexes, are on the same level of existence as ours, no more real and no less real either. And learning something new about your gender that you didn't expect to know is quite a difficult thing, believe me, I would know. And I have to say most of you are dealing with this really, really well. You're starting to realise what we have known for a long time, which is that society was designed by and for cisgender people almost exclusively. And this has resulted in a great deal of unnecessary ignorance and injustice and suffering, which we can now put right by starting to work together at last. You can now, when you look around a room, maybe in your workplace or in the halls of power, you can have the thought, oh, everyone in this room is cis. 20 years ago you wouldn't have been able to think that, we could see it, but you might not have, and now you can, and that is really amazing

Philosophy expert who doesn't know the cis-prefix dates back to Latin and pretty much does mean exactly this otherwise transsexual/transgender wouldn't have meant anything.

He completely tied himself in logical knots because he's so fucking stupid and ignorant he couldn't even construct an argument, which do exist, for the justification of using cisgender without his narcissistic desire and urge to deny that nature actually preexists his own personal thought. This faggot was just bragging about reading Greek philosophy so he should look up what's the root of terms like physics and physiology and physique: physis.

 

[Dambusters' Dog II]

You are giving him too much credit. He is just contradicting how adjectives work in English. Biological woman doesn't mean "biological and a woman". It means "biologically a woman". Just like "biological mother of X" doesn't mean someone who is "biological and the mother of X" but someone who is "biologically the mother of X", the person who gave birth to X instead of a woman who adopted X that we, by a sort of mutual agreement, fictively refer to as a mother. A "habitual criminal" is someone who is habitually a criminal, not someone who is habitual and a criminal.

People need to push back harder against these blatant attempts to twist up the language, like using "they" to refer to a known person, something that was never done before the 21st century (and I haven't been able to find an example before the second decade, the 2010s).

 

[The Jackal]

You know what Olly that's a good point, it would be better to say Real woman rather than 'biological woman', everybody knows its what people really mean when they say the latter and its more truthful to boot!

Exactly. He's just setting himself up for the inevitable anti-trans counterpunch: if we are to consider as true your argument that the only necessary conditions to be a woman are (A) being a living organism and (B) claiming to be a woman, then it must follow that 'woman' is a purely metaphysical concept that has no objective basis in reality. But we know this is not the case, since there are observable, objective sex differences which broadly categorise humanity into two groups, which correspond to the names 'man' and 'woman' in English. Therefore, Olly must be wrong; therefore, Olly is not a woman, QED.

You are giving him too much credit. He is just contradicting how adjectives work in English. Biological woman doesn't mean "biological and a woman". It means "biologically a woman". Just like "biological mother of X" doesn't mean someone who is "biological and the mother of X" but someone who is "biologically the mother of X", the person who gave birth to X instead of a woman who adopted X that we, by a sort of mutual agreement, fictively refer to as a mother. A "habitual criminal" is someone who is habitually a criminal, not someone who is habitual and a criminal.

This is correct. He's employing a linguistic tautology to conceal the fact that his argument is nonsense. In the same way, if you take an Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) and put it in a zoo in Africa, it doesn't magically transform into an African elephant (Loxodonta africana) simply because it is an elephant which happens to be located in Africa. The two words 'African' and 'elephant' have independent meanings, but together they form a collocation which has a third meaning, a particular species of elephant. When people use the phrase 'biological woman', they mean 'a human being born with female sex characteristics'. Were you born with those Olly? No? Well guess what that makes you:

1. A woman
2. A man

People need to push back harder against these blatant attempts to twist up the language, like using "they" to refer to a known person, something that was never done before the 21st century (and I haven't been able to find an example before the second decade, the 2010s).

People using 'they' to refer to any individual person is entirely new, as far as I know. Until quite recently, the options have been 'he', 'she' or 'he or she'.

 

[frap]

They only time I use 'they' to refer to an individual is if that individual is unknown to me.

Example:
Seeing sister after she visits her GP.
Me: What did they say?
Sis: He's referred me for further testing.

Well now I know it's a male doctor, so any further references would refer to him using male pronouns.

 

[scathefire]

People need to push back harder against these blatant attempts to twist up the language, like using "they" to refer to a known person, something that was never done before the 21st century (and I haven't been able to find an example before the second decade, the 2010s).

It's the same shit as claiming that trans people as we currently understand them in the western world have always existed, when they all seem to just be categories that homosexuals or gender non-conforming people were shunted into in some societies. Really, the existence of third genders are moreso evidence that homo/bisexuality and gender non-conformity have always existed, but that's one of the many things that troons seek to redefine and take away from gay people. It's all a game of reinterpretation and language manipulation in order to gain validity.

