Rationality Rules made a video skeptical of the trans thing. The execrable Matt Dillahunty threatened to excommunicate RR from his circle. Whereupon RR completely renounced his prior trans skepticism. That’s exactly how it happened. I watched it happen on RR’s own videos. He is not rational, and he does not rule. He’s a huckster

@he1ar1

4 ай бұрын

He is not an academic, he has never been to university. He is completely self taught. And he has answered this point before. When it comes to philosophy the things which he is 100% certain on can be countered on 1 finger. He has changed his mind on several things. He is open about that. Dawkins and a lot of the atheist movement of the early 2000s didn't take philosophy seriously. And many in that movement have taken philosophical positions without knowing what they have dismissed. These things are "anti-science''. We are paying the price. Science has had the attitude that it doesn't need philosophy. Dawkins is a clear case that demonstrates the necessity for science to have philosophy embedded within it.

@JesseTate

2 ай бұрын

​@@he1ar1 While I agree he lacks coherence (and possibly some degree of courage) when it comes to specifically this issue, I wouldn't discount anyone due simply to a lack of education. Many of the greatest minds in history were self-taught. Especially with the internet (INSANE) and with the university system as it is today, I'd say independent learning is actually more likely to produce true thinkers. Historically a lot of education was just reading and writing--and this was restricted to the elites and the well-connected due to the rarity of things like libraries, printing presses, general literacy, leisure time, and so on. Much better to simply engage with the ideas themselves. But yes, when comparing (say) Alex O'Connor and Stephen, I find Alex much more earnest, academically rigorous, and ambitious with his intellectual aims. They are diverging quite drastically nowadays and you could say Alex has benefitted from a more well-connected or 'traditional' education. But it's certainly not the only factor, and I'd chalk it up much more to an innate personality thing than the simple fact Alex went to Oxford. I agree Dawkins and a lot of the atheist movement weren't truly about philosophy--though I don't know if Dawkins and Hitchens ever pretended to be. I think they engaged with the elements of religion which presented themselves most appallingly in THEIR specific fields (Dawkins as a biologist, Hitchens as a sort of journalist/culture critic, and so on). Harris and Dennett were much better at engaging with philosophy but again, I don't think they saw much of a need when the mainstream religious community is defined much more by fundamentalism and much less by abstract, academic, or philosophical thought. Like look at a Kierkegaardian or Kantian or Petersonian focus: you'll find concern for things like the human psyche, the transcendent ideal, the perceptual substrate, and other bizarre, more 'philosophical' notions. This is just not the sort of thing that concerns the atheists too much. What concerns them is that fundamentalists latch onto these messages without understanding that they are incompatible with fundamentalism. I DO think that Peterson will only become more relevant as we see the consequences of unidimensional skepticism and deconstructionism continue to unfurl. When speaking of their concerns about the culture, or of the need for meaning and identity, people like Dawkins or Harris (Alex O'Connor as well) have already begun to use langauge which slides much more towards Peterson. I don't know if Dawkins hasn't felt we 'needed' philosophy until now, I rather think he's concerned with his arena of interest (biology) and then, to some growing degree, the culture at large. When analyzing the culture at large, he sees a grave danger posed by fundamentalism and scientific wrongheadedness. I think he sees LESS of a danger posed by the philosophically-minded of the world--or less of a need to go down to those abstract layers and build everything back up from fundamental particles. We shall see if his concerns are rightly aimed, but no one can aim everywhere at once. I myself, with my sort of brain, feel society is threatened much more along the lines of what Peterson has been saying: things like narrative, story, perceptual framework, consciousness, fulfillment, and so on. And I find those personally more meaningful as well.

To be fair, people have never been open to dispassionate and reasonable discourse about controversial subjects. Or anything at all really. Most of us are highly partisan and will protect the tribe at any cost. Throughout history there have been rare and valuable enclaves where the few were willing and able to address controversy without picking up spears or guns to win the argument but rather genuinely pursue the truth until they had it cornered and undeniable.

Solid video. Reasonable analysis---something oddly rare nowadays.

Great video. Recommendation: Switch to a dynamic mic. Your mic is too sensitive because it is a condensor mic. Those are fine when you are in a sound-treated studio. Condesnor mics will pick up everything around you. Dynamic mics block out background noise. Your message will come through more clearly if you use a dynamic mic instead. Please consider it.

@JesseTate

4 ай бұрын

Thanks Derrick, Great recommendation. I've actually just been looking into that. Do you have any advice? I had been traveling a ton and filmed this in a very makeshift hotel room in Bali. Nowadays I'm more stable, I have a soundproofed closet, a boom arm, and all that, and things are sounding much better. I've been doing some voiceover work and really like the sensitivity of the mic for some things; but it always picks up some background hum no matter how hard I try to eliminate it. It's usually pretty easy to clean up in editing but I lose a bit of the richness or resonance of my voice. So I'm looking for tips and tricks.

Its interesting because i never realized that people that advocate for trans concepts and definitions believe the fact women are physically and biologically women is an offensive concept. Im honestly at a loss at what they think a woman actually is, and then theyll do things like this where they point and laugh and criticize when theyre advocating for the destruction of women as a concept, they dont seem to correlate womens rights as valuable because they value cis men claiming they can be women more. But it all throws me off because it seems so obvious that this is not feminism yet they have this disturbed belief that its the opposite, which is both more stupid and more scary than if they just said "eh screw women, theyre all labels anyone can wear". Hearing them say that makes it seem like they are doing the reverse and wanting to stereotype feminine traits as your methodology of defining yourself as a woman which will only lead to endangering actual women who will just be on quite a literal level replaced by men and made more vulnerable by those exploiting this system.

