Transgender Identity & Washrooms - Matt Dillahunty vs Dinesh D'Souza
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.พ. 2023
- Transgender Identity & Washrooms - Matt Dillahunty vs Dinesh D'Souza
#transgender #mattdillahunty #dineshdsouza
Full discussion here: • GENDER, GOD & TRUMP - ...
This clip is from the Livestream of the Matt Dillahunty vs Dinesh D'Souza discussion that occurred in New York City on March 1st 2020.
This event was produced by Pangburn.
No reproduction of this content will be tolerated.
You can further support this effort here: Pang-burn.com/subscription
Official Pangburn Facebook Page: @PangburnInspire
Official Pangburn Twitter: @TeamPangburn
Follow Trav here:
Facebook: @ThePangburn
Twitter: @ThePangburn
Instagram: @thepangburn
![[MPD직캠] 베이비몬스터 치키타 직캠 4K 'LIKE THAT' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) | @MCOUNTDOWN_2024.6.13](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h99J4vWm7Ew/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch Sam Harris & Brian Greene on stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER th-cam.com/video/5pbHsRz8A7w/w-d-xo.html
Dinesh D'Souza?? you just completely lost all credibility. It's one thing to invite dumb people who represent a popular view, or dishonest people who make good arguments. This is entertainment, I understand. But D'Souza's entire career (other than the actual crimes he commits) is just lying to dumb people to make them angry. (And not even angry about something fundamental, just angry with whoever leads the Democratic party at the moment.)
You had some landmark events @Pangburn ! what a shame to just throw it all away like this.
This is funny as if you really simple questions about the trans topics on channels mats been involved with you will get censored out extremely quickly!
Sad to see his decline. He was an inspiration on AE but to see him here argue in such a childlike manner. Virtue signalling, hyperbole, logical fallacies and appeals to emotion. What a colossal fall. Ultimately Matt seems just to have swapped one religion for another.
The fact we even have to argue whether grown men should be allowed in bathrooms and change rooms with young girls is ridiculous.
Grown men with young girls? That right there immediately goes to show your total lack of understanding about the topic and therefore don’t have a valid opinion.
You see how Matt had to even pre-apologize to his trans friends for any minor inaccuracies he may commit. What a bunch of narcissistic people. Matt views himself as the champion of skepticism, he’s nothing of the kind.
And how many trans people do you know?
@@monicadaniels784 I don’t know any, what would the point be? I’m an Alex O’ Connor style atheist/skeptic. I don’t compromise my values and beliefs to cater to my buddies or my sex partner.
@@oneznzeroz Forgive me, I'm not familiar with Alex O'Connor, but I am familiar with being an atheist. My point is, if you knew some actual trans people, maybe you wouldn't bash them for something someone else said. I don't compromise my values either, but I like to think I have an open mind enough to listen to other opinions. My opinion is not the be all and end all of opinions.
You have a joker PFP
@@JamesHeller12 …and?
Join us on discord to talk about ideas. Everyone is welcome. discord.gg/xQyXupPb
If you enjoyed this clip, remember to drop a like and consider subscribing. Check out Dandan's new Pangburn channel. He does deep dives into Philosophy & Psychology. www.youtube.com/@DandanPragerPU
Matt has always been closet-gay and nor he’s finally coming out
Matt is delusional. More cisgender men commit suicide and are murdered. He’s got a huge blind spot here.
@@mikekoz6351 gay is ok. Has been for quite some time. Delusional dress up is new.
Matt called them 'abnormalities' so..
@@mikekoz6351 And he would probably be proud of you for saying that about him, even though you meant it as an insult, he would take it as a compliment because he is not a homophobic bigot like you are. Do you see the difference between you and Matt now?
As an atheist myself matt lost on this
Same here. I watch Matt and other atheist a lot..but, they definitely lack nuance when it comes to these subjects. And they have cult tendencies when it comes to politics. It's so frustrating.
He's dating a trans woman so Matt should be disqualified to discuss this IMO.
@@pdcdesign9632 So you be as well since you are biased because you are (maybe) dating someone of the opposite sex? Or anyone at all? See how that works?
@@buckiesmallsHe's dating a man pretending to be a women and buying into lies.
I thought bathroom were segregated by sex, not gender... sex and gender were synonymous before but now they have separated it except when they want to win a point.
They are sex segregated. I think it's crazy to ignore why we had to. Some places can be comfortably and safely unisex. Some places can't. We started out having everything unisex and it was a calamity for women and children so we had to sex segregate many areas. It's really just safeguarding. So we just need good systems to safeguard everyone and tbh ignoring risks to one group over the other is irresponsible and will harm everyone in the long run.
Great point, they can't have their cake and eat it to.
How about prisons or sports? Are they segregated by sex too? I thought they were but it seems like a total conflation of sex and gender from transactivists who claim there is a clear divide between the two. They redefine gender (which they swear is the only thing they are positing is malleable since it is a social construct) but tear down every wall separating the differences in biological sex. Men can be pregnant, woman can have penises, etc. There's logical inconsistencies and holes everywhere you step.
Yeah! It's crazy that the gender transformationalists want to just assume that bathrooms are gender based. But hang on! How do they know bathrooms aren't sex-based? I'd like to see someone answer this question. Maybe I'm wrong.
It was always understood to be sex-based as male and female bathrooms. Seems to me they just smuggled in gender! And Matt did it too Omg. So sad to see Matt lose his integrity on this topic.
Same with sports.
Matt's view on no gender separation in sports is ridiculous. I guess he just wants to do away with women sports all together? If they did this, no woman would place in the top 1,000 of top tennis players. And that's being very conservative. And before any woke people get angry about that, I think women's tennis is more enjoyable to watch. There is much more volleying rather than just slamming the ball like the men do.
