Just like Matt dilahunty. Skeptic about every "claim" argued by any theist... But if someone claims to be the wrong gender, no evidence needed, just take em at their claim I guess. Amazing how many atheists so to be so logical, but ask them about gender ideology and suddenly their brains fall out.
Reminds me of the video responding to RR where he argued logicism plus conventionalism.... Im not surprised to see this video because that is consistent with his inability to concede in the concept of a transcendent truth....
I am a biologist as well. Here is a true rationale view of "gender". First I will give a short comment for those who just want to skim. Gender, if we are to determine it exist outside the subjective, is a reflection we exacerbate to improve reproduction of our species. Sex is a definitive observable nature we see that is key to our reproduction. Gender is either linked at its core to our evolution and reproduction, or it is subjective, and cannot be observed to exist. Old poets were never confused about who they described in beauty or strength. Woman and Man are connected to the observable and that is the nature of the human. Man and Woman was never lost on them or anyone and the male has always known who to approach to reproduce. Anything outside of that in this debate is purely subjective and in belief. ------------- Now for the long. Male and Female are our reproductive means to ensure our survival as a species. There is no spectrum or true intersex in our species. WE ARE either one or the other. If there is a spectrum to Intersex, DSD rightfully, it is between Order and Disorder. It is a spectrum between the ability to successfully reproduce and failure to do so. There is no spectrum between Male and Female. Our evolution is broken into the two parts, Order and Disorder. Everything, Everything is considered a part of Order unless it interferes with a species health, ability to survive, or ability to reproduce. If any interference exist in these mechanisms then it is considered a Disorder and NOT a disadvantage to the survival of the individual, pack (tribe), or species. Gender is nothing more than our observations of these traits and amplification of them. If we detach gender from this core, then again, it is a broken concept that can no longer be identified in any reasonable fashion. It can only be recognized in a construct that has entirely removed itself from the evolution of humans and entirely exist in "Belief". Masculine and Feminine is constructional terms that are simply based on traits we observed in our survival. The Male, larger, stronger, and faster is also more disposable. The female who is sidelined from her ability to defend self for 9 months is also key to the survival of the species. Basically the masculine purpose, loosely using the term purpose, is to fight the wolves at the door and either be successful, or be the meal that fills their bellies long enough the female and children escape to find a replacement for the male role. The more we expand the concept of the Masculine and Feminine from what is observable the more it is nothing more than the construct term. It would have no basis, no relevance that is identifiable, no REASON and so, does not exist if removed from the basic roles or reproduction. Man and Woman are either Male and Female, or it does not actually exist. If we are going to only base things on individual subjective reasoning then there is no right to suspend children from school for not participating in someone else's subjective beliefs. They should not have to use the language of this person's subjective beliefs no more than they should be forced to say prayers in schools. Since this is subjective and not observably real, since this is not recognizable by default by any observer then girls should not have scholarship opportunities taken by someone with these subjective ideals purely based on belief of the individual that cannot be confirmed. IF WE are going to truly use RATIONAL claims, Mr. Rationality, lets at least be rational. Lets at least use what is observable to guide our reasoning and not embrace subjective beliefs and make mystical claims that cannot be confirmed by reason. Gender Beliefs are IRRATIONAL.
I remember seeing Stephen and Alex back in the day like 2017 or 2018 and thinking they were both just smug atheists. Turns out I was wrong. Alex has a genuine interest in philosophy and learning and doesn’t just jump on the newest political or social trend. His Channel is great. Stephen on the other hand. Yeah he is literally just a caricature of the “woke” (as much as I hate that buzz word) atheist movement
@tafazzi-on-discord my def would probably be something like 'a person displaying secondary sex characteristics and behaviours that general society considers feminine" Whereas a female would be "the sex typically capable of producing ova gametes" With gender, we're human beings and usually go by visual indicators. Thats why there's a lot of concern with trans women "passing" but trans men dont have such issues.
@@Crashawsomeyou traded a “sky daddy” for the IDPOL god. Congrats to you “enlightened” atheists: you played yourself. It was so hilarious watching Boghossian and Dawkins realize that the new atheist movement helped create this new “religion”. I’ll take my sky daddy all day!!
Dr. Bogardus, As a Catholic, I'm struggling to see how the example of the person with CAIS doesn't lead to some very uncomfortable conclusions for us: Suppose Jane was a Catholic who was in a sacramental marriage with another Catholic man and 3 adoptive children. Wouldn't it follow that, upon learning of her condition, Jane would have to have her marriage annulled, and she would be morally obliged to permanently refrain from intimacy with her former husband? I know you lurk around here sometimes, so I'd love to hear back from you if at all possible. Love your work :)
@@tafazzi-on-discord Dont give me this god didnt do it bs. This is your religion own it. They were born with a condition that prevents their body recognising testosterone, this isn't some illness they picked up by living their day to day. So this person that grew up from birth with a vagina, developed breasts naturally, whose voice never deepened. Who spent their entire life thinking they were female because every indication they had suggested that. Simply because they went to a doctor you would now force them to live as a man? And you would treat them as a man?