@coletrainhetrick

5 ай бұрын

@ImAmirus yeesh. It's also painfully obvious you just refuse to pay attention. The fact this entire discussion never once mentions God as some moral reason against trans and that we do point out that intersection are anomalies says a lot about how unwilling you are to have a real discussion. It's not crying about it when saying intersex is called what it is which is an anomaly. I guess you can argue it just as much as you can argue it's somehow normal for people to be normalized as having three arms or become sexually predisposed to become pedophilic when they grow up. But of course you'll ignore all this because you are actively ignoring literally everything being said because you'd rather make flimsy claims that were already countered.

@coletrainhetrick

5 ай бұрын

@ImAmirus also, I just had another realization. If you believe there are "four genders" due to intersex people existing, this STILL does not advocate for trans. Because having the sex organs of both genders doesn't suddenly excuse cis males and cis females to suddenly be freely allowed to change their genders. So do you believe the fact intersex people can exist also requires to be disregarded, or would you rather scrap the entire notion and concept of gender and sex all together because this concept also discriminates intersex people's existence.

@rossthomas7886

5 ай бұрын

It seems bizarre that a biologist would choose to ignore people with all manner of chromosomal or hormonal variations. Hermaphroditism should be known to a biologist. So when he starts from “Everyone is clearly male or female, end of discussion” he’s already making a simplistic, factually wrong assertion to fit his reactionary political viewpoint ( which he disguises as science).

@coletrainhetrick

5 ай бұрын

@rossthomas7886 but he's not. It's not being disregarded no more than it is to claim people are born with two arms and two legs. Deviations are just that, anomalies that don't represent the overarching truth. An intersex person is merely just a man/woman that was mutated to include the opposite genders sex organs, nothing more. To use this as a crutch to advocate anything is honestly just being purposefully elusive to the fact you don't have any actual sound arguments for what is being said.

@coletrainhetrick

5 ай бұрын

​​@@ImAmirus how about instead of poisoning the well, actually give a real argument. Because no one needs to bring up intersex, which is a mutation, in basic common sense discussion no more than I need to elaborate when I declare men and women are born with two arms and two legs that there are exceptions based on genetic mutation anomalies.

Awesome video, great channel, discovered your channel today under my guilty pleasure about watching humans ripping Rings of Power apart, i cannot wait for the content and entertainment season 2 will provide me, i can only hope for it to be worst, i am passed being offended and now its like watching “The Room”. Its like watching something made by scientists to see what -1 on the scale of talent would be like in our reality…. So weird Anyway, about the last 1.5hrs …. Your are clear, understandable, coherent, brings up real basic points that people cannot refute or just attack a strawman or more often just personal attack are the first reflexes…. Yhea i got the luck to read your comment section and it is so sad to see 2 people you watched for years get struck by cognitive dissonance that hard and not seeing it is crushing, i was a big fan of those guys too, just hard to take them seriously now. You took the time to be precise and open minded. Never expressed anything other than your opinion on the subject with a call to discussion and still you get attacked like if you were an heretic and people still don’t see the parallels with religion. Extremism from any side is bad, everyone used to be on agreement on that, but now if you want a debate and not agree with the groupthink agreements you are excommunicated… the bubble of censorship have to burst, its affecting the capacity of doing actual meaningful work and changes in so many fields now it is unsustainable. English is my second language, i never voted, i live in the woods in a french speaking province in the most progressive country in the world, i let you guess. And people call me a political far right person since i didn’t support people burning the cities while the rest of us were locked inside our homes. At least we got truckers who don’t care about being “fashionable” Rational thinking and logic are tools we should use for all our decisions and seeing something like asking a question of what a woman is being so powerful is so weird to witness. Two rational guys making mental gymnastics about justifying a circular and contradictory argument, or again, personal attacks.. sad Anyway, not sure if that make sense, long comment, very late, again second language, but you got great videos

@JesseTate

2 ай бұрын

Hey, I really appreciate the thoughtful comment! I am actually now enjoying Canada, visiting some friends near Ottawa. I guess not quite into the French-speaking region yet, but on the border. The nature here is beautiful and the people very friendly--but I'm in a small small town and yes, even here (where you'd expect to find more conservatives) there are a lot of progressive views I consider extreme. The truckers was shocking to me, truly. I don't consider myself aligned with any political party nowadays. My family has always been republican but for me the party is going too extreme and hysterical in many regards, especially with recent stuff on Trump and Putin. Still not as bad as Canada or Australia though! Hah I hope things do get better. Don't worry about your English, it is fantastic as far as I can tell. I hope to learn French soon. It seems a fairly easy language to be honest (as I already speak a couple Latin languages). I'm trying to figure out where to go with the channel. The film reviews do much better than the philosophy videos I make from scratch, but film/TV isn't really my primary passion. I do enjoy the critiques, and they let me be a bit more humorous, but they aren't as fulfilling. I always hope to weave a "story" focus into my philosophy, because for me it's so fundamental to who we are; but I would hope to weave the film stuff together with philosophy, making a series of deeper and more free-flowing analyses like Just Write or Like Stories of Old. Great channels, check them out. Anyway, I try to be precise and humble and earnest in my thoughts. I do have stronger thoughts on several philosophical matters but I like to only present the arguments I've thought through "all the way down to the root," so to speak. I'm sure I still make mistakes. There was a bit of the script I cut but forgot to cut entirely, which another commenter pointed out. I should probably pin the comment so it doesn't seem like I'm trying to hide it. My comment too was somewhat rambly! Anyway I hope you're doing well, thanks for the engagement.

RR was looking smug today. At RD. Seriously? Do you know how many prices the guy has won? How many has he won? He is a youtuber. Dawkins a professor.