There is currently no rule keeping women from playing in the NFL.. There's a reason why there isn't, never has been and never will be a woman in the NFL.
mysogyny at its finest.
@@FM-dm8xj go join an mma gym
He’s obviously doesn’t have an athletic bone in his body, so what validates his opinion? Natural selection removed women from men’s sports. As a former combat athlete and now armwrestler I can tell you with 100% certainty that when we compete for rankings in coed pro level events there are no women left to pull, hence the women’s division.
@@seanthomasmusic already do muay thai lol
@@FM-dm8xj and are there any women who can beat you
"Why does it matter" the ultimate sign of a losing argument.
Leaving trans people alone, instead of going out of your way to attack them costs you NOTHING, but bigots cannot stand anyone else giving THEM uncomfortable feelings.
How so? If you were to tell me you’re upset that I prefer chicken over beef and I state, “why does it matter to you?” when you get upset over my choice, how does that negate the argument?
@@JoshHitti The problem isn't your preference for chicken. It's your insistence that "chicken" comes from cows.
@@alexanderwilliamson7431 I’m not insisting anything, I’m asking a valid question. I also have no basis for who asked the question in the video, I’m challenging your belief that posing a simple question is somehow the basis for “losing” an argument.
Why does it matter what I like? Name one specific way a personal preference has an impact on your life.
@@JoshHitti Personal preference is fine. Insisting others indulge in your fantasy is another. The homeless man down the street may believe he is Julius Caesar. I don't. Why does it matter? Well one is reality. The other delusion. Why does it matter can be asked of so many scenarios. Why does it matter if people kill each other on the middle east? Doesn't involve us right?
Wow. This is the first time I have heard Matt D go into an area where he was at a disadvantage.
He's just dumb. Remember, he's just a guy who read a couple of book on religion and informal logic. He spent most of his life debating people on religion and honing his skills. That's why he's so good at religious debates.
As to this gender ideology crap, I don't think he knows shit. He's just pulling retarded arguments out of his ass and I hate to say that he's embarrassing himself. I loved the guy, but after hearing this, I think it's evil what he's suggesting. Imagine putting a top tier female boxer with someone like Mike Tyson in the ring. He maliciously picked 'pool' sport to compare between the two sexes because pool doesn't necessitate any physical strength. Very stupid and exposed argument.
I play pool everyday. I don't even consider it a physical sport, because it's not. I'm not gonna fool myself and pretend like I worked out on that day.
If I want to do sport, I gotta hit the gym.
The science is on his side: th-cam.com/video/5Zro0neuVeY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=XJuqTveMpdO50SHf
Thats a nice way of saying he doesnt make an ounce of sense on this topic but sure...
@@sambal777 I agree. This exposed him and all his logic is now in question.
@@HistoritorJimaldus Yes, Rationality Rules is another atheist who has gone down the postmodern gender rabbit hole.
Matt lost me with this gender stuff. There isn't a whole lot i disagree with him on but he doesn't make any sense here. He's literally using the same arguments that theists would make on the Atheist experience. The very arguments that he would dismantle in a heartbeat. Not to mention gender used to be one of the many examples he used as a true dichotomy when exposing people's logical fallacies.
Could you explain further the “he’s literally using the same argument”? I’m genuinely curious. Always felt there were some relatedness there but honestly get fuzzy trying to sort through it.
"literally using the same arguments" - yeah you have to explain what you mean by that buddy. Because, the way i see it only an ignorant who thinks trangeredism is an "ideology" or a "choice", like religion is, would say what you just said. Matt stated facts about what people who deal with a very real medical condition called Gender Dysphoria. It's not an ideology or a set of belifs - contrary to what consevatives say - for it to be "dismantled" with skepticism. Google what the World Medical Association or what the American Medical Association have to say about it.
Had no idea who he was until a week ago. I thought I'd give him a hearing because he is supposedly fact based and follows science. Nothing could be further from the truth from this discussion.
@@kimbliss1329 Matt Dillahunty is fact based and follows science.
@@dvderifNot here he doesn't.
Can't believe how big this topic has become. Although interesting to watch debates, it's extremely polarized and somewhat dangerous to even utter an opinion in either direction.
It's just dangerous in one direction, since there're only trans people who are being murdered
@Voicecolors mostly in non western countries...
Ps the science is all based on john monies study which is weak.
'Dangerous' ... Well one side must get find your ignorance offensive and feel you could definitely grow as a person, is that dangerous? Certainly not in the same sense that the far right nazi anti LGBTQ Christians will actually threaten and use violence. So no, not exactly the same both ways is it?
People are moving away from religious debates because it’s been beaten to death, trans is now the thing to debate over.
What really irks me is how you can tell by the cadence in his voice (for example at 3:42 onward) that he's really fishing for applause.
He's not motivated by truth, he's motivated by esteem. He says whatever gets him applause from the masses. That's not someone who has integrity.
The number of people who buy into the “gender is a social construct” trope is mind boggling.
It's NOT a social construct? What is it then?
@@citizenghosttown It's an observable reality of one's biology.
@@billtruttschel That's biological sex. Gender is different. But even if we stick to biology, we know that sexual identity doesn't always align with biological sex.
@@citizenghosttown That's the lie they've sold you in order to get around having to acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. GD IS a mental illness and both gender and sex are determined biologically.
@@citizenghosttown how are social constructs formed and how are they changed ?