I’m so thankful for God-given theology of the body that sets up an intrinsic understanding of what it is to be man or woman without degrading either sex. I couldn’t live with the confusion of the secular world on this matter. Once my son is old enough to understand the differences in sexes, I will feel confident in explaining the differences between boys and girls in context of potential fatherhood and motherhood and how the human body is ordered towards reproducing and sustaining new life. My ability to bear children is not what makes me a woman, but that potential motherhood is written into the fabric of my being despite any fertility issues or personal choices. Sex is not assigned at birth; it is determined at conception and nothing we can do can change that, and it is intrinsically disordered to want to change that.
You're wrong to think that trans-ideology is a feature of the 'secular world'. Most secularists I know (with one exception) reject this nonsense. In fact, to many of us, the arguments deployed in defense of it have a distinctly religious ring to them. Perhaps it should come as no surprise then that some religious adherents of trans-ideology employ the concept of a 'soul' to explain how a biological male may in fact be a woman. Their argument is that these are cases in which a 'female soul' inhabit male bodies, or vice versa. Needless to say, no secularist would seriously entertain such a view.
@@wardandrew23412 as trans-ideology pertains to no specific religion or religious belief, it is a secular view, even if some people ascribe religious language such as ‘soul’ onto it. Yes, some religious people claim to uphold gender ideology to be not in conflict with their faith, but the view primarily comes from secular culture and beliefs, not religious ones. And lots of secularism borrows from some religious thoughts and ideas (morality and ethics being an example). There are plenty of atheists who believe people can be born with a ‘male-brain’ or ‘female brain’ whilst being in the ‘wrong body’ without any allusions to a soul or supernatural personhood. Though there are definitely non-religious reasons for rejecting trans-ideology too (you don’t have to believe in God to find it nonsensical).
@@berserkerbard But my objection was to your framing trans-ideology as something that grew out of secularism. I see no evidence that secularism leads one to believe absurd propositions like men being able to give birth or that women can have penises. In fact, the patent absurdity of these notions and the apparent inability of trans-ideologues to make sense of them reminds me much more of the religious mindset, which requires unquestioning belief in things the believer cannot comprehend (eg: the virgin birth, immaterial beings, the doctrine of the incarnation, etc.). If 'faith' is what has been described as 'the belief in things we know to be untrue', then I think it's fair to regard trans-ideology as a type of religion.
@@wardandrew23412 I’m sorry you have such a narrow minded view of faith and religion. Faith has never been defined as ‘belief in things we know to be untrue’ - that’s a very uncharitable definition. Faith is more like ‘belief or trust in something outside of yourself’ - in no way is faith ‘belief based on lack of evidence’ faith is far more in the beyond evidence category, where nothing can be known with absolute certainty. It’s like you can believe the sun will rise tomorrow because of rational belief, or that gravity will still keep the earth in the sun’s orbit. I don’t believe in the claims of gender ideology because of rational beliefs I do hold (like women can’t become men and vice versa). Even natural laws require some level of faith, otherwise science would not exist, because no one could trust that things could be constant or testable. It’s why modern science and the scientific method itself is resting on the back of monotheistic beliefs and ideas, not secular atheism. Finally, if humans get rid of religion, they will put something in its place that looks and acts like it, and that’s a philosophical belief that I ascribe to. So saying that transgenderism looks like religious belief to you, backs up my view that not even secularists can create a world free from belief structures and doctrine.
@@berserkerbard I know that's not how theists define faith; it was just a pithy line I remembered from the movie, 'Nosferatu'. However, I do think that transgender ideologues and religious ideologues are cut from the same cloth. Both require an unswerving allegiance to unintelligible or incoherent doctrines, both see opposing views not just as mistaken, but as evil, both are immune to external criticism, both privilege feelings over facts, and both think they're in possession of some sacred truth. I have no use for that kind of delusional thinking, which is why I reject religion in all its various representations. As for your musings about science, I recommend you do a bit of reading on the philosophy of science, particularly Larry Laudan's critiques of scientific realism and Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability. I think you'll see that science is nothing like religion.
1:10:12 _"It could be the case that someone, one day is very feminine and the next day is very masculine, [...] Stephen would have to be skeptical more generally [about labelling someone as man or woman]"_ Why ? If man and woman refer to appearances, then obviously someone can be a man one day, and a woman the next... Guys this really seems abundantly obvious to me... Do we agree that Dustin Hoffman in the movie "Tootsie" or Robin Williams in "Mrs Doubtfire" go from man to woman from one scene to the next in those movies ?