Great video! I’ve been interested in this discussion and I’m really having trouble seeing things from Dawkins side. But I appreciate you coming with a new perspective. Frankly I still don’t understand the difficulty in understanding that a person claiming to be a woman who was born male isn’t also claiming to be some wizard who can magically change their own biology. I believe they are only indicating that they prefer to live as a woman and would prefer that others respect that.

@coletrainhetrick

5 ай бұрын

The problem people have is that lines refuse to be drawn, you can say it's a matter of respect but it's not. You have people advocate having trans men enter women sports and kids being allowed to have gender reassignment surgery. The narrative has gotten disturbed and fundamentals such as the fact that people are devaluing men and women by typcasting feminine and masculine traits to them as mandatory is by definition anti feminism. There are several different problems people have with the entire thing and religion doesn't even get involved with those concerns.

@tinymcgoo1195

5 ай бұрын

"I believe they are only indicating that they prefer to live as a woman." Or man? It is somewhat telling with this devolves to trans women. In any case, there are likely some people (who would probably call themselves transvestites or drag queens/kings) who would prefer to live as the opposite sex. Transsexuals/Transgenders however look at their sexual organs and do not see those organs as matching who they are. The term trans is unfortunately because people think change, when really it means across or beyond. Trans people are not changing their actual sex. They are saying their parts don't match their sex. They see it as having the wrong parts for their sex. Gender is confusing because colloquially we use it interchangeably with sex. If you think about it this way, it might make a little more sense. A trans man has breasts and vagina (may or may not have the female gonads to go with it). They are raised as a girl and as some people *change* from presenting to the world as a woman and start presenting as a man. Where sex is them being male with breasts/vagina and gender is them presenting to the rest of society as a man. Google the trans man Jaimie Wilson and decide if you think you mistake that person for a female that just prefers to live as a man.

@coletrainhetrick

5 ай бұрын

@tinymcgoo1195 and this is the entire thing is silly. If a person thinks that they are the opposite gender... then what is the essence if the opposite gender. Is it to claim they need to act like the stereotypes of a feminine/masculine person associated with that gender? If that's the case that implies all men and women that don't act stereotypically feminine/masculine shouldn't be regarded as that gender. If you say have a cis male claiming they should be a trans woman but continue to behave entirely masculine... why are they claiming they are a female internally at that rate? And the reason it comes down to women is because women's rights are what need to be protected here, the men don't need to care if cis women claim to be men because the vast majority of the feminist movement already does that because they are trying to normalize women having masculine traits... the trans movement almost seemingly is attempting the opposite willfully ignorant to the notion that women suffer the most due to transgender concepts. So if a person thinks they are the opposite gender, what should be the limitations on what they should be and shouldn't be allowed to do in order to avoid exploitation and mental health degradation. These things aren't being defined and the movement is taking more extreme actions with people trying to voice concerns being regarded as bigots simply because they don't want to see loteral children have surgery or a cis man claiming all cis women athletic records.

@tinymcgoo1195

5 ай бұрын

@@coletrainhetrick They don't think they are the opposite gender. The are a gender and *you* think they are a gender different from the one they are.

@warmflash

4 ай бұрын

Get an MV7 Shure UBS microphone-you have great things to say but sound terrible.

This whole issue is getting old. Dawkins hasn't done anything wrong. He is not transphobic. He simply follows the science & wants precise language & definitions used. RR & FV have completely missed the point Dawkins was trying to make.

The dumb thing about arguing *against* trans by claiming language is important, is that in daily life nobody uses "man" or "woman" based on their observations of a person's chromosomes.

@coletrainhetrick

5 ай бұрын

Yes they do. Do you with a straight face when you see a person with a penis assume you do not know which gender they are unironically? There are physical differences between men and women caused by the biology of their sex, so yes, people do on a daily life do use the language. You are in a bubble that doesn't recognize it. And the bigger issue, what are you arguing for? That to be a woman you have to dress and look a certain way? If so why are you so anti feminist that you require men and women to behave and look a certain way in order to fit your criteria