I am used to seeing Matt on the atheist experience and have always admired his sticking to verifiable facts and asking for evidence.. On seeing him here talking about men as being women I was shocked, disappointed and completely baffled. Dinesh firmly and calmly wiped the floor with him. On one hand Matt admits that gender is a social construct, which means that there is no fixed way that men or women have to behave to still remain a man or woman. Then he goes on to say that a man can feel or identify as a woman, and so, would need to change gender. But why bother if gender is so fluid and can be constructed in any way you like? But in any case this does not change a person’s sex which except in very few cases which we are not discussing here, does not change. So a person’s gender should never be the deciding factor for which facilities that person uses, but sex should. If certain facilities are made for women, for their privacy and protection, they are made for women and not men who want to be, or believe themselves to be, women. It seems that these men have actually no concern at all for the well-being of women, only those men who call themselves women. I would love to see this new Matt as a caller on the old Matt’s atheist experience show.
Old Matt: So we now have a caller who is convinced he is a woman. Tell me what evidence do you have for this belief?
Woke Matt caller: Well, I feel just like a woman, and feel like a woman feels.
Old Matt: And how do you know how a woman feels? And how does a woman feel?
Woke Matt caller: Well, for me it’s feeling girly. I love cooking and sometimes knit, and I hate mending cars. I love wearing make-up.
Old Matt: And you think that makes you a woman? Do all women like these things? Why can’t you be a man who does these things? And you do realize that being a man or woman is a sex thing and not a gender choice?
Woke Matt caller: You’re just a bigot. I have chosen to change my gender, so now my sex is changed as well. I am a woman.
Old Matt: What evidence do you have for this?
Woke Matt caller: Well as I said, I feel like a woman, and my friends are very nice to me and call me a woman as well.
Old Matt: Go read any science book and call me back.
Yep. A total hypocrite & fraud.
For someone who is transgender, it is just one of the things you would have to do yourself to understand it. A dog can't explain what being a dog is like, but he dam sure knows it. If you had been born transgender you would have a perfect understanding of it then. Matt is just trying his best to explain something he is not, and that's not easy to do. That's why he said forgive me for the things I get wrong to his trans friends. But what you are doing here has a name too and that is bigotry Something I know Matt can't stand. I would love to hear you call Matt's show and present your little Matt call-in thingie to him and see how well you survive. If nothing else it would be entertaining for sure.
@@jerrylong6238 Matt is a coward. He can only debate when he's in control of the mute button. I have tried to debate him but he's a gutless coward & hypocrite.
Matt is showing the same kind of dumb religious belief which he derides religious people for when they say things like they have a soul or feel the presence of God. Similarly, they have no proof of these things as they are articles of FAITH not scientifically provable facts.
Try proving what you say with confirmed science. The bigotry card doesn't wash otherwise Matt is also a BIGOT for not believing religious people when they have unprovable beliefs.
Fwiw, trans is bs. If you're a man with "gender dysphoria" you're still a man. You haven't changed your sex nor should you be granted special privileges like access to women only spaces & sports.
Sorry, but you made an entire argument on the thing that gender is a social structure, then you deflected on why he should say that gender and sex are different thing, then you made up an argument in which matt will ask the new self to provide evidence for being a woman, when you understand that is a social construct and he also get it, so why are we talking bananas, and by the way i agree that there are asburd thing, especially in sports, and child changing their sex, that is dishuman in the most evident ways, but that has nothing to do on whether people can say that they are woman or not,
To me a woman is an adult female, for others is what you feel, i couldn't care less, nobody is denying biology 😊
@@jerrylong6238The dog example is terrible. The dog knows what it feels like to be a dog, BECAUSE he’s a dog! The dog does not know what it feels like to be a cat despite claiming so, because the dog has never experienced being a cat. Tell me, what is a transgender to? Is it someone who just identifies, feels, or wants to be the opposite sex, or is it someone who claims to be born in the wrong body? If it is the latter, I’d love for you to cite the scientific evidence that suggests this is really the case. How would a biological male know what it “feels like” to be a biological woman?
His statement that trans women ARE women is blatantly untrue, otherwise why use the term 'trans ?
If I say "short women are women" does that mean short women are no longer women? No, obviously not. There are many different type of women, and all of them are women despite any differences
Flying lions are lions! Don't you know?! There are many different types of lions and all of them are lions despite any differences (even the flying ones).
@@Ingwaz_Seishu What is a woman?
@@piggypooo There are indeed many types of Lions. All the many types of Lions are either male or female.
@@Ingwaz_Seishu I'm trying to work out which side of the argument you are on. Short women are indeed women, tall women are women, fat and thin women are women, fertile women, infertile women are indeed women, they all have one thing in common and that is they are NOT men
so Gender is just a state of mind?... ok, you can redefine words to mean anything you want, and I don't have to agree with your definitions -- why should I care about your definitions Matt?
Of course you don't have to agree with the definitions, just like how people who disagree with you don't have to respect you for it (but of course then you cry about "cancel culture" because apparently it's only cancelling when it's done to you and not when you attempt to do it trans people)
How does he explain the clearly defined genders in the animal world?
What 'social construction' are animals exposed to?
@@SaintKimbo Are you seriously comparing extremely limited animal communication to the modern human language? It's one thing to not be able to tell sex from gender, but this?.. this is a whole other level of stupidity - now that's IMPRESSIVE
@@knowledgeanddefense1054
No, Stupid.
Matt and others claim that 'gender' is a social construction.
If that is so, how do they reconcile the defined gender roles that are in the animal kingdom?
There's a female spider species that eats the male after mating, how is that 'socially constructed'?
