I recently debated several of the key points of social justice with YouTuber Big Lundi. The topics covered were labels and rhetoric, alcohol consumption and consent and the gender wage gap.
The cover art for the video was done by @RobBlack83.
I found there to be distinct logical incongruities to several of Lundi’s arguments that prevented me from being able to accept them.
When discussing the value of labels his contention for applying the labels “cis” and “trans” to people based on their sexual identification was to prevent othering, whereas the very existence of these labels creates it. The motivation for this paradox was activism, Lundi’s attempt to make the world better for trans people by attempting to remove any kind of stigma for being trans because it is technically abnormal.
I could not agree to his proposition that if a very drunk woman makes advances on a slightly drunk man that she knows is attracted to her, then he is guilty of rape and she is not responsible for her own actions due to her intoxication. Aside from the fact that this is not a principle that society abides by in any other circumstance, Lundi argued that two heavily drunk people who have consensual sex do not rape each other, not because they are incapable of consenting but because they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions, so even committing a rape (because neither can consent) is excused as neither is in any apparent control of their own actions. Agency and personal responsibility do not disappear because one has become intoxicated.
Finally, discussing the gender wage gap, I was happy to accept that the two studies he had presented did uncover what appear to be instances of implicit bias. However, I do not accept that this is sufficient to prove wide-spread sexism or racism (even if unintentional) within Western society or its institutions.