@JesseTate

4 ай бұрын

I agree chromosomes are not the only factor. The words 'man' and 'woman' certainly don't correlate ONLY with chromosomes. Chromosomes do, however, correlate with a huge network of other traits which have occurred often enough (and functionally enough) to give rise to some overarching network we have recognized as being bimodal, with man and woman as the distinguishing terms. This is has been overwhelmingly functional, and it's therefore difficult to argue it's invalid. It has been selected for. We can propose to undo this if we wish; but we have to undo it with coherence and precision. We have to be able to explain what we are doing. We can also broaden or evolve the categories as we wish--perhaps we want to expand 'man' to include trans men, and 'woman' to include trans women. That's great, it's a discussion we should continue to have. There are loads of traits a trans woman will manifest or embody which correlate much more strongly with womanhood than manhood. We sholud acknowledge this--but again, we have to know what womanhood and manhood ARE. If we refuse to acknowledge the nature of certain traits (which are fixed, which are not, and why and how it matters) then discussions will descend into madness and impotence. Sorry, a very long and rambly response. I don't feel it's particularly clear. Basically I'm just saying yeah, we don't observe chromosomes but there are loads of other things we observe which help us perceive and discuss society in a meaningful way. If we deny this reality in an attempt to be inclusive or openminded, we will actually end up undermining our ability to change, undermining our ability to even distinguish what it is we're talking about. Imagine studying gender-based violence, or brain differences, or hormone treatments, without an ability to distinguish between the biological and sociological categories of sex and gender. This is a definite factor. I've been writing a sort of 'manifesto' on the trans issue and haven't been sure where to focus. For me personally a lot of the concern is the general landscape that surrounds these sorts of conversations. The approach we seem to favor, nowadays, seems incredibly unhealthy or counterproductive. As I mentioned early on in the video, I think we get bogged down in linguistic differences which preclude any sort of deeper or more productive conversation. Much of this is probably conscious. We have people of different ideologies and convictions who come to the discussion with very tribalistic, reactionary aims. They aren't trying to have a real conversation. They're not truly interested in challenging preconceptions and constructing a better world. They seem to be performing for themselves or for their tribe. So often due to social media, information overload, and many other factors (age-old human nature being one), people seem to outsource their virtue or conviction to these social headlines, groups, movements, whatever. It provides simplicity and structure, and as long as you stay in your tribe you get endless positive feedback. Then when you step out to confront the other side, you don't really make an attempt to understand. You simply dance around with these language games like "everyone knows a man can't be a woman! He has a penis! Lol!" or "men get periods too!" and nothing gets done whatsoever. So yeah, people use language in a variety of ways. When we say a word like man or woman, we are appealing to this vast network of shifting concepts, material realities, expectations, and so on. There's a shifting interplay between the individual and the collective, between historical precedent and evolving intent, and so on. We just need to be clear about what we're doing. Especially someone engaged in Dawkins' science needs to be clear about what they're doing. We can acknowledge that it's more nuanced than JUST chromosomes, JUST phenotype, JUST roles and expectations. We can insist that it's as complicated as we like. But it does have to mean SOMETHING. Even if it varies from context to context, it has to mean something coherent in each context. We should be able to pinpoint how and why we're using the words we're using. There's too much hysteria and virtue signalling to let this happen. That's what Dawkins is afraid of. So if he says "man" and means one thing, someone else needs to meet him where he's at to discuss the ACTUAL reality of their potential disagreement. If they freak out and simply start calling him bigoted, no progress is made.

@Sarahjanam

4 ай бұрын

@@JesseTate I appreciate the response. Dawkins isn't bigoted, but he's unrelentingly stubborn in such a disrespectful manner. Same with Jordan P. See I'm trans, and I can see Dawkins' point. Sure, but his point is flawed. No transwoman thinks we are actually the same as CIS women. That said we do live the life. We, as you say, have a lot more in common with cis women than men, and we have it in common not by choice, it is how we are born. To claim that we aren't women due to chromosomal biology neglects that we are women due to some other biological aspect, such as our ability to process or tolerate testosterone, or when our fetal bodies started creating testosterone. With Dawkins it is just worse because as an atheist he was kind of a hero to me. He'd claim that just because we don't understand something does not mean we should attribute it to God. Well here he is, just because we don't understand transgender biology, he denies it's biological existence.

@JesseTate

4 ай бұрын

​@@Sarahjanam Hmm it's possible you have a point. I guess I'd need to speak with Dawkins further. I'd need to hear him say much more drastic things to consider him stubborn or disrespectful. I definitely have my disagreements with his approach to the theism debate. Back when I was Christian I always felt he and Hitchens did a horrible job of understanding the religious arguments. Sam Harris is better and more philosophically astute, but just rejects all the convoluted symbolic metaphorical dancing people like JP or Jonathan Pageau (also JP lol) like to do. Harris just sticks to clear factual observations about well-being and the effectiveness of skepticism, etc. I personally find myth and religion and narrative incredibly interesting. Such a fundamental part of who we are and how we perceive. I think we need to understand and discuss this better, in order to build a better world and balance us out in this age of utter rationalism and deconstructionism. Perhaps because of this, or my natural inclination towards philosophy, I never really found Dawkins as compelling as Dennett or Harris when it came to the religion debate. When it comes to the trans debate however, I feel he falls victim in the same way religious thinkers fall victim to his simplification of their views. His concern is with language, with how to move civilization forward, with distinguishing between our various fields of activity. He feels we aren't able to have meaningful discussion due to endless hysteria and conflation of ideas. I think he's right, from my personal experience. I don't think he's denying the existence of trans biology, I think he's concerned the arguments are being idolized too much. You have lots of contradictory or even incoherent worldviews which are being thrust upon a population that hasn't had time to understand or discuss them. Don't you think? We could even look at your suggestion that there's a root biological aspect to transhood. This must obviously be the case. But gender ideology in many forms runs counter to this, doesn't it? Isn't the claim by many that the roles and expectations are the ONLY cause, and are indeed extremely fluid? Doesn't your view end up clashing with views that advocate gender abolition or self-id? Doesn't the idea of womanhood become almost impossible to value or respect? Maybe gender abolition is truly the best path. We will become so nuanced that every dimension of every role, every desire, every performance, every mutation, every hormone, every phenotype, every perception individual and collective . . . . it will all be understood and valued where it is relevant, and dismissed where it is not. Important traits will come to be respected as important facets of identity, while unimportant traits will be utterly dismissed. This might be a world of maximal respect and freedom and meaning. But don't things still just cycle or revert right back then, to Dawkins' field of biology which he must continue to perform? And that's leaving behind the few who actually believe sex is a construct or illustion of some sort. I know that sort of nonsense doesn't represent the population at ALL, but I do sense it growing--especially in the younger and non-binary crowds. I've met a worrying number of young women recently (late teens or early twenties) who feel that their physical weakness compared to men is literally and directly a product of social psychology. I think we risk disheartening or degrading an entire generation of young minds. We risk obfuscating the true boundaries between biology and sociology--and when we do this we aren blinding ourselves to the true boundaries of what is and isn't possible, what is and isn't valuable/important, what ought and ought not be considered a factor in identity, and so on. Does that make sense?