@@SaintKimbo Again, moron, what you're talking about there is sex, which is not gender, and that is why those are two different words
The freedom hating fascists who brainwashed you into thinking that transgender people are the current scapegoat have you barking at the wrong tree, it's not the fault of trans folk that you're capitalism's number one favorite wage slave - so you're right to be angry, just not in that direction (then again you're probably not even smart enough to understand what I just wrote here)
Matt Walsh should debate Matt Dillahunty.
Walsh is a complete moron lol, him being on stage with Dillahunty would be a joke.
Why would Matt debate some dim witted self proclaimed fascist? The man runs on cruelty.
Oh god please no. Two nut jobs.
He’d get trounced by Matt.
Matt Dillahunty would tear Walsh a much larger buthole for sure. Walsh would never see him coming just the aftermath, the big ole hole left behind.
Matts ideas about sports would hurt women in sports
No
@@franciscoadrianrosadosaldi3534 Yes
They would END women’s sports
The wry smile he gave after Dinesh outlined the biological differences between males and females was quite telling. 😂
He speaks like somebody who's never done sport in his life.
According to Matt, the 'data' suggests people who transition go on to lead happy lives. Presumably this data is based on decades of research? If it's not, then it's not wholly reliable since we cannot reasonably make any firm conclusions about long-term benefits or harms. If it is, then isn't it reasonable to conclude that the apparent majority of people who have transitioned in the past have been able to live happy lives within the society that existed at those times?
Doesn't this undermine any argument suggesting society needs to rapidly change attitudes, or change laws, in order to accommodate Trans people?
If Trans people have been living happy lives for thirty, forty years or more, that 'fact' doesn't suggest we live in a fundamentally Transphobic society. Yet, Matt also seems to want to argue that change is required since some Trans people are suicidal and their psychological vulnerability is driven largely by social conditions and attitudes.
So, when Trans people are happy that's because they're being who they really are and their happiness is presumably entirely despite their social conditions, when they're unhappy that's because society is bigoted and judgemental?
It could be argued that trans people who live happy lives are able to do so because of their immense inner psychological strength and despite the awful evil bigotry. Fair enough, but this doesn't really tally with the calls for urgent action and change based on their psychological vulnerability and tendency to commit suicide.
I am sure the reality is complicated, which is why I oppose simplistic arguments. (I have my suspicions that the average trans person, who isn't an activist, was far better off before the culture wars ignited, but I don't have any 'data' to back this up.)
Matt also seems to imply that caring for the psychological vulnerability of Trans people is essential and to appear not to care is a sign of bigotry. Note that Matt gets to define what caring for trans people must entail.
But when it is suggested that changing bathroom laws will probably lead to increased psychological vulnerability for millions of females - he doesn't appear to care at all. He isn't bothered who enters a toilet when he uses one - so why should anyone else be bothered? How sensitive and caring.
Sweden did a 50-year study (1960-2010) and their results showed a roughly 2.2% surgery regret rate that continued to go down over time, but just because they were able to live happy or mostly happy lives, doesn't mean everyone in the trans community had a similar experience.
The idea that rapid or quick change for something like gay or trans rights isn't necessary is terribly flawed. Generally big changes like this only happen rapidly. You could say something like "acceptance of the idea grew over time", but until its actually put into law it hasn't happened, then happens immediately. Take the 19th Amendment for example. The Women's Suffrage movement started around 1870-71, and the actual 19th Amendment wasn't signed into law until 1920. Roughly 50 years of talk, and then boom it's law. Then there's always push back, generally from conservatives, about how this was forced onto them so suddenly, despite it being in the general political discourse for years, if not decades.
Here's the thing about the trans bathroom stuff and causing vulnerability to millions of women, that's just not a reality. That's why it has to be said that it will "probably lead to" instead of "it will lead to" or "has led to". There's no evidence to suggest it will, just fear that it might or could. Fear based on what though? Fear of the unknown. Fear of the different. Fear of the other. Could be argued that its more likely a trans man would be assaulted in a men's bathroom than a trans woman would assault another woman in a women's bathroom. There just hasn't been enough research into it to say it's more/less likely than any other bathroom assault, and to suggest otherwise is just fear mongering.
@@JeffMiller1984 Interesting, because you realise their has never been this amount of trans identified youth in history right?Also, a way to stop a child from hurting themselves, you are going to deny reality, and tell them a lie?Then further medically castrate them?
Last paragraph,Fear of the unkown?What about the fact the women have been displaced in sports, in COMBAT sports even-losing their scholarships, getting theirs lives destroyed?What about the women who have been r4ped, from tr4ns men going into their bathrooms,what about the story in loudon county high school violent rape gn bathroom case?What about the rampant p3dophilia of dr4g time story hour and school educational ciriculum?
Their are only 2 genders, and to sugest otherwise is not only unscientfic but very mysoginistic and cisphobic.
To clarify. THEY lead happy lives but the bigots still murder them at the highest rate of ANY category of humans. Now laws are making it less safe and makes the bigots more bold. Think of it this way. Ask a woman about being in a bar with 20 men. How safe would she feel? Not imagine a trans woman amongst those same 20 men. Who is less safe?
He didn't say people who transition go on to lead happy lives.... He said the BEST thing to do for them is to be accepting and supportive through their transition... He chooses his words very carefully and you still choose to mishear and misquote them because you disagree... Smh...
Im glad you typed a paradoxical thesis. You said a whole lot of nothing.
It’s like he has no concern about women’s feelings who are shouting all over the internet that they don’t feel comfortable with T in their bathrooms and safe places. It’s a complex issue, but don’t ignore the women who are literally saying they don’t feel safe Matt 🙏🏾
His partner is a "transwoman", a wannabee porn star call Arden Hart.
That's why he's gone from atheist to cult member.
White people used to scream they were uncomfortable using the same bathroom as black people. Grow up and get over it.