An elephant can also be defined by appearances. We usually think of them as having large trunks. The trunk is the characteristic that makes elephants stand out from other animals the most. But maybe there is an elephant out there who didn't grow a trunk because of a genetic defect. Should we stop calling it an elephant now? Or could we say this is an elephant who didn't develop its trunk due to an illness? The latter seems to be the better description here.
I'm not a Christian, but I've watched Dr. Bogartus's debate with Vaush more times than I can count. Vaush was completely out of his depth and it was hilarious.
New Atheism in a nutshell: Morality is whatever I want it to be. So is gender and I will listen to science only when it agrees with my political views! So much for "rationality". They rejected reason a long time ago.
@@KatyWellsKingsland I listed them as separate examples, did I not? The point was that these new atheists hold irrational views, and are different from other types of atheists.
@shassett79 Atheist = "Someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist." This is the definition from the Cambridge dictionary. Atheism is the belief that gods don't exist. Agnosticism is the lack of belief. If you are an Atheist, you can't be Agnostic. You are confusing the two terms.
@@shassett79 actually it's simple but you made it sound complex. 1. Theist claims that there's definitely a God. 2. Atheism claims that there's definitely no God. 3. Agnostic claims that they don't know. Based on the above which one are you?
@@shassett79 The definition of Agnosticism by Cambridge dictionary: the fact that someone does not know or does not have an opinion about whether something is true, good, correct, etc. Agnosticism is about not having an opinion on a certain topic, while Atheism is about holding the opinion that gods don't exist. If you are agnostic you can't be atheist, if you are atheist you can't be agnostic. Just so you know, I am not trying to have a religious debate right now, I am merely disagreeing with the way you used those words.
If someone presents their views it's a bit clickbaity to say you're exposing their views (as if they were being hidden). Silly. The title should be Critiquing etc.
@@FilipinaVegana No need to define it with our own words. It's a social construct lol. A made-up thing. Some cultures had more than 2 genders. So yes, Stephen is incorrect in his assessment of gender and sex based on simple, widely-accepted definitions. Trying to skew science to fit his incorrect conclusions is baseless nonsense. As an atheist, he should be ashamed.
@@tafazzi-on-discord You received A definition. Maybe you are not satisfied with it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't A definition. Gender is based on the irrational view that a biological male can assume the identity of a woman and that a biological female can assume the identity of a man. In reality "man" was always used to refer to the "male" sex, so this entire ideology of gender is nothing but a bad joke, that politicians and influencers use to take advantage of the mentally ill and raise in popularity as emphatic people.
Many Janes exist right now walking around in the world, Jane isnt hypothetical. In the past people like Jane who were discovered as children were lied to, they would have operations as minors to remove internal testes but being told a false reason. Later as adults they would suddenly find out the reason for that operation, often when finding themselves unable to concieve. Thankfully, doctors have mostly moved on from the idea they should protect intersex people from the reality of how their chromosomes and bodies differ, and do whatever necessary to make intersex bodies conform with one or another biological sex template, and in many places these secret, non-consenting operations have become illegal. I think the doctor should have touched on the real history of these people.
His 2nd argument is a joke, a bad joke. You can define sex as I have defined it (in the ABSENCE of injury, disease, genetic disorder) so as to address exceptions w/o this problem. Let me illustrate by example. Suppose you say that humans are primates w/ 23 chromosomal pairs; now we know some people don't have 23 chromosomal pairs...are those people NOT humans? Does that mean humans have a range of chromosomal #'s? Nope, it's just that humans have 23 chromosomal pairs in the absence of a genetic disorder. And it's a really terrible thing to suffer through - not some option you can take or leave. Having Jane's problem is no joke - it has lots & lots of serious medical complications. Jane's a woman because she has a genetic disorder that makes her a woman despite the XY. There's no problem here.
Thank you for having a heart. Another commenter acted like Jane should suddenly walk around calling herself a man, with no compassion for Jane (who has always appeared externally female) and those around her. That's madness 😢
As a fellow agnostic atheist, I was pretty disappointed regarding Rationality Rule's take on gender. But I tend to take it on the chin when it comes to public figures. There usually always something I disagree with. In this instance, Rationality Rule's opinions regarding gender and transgenderism are decidedly not rational.