@JesseTate

4 ай бұрын

@@Sarahjanam I'm sorry I might be rambling incoherently. I worked all day and now it's 9 PM and I haven't eaten anything 😆 I can't tell if I'm making sense or not. I also feel like I'm needlessly convoluted in my writing.

Good video, i did watch the original video. I like both of those guys but did not like thier analysis. I see them as a product of postmodernism, where nothing really has intrinsic meaning other than what any particular individual assigns to something with further taking it to the extreme that others, when dealing with that one individual, must treat that meaning as if it is not only true but greater than amy popular vernacular of meaning which disagrees with it. Now, Steven always says words have usages and not meanings and this is the crux of his problem. Especially in hard science it only makes sense that terms should in fact have meanings.

You should consider what you are saying about genotypes and phenotypes and gametes. You said genotype determines which gametes the being produces. You also mutations can result in features that reverse the genotype. You may want to shy away from making statements if you don't really understand what you are saying. Reproduction in humans relies on a sperm fusing with an egg. The sperm is produced by someone with male gonads. The egg is produced by someone with female gonads. The individual person creating those gametes have those gonads. If the gonads are the determining factor for the sex of the individual, then your statement about genotypes is incorrect as there have been examples of XY genotypes that produce large gametes, meaning they have female gonads and did not have male gonads. We add to this people that either do not have gonads or do not have fully formed gonads that are able to produce gametes. With no gametes, no sex right? So we have examples where genotype does not clearly define sex and instances where phenotypes do not clearly define sex. Yes, pretty much everyone will agree that typically things work the way your elementary school XX and XY education says. However, trans people are a small part of the population and are a part of a slightly larger population of people who've for some developmental reason, do not have a clear sex distinction. People like to argue, "DSDs are rare. Yes we can agree. And trans being a variation of sex development is rare as well. There is a whole lot of hullabaloo over such a small percentage of the population.

@hokiturmix

4 ай бұрын

All I understand about this topic that whatever makes you happy until you become a mass murderer or something.

@JesseTate

4 ай бұрын

I'd be curious to see a timestamp. I do remember some point in the video where I said something like there are certain mutations which cause the genotype to be 'reversed' in the phenotype. Something like that. I don't remember. I knew it was a bit of a wonky wording at the time but I thought my meaning was clear. Phenotype doesn't always line up with genotype. What do we mean by that? We mean there's a NORM the genotype produces (men look like men, women look like women) which is then at certain times contradicted. All of that doesn't really touch much on my argument, though. As I said I'm not too concerned with the biological department. That's Dawkins' department. I'm concerned even HE doesn't feel able to discuss it in a meaningful or effective way. Whever we're aiming as a society, we need a functional language to get there. The most functional language will recognize and include trans people (and all other demographics) with nuance and respect, but ALSO in a way that lets us actually discuss things. I agree there's a lot of hullabaloo. I feel it's because people are being asked to repeat things and say things and retweet things without really understanding them, and without really recognizing the true disagreement (or lack thereof).

@tinymcgoo1195

4 ай бұрын

@@JesseTate Again with the timestamp of your video... 10:20. "Phenotype doesn't always line up with genotype. What do we mean by that? We mean there's a NORM the genotype produces (men look like men, women look like women) which is then at certain times contradicted." Yes, there is a typical outcome expected of genotypes. The typical is just one of the possible outcomes. Let's look at how you presented this. Men look like men. The first use of men is the genotype (XY) and the second use of men is the phenotypes (physical features). So in a possible variation you have 'men look like women' where men is the genotype (XY) and the women is the phenotypes. Do you accept this happens? There are phenotypes which are not physical appearances, like hormones. Would you agree with that? So what do you do with a person who's phenotypes are mixed? Some male phenotypes and some female phenotypes? You have a genotype that indicated male (XY) and both male and female phenotypes as a possible outcome. In a binary category, are they a 1 or a 0? Then you have an additional possible outcome where the genotype is ambiguous (eg 45X). It was thought that these were always female, but then it was discovered that there are 45X individuals with male phenotypes. Are you starting to see how clearly not-binary this is? We have just been forcing people into this faux binary. Should these people just be removed from the category altogether? Just going to point out that if your concern is language, that option will present a linguistic challenge by forcing a change in how a human is defined. "All of that doesn't really touch much on my argument, though." I'm sorry I must have mistaking your making assertions about sex and its importance as an argument.

Your first critique... Replay Dawkins, he literally says he is used to continua where ever he looks and then says the ONE thing that isn't is sex. You cannot say it is NOT Dawkins' attitude when Dawkins himself said just that. As for binaries. Forrest/Stephen did not suggest it isn't useful to use binaries or categories at all. If there is a true binary, then it would make sense to categorize things as such. Do not think we have to force a binary where it does not exist. Sex comes, typically but not always in a male/female dichotomy. However there is variation that does not fit the binary. It would be dishonest to suggest it is strictly binary. Forrest is not dismissing sex a category. You are correctly that it is a basic biological perception, but one that you can easily get wrong. If you had no clue who Blair White was, you would not mistake her for a man even though by your standard she is male. It is even likely that you have been unknowingly fooled by your perception of someone's sex. Just because you are usually right in your perception does not mean that your perception is always right. Your perception does not dictate another person's sex.

