@Corno di Bassetto I understood the idea that Judith Butler was deconstructing 'gender' using the ideas she borrowed from Foucault's History of Sexuality and Discipline and Punish. Gender is a fluid entity (it can take any form it pleases) and should not be subjected to societal classification. Foucalt used this idea to explain prisoners, metal patients and common patients in the hospitals. Butler concentrates only on gender. She borrows Foucault's ideas and applies it to Queer politics and Feminism. She questions all kinds of essentialism even the idea of 'being a woman' or 'being a man'. This video actually oversimplified the idea. Now I feel that it is a not that good. Yes, it introduces you to ideas like 'performative' (the way we behave is a social construct) but it gets very shallow. It does not go too deep into the other terms Butler used.
@Corno di Bassetto When I read it years ago I was uncomfortable with the structure of the book. She used a lot of random quotes from Foucault and I found it quite jarring.
@@denvorsden7903 I do think that the oversimplification helps those who are interested, but are having a hard time understanding the text, to slowly absorb the presented concepts and ideas in the book.
There is one part I don't understand. Butler says that there is no distinction between sex and gender, and between being a man and being a woman. But clearly, we know that biologically men and women are different; there is scientific research on how we are built different, and how that affects us on one way or another. How does she implement this on her book?
If I have understood this correctly, she talks about that there are more factors than just two to determine the biological differences. We might think of it as just penis and vagina, reproductive organs, XX and XY, bone structure, brain chemistry, but what happens when one or more of these do not point to the same conclusion? The answer usually is that the person is forced to conform to the perception of their sex and if the person does not conform they are labeled as an outcast and shunned by society. One example is that if a baby is born with more than one kind of genitalia, or a mixture, they more often than not undergo surgery early on in order to "correct" it to comply with the binary set by society due to the fear that the child will be perceived as abnormal even though there might not be anything wrong with the child. Hope this helps.
@@tovae793 thats like an exceptionally small number of people with that kind of abnormality , all the other people are defined by their physical apperance. She goes to great lengths to justify her claim that sex is different from gender.
@@Aj-ch5kz the way your body is built has no impact on your personality and mannerisms past puberty. the idea that men and women are opposites, that theyre separate creatures, implies that theres an inherent collective difference; that women have collective personality characteristics, that men have the same, and that all men and women can be boiled down to these characteristics. the concept of gender has expanded past sex
@@seandoesnpcshit Although people do it every day, lying is wrong. I won't play pronoun games. Men are born with penises and girls are born with vaginas, no one is a THEY. A state ID doesn't nullify biology - nor does it nullify our 1st amendment.
@@sophie20015 Literally their entire Gender Trouble thesis is about how gender is performance, and if their gender performance involves using a singular they, which has existed in the history English grammar for much longer than your life, then I, for one, shall respect that.
Tune in next month to find out how Judith feels so you don’t have any thoughts about her using the wrong pronoun. Thinking the wrong pronoun is violence ya know? In fact, maybe check in twice a day to see which alternate personality is in the drivers seat.
@@MiddlePath33I wonder if Wikipedia would be able to keep up with several pronoun changes if that were to happen. If ol’ Judy were to go from they/them on Monday, he/him on Tuesday, etc, ending with cos/tan on Sunday. Could be a fascinating way to watch everyone get canceled for misgendering.
There was a discussion within one of her tomes regarding the Freudian Concept of the Oedipus Complex ... Hence the "incest taboo" - not defending it, but DISCUSSING it. TERFs have, of course, used this to attack them, and as most of us have little ability to read the tomes, let alone understand them, we will just accept what they weaponise within their writing
So, if I understand well, if I have a male body, but I behave in a "feminine way" (it should be defined), I have a female gender? Then gender is based on stereotypes of what is a "feminine behavior". But this contradict the gender studies that says that gender is based not on external appearances or behavior, but on inner feelings (I identify myself as a woman, whatever this means). To me, all this theory does not make sense and/or is tautological. Also, that human beings have part of their identity disconnected from nature ("social construct") is more a matter of belief than science.
I thought I just didn't get it for a while until I met others who also came to that same conclusion. With Ms Butler, incoherence is a feature, not a bug.