53:30 - 53:41 Why did you switch from talking about males to maleness? Sexual attraction, according to the definition RR gave, is attraction to males or females, not maleness and femaleness
A male/man: an adult person who - in the absence of disease, injury, genetic disorder - produces sperm. A female/woman, an adult person who - in the absence of disease, injury, genetic disorder - has ova. Your sex is defined by your gametes; there are only 2 options; anyone who doesn't produce/have 1 of those 2 options is suffering from a disease, injury or genetic disorder. BTW people who are "intersex" suffer severely for their issues, it's not some 3rd option. (That is, all of these issues can be traced to a disease/genetic disorder & all involve substantial health consequences.). Any other theory is just a religion, so sure there are 73 genders, an infinite # really, because it's all a religion & you can invent any religion you'd like.
Soon I won't have ova, ill run out. Menopause isn't a disease, injury or genetic disorder, it's a normal process that all of us go through. Its essential; being pregnant and giving birth is physically stressful and dangerous, we cannot do it forever. There is one thing the trans lobby is right about, conservatives cannot come up with a definition of woman that doesn't exclude certain women or act like normal female processes or variations are diseases or aberrations.
The definition makes perfect sense given the challenge. It has to be a truth that affords the greatest sense of liberty and personal freedom. It has to utterly detach the idea of gender from biology, because biology is trapping to the progressive interest. Solution "Oh- well to be a woman, one needs only to act feminine." So simple.
The funny thing is that that definition is inherently anti-feminist. It's basically saying that all those pioneering women who became physicists and doctors and lawyers back when it was seen as man's work . . . were actually men, or at least not women.
51:30 _"They [fruit flies] can't really get beneath the surface and see whether something is a fruit they have to rely on superficial appearances"_ 52:23 _"If you are a heterosexual man you are attracted to females, to women, yeah I should say women"_ 53:00 _"We have to rely on superficial appearances, so we rely on feminine appearances"_ 53:55 _"I don't think that's the case, I think they are attracted by the femininity of these males."_ 54:38 _"That's how I think this distinction helps us see that this argument is not sound"_ Isn't Tomas shooting himself in the foot here ? I think his hesitation between _"women"_ and _"females"_ at 52:23 and again at 53:17 is very revealing. Why couldn't we _"rely on feminine appearances"_ for our use of the word "woman" ? Aren't _"feminine appearances"_ dependent on culture ? If we indeed _"rely on feminine appearances"_ for our use of the word "woman", then it seems that yes, taking an airplane might be sufficient for you to go from woman to man...
That's why we would call a man that looks extremely convincingly feminine a woman, right up until we saw them naked. Relying on the femininity doesn't give you certainty, and when you realize it has tricked you, you update your knowledge. A fruit fly tricked by vinegar doesn't think it has arrived at fruit when it lands in the vinegar, as it were. They think something like, "oh. Whoops."
1:06:49 _"That general principle is uh... Most epistemologists these days think it's false"_ Don't you see what's happening here ? You need to appeal to fallibilism in order to defend your view. Don't you think it is much more parsimonious to just say that "gold" isn't a number of protons, but is indeed these _"superficial appearances", "color, lustre, malleability"_ (1:05:29) ? Instead of postulating that everybody refers to a number of protons when they use the word "gold", even if hidden behind an epistemic wall, isn't it much more parsimonious to simply postulate that people merely refer to these _"superficial appearances"_ ? What about when people didn't even know about the Mendeleev table (or about protons) ? Isn't it more parsimonious to simply postulate that they were referring to these _"superficial appearances"_ when they talked about "gold" ? I also didn't understand the reference to Descartes and phenomenology, when Tomas refers to _"superficial appearances"..._ Please reassure me... He is not referring to anything else than the phenomenal experience right ? He doesn't think that _"appearances"_ are in the _"external world"_ right ? What would that even mean ?
This is the same thing for gold for example. Someone who thinks the term "gold" refers to the element with 79 protons cannot claim that people who don't know what protons are can adequately use the term "proton"...
1:03:02 _"And that gets him into trouble, because he thinks being female has a kind of hidden or scientific essence..."_ That would only put Stephen _"into trouble"_ if he claimed he knew people to be female without inspecting their gametes...
Off topic, but I can’t unhear ‘trans activists’ as one word ‘transactivists’ meaning people who pertain to exchanging or trading, just sounds funny to me 😅
48:06 _"Tu quoque"_ 49:10 _"He [Stephen] thinks that so called heterosexual males are attracted to such people"_ Does he ? Don't you think Stephen would defined heterosexuality in terms of gender, and not in terms of sexe ? Don't you think that Stephen was giving a reductio against the conservative's view ? And therefore used two premises that he does not accept (not being a conservative), but that conservatives would accept ? At 16:33 of Stephen's video he says : _"If we stick strictly to the traditional conflated definition of sex and gender we end up eliminating heterosexual men all together"_ Do you really think that the _"traditional conflated definition of sex and gender"_ is Stephen's view ?