@JesseTate

4 ай бұрын

You'll have to point me to a timestamp. I remember what you're talking about but don't know exactly what was going on. I suspect Forrest was giving a dishonest read of Dawkins' attitude or concern. My arguments don't really hang on the idea that sex is an absolute and unbroken binary. I suppose I could go into that more, explore the relevance (or lack thereof) of anomalies, fringe variables, and fuzzy boundaries. Ultimately though man and woman have evolved as two very overarching and useful categories, and our perception and our language reflects this. My argument is that even from a maximally fluid or utilitarian or postmodernist view, the categories ought to be recognized as valid because of their great functional use, if nothing else. Let's say from the 'postmodernist' view, perception and function are even somewhat the ONLY things which can be observed and relied on. Yes, we're free to challenge and manipulate those perceptions as we wish; but there are very clear and dominant reasons the perceptions evolved as they did. It doesn't really seem like ANYTHING is truly binary. Consider a highway vs a road; a planet vs a moon; one nationality or another. You'll always be able to find fuzziness at the borders. You'll always be able to find an exception. That doesn't mean the categories are overly simplistic. We have to discuss, analyze, and consider their utility. In the case of man and woman, we have LOADS of other categories and descriptors which capture the other dimensions of nuance. We have things like age, nationality, religious affiliation, family ties, IQ, occupation, history, trauma, psychological profile, and so on. If Dawkins believes 'man' and 'woman' to be a useful and even necessary binary for his science, it's ridiculous to accuse him of bigotry without first having the discussion. And when given the chance, over and over again, he points out that his concern is with the language game, and how it conflates things, how it is being used to obfuscate truth in his field of expertise. That's a valid concern. So yeah we can be 'fooled' regarding someon's sex. You're right that perception doesn't dictate another person's sex--but even just there, you've acknowledged a difference between sex and gender. Between biology and perception. Between Dawkins and Forrest. We have to be willing to recognize and embrace the language game or "activity" we are engaged in. That's the only way we'll even be able to discern whether we're talking about sex or, as you mention, perception. Dawkins feels this isn't being allowed. Also anomalies such as intersex and other fringe occurrences cannot be allowed to overturn the categories. They actually become the exceptions that prove the rule. If an anomaly evolved as an anomaly rather than the norm, we have good reason to recognize it as such. Inverting that will lead to extinction. I'll also note that sexual or BIOLOGICAL anomalies ought not comment on gender or sociological identity. Inasmuch as a chromosomal or gonadal anomaly factors in, gender identity becomes once again fixed beyond the subject's control. This is why I suspect there's a lot of antipathy from honest trans people towards the non-binary movement. We might end up with something like four or eight sex categories; but this seems incompatible with everything the trans movement wants to achieve. It also seems utterly inconsequential when considering the functional way we reproduce. Suppose you say the biological anomalies DO have a fixed connection to identity. I suppose we'd need new words??? But we already have them: intersex and all the other names. Inasmuch as these are important for discussing identity, we can use them. Why don't we? Do you think Dawkins would struggle with this, or any other terms, once clearly defined?

@tinymcgoo1195

4 ай бұрын

@@JesseTate It is your video. I told you it was your first critique. The clip of Dawkins is not that long. I should not have to give you a timestamp but I will do just that. It is 5:30. "My arguments don't really hang on the idea that sex is an absolute and unbroken binary." Come on now. Your critique was specifically that Forrest disagreeing with the binary nature that Dawkins asserted. "It doesn't really seem like ANYTHING is truly binary." Yet Dawkins is adamant that this one thing is truly binary. However, I do think there are true binaries. Light vs No Light. If there is some light, then there is light. No fuzziness there. "And when given the chance, over and over again, he points out that his concern is with the language game, and how it conflates things, how it is being used to obfuscate truth in his field of expertise. That's a valid concern." Language changes. Definitions are not fixed attributes of words. We refine and redefine words as needed. There is no language game going on. The truth is that there are people that for some reason have an incongruence in phenotypes. It might be an easy out to call it a mental illness, but there is reason to believe that past failure in that endeavor is being repeated. The hard truth is that there is a developmental outcome and it is not clear what is causing that. We see this same thing with sexual orientation. "You're right that perception doesn't dictate another person's sex--but even just there, you've acknowledged a difference between sex and gender." No I didn't. A doctor delivers a newborn. That newborn has a penis and the doctor says it is a boy. That boy grows up, can't seem to get his wife pregnant and sees a fertility doctor. After running tests the doctor says, actually you have XX chromosomes. If we are to consider chromosomes as an indicator of sex then you are female. That is an instance where the perception of the doctor did not dictate the sex correctly. "Also anomalies such as intersex and other fringe occurrences cannot be allowed to overturn the categories." They don't overturn anything. They are part of the category. So in the sex category there are more than two members. Furthermore, while it is common to call them anomalies, doing so it a path to this idea that it is okay to set them apart. There are developmental outcomes. Some more typical than others. Variations exist and have no inherent goodness or badness to them. "Suppose you say the biological anomalies DO have a fixed connection to identity. I suppose we'd need new words???" I don't necessarily disagree, however it is not impossible for the current framework to accommodate trans as it does for other variations in developmental outcomes of sex. The example I gave of the doctor using the penis vs gametes or chromosomes to declare the sex using the existing framework. There are instances where the deliver doctor is not really able to determine sex and after further testing gives the parents the option to decide which label to use. Yes, we force the binary due primarily to past ignorance in creating the legal documentation to record people's birth. Then there is the gender aspect where the parents once they have chosen the sex will raise the child in a manner that expresses that chosen sex to society. For a trans person, they have the legal documentation corrected to reflect their actual sex and they present themselves to society as that sex. Sure it is difficult for those that were used to what they thought that person's sex was, but people in general are able to adapt to change. Again, for a lot of trans people, society is none-the-wiser. This noise over the ones that don't 'pass' in the gender game is really just ridiculous in my opinion. Now, there are unfortunately some out of their control consequences of this developmental variation for trans people. The sports issue is an example. There are potential solutions to problems like developmental advantages, allowing transition before puberty to happen or creating additional categories in certain sports. These are not issues that cannot be solved if we were to focus on the specific issues and drop the irrelevant distractions like pronouns and binaries.