 

[Swimminglanes]

He's calling himself and Dopey Mulvaney "hot dolls" on Twitter.

More like hot dogs the way he's trying to hump Mulvaney's leg.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Exactly. He's just setting himself up for the inevitable anti-trans counterpunch: if we are to consider as true your argument that the only necessary conditions to be a woman are (A) being a living organism and (B) claiming to be a woman, then it must follow that 'woman' is a purely metaphysical concept that has no objective basis in reality. But we know this is not the case, since there are observable, objective sex differences which broadly categorise humanity into two groups, which correspond to the names 'man' and 'woman' in English. Therefore, Olly must be wrong; therefore, Olly is not a woman, QED.

I think he's just going to deny this. This is pretty old stuff in the social sciences, that there is no objective anything, all science is socially constructed so it's just about those who are using power to establish the truth that benefits them. You using the language categories of "man" and "woman" and prioritizing English is just some of the ways you're leveraging power to maintain your oppression of him.

 

[Georgio Cocklord]

lol this "biological female" looks like Bruce Campbell.

Hey Bruce Campbell still looks fucking good, this "biological woman" looks like a moai head put on Michael Jackson's body.

 

[Georgio Cocklord]

This is correct. He's employing a linguistic tautology to conceal the fact that his argument is nonsense. In the same way, if you take an Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) and put it in a zoo in Africa, it doesn't magically transform into an African elephant (Loxodonta africana) simply because it is an elephant which happens to be located in Africa. The two words 'African' and 'elephant' have independent meanings, but together they form a collocation which has a third meaning, a particular species of elephant. When people use the phrase 'biological woman', they mean 'a human being born with female sex characteristics'. Were you born with those Olly? No? Well guess what that makes you:

Categorical signifier of difference. Communists don't like the idea of difference cause of egalitarianism, so they try to eliminate all such categorical differences even if it's rooted in objective science. Before now women was enough of a descriptor to signify a distinct biological entity with a categorical difference, after troons wanted to be called women too then the word biological became the new categorical descriptor to make it more specific and descriptive. It's either going to end with millions of descriptors attached to the word like "mentally cloned psychologically attached hyperhormonal biological woman" if trannies continue to shift goalposts or it's going to end with every word meaning anything and being context dependant if the trannies win over the culture. Making words context dependant is the worst thing imaginable for scientific nouns, for insults it's okay cause nigger is context dependant. Not to be a neckbeard but literally 1984.

 

[The Jackal]

I think he's just going to deny this. This is pretty old stuff in the social sciences, that there is no objective anything, all science is socially constructed so it's just about those who are using power to establish the truth that benefits them. You using the language categories of "man" and "woman" and prioritizing English is just some of the ways you're leveraging power to maintain your oppression of him.

Yeah, of course he'll deny it, but he's confined himself to a set of arguments which are quasi-religious in nature: "I make a coming out video on my YouTube channel and lo, I am become WOMAN - do not question further for it is heresy".

The more sensible trannies will say "I am a man, but I have a mental condition which makes me more comfortable living as a woman - please treat me as such" or "I was born in a male body, but I am neurologically female". Now, you may agree or disagree with these ideas, but the point is that these are falsifiable, empirically-valid claims. By scientifically observing human beings we can eventually determine whether these hypotheses are accurate or not.

What people like Olly are demanding is that you either believe their bullshit out of faith or they will punish you for dissent. This will only cause thinking people to resist more and more. His behaviour only serves the anti-trans cause.

 

[Clem Fandango]

You are giving him too much credit. He is just contradicting how adjectives work in English. Biological woman doesn't mean "biological and a woman". It means "biologically a woman". Just like "biological mother of X" doesn't mean someone who is "biological and the mother of X" but someone who is "biologically the mother of X", the person who gave birth to X instead of a woman who adopted X that we, by a sort of mutual agreement, fictively refer to as a mother. A "habitual criminal" is someone who is habitually a criminal, not someone who is habitual and a criminal.

People need to push back harder against these blatant attempts to twist up the language, like using "they" to refer to a known person, something that was never done before the 21st century (and I haven't been able to find an example before the second decade, the 2010s).

It's clearly something you receive with your troon starter pack, as uber cretin and utter failure Rhys McKinnon has also made this embarrassing non-argument in televised interviews.