He quoted Stephen defining it in terms of sex. If you think that was an accident on Stephen's part, it's arguably more confused if you define it in terms of gender, because 'heterosexual' men are likely attracted to people like Emma Corrin who aren't women, meaning heterosexual men don't exist.
@@PhilosophyLines *-"He quoted Stephen defining it in terms of sex. If you think that was an accident on Stephen's part, it's arguably more confused if you define it in terms of gender, because 'heterosexual' men are likely attracted to people like Emma Corrin who aren't women, meaning heterosexual men don't exist."* If I want to do a reductio about a position, I will first give premises with which a defender of that position would agree. For example, if I wanted to do a reductio of theism, I would first give premises like : "god created the universe", or "god is the ground for morality". Premises that I would later show to be false in the conclusion of my reductio. If you then quote me giving these premises to run an argument which purpose is to show that I ultimately defeat my own position, you're showing nothing less than your inability to understand what a reductio is... When Stephen says : (44:18) _"a heterosexual, is someone sexually or romantically attracted exclusively to the other sex",_ OBVIOUSLY he is not laying out his own view here... He is laying out premises to be refuted with his reductio... Furthermore, I don't understand why you say that *"heterosexual men don't exist"* if you define it in terms of gender. If Emma Corin (don't know who that is) *"isn't a woman"* like you say, you might be talking about sex, and since "heterosexual" would be defined in terms of gender (in this scenario), then Emma Corin could be a man in terms of sex, and a woman in terms of gender, and since "heterosexual" would be defined in terms of gender, a male could be attracted to Emma Corin and be a heterosexual male.
@@MrGustavier Thanks for your response - I went back to Stephen's original video and he defines heterosexual that way at 17:32 - can you give any indication that that isn't the position he holds? He at no point says 'for the sake of argument, although this isn't my belief'. My thought was that if instead you wanted to define heterosexual in terms of gender (you're exclusively attracted to women) then examples like Emma Corrin would mean that you don't have any heterosexual men, similar argument to Stephen's. Since Emma Corrin isn't a woman in terms of gender, and men would be attracted to her.
@@PhilosophyLines *-"Thanks for your response - I went back to Stephen's original video and he defines heterosexual that way at **17:32** - can you give any indication that that isn't the position he holds? He at no point says 'for the sake of argument, although this isn't my belief'."* Yes, at 16:33 he says : _"If we stick strictly to the traditional conflated definition of sex and gender we end up eliminating heterosexual men all together"_ Do you really think that the _"traditional conflated definition of sex and gender"_ is Stephen's view ? Do you now understand how ridiculous Borgardus and Cameron appear in this video...? They don't even understand what a reductio is... Hell, there are not even able to understand that OBVIOUSLY heterosexuality isn't defined in terms of sex for Stephen... At 16:51 he says : _"You don't get aroused by sniffing the gamete type of people do you ? You don't have glasses that scan chromosomes... No, you're attracted chiefly to secondary sexual characteristics breasts wide hips Etc"_ *-"My thought was that if instead you wanted to define heterosexual in terms of gender (you're exclusively attracted to women) then examples like Emma Corrin would mean that you don't have any heterosexual men, similar argument to Stephen's. Since Emma Corrin isn't a woman in terms of gender, and men would be attracted to her."* I'm getting confused here. You say *"if instead you wanted to define heterosexual in terms of gender"* and you follow it with (in brackets) *"you're exclusively attracted to women",* from that I derive that the term "women" refers to gender. But then you say *"Since Emma Corrin isn't a woman in terms of gender, and men would be attracted to her"* What does it mean to *"not be a woman in terms of gender"* ? Either the term "woman" only refers to gender or it doesn't. If the term "woman" only refers to gender then the sentence *"not a woman in terms of gender"* is meaningless. If the term "woman" refers to gender and something else then it means that when you say *"heterosexual is defined in terms of gender",* and since "woman" can refer to gender and something else, then being *"exclusively attracted to woman"* can indeed refer to heterosexuality, since woman can refer to gender, and gender is what you need to justify heterosexuality. See what I mean ?
It took an awful long time to get to the core of the Jane example. But first…. The alligator exception is irrelevant. It’s like arguing that amoebae don’t have sexes, so no species have sexes. A better argument would be that the cause of sex is distinct from sex itself. Real-world people discern others’ sexes by appearance. That a heterosexual male is misled into thinking another male is female does not negate his heterosexuality. I agree that gender is a social construct. However, the purpose of gender is to reflect physical reality, that is, sex. Moreover, the causes of gender attributes are separate from gender itself. Causes include genetic, epigenetic, physical health, emotional health, and social influence 1:18:24 . In many instances today, social influences are overpowering all others. Social influences, in fact, have built their own construct: Gender is solely the product of emotional health (which social factors highly influence).