But carry on ignoring the women (such as myself) who keep saying we not even close to afraid or concerned about transgender people using the stall next to us.
As a woman I have always had to make peace with the fact that public restrooms are a dangerous and potentially risky area, predators aren't repelled by a mystical barrier that only goes up when they paint a stick figure in a dress on the door.
If a predator want to attack us they aren't going to respect signs they will go in anyway and denying the basic human rights of others to go to the toilet with dignity doesn't make us any safer.
If you all of a sudden want to be concerned about the rape culture your side keeps saying doesn't exist then maybe we can hire security or, and this is crucial, LONGER SENTENCES FOR RAPISTS.
He doesn't care, I love to watch all Women's rights get remove and watch as chaos start with Equal rights.
@@johnwong5317 for one, women's right are equal rights, because we've literally been second class citizens for millennia, secondly the only people causing actual chaos is the easily offended right wing that cant handle fucking rainbows outside of stores and in response shoot and kill an actual mother and destroy a whole family.
You're all a bunch of loser hypocrites and everyone else is starting to see it.
I think I agree with Matt's position, but his arguments are not good in this debate. And when he brought up his general opinion on sports he immediately lost his credibility. He lost this. There is a serious debate especially in sports, and he's missing the mark
Hos arguments are not good, so you agree with him?
😅😅😅
@@zeenuf00 I agree with some of what he’s trying to say (I think), but it could be argued way better.
I think the biggest problem here is people not understanding what social constructs are and how to separate the social constructs in our world from the brute facts.
Everybody is claiming what you are saying. So the question is ... do you know what a social construct is? The next question is, what is the purpose of a social construct?
@@thomasprogli3372 in simplest terms, a social construct is something that is true or real solely because people agree that it is.
Some examples of social constructs are government, laws, money, language, units of measurement.
@@Mark73 So far we are in agreement. What is your oppinion on the stability of social constructs. Is it enough that all agree to a specific social construct and it will work?
@@Mark73 if that were the case then everything upon which we agree is real is a social construct, including facts, because there is no external validation which is perceived as such without being agreed that it is perceived as such, even if it hypotheticaly is real separate from our perception.
@@user-vt4hd8hb4v Not everything. The existence of a mountain is not a social construct, nor is its height. But notice that we can only describe its height by using social constructs in the form of agreed upon units of measurement like meters or feet.
Matts idea of tiers of sporting competition would mean women wouldn't get in the first 10 top tiers of Wimbledon competitions.
It is an error to call it "top" or even bottom. There would just be tiers with different body types and characteristics.
Many sports already have this to some extent where they go by weight.
@@Skeluz l want to see men and women of equal weight fight at ufc
@@Skeluz You’re neglecting reality. There obviously would be tiers better than others and no woman would be in the top tiers
@@Skeluz They have it because it's meaningful. You seem to think it would be meaningful if it were done in all sports at all times. People don't only find sports interesting if they're fair, they find them interesting if they're also meaningful to them. How about a competition between wheel chairs and runners with the runners chosen for their ability to run nearly the same speed as wheelchairs? Or maybe men's featherweight boxers against women's heavyweight? The problem is that audiences just may watch what Matt is proposing because they might not find it interesting. You can argue that we should abolish everything today and set up categories based on something else and everyone will love it. You could be right, who knows? Sounds bloody ridiculous to me but carry on.
@@begshallots I'm not advocating Matts position. I was only defending his argument against a misinterpretation of "tiers".
Me personally, I have no idea how to solve this in the long run. For now I think it's crazy what is happening. No use to encourage our daughters to compete if biological males are allowed to dominate biological women's competitions.
Sex-segregated bathrooms came about in the last century when women joined the workforce. The worry was that biological men where physically more powerful and dominant over women and that women needed a separate bathroom for safety. It was all about biology. Segregating by self-concept instead of biology defeats the whole purpose. Keep them the way they are, add a unisex bathroom, or get rid of sex-segregated bathrooms altogether.
From the few writings on the history of bathroom separation, I've quickly glanced over, it appears this is not exactly the cause
Privacy is the reason. Half the stalls have cracks on the sides
I think using a third single room bathroom for people in wheelchairs to double up as a trans - unisex room would be the only practical solution. Therefore women (real ones) can still have the sanctity of their own space without having some 6' 4" guy walk in with a wig and a 5'o clock shadow.
The notion that men are inherently dangerous and predatory, and women need and deserve the unique privilege of their own space, is discriminatory and sexist. And validating a poisonous notion which does great harm to men.
You can't pick and choose equality. Which is what feminists and women generally do.
The whole debate is laughable to me. Communal bathrooms are repugnant, whatever the sex split. I don't understand why individual bathrooms aren't the norm. Which they tend to have in hospitals and GPs here in the UK, likely because they prevent the spread of infection significantly.
@@georgewagner7787If you want privacy, go use your own bathroom at home.
I agree with Matt on so many points, but i just have no idea how he has landed on these conclusions.
It is really strange how someone that has spent so much time trying to get people to apply logic to the compartmentalized religious parts of the brain can't or won't apply that same logic to this subject. It's like Jordan Peterson on religion, Sam Harris on Trump (not that he's entirely wrong, just over the top) - everyone seems to have this one thing that they can't let go of.
Socially sanctioned coercion, I'm afraid.
@@johnnycastellanetta7183 I couldn't more and feel the same way about those two examples as well.