You're on the money here, actually! Butler argued against gender essentialism-- i.e., the idea that our gender is an essence located in our heart, body, mind or soul. Butler instead sees gender as an entirely social phenomenon. Those are two conflicting ideas. But Butler has never ascribed to gender essentialism, so it's not a contradiction. Those are just two opposing theories on gender. Most branches of philosophy have different schools. Consider quantitative vs qualitative utilitarianism, for instance.
For me, you raise good questions. But (and isn’t there always a but), you position faith and science as a duality. Humanities is clearly part of the Arts, along with faith and religion, in an arts and sciences dichotomy. It doesn’t mean you can’t use the scientific method in the humanities (less so for faith!). But, you would expect, as a Humanities text, for Gender Trouble to draw on ontological methodologies as well. I was a humanities student in 1990 and remember the difficulties in gender definitions being a frustration. Gender ontologies just kept breaking down, so questions on the assumptions being made seemed to be a better path to understanding. It’s definitely been a more fruitful method of inquiry.
seeing so many ignorant people in the comment section actually saddens me a lot. no one is talking about the biology of a person here. there are two sexes (three if you count intersex people). Gender has to do with societal roles , it has nothing to do with out biology. Just search the different gender-systems that a lot of civilizations have built. the 2 gender spectrum is strongly connected to the europeanisation of the world(that was a result of the commercial revolution). Female and Male are both gender identities constucted by society and that's why there are different obligations sorted to each gender by each society. every society perceives the female and male as somethoing completely different and gives it different meanings (excuse my mistakes im no native english speaker)
Problem with that is, what's the point of the categories of men and women, now that all they are are socially constructed roles designed to put people in boxes? In fact, defined this way, the categories of men and women are deeply sexist.
butler is saying biology have no impact on men/women behavior, and it's just not true. She is thinking sexe and physical differnes between mens and womens have 0 impact on how mens and womens act. it's outdated.
@@JDG-hq8gy and if gender is just a social construct, why peoples feel the need to change gender. if it's just a social construct why it is important to accept the fact that a men become a women and switch between things who don't exist for performing something who is not grounded in biology in any way.
@@davidjeanmichel8358 money is just a social construct as well. a piece of paper or a metal coin with a face stamped onto it has no inherent value, but we a society ascribe value onto it as a currency. if money is "just" a social construct, then why do we care who's rich, who's poor, who has a salary, and all the other financial-related things that we care about? The answer is because everyone else in society cares. This is the same with gender, because so many people put such a heavy emphasis on gender, of course it matters, even if biologically or logically it has little to do with anything.
Judith Butler was non conforming and then decided that nobody was. Seems like wishful thinking. I’ve seen this kind of wishful thinking many times. Lots of men who are attracted to men wanting someone they’re attracted to to be attracted to them that they decide they must not be straight. They literally can’t believe anyone is straight, but especially the object of their affection. Same situation that someone like Butler literally believes that all women are “performing” womanhood. Back in the 90s this was all just very out their theory and we all knew it as such, even as we were forced to learn it at universities. Now it’s taken as fact. Weird times.
Interesting how you seem to skip over the central essay of the book which is entirely devoted to the supposed damages to children the prohibition of incest brings with it. Given that queer theory all the way through from Foucault to Butler has an obssession with Freud's "Oedipus Complex" and the "Incest Taboo" its quite a significant ommission to make.
Yes, you are right that the Incest Taboo plays an important role in Butler's argument derivation about how gender is constructed. But damn, your phrasing is just plain weird. "Supposed damages to children the prohibition of incest brings with it" If you care about truthful and correct summaries so much, try to write your own pieces of dramatized upsets contextualized and correct.
Not really particularly interested in truthfully summarizing anybody defending the sexual abuse of children and claiming that prohibiting it is the issue thank you. It is up to the disciples of this crank to do that and do it honestly.@@summinguyen2707
This video is a very bad summary. It adds so much to the text she hasn’t said. Or not in the way this video presents. The video is also not critical at all. Just praising her work. Seems like one activist is speaking about another activist.
It’s like “I don’t see color” but for the LGBT. The danger of these views is dismissing the experience and struggle of the most marginalized groups like lesbians, gays, and transbinary, in favor of more privileged groups who many are LGBT appropriators thanks to Judith philosophy of diluting labels that refer to struggling marginalized groups on one hand, and letting the self-identifying machine works itself to create this current chaos within the LGBT communities. Queer doesn’t mean anything anymore.