I can't say I see anything rational in his views on gender. But I'm not one who believes in multi genders either. You are what you are like it or not. What you are can be changed, but probably shouldn't be.
Bro.. you literally believe in a magical sky fairy. Lmaoo.. judge not lest ye be judged.
2 месяца назад
Wasn’t Yahweh androgynous? Wasn’t he both male and female? Isn’t this why we were all made in his own image? Both male AND female rather than male OR female? Aren’t all anatomical males Transsexuals? Didn’t they all start out with a proto-vagina and then only later transition to a male phallus? Isn’t a male phallus simply a renovated vagina? Didn’t the greatest clinical psychiatrist and psychologist of the 2Oth century, Carl Gustav Jung, demonstrate that the human psyche is androgynous just like Yahweh himself. Isn’t Mother Nature and her natural world LGBT rather than Heterosexual. Aren’t many animals bi-sexual? Don’t some of them transition from one sex to the other? Isn't exclusive Heterosexuality unnatural and abnormal? Doesn't it contradict known Western Science as well as the natural world? Aren’t the sexual teachings of the Roman Catholic Empire just as wrong as their teachings on human slavery used to be? Until rather recently? See the brilliant and amusing Peacock documentary titled: QUEER PLANET.💙
So . . . heterosexuals are strictly attracted to members of the opposite sex . . . To me, in that case, that would mean that no heterosexual could ever be attracted to a realistic painting of an attractive member of the opposite sex. Or a fictional character or sculpture or anything of the sort. Which would mean that a VERY SIGNIFICANT portion of the human population isn't heterosexual, given the popularity of novels like 50 shades of grey, adult animation, sexually-charged art, etc. And, I mean, just look at the comments section of any anime show. The solution Dr. Bogardus gave should work here - the visual appearance of being a member of the opposite sex is what we are attracted *by* and we are attracted *to* the opposite sex. I kinda think there's another solution here. Just define heterosexuals as "people who are not at all attracted to the secondary sex characteristics of their sex and are attracted to the secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex." I worded it this way instead of "people who are strictly attracted to the secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex" because that would imply that you can't be attracted to someone's personality (which isn't necessarily determined by sex)!
I say stop labeling people and get over ourselves... The labels diminish us anyways. We aren't labels. We're complex humans with complex desires. Stop putting us in a box.
@@dustinmartin2369 um... By talking to each other. How else? You really can't figure out how to communicate without having a group identity? I like music. I like pizza. I like hiking. I like woodworking. None of those things are an "identity". None of those things require me to identify as a "minority". But if Im attracted to the same sex, suddenly, instead of just saying, "I like men," like I would do with everything else, I'm supposed to slap a label and an identity on myself? My sexual attraction is no more an "identity" than my preferred liquor, my favorite food, or my favorite color.
It’s distressing to me that the transgender believers can speak so long about sex, and not relate it to your role in the process of sexual reproduction.
@@mistressofstones It is relevant, in that everyone is EITHER a male or female. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species, and even if you never have sex, you are still a male or female. You still belong to one of the two roles in sexually reproduction. In fact, to define your "sex" another way, that doesn't involve your role in the biological process of sexual reproduction, is just to play a game that not everyone wants or cares about playing. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if you FEEL you are a cow or a minor, it matters what you actually are.
Cameron Thanks for your site have enjoyed your content. I am not trained in philosophy but think this all gets a little simpler if you allow for intersex. Some people have development issues that cause them to have genitalia and chromosomes that differ from the vast majority of humans maybe greater than 99.5% (think 0.5% may be high). Isn't there is a logic problem to appeal from the extremes? Would think it is okay to allow for the small population of intersex and they make the traditional definition problematic but they are extreme outliers. I have little direct experience with such people in the few case I know of the person and there parents picks a gender and sex that seems to fit best and live there lives with out most people even knowing they have this condition, These people have existed for a very long time and have not created any issues for society. To my knowledge mostly living out there lives quietly and no organized political or social change agenda. Currently it is being argued that they are the examples that make need to change all the rules for the majority. Would be curious to hear your opinion on this prospective.
No. "Intersex" is the biological term to describe someone who is a man or a woman who also just so happened to have an extra chromosome due to a genetic anomaly. Stop demanding the entire fabric of society be twisted and bent in order to accommodate a tiny percentage of people. Whichever biological sex they are, they ought conform to and seek surgery for correction to accommodate.
about sex is not deter by human gene. I really dont agree. Sure, some animal sex didnt dictated by gene but enviroment temperature. But that not the case for human. with human specie, sex does affected by gene, there are no doubt. sure, some male has breast when they grow up, and they dont has penis at birth, and they was mistake at woman for their entire a life. With me, they're women.