@@LanceDobson I knew there had to be more of us out there! 👍
We can't just dismiss all these people because we don't agree with them somewhere along the line because that happens to/with anyone! There's a lot we can learn from even someone like Deepak Chopra, since the ridiculous things he says can actually cause rational thought. 😁
@@johnnycastellanetta7183 yeah, kinda interesting to me as someone who is an atheist but also more on the right about gender issues. maybe because mainstream right wingers are usually christian, and it's wild to me how much logic they apply to gender issues but goes out the window whenever christianity is brought up.
Well I guess everyone has their flaws. Matt's flaws are pretty clear. He's so concerned to appeal to trans and LGBT people that he voluntarily becomes stupid.
Matt is not wrong tho, have you read any scientific literature on the subject?
@@franciscoadrianrosadosaldi3534 Yes he is, and yes I have during 40 years of clinical experience inn psychiatry.
Ironic statement
Or maybe you just didn't listen and comprehend... 🤔
& Dinesh is so desperate to get his message across that he has to rely on lies & misinformation.
Matt has backed science so hard for so long… I seriously thought that he cared about truth. A question I think is profound that I heard from Matt was “do you care if what you believe in is true or not?” And now I’ve gotta ask him the same thing. Come on Matt.
You're not properly skeptic. Skepticism supports trans acceptance. Or maybe not humanist?
@@ronhoward121 fuck that mess
@@ronhoward121 Trans acceptance is lying to people. Men are men women are women. Women don’t have cocks
But science supports the transgender position. No one is saying that a transgender person is a cis male or female. It makes distinctions between gender and sex which may be in the United States isn't something that's done often but in many other cultures is extremely common and Forest frequently shows the science that Matt says.
@@thickerconstrictor9037no it doesn’t. Darwinian Biology rejects it.
Matt found a new religion to believe in. It’s cute to see him make claims more batshit crazy than anything Sye Ten Bruggencate could come up with.
I don't know where you saw that. Maybe you had your transphobic glasses on. Because he made perfect sense to me.
@@jerrylong6238 you are in a cult as well. Calling everyone transphobic is so lame.
@@jerrylong6238 Dilate
Well said. I'm absolutely disappointed with his total abandonment of logic here.
@@jerrylong6238 Transphowhat? You guys are so cute with those made up words!
I'm a bit disappointed to say the least in Matt. Any male exposing himself in front of women or even young girls should be arrested for indecent exposure. And that's a social construct
Women don't expose themselves to each other in women's bathrooms.
Trans woman wouldn't either.
@@mnguardianfan7128 ok groomer
@@zeenuf00 What an unoriginal and unthinking response
@@mnguardianfan7128Leah Thomas the swimmer gets his penis out in the woman's changing room by all accounts
Pretty sure no one (especially Matt) was defending ANYONE exposing themselves in front of other people. When you go to the bathroom do you habitually expose yourself to people in there? Not even sure how you came to that conclusion.
If you are stranded alone on an island, what is your gender? As it is a social construct.
Depends what gender you want 'Wilson' to be, I guess.
That's a great question. I would re-formulate it though, because if you are stranded now, you have a certain cultural background to base your gender on. Let's say you are born or abandoned as a child in the wild. What's your gender? Considering that the society you live in is comprised of only 1 individual, for the survival of your society (yourself) you cannot divide your social group into categories and assign each category a role based on their natural features. You are forced to cover all roles and duties required. Moreover, if you don't encounter the opposite sex, you wouldn't even have a concept for another sex or gender, you would simply consider yourself as yourself. I think in that case your society would be a gender-less society, or a mono-gender society, but the characteristics of your gender identity would simply be based on your personal characteristics, there isn't a group to compare yourself with and find similarities and differences. And also, you wouldn't be very culturally advanced, you'd probably have better things to do than thinking about gender theory.
@@divxxx You wasted your time giving a thoughtful explanation to someone that doesn't want to actually understand and just asked a rhethorical just to stir the shit.
If you never knew any other humans and had lived on a completely solitary basis you wouldn't have a gender. If you grow up in a society and were subsequently ship wrecked your gender would continue to be whatever you identify as on the island. Presumably whatever you identified as before.
@@divxxxExcellent thoughtful answer. I think some human babies have grown up thinking they are wolves etc. and some other animals have grown up thinking they are a different species. It's so obvious that gender/species identification is a social construct.
I respect Matt's views on religion and philosophy but he's absolutely going with his emotions here and pandering to his trans friends. So desperate not to offend them that he says bathrooms are just for peeing and pooping and we shouldn't make a fuss about it. Nah Matt, nahh. I totally agree with Dinesh here.
He is conflicted because he is in a relationship with a dude who says he's a woman.
All his arguments are just so ridiculous it's like his love for this dude has eroded his objectivity & critical thinking skills.
Ohhh... That explains it. It's sad really. He's one of the rational voices that strengthened my atheism
@@nyoreachoja2068 Yeah, name is Arden Hart - a porn star wannabee. Does a trans call in show, search "the line transatlantic".
An insecure & often obnoxious person.
Matt is a salient example of where the way of atheism goes-subjective opinions about anything, relativism in values and playful cynicism with word meanings-nothing is sacred.
Why do people put a room with a toilet on such a high pedestal? Just get in do your business and get out. Done. Any conversation beyond "you okay in there, sounds pretty rough" is unnecessary
So happy to see Matt not running away from another debate here.
Weird that when he was talking about how no one is harmed when a trans person uses a bathroom that he didn't mention the kid who raped girls in two separate schools as a "trans". In that situation, a biological woman was harmed by a biological man claiming to be woman. Also, if accepting trans people as what they want to be accepted as helps then why is the suicide rate pretty much the same pre and post surgery? Its almost as if a surgery can't fix a mental issue.
None of it does, I would guess the bullying is mostly the cause.