I still don't get it. How is sex socially constructed? I mean one can say whatever one wants as to sexuality and gender. But can one be as much of a science-denier as to say that sex is socially constructed? One's sex is determined by the genitalia. To say that sex is a social construct would inevitably imply that genitalia are also a social construct. Is something wrong with my understanding? I am utterly clueless. I ask this question in good faith. As a first, I just want to understand this concept. Agreeing/disagreeing would be the next step.
Sex is biological, gender is how one identifies. Butler argues that GENDER is socially constructed! :) hope that helps! I found this online and it better explains it! " Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. ... Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people"
@@theflowerpowerhour8099 For fear of being called out, I hate to say that Butler has overstepped a bit and called basic scientific facts into question. Or probably, Butler has arrived on a conclusion to prove that they are not facts at all. Anyways, they have lost me on this one.
@@millsahl9799 I don't think she is denying biological sex. Gender does not equal sex. Someone who is a female not necessarily is also a woman. Do you understand what is a social construct? If you understand what is a social construct then you'll understand what Butler is talking about. I trust science too, and I have taken introductory biology courses. Before making the claim that Butler does not understand basic scientific facts maybe you should try to understand what she is really saying. In order to learn something new, we all need to let go of some of our pre-existing assumptions about the world.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler - Albert Einstein. Yes, culture and traditions change from generation to generation - but as human beeings we are the result of biological evolution AND education. Both. IMHO
Because transgender people exist, and dozens of them are hatefully murdered every year in the US. The ones who are not murdered still face discrimination unthinkable to cis people. The existence of trans people has pretty much already proven Butler's theory. Anyone who's not living under a rock and google trans people's testimonies about their lives. At this point, denying that gender is a social construct (disclaimer: this does NOT mean gender somehow ''isn't real'') is *consequentially* the same as denying trans people's experiences and their rights to exist/pursue happiness. Here's an analog: today, to deny that race is a social construct is to imply that race is somehow essential, which consequentially leads to racism and genocide. We've decided that racism and genocides are no good, so no more race essentialism today. In order to build a tolerant society, you cannot tolerate intolerance. We can't have gender equality if misogyny is still a ''cool'' thing. We can't eliminate homophobia if we don't put an end to homophobic portrayals of homosexuals. I'm sorry, but this is just an unfortunate fact.
@@hannijazz3276 you just defend the fact that it should be a religion that dismisses any doubts as hate speech lmao. it's crazy. For me the real solution for transgenders peoples is a cure of testosterone for mens and of oestrogens for womens, for helping them to accept what they are. a human who is born men will not pass as a women, even a trans who have a really good until 35 years so after 35 year he will be a trans for all the rest of he's life and peoples will see he as a trans and not as a women. when a girl is anoerxic and think she is fat, you don't give her appetite supressant pills no ? and race and genders are absolutely not the same thing because gender have a real biological base, like testosterone who make mens more aggressiv and give them a big sexual drive. in nature you can see a lot of primates and mamals where the male is the dominant, and for arachnids it's the invert, it's the female who is dominant. the evolution play a big in our behavior, if the female is weaker and the male stronger for mamals it's because when the female is pregnant she is weaker and she need someone who is in capacity to feed her a lot (because he need to feed the baby in he's belly) and to feed himself aswell. so if the male feel like a male and the female feel like a female for more than 95% of case for peoples in society it's drived by thing who are bigger than us and what you think or do will never change that in a way who is good for peoples, it will just create a lot of lost peoples. You can see a lot of detransitioner who transition very young because of gender ideologi, gender dysphoria or just a crisis of identity... and for teenagers it's normal to try to be "unique" and to question everything, so all this ideology have a big impact on them, especially young whites womens who are the peoples in socety who are the less proud of their race and who have the biggest identity crisis in society.
According to wikipedia the article in which they said they had started using they pronouns was released 4 days before this video was published. Even my copy of Gender Trouble has she pronouns in regards to Butler, and I just bought it a few weeks ago.
Yes, just because you are gay or trans doesn’t mean you’re automatically an activist or anything that’s viewed positively (leftism, etc) conservative LGBT people and even homophobic/transphobic LGBT people exist
@Tina Hochstetler , she believes that she is a man, of course she will never be one, hence the interest in changing the social structure to fit her twisted, insane fantasies.
Trans men contain/have testosterone and research has been shown that trans men have the same bone density, muscle strength, and even prostate cells. MRIs have shown trans women have more female brains than male.