My sister and I have been married for 10 years and we have 4 kids together. We are very much in love. Oh, by “sister” I mean the social construct of living with someone of the opposite sex that’s part of your family. What’s wrong with that rule, rationally?
I'm a very "Wahman are biological females" kind of girl, but tbh the whole "I've *known* people are women without knowing their gametes" argument did seem pretty decent to me. I mean- there are plenty of trans women who look much more biologically female than some biological women. I know that sometimes men will try to hook up with someone only to find out that they are trans, and that demonstrates that you *cant* always just tell who is female and who is male. I really didn't buy the counterargument presented. If I walk up to someone and ask if their dog is friendly, they may say "yes" but I still don't know for sure if the dog is friendly or not. Now I can usually tell by the dog's body language if it's friendly, but if scientists and veterinarians came together and started giving aggressive dogs surgeries to give them the body language of friendly dogs, then I would be thoroughly screwed. That being said . . . I don't think RR's position is necessarily the best solution. We could say that a woman is anyone who appears anatomically identical to a biological woman during day to day life, and that would exclude a TON of trans women from being women while simultaneously solving the problem. Personally, however, I think I'm just going to take the wacky epistemology pill and be more strict with the things that I say I can "know". We use the word "know" a lot in common language, and I think it has a different meaning when used informally than when used in formal philosophical or academic contexts. So I think it's ok for me to keep on using the word "know" loosely as long as I differentiate between informal and formal "know". I really don't like the argument that "Oh, if you can't know that this random person is a female, then all you can know is basic mathematical and logical truths and your own existence." There's got to be a gradient to how we approach epistemology. I obviously can NOT see some male-looking pre-maturely balding person wearing khakis and just say "I KNOW THAT GUY IS A REPUBLICAN!" That being said, I think we can trust our basic sensory information. I can say "I know that person is wearing khakis" but I can't say "I know that person is a republican." In the same way, I can say "I know that person appears to have female 2ndary sex characteristics" but I can't say "I know that person is a female."
You can't have an internal sense of matching a social construct - you can't have an internal sense that you are a Rotarian or that you are a CPA. And if having the internal sense that you are a CPA made you a CPA, then - yes - that would be perfectly circular.
To be fair to Stephen he did a very good video on the problems with trans athletes and was attacked viciously by the woke atheist community for it. The atheist community of Austin even banned him or disassociated from him. I honestly wonder how much Stephen agrees with what's coming out of his own mouth and if he's just providing lip service to appease the woke left atheist community. I'm an atheist and it kills me how some atheists are turning atheism into some kind of woke political religion.
So Steve says there's problems with trans people in sports and advocates for open and female categories. He's never given that up to appease anyone. His views piss off plenty of his own audience. I can attest that the 3/4 videos he's done on this topic are a result of research and discussions done over last couple of years.
@@castlesandcuriosities, do you use any of the following (somewhat euphemistic) terms? • gay • homophobia/homophobe • transphobia/transphobe • trans-sexual • transgender • cis gender • sex worker • capitalism/capitalist • any gender-specific pronoun other than he/she, him/her or his/her Then CONGRATULATIONS - you are (either knowingly or unwittingly) a silly shill for the loony left!
16:00 _"You might be considered a woman in America and a man in the middle east"_ 18:00 _"If that strikes you as counter intuitive"_ Thank you so much for your choice of words Tomas. Indeed people don't have the same intuitions as you do. And for some people, asking the question _"what is a woman period ?"_ (or _"what is a woman in reality"_ like Matt Walsh) does indeed demonstrate that the person asking the question has misunderstood the nature of what a woman is. I don't think there is any relevancy to point to how people use words in order to argue for or against anti-realism (relativism in this context), since it is completely disconnected from the question at hand, and furthermore, obviously, actual data has to be provided in order to back any claim regarding how people use words. So what is left ? What argument can be given to advocate for realism or for anti-realism ? How to break the symmetry ?
@@tafazzi-on-discord If Matt Walsh asks the question : _"what is a woman in reality"_ that means he presupposes that there is such a thing as "woman" in reality... Which means he's a realist about women. For the anti-realist about women, there is no such thing as "woman" in reality, so the anti-realist will simply answer Matt Walsh's question by saying : "you have misunderstood the nature of woman". And potentially, if the anti-realist is an anti-realist about all categories of language, he would answer : "you have misunderstood the nature of language".