@@BismarkUtah you mean no one that wants to pretend it never happens has never heard of, even though it was on most major news networks. We also know that a lot women dont report when they are assaulted or feel uncomfortable so just wondering how you know the overwhelming majority of cases women dont feel uncomfortable? Any stats, surveys, or anything at all that points to that conclusion because we see more and more stories of women speaking up saying they dont like it.
@@BismarkUtah You used a lot of words to say hardly anything useful. @henryskalitz9094 makes a valid point. It happened and needs to be talked about. In a debate where the topic about trans in women's bathrooms specifically comes up, its completely valid to bring up a trans kid who assaulted women twice in two different schools. As for your point about the norm, I'm not sure the data specifically points to depression and suicide in trans SPECIFICALLY ONLY BECAUSE they don't get to use their bathroom of choice. Can you point me to the "overwhelming majority of cases" where not getting to use the bathroom of their choice was the only reason?
One washroom, toilets in individual cubicles, everyone uses the same. What's the problem here? Do people actually get naked in the communal parts of washrooms? (ps: urinals suck and need to be removed).
The problem is "CHANGE IS SCARY and THINGS I DON'T UNDERSTAND ARE CHANGE"
The problem most normal people in every country in the world separate them for the privacy of each group. Women don’t want to share locker rooms or bathroom with men. What planet do you live on.
@@gsp3428 they are delusional as hell
@@ThatisnotHair VERY delusional!!
@@gsp3428 Because it’s taught that way. there’s no logic to it other than “we feel it’s better so we do it that way”. We all have to shit and pee. So why do se need separate bathrooms? In lots of cultures women and men are naked all day next to each other. They don’t lose their shit. Why? Because it’s normal for them. So as long as we keep it a taboo we’ll never get to the point where it doesn’t bother us to be seen by the opposite sex. Also, I also don’t want other men to see me naked. Guess what? They don’t have to. Why? Because we have separate stalls we can take our shit in. So I wouldn’t even know if a woman was in the stall next to me. You guys are just all scared of change. That’s all. That’s why there’s no logic to your drivel.
You realize the losing side in a debate when thatside keeps cutting off the other.
That has nothing to do with wining or losing.
Im an athiest and enjoyed watching matt on the athiests experience for many years and really admired his use of logic but now i dont know that he has the level of logic that i thought he did. Sorry matt but this was very disappointing to watch
He's dating a "trans woman" 🤷🤦
I find Matt is better able to explain his position on the topic on the Athiest Experience. Forrest does a good job explaining the topic when he is on.
@@mariomiceli9663WTF?! That's disgusting 🤢
@@israelp348 oh yeah...a dude half his age 😂
It is amazing how this nonsense takes up so much time nowadays...
First world problems..
I'm not in the west, this topic is non sensicle and irrelevant to the rest of the world. The rest of the world laughs at the west for this because you can't tell that that not all change is progression.
Standards
It's a fad, as proven by studies in England where there was a %4000 increase in inquiry's about gender change in the British Health system since this whole Trans thing has gained publicity.
Hopefully it'll pass like the tattoo boom has, with, like those with tattoos, some people having permanent reminders of their folly.
@@SaintKimbo I hope it passes without irreparably damaging lives of children... I scares me to think what can happen to children who have parents who believe in this bs ...
@@SaintKimbo Search up “left-handedness over time.” I’m sure people in the 1920s-1940s thought that was a fad as well, but it isn’t. People were just finally allowed to actually use their left hand to write.
For those citing science as the basis for claims about the legitimacy of these sensitive issues, please note that these ideas (identity politics) are relatively new to the mainstream and are being performed in a context where people with dissenting theories (that don't fit the narrative) are often times promptly defenestrated from society. I am all about science and I am all about treating people with respect, but I am worried that this particular domain is compromised. You can find cases where simply reporting data that slightly insinuates something counter to the narrative is met with careers being ruined. The science cannot be settled on this subject until dissenting ideas can be met with genuine, good faith responses; not firings, excommunication, and witch burnings.
Even those ideas that seem phobic.
But SOME ideas we can KNOW are "phobic". We know a lot of people are "phobic" and we know they have the money and social capital to circulate lies and mistruths aimed at slandering traditionally marginalized groups, knowing they can muster a lot of support particularly because said groups (or identities) are marginalized. When those lies and mistruths are discovered, we have to find a way to ostracize them.
Because you're wrong, you see. The science isn't settled when all points of view are upheld equally. The science is settled when the science is settled. Because science isn't an opinion.
Otherwise we would have to constantly debate for the rest of eternity whether climate change is real, whether black people are inferior to white people, whether women can lead just like men ecc...
Is there a specific case where reporting data counter to the narrative "is met with careers being ruined"? Not doubting you, but genuinely interested in knowing more about this.
Dissenting theories not being part of the mainstream narrative have always been a problem in science. Hello Galileo??? But you don't have any dissenting theories on this topic based in science, do you? Otherwise you would just point to that instead of writing that diatribe.
@@brendanwilliams1338 Off the top of my head: Rosie Kay was a choreographer who lost her business after coming up against the gender ideology mob, she told her story in a Triggernometry episode. Kathleen Stock was a professor in the UK who was forced to resign after speaking out on trans issues. I think she got on Triggernometry too, in any case her story is easy to find online. Try searching "gender clinic whistleblower" too.
@@aaxen7255 Thanks. I was aware of those issues, but they revolve around the expression of ideas more generally. It's a problem; don't get me wrong. But I was asking if there had been cases where scientists were "met with careers being ruined" for reporting data specifically. Maybe your last example is an instance of this? I don't know. But that's what I was asking about. The reason I was asking was because the original commenter questioned the integrity and reliability of the data on this issue. And although I value compassion for transgender people, especially those subjected to harassment and violence, and the free expression of ideas, which is an issue about the vitriolic and constricted nature of political discourse, especially on this issue, I also care, above all, about the truth and integrity of evidence-gathering, so I really want to know whether the science is reliable (because I really want to get the right answer). Does that make sense? That's what I was asking.