@@seandoesnpcshit 1. You provided no citations. 2. Do trains men have the same amount of testosterone (WITHOUT supplementation) as real, actual men? 3. WHICH bones and muscles; after what experiences; and, in comparison to WHAT actual, real males? 4. Real, actual males have breast-tissue; but, that doesn't mean that we have real, actual breasts; just as having some "prostate cells" isn't even CLOSE-TO having a prostate gland. 5. What are "female brains"? Bonus: Are you, or are you not, aware that what you've posted is just JUNK PROPAGANDA? 😏🤪
The problem is that she breaks the human being. By separating sex from gender, it fragments human interiority. For an idea, not for reality itself. That is a huge mistake.
Individual choice or imposed by society? Which is it? It can't be both. Butler was by no means the first to question gender or sexuality. She came from a privileged background and, for her, most things were a choice. Speak to the young lesbians who were trafficked or who are homeless living on the streets. They chose nothing.
I think it's fair to say that "normal" and "abnormal" labels refer to the biological function of sexuality, not the preference. Sexuality has a purpose and that is procreation. If the type of sexuality does not have the potential to produce offspring, it is outside of the norm. The production and rearing of offspring may become more accessible through third parties and other additional means, but objectively, the original purpose only happens one way.
hmmm, but people often have romantic feelings towards people of the gender they may be sexually attracted to and you don't need an emotional attachment to produce offspring, therefore I think it stands to reason that same gender romantic love should be viewed as normal since neither heteroromanticism nor homoromanticism have a biological function, however it is not viewed as such.
@@toastghost2448 the point of the attraction is to produce offspring. In nature, I believe it is this way. Evolutionary theory even points out that certain traits are passed down when seen more useful (attractive) and the sexual reproduction produces offspring. That offspring thrives. An emotional feeling can change and also can be affected by external realities. People are attracted to all sorts of people and things, both sexually and otherwise. That doesn't make it normal. That makes it a real attraction, but not necessarily normal. People are attracted to bad behavior, does that make that normal? Of course not. At least society hasn't decided to accept bad behavior as normal yet. Even if society does, it doesn't make it right. Do you think the LGBT community wants normalization because they want agreement more so than a desire for recognition? You just can't make everyone agree with you. No one can.
You're doing this better then most of us. You're not attacking anyone and you're taking an ethical position based on principles. People can counter your argument, with a better argument. But not by attacking you. Unfortunately, many people on all sides of these debates don't do this and start hurling insults and stop listening to others.
She and others like her. Listen to James Lindsay's New Discourses here on youtube to get a rough overview. I don't think all his conclusions hit the mark. But his material is still valuable to understand the academic theory behind the craziness. These people should have been stopped. Now stopping their ideological descendants will be much harder.
2:46 - Why do we label ourselves as straight or gay? We don't. We act like a certain way and then we put language on the acting that comes closes to the acting. If i walk at night in dark alley and see a stranger approaching my body wants to know the sex in a split second. Is it potential mate or a threat? Same when i enter a bar. I don't wanna find out in the bedroom what my sexual options are ;-) 2:58 How can questioning these labels change society? It can help. Because it would be better if everybody could live full lives. But when hurt is done to the truth it become contraproductive. So claiming that there is no objective connection between biology and gender creates policies and laws that are subjective. Where subjectivity gains ground ultimatly minorities will loose ground as a long term result. Also presenting an alternative reality makes kids naive and extra vulnerable and bitter adults. 4:06 Where do these "labels of normal" come from and what makes them so strong? These labels have a commonallity the world over and though history so they must have a deeper reason. Nurture is also a part of nature and and the other way around so it really doesn't matter what the reason is. 4:15 Is there a link between being a man and being masculine and why is there a link? Yes, there is a link. Read everything except gender theories and it all points in the direction of a link. Second part: people use labels to create a simple structures instead of a complex ones so they can get to their goals instead of questioning everything around them that is of no interest. People don't like unpredictable things. That's human nature. 4:32 Why should it be normal for men to be attracked to women? Because that's the fabric of life. No reproduction is no life. It's normal because reality is overwhelming so turns out this way for all creatures. Now i have some questions? ------------------------------------------- Why should we completely change culture for minorities? Why can't you just fight for equal rights without these theories that have no evidence and support from the majority? Why is biology and much is known about human behaviour excluded from Butler's analysis? Such as the strong urge for predictable behaviour? Why should men be attracted to men? Why do i only hear about her life and questions she asks but no substance (excpet for very short segment about performance) Why is her work so difficult to read and only readable for poeple who know the language? (ever person is known with the concepts of this theme already) Why has this "act" not changed much over time if it is only an act? (There are no culture known where women give birth hand it to their man and go off to hunt) Why has social studies become so political that complete nonsense has become the norm? Did stopping the gladiator specticals make men less violent?