57:32 there is a fair amount of people in the city in which you live in who scribble around in the dirt to survive, and are not enjoying it. You are confusing economic growth, complex technology an scientific knowledge. They are historically linked, but are absolutely not the same thing epistemologically. I don't think you value humanities and social sciences as much as biology

@JesseTate

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! Maybe I didn't quite understand your meaning, but I'll give my thoughts: It's true there's still poverty, and indeed even misery across the globe. There's also such a vast number of people alive that the total amoung of suffering is considerable even by historic standards. We are presented with a difficult set of problems. Still, I'm fairly optimistic. I believe net well-being is on the rise, and has been for quite some time. The transition to agriculture, and the urbanization/population boom it triggered, seems to have introduced a lot of problems which were 'unnatural' and unprecedented. Since then we've been on a slow (but incredibly fast by evolutionary standards) trajectory into an ever more strange and abstract manner of existence. We could argue that this began with language or fire; but agriculture seems to be the easiest thing we can point to that really jumpstarted our acceleration towards wherever we are going. Whatever. The point is I don't know how to categorize the things that make us humans truly unique. At root level it's things like abstraction, language, individualism held in tension with collectivism, pattern-seeking, tool-use, and so on. All of these things were always destined to remove us from nature, to send us step-by-step up into some weird abstract realm, disconnected from the raw impulse and physicality of animals. I'm rambling. Maybe I'm still not quite sure as to your point. The point is, certainly this brings strange forms of suffering. Certainly people still struggle in cities. But overall, science and skepticism has been an incredibly beneficial thing. It's brought us exponentially further along the path we seem to want to go down. So yeah, people still scrabble around. But I think it's very hard to argue that reason and the scientific process haven't made things better. Economic growth IS in my opinion a direct result of technology and scientific knowledge. There are other factors, like ideology, culture, nature, chance . . . . but science and technology seem to be huge and reliable contributors. It could also be said that the entire process of discussing, deconstructing, and designing growth IS a scientific and technological activity. Anything which touches upon intent and progress will by definition depend on the scientific process. But maybe that's too broad a definition. Anyway modern economic systems, despite all their flaws, seem to be a relatively organic and functional way to generate and manage what we value. Maybe ALL of that was irrelevant. What was your point exactly? I should value scientific KNOWLEDGE more, and progress (growth, tech) less? I shouldn't conflate GDP or resource production with true value or well-being? My optimism is undermined by inequality? Idk. And I'm not sure how it would even touch upon my ultimate point with regards to Harari, and speaking truth in the scientific community. Scientific breakthrough is often quite controversial, and by definition will upset the preexisting norm. We should expect these conversations to be tough--but we shouldn't police them so emotionally or reactively. We need to remain balanced and undogmatic. Also curious what you mean about valuing humanities and social sciences as much as biology. You could be right--I tend to read everything through the lens of natural selection. I'm think we need to be careful when using terms like 'social construct' and so on. It feels like nowadays people attribute far too much malice or 'unnatural' external design to things. They look at some social phenomenon they don't like, and rather than following it down to its potential biological causes (in an attempt to truly understand it) they focus on the surface-level or societal symptoms. Of course no sociological phenomena should be reduced entirely to biology. That's not how humans work. But I do think there's too much vagueness and incoherence in the humanities nowadays. By nature I'm a storyteller first and foremost. I love all these human abstractions. We seem to be generating true meaning, generating entirely new dimensions of existence. The abstracted layers of our existence (societies, languages, music, culture, perceived identity) are a huge part of this. They're what make us unique. They're what 'woke us up' to the study of our biology in the first place. I love thinking about how perception does or doesn't let us hack or manipulate our deeper biology. So I think my natural inclination is moreso that of a sociologist than a biologist. But I think the humanities are, nowadays, very deeply flawed and unproductive. So yeah I value the contributions of biology much more, in this current social climate.

This seems to be one long opinion piece. Can you point me to your sources, cite some references, and reference some actual studies? I have no interest in listening to a personal opinion that has no established basis in actual reality. Just because you think something is one way or another, doesn't make it convincing. Everything I did listen to was simply your unsupported opinion. I'm not saying any specific part of it was necessarily wrong, just that you failed to back up any of it with facts, relying only on your personal opinion of how you feel things are, which is ultimately worthless. Back it with some facts, otherwise, who cares what you think?

@scorptrio8231

5 ай бұрын

Now that I've finished watching the opinion piece, it's clear that you are ignorant of many scientific facts regarding biological sex. I see now why you cite no sources and give no references: your opinions on biological sex are devoid of scientific facts. It's time for you to get a real education. Good luck back at school.

@nardpuncher

5 ай бұрын

😂 you're a turnip

@richardctaylor79

5 ай бұрын

I agree that this is one big opinion piece with nothing to back it up, either scientifically, philosophically or even logically. Also, when mentioning perceptions with regards to sex vs gender and aligning biological sex with gender using gametes to denote male and female there is a fundamental flaw or two in his argument. Firstly the idea of man and woman has been around longer than the discovery of male and female gametes and the understanding of reproduction. Secondly there is now and has always been individuals who fit into neither category at birth regarding biological sex and/or gamete type. Thirdly there are cultures worldwide who have a broader concept of gender and have more than the binary gender roles attributed in modern Western society. The list of problems with his initial premise continues. Also he doesn't seem to realise that perception is subjective. For example there could be an individual that for all intents and purposes, you regard as a man, they dress as a man, act as a man, introduce themselves as man etc. But biologically are female with female gametes and the ability to reproduce as a female. Your perception of this person is as a man, but they are female..... This discrepancy alone is what separates the idea of female/male identification and the social construct that is man/woman gender. There is obviously much more to it than that and even with my limited understanding I can grasp this concept better than either this guy or Dawkins...