@@tafazzi-on-discord *-"you have to provide an objective..."* Well no... Arguably the anti-realist about women would precisely say that there is nothing *"objective"* about women... That is part of what being an "anti-realist" means. It means there is nothing mind independent, stance independent, perspective independent, sometimes even value independent... *"Objective"* about the object in question. *-"...non circular..."* That is also problematic, if you ask structuralists for example, language itself does nothing more than referring to itself, and everything in language is *"circular"* in that sense. *-"...definition..."* That is also problematic. Because maybe what a woman is is not a definition. Maybe the term "woman" only refers to a concept, and the definition of "woman" would only be a string of words that are synonymous with the category of language "woman"... Except, in that case, woman would not be a category of language... But a concept. Now if you want my view, I point you towards _"connectionism"_ : every concept is nothing more than a bunch of neurons networked together that have been "trained" to recognize a given pattern. When people built neural networks for what has been later called "machine learning", they were trying to reproduce the neural architecture of the brain, and that's what they did. So when you train an artificial neural network in the context of machine learning, you are essentially doing the same thing as when a parent or teacher corrects a kid when he/she uses the wrong word... This is why categories of language are said to be "socially constructed"... Because they are. Or at least this is what is clearly indicated by our current best scientific knowledge. So a "woman" would simply be a pattern recognized by a given neural network in my brain, that has been socially trained. A woman would be someone with long hair, with make up, with no facial hair, wearing a dress, a skirt, with no hairs on the legs, someone a bit shorter, usually less athletic, and with a higher pitch voice. Woman is also someone who can potentially be pregnant and give birth... I could go on but you get the idea. None of these are "necessary conditions" or "essential properties" for being included in the category "woman" because _connectionism_ explains that there is no such thing as "essential properties". A category of language or a concept needs not be anything else than a probabilistic conjoint of "accidental properties" or "contingent conditions"... Again, this is what our best scientific knowledge indicates.
The only thing that need not be exposed is "rationality rules'" scalp. Beyond intellectual rebuttals, there sure are exceptions to the rule of thumb of judging a book by its cover.... Anybody who shaves one side of their head is not right in their mind, which is simply confirmed by his staunch anti-theism. God must be presupposed in order to make sense of our very reason's legitimacy, because there's no other objective grounding to assume that anything we think of is real
Steven seems like a sweet boy, but I'm very skeptical of anyone going along with this trans stuff that gets you good boy points in present-day pop culture.
If it's self-identified, then it's not scientific & it's utterly circular; it's literally the definition of circular reasoning. You are a woman because you say you are a woman & you say you are a woman because you are a woman - can't get more circular!
This video is largely worthless as a review given the cross purposes at work. RR's video is a sociological perspective - NOT a philosophical treatise; and thus does not lend itself to various particulars that Bogardus attempted to flesh out.
Whatever biological sex is in humans, it's shared with some non-humans. Humans include males, and so do crocodiles. So whatever "male" refers to, it's something shared by humans and non-humans. XY chromosomes are *not* shared between human and male crocodiles, so this rules out the chromosomal view that Stephen was defending.
My problem w/ all this nonsense is that it utterly destroys evolution (if X must mate with Y in order to reproduce, then the process of attracting X to Y can't be this complex & error prone). To put it another way, I'm supposed to believe that I have blue eyes because it gave at least one of my ancestors some trivial advantage in terms of reproduction, but I'm not supposed to worry that he either wouldn't sleep w/ women and/or that he couldn't figure out who a woman was because it's only something she can tell you based on her impression of changing cultural norms? Huh? Are you serious? Such a system would transform survival of the fittest into survival of the fit enough, which makes the process too slow & too cumbersome to account for life in the very limited time (a few billion years) that we have available. I mean have you noticed these gender/sex people (believers in this stuff); how many of them have 8 or more biological children? (You'd need about 8 biological children to have a decent shot at grandkids in the ancient world, so evolution requires a system that produces about 8 kids on average...you think this gender stuff can do that?). Look, lots of LGBTQ+ people have kids, but how many have 8 biological kids? And how many could support such large families w/ multiple lovers on the side? Polyamory is really expensive, prohibitively so until fairly recent times & even then it was only the rich who could afford it. Thag struggled to feed his wife & 8 kids; he couldn't feed a gay lover or two on the side too. It's all nonsense unless we concede evolution is nonsense, which is fine by me, but let's be consistent. If evolution is true, then survival of the fittest is a necessary condition of evolution. If it's survival of the fittest, there's no way this LGBTQ+ can be genetic - it'd would have been bred out very quickly as it virtually ensures you can't reproduce & it absolutely ensures you cannot reproduce as efficiently as straight people (if nothing else, you need to support multiple lovers so your breeding mate + your other mate can both eat). You've got to pick one of your lies, people. Something here isn't true because all of your stories can't be true, they exclude each other.