@cooper smth Funny that for you the label 'biologist' is suddenly important. Nonsense to me is when everything know points the other direction regardless of somebodies label. Being part of a university is not an advantage these days. Everybody who thinks only nuture plays a part is foolish.
Spot on. Its easy for Butler to question everything as being just a social construct, but she doesnt engage with the overwhelming empirical evidence that so many things arise from nature, or from a combination of nature and society/tradition. Most teenagers go through a stage where they question everything about society, but its a sign of maturity to stop asserting that that reality/society is a fraud and to instead engage with the categories given to us by nature.
@@joekeegan937 Nature gave you gender expression and the oppressive form it takes in our society? You need to question to understand, not just "accept nature". That is agreeing with the social inequalities and oppressions that take form in our society.
I wish you wouldn't concern yourself with such nonsense. Surely, there are more pressing matters for you to think about? Judith is female, and we live in a world where most people use female pronouns for female people. If she doesn't like it, she'll just have to get over it. Someone who's secure in themselves doesn't need to be validated by other people. And someone who has their priorities straight doesn't worry about other people not being validated by complete strangers.
Performativity - we perform and behave as per the standards or expectations, boys in masculine manners, girls in feminine manners. This is why gender is performed
If gender is performed, then how does that square with the gender ideologues' assertion that some people are born with a gender identity that doesn't match their sex? Is gender a performance or a feeling?
Research by Prof Simon Baron Cohen on babies 24 hours after birth show different behaviour for male and fenales. Hidden cameras with no adults present show female s gaze at container type toys and hunan ifacial images. Male zgaze at wheeled toys and other objects.
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559 why not both? gender performance can be anything, such as drag performers or crossdressing individuals, whereas gender as a feeling is just that: a feeling. these two ideas are not mutually exclusive, imo
“Why should it be considered normal for men to be attracted to women rather than to men?” For the same reason it’s ‘normal’ for male rats (say) to be attracted to female rats rather than other males. Obviously.
"Gender Trouble argues that people must rethink the most basic categories of human identity to make society better." This woman has taken a wrecking ball to society with her theories. She is a spectacularly shining example of 'it takes a university degree to be that stupid.'
If we deny physical reality are we then obliged to validating and accepting each and every form of perversion as "ok"? This definitely changes our perception of "normal", and quickly, doesn't it? Reality check please!
Physical reality would say that sex is a spectrum, not some binary of polar opposites like a lot of people believe. Also what do you mean by "perversion"
@@georgewbush9326 No sex is not a spectrum. 99.7% of all humans are either biologically male or female. 0.3% of humans are intersex, i.e. are neither biologically male or female, and they are not identically of the same sex, but have people with all sorts of genetic transgressions due to imperfect genetic imprinting. That's not a spectrum. A spectrum is when all possibilities are equally likely, or have a substantially high chance of being likely.
@@georgewbush9326 sex is just binary 98,3% of time... some exception come from gender dysphoria or genetics problems, like a girl who is born with a malformation on her vagina and have a malformed micropenis, peoples like this are 1,7% of the population... with the same logic i can say that having two hands and five fingers on each is not the norm for humanity because you can see some peoples with 2 hands but who have more fingers, some with two hands and less fingers, some with fingers who are stuck together, etc and etc... Butlerism it's just rhetoric at this point, it's not grounded in reality
@@aman26452 Yeah it's like thinking that a heads tail dichotomy doesn't exist cos there's some coins where that distinction isn't evident due to a blemish
OMG, really? How about this, If you don't have traditional categories (Male/Female) the survival of the human species is in jeopardy. I have yet to see two men or two women procreate. Do you really think people were pondering this big question 2000 years ago or even 50 years ago as we struggle to survive? You are welcome to love whomever you wish but don't try to claim abnormal behavior is somehow normal - given there is no escaping that human extinction would otherwise hang in the balance - if not for the relatively recent medical interventions which permit insemination. For me the jury is out in terms of the need to focus on "gender and its social construction" at all. You can confuse biological determinism (male/female) with a social performance spectrum (masculine/feminine) but they are profoundly different. You simply can't ignore our natural biology, human genetics and the brain. You can be the feminine man but it doesnt make you a women; however this is the perversions of Butler's work. I also simply don't buy being born with a blank slate for a brain that is shaped by society - there are far deeper aspects of human genetics which we frankly don't understand that contribute and are the foundation for our traits and characteristics. All said, lets give the doctor credit for creating confusion and hopefully she can be held to account for her pied piper like contribution which draws young girls towards blockers, hormones and having surgeries only to discover - it might all be a mistake - their profound problems are not rooted in gender/sex confusion.