@jumptoit3812

4 ай бұрын

@@richardctaylor79 Firstly, the amount of time that the idea of man or woman has been around has no bearing on whether or not sex is binary. Secondly, individuals are sexually binary whether or not we are aware of their sex, regardless of the sex they perceive themselves to be, and whether or not we are able to detect their sex at birth. Thirdly, appealing to cultural practices/ traditions is fallacious and has no bearing on whether or not the human sexual binary is an objective scientific fact.

@richardctaylor79

4 ай бұрын

@@jumptoit3812 tell me you never studied genetics without telling me you never studied genetics.... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355551/ Just one of many papers that prove my point...

I think you are going out of your way to defend Dawkins and to be honest is it even about him? It’s not clear when he uses of terms in a biological sense or a social one. As a matter of clarity I think it would be better if he said biological sex instead of confusing terms that are used in different contexts. You cannot blame others for ‘misinterpreting’ if he isn’t really clear.

You should look into intersex biology and find that it isn't binary. Even with chromosomes, sometimes it's not so clear cut. We create the definition boxes and then find people that just do fit into those defined definitions. People like all thing sometimes fall outside the norm, but they still exist and shouldn't be ignored.

@coletrainhetrick

4 ай бұрын

Intersex does not disprove that sex is binary. It isn't a new type of genital, it's when you have a defect that cause you to have both, you need to describe it by claiming its both. So when everyone keeps saying se. Is not binary, it's a hollow statement that does everything to ignore that even if it were true this doesn't have anything to do with trans concepts

@JesseTate

4 ай бұрын

I'm gonna paste a section from another response because I'm realizing as a writer I have a tendency to ramble endlessly and write entire essays in the comments. It seems to me that anomalies such as intersex and other fringe occurrences cannot be allowed to overturn the categories. They actually become the exceptions that prove the rule. If an anomaly evolved as an anomaly rather than the norm, we have good reason to recognize it as such. Inverting that will lead to extinction. I'll also note that sexual or BIOLOGICAL anomalies ought not comment on gender or sociological identity, unless you're going to reaffirm FIXED traits as determining factors. Inasmuch as a chromosomal or gonadal anomaly factors in, gender identity becomes once again fixed beyond the subject's control. This is why I suspect there's a lot of antipathy from honest trans people towards the non-binary movement. We might end up with something like four or eight sex categories; but this seems incompatible with everything the trans movement wants to achieve. It also seems utterly inconsequential when considering the functional way we reproduce. Suppose you say the biological anomalies DO have a fixed connection to identity. I suppose we'd need new words??? But we already have them: intersex and all the other names. Inasmuch as these are important for discussing identity, we can use them. Why so often don't we, when discussing gender? It's because gender is not these. Gender is something else. We need to pinpoint what it is, without conflating or being vague. Do you think Dawkins would struggle with this, or any other terms, once clearly defined? I don't think it has to do with ignoring or 'invalidating' people. This is one of the most annoying things repeated by the left: my existence is valid. Are you claiming I don't exist? Such a pointless way to argue--though the right has all its similarly pointless lines. Those sort of 'mic drop' things just derail everything. Acknowledging the norm, and the need for categorization, isn't the same thing as ignoring fringe individuals. You could make a philosophical case that we need to be more fluid with our categorization. Perhaps "man" and "woman" served for a long time, but now we need something new and more expanded. That's possible. But so many factions in the trans movement aren't even claiming that. They want to lay claim to the binary, simply in a new way. This is ALSO fine. We just need to be able to discuss it, and to acknowledge that some views are incompatible with others. We can be universally respectful without destroying definitions (and therefore perception and discussion) completely.

@radubradu

4 ай бұрын

People with problems of sexual development are still male or female, the term intersex is chosen to be confusing on purpose. Sex is binary for everyone, including disabled people.

Cat @16:29 "But I identify as Dog."

Right off the bat with Dawkins - no, sex is not binary. If you are truly a biologist, you know this already. Also, at this point we should know that a woman is gender, it's a social construct and WE make the categorizations. A female is sex. I'm not sure if a bias is showing, or he's not a learned biologist. I feel like the latter is true. Also, applying philosophy to a practice like biology, then yes you're gonna confuse yourself immensely. Just look at the bullshit that came out of Aristotle's and Descartes' mouths.

@theherk

5 ай бұрын

How many digits do humans have on each hand?

@funkduck210

5 ай бұрын

​@@theherkdepends typically 5 digits per hand but on average less than 5

@theherk

5 ай бұрын

⁠​⁠​⁠@@funkduck210it is neither uncommon nor incorrect to say humans have five digits per hand, though of course there are exceptions, but polydactyls occur in similar magnitude as intersex births. So it is, I believe, reasonable to say sex is binary. Obviously though gender is not, based on the modern common understanding of gender. To conflate the two undercuts the message I think. And it just feels a bit silly. We are sexually dimorphic primates, and it is really clear if not muddied by this conflation. To the opening commenter, to imply Dawkins is unlettered is just crazy. He is one of the most prolific biologists of our time, having published many books and been the face of the Royal Institution many times.

@kenmvilla

5 ай бұрын

@theherk my apologies, I meant to say the former I think is true, not the ladder. I will leave it unedited to acknowledge my mistake. And I agree that generalizations exist and are meaningful. I never said anything to the contrary

@theherk

5 ай бұрын

@@kenmvilla oh right on. Good to clarify; thanks. This is a difficult topic to keep on the rails, and I suspect you’re right.