I'm all for a class action lawsuit against this woman and others like her for the harms they have done to society as a whole, and countless individuals.
@@tinahochstetler2189 I agree that litigation will eventually put a stop to adolescent mutilation. The problem is not entirely her making and she might actually be onside with you (Note: "they" is what Butler prefers as a pronoun but it creates such a mess in this response I will stick with "her/she" and suffer the consequences). I am not a proponent of gender theory in terms of it having much redeeming societal value; HOWEVER, Butler deserves some level of recognition for her work which should "pump the brakes" on the pediatric trans-agenda and efforts to seduce children into dysphoria and the destructive pathway that can culminate in surgery. This is the thing that alarms most parents. Butler tends to rail against gender norms and takes her typical shots at the "power structures of maleness", as you might expect from the feminist lesbian perspective. Her essay "Doing Justice to Someone: Sex reassignment and allegories of transsexuality" is, in my humble opinion, her most important work AND it should be read widely. In this work she parks momentarily her more radical views. This essay provides a bit of wisdom as it reviews the failure of the pediatricians and psychiatrists who created a human "John/Joan experiment" that failed miserably - the premature death (by suicide) of the subject (David Riemer) as he led a tormented life seemingly because health professional that sought to invoke their superiority for what is best for a child to achieve "being normal" without appreciating fully there may be some other deterministic forces at play. I would add these failures should also account for the destruction of a second life - “the control group”, John/Joan’s brother. Another child/adolescent who also got enveloped in a freakish gender experimentation. The value of Butler's work is the revelation for waiting as opposed to "imposing" a particular medical course of action (highly relevant when it comes to medical decisions to "correcting the intersex" at birth). Her narrative appears to paint a picture that waiting for the individual to truly mature and arrive at their "normal" may just be the best course of action. Now, what does mature mean? I sense that will need a chronological age to decide "when is maturity achieved". Butler doesnt go there but to me it seems the age of 18 is a minimum for most decisions; however, 21 and 25 are an age at which you might be able to truly comprehend making irrevocable changes to your body that one might not fathom otherwise. In recounting the failures of the pediatricians, endocrinologist and psychiatrists in the case of this experiment she seems to suggest "watchful waiting": "I do not know how to judge that question here (transition SEX/GENDER or not), and I am not sure it can be mine to judge. Does justice demand that I decide? Or does justice demand that I wait to decide, that I practice a certain deferral in the face of a situation in which too many have rushed to judgment? " I take from this: judgement (or the decision) should rest with the individual and action should only be considered when an individual is mature enough to make the decision (as in adulthood). A child no matter how dysphoric should not make decisions with life altering consequences. Butler's work isnt a complete contradiction to the destructive pathway of pediatric affirmative care BUT is does point waiting for maturity to kick in.
What was it Socrates told his judges? They asked him what punishment he thought he deserved. He said, "Free meals for life." Troublemaking is part of the long tradition of philosophy.
@@ryanl8530 This is false. Gender Theory is presented as truth, and debate can only exist within the G.T. habitat, because otherwise the debate would end immediatly after the start. There is a field were people actually study these topics, it's called "biology".
@@SiboWoW This is why social sciences should be made compulsory. People actually don't know that biology itself is rooted in the social sciences and can be discriminatory. Did you know, science, genetics were the "rational explanations" given to justify racism and sexism. According to biology, intersex or hermophodite shouldnt exist as they don't fit the biological binary. Biology doesnt explain transgenderism and existence of LGBTQIA+. I can go on and on.
Everything you know about trans theory is from this book. Everyone else quotes her. So every time they say there are numerous studies there are not. It's just that that book and a lot of people quoting it