If Matt Dillahunty walked into a bathroom my daughter was in, I would be going in too.
Because you would spring your testicles automatically, right?
did that sound good in your head?
@@mcmanustony Sounded good for dsouza to say and you insinuate; weird and gross of both of you
@@tpmgx6 I don’t think you are following this…
@@mcmanustony It only makes sense to humans without perverted brains….I see why you are confused. Ill try to explain, if bald headed matt walked into a bathroom with that mans little daughter, the man would walk in too in order to make sure that bald headed man didnt have any perverted intentions. Of course, since being a pervert is something you proudly identify as, that wouldnt make any sense to you.
I’ll try to illustrate the problem as I see it symbolically.
As to what constitutes being a man or a woman and how such can be ascertained we seem to have…as far as I can tell…the following cluster of properties put forward in these discussions.
1. Identity, or inner sense, In these specific cases I think this can be distilled down to (desire).
2. Physical presentation (fashion).
3. Action or behavior (performance).
4. Biological makeup (sex).
So let’s try the following…
Desire identity =x
Presentation=y
Action=z
Biology=n
Currently, the discourse surrounding the trans discussion seems to assert that what makes someone a man/woman is some combination of x y and z but not n. As man/woman are described as distinctly different from male/female. Man/woman being categories of gender (made up of components xyz) whereas male/female are categories of sex that is described in terms of biology (n). The move here is to posit a categorical difference between the concepts of gender and sex so that it then becomes valid to have a case where a male can be referred to as a “woman” without committing category error. This is taken as a sort of axiom but never to my knowledge justified or explained.
More specifically, of x y and z, only x is sufficient on its own to establish one’s gender. So fundamentally what it is to establish that one is a man/woman is simply to establish the existence of x. Of all possible properties x,y,z and n….x is the only essential property to the category of man/woman while y,z and n are accidental properties…or so the gender identitarian assertion goes.
Interestingly x can only be articulated in terms of yzn. As in identity in question or “identify as” can only be articulated in terms of the particulars of an identified object or the particular things that make up the identity in question. The particulars of an object one desires to embody. These take the form of yzn. Without particulars of an object of identification there is no ability to articulate an object thus there is nothing to identify “as”.
X(yzn)
Y is articulated in terms of zn. To present is to present as some material thing, it is itself an action(verb) in relation to an object(noun). One’s presentation is an ongoing action that is only articulable in terms of behavior and adornment of the physical body. How one looks(n) and behaves(z).
Y(zn)
Z is only described in terms of n. Action, potential action, bahavior, movement, these are all functions of the material body. What is the action of the body? The behavior of the body? The movement of the body? Function of the body? Etc.
Z(n)
N is described with reference to material reality. The biological body is made of matter, described in terms of function and form of that matter, the behavior of that matter and subsystems of that matter.
N(matter)
So
X(yzn)
Y(zn)
Z(n)
N(matter)
The only necessary and common component of any of these descriptions is n. Biology. Material reality. Rather than x, as asserted by gender identitarians.
This is my position, what constitutes a man or a woman can be described fundamentally as a function of n as every other component is ultimately only articulatable in terms of n. To posit any one of the other variables as THE necessary variable is to still tacitly make reference to n.
So not only is (n)the essential property to the category of man/woman. The property without which the category itself cannot be articulated/does not obtain…but the assertion that gender and sex are separate categories dissolves as the particulars that one needs to describe gender (X y and z) themselves necessarily contain a description of (n). The category of gender requires a description of the category of sex that it claims to be separate from.
So what are hermaphrodites or people born with chromosomal abnormalities?
@@donsachse There is almost always a dominant sex in these cases and that is what ia put on the infant's birth certificate. Also, chromosomal abnormalities alone are not considered intersex cases by virtually all clinicians. In the less than 0.02% of live births that have true intersex abnormalities (i.e. chromosmal sex does not match phenotypic sex) the infant is assigned a sex at birth, typically a decision made by the parents.
Dude this is baller
Where do you draw the line between biology and psychology? It will not be the same for a single person. Life is complex... So why do people keep thinking they have it figured out?
Yup. Pretty much everything that happens psychologically is rooted in biology.
@@citizenghosttowna component rooted in biology sure, but environment is the larger factor normally, statistics on outcomes of people who experience child abuse or even just having a single parent show this.
Matt Dillahunty's heart is in a good place. I stand in the same camp with respect to protecting the rights of all people both transgender as well as non-transgender. However, we ought to stay committed to seeing the world objectively. When I look at an apple and feel that it is an orange to me, and consequently I declare that the apple is an orange, I then am plain wrong in claiming that the apple is an orange. It is irrelevant that I may feel suicidal if people do not agree with my calling the apple an orange. It is irrelevant that others may murder me or persecute me. Still an apple OBJECTIVELY is what it is and what it is not. This is not a social construct. There is a difference between an apple and an orange, regardless of whether this difference exists in any human society or elsewhere.
Now replace apple with biological sex. A man is a man regardless of how he feels himself to be. The definition of a woman is that a woman is ACTUALLY a woman in the biological sense. Now, when a man feels himself to be a woman, he lacks the condition of actually being a woman. Now, let's say that we all agree to assign the moniker of "woman" to any transgender woman. I will go along with this. However, imagine that now all biological women agree to call themselves by a new moniker (e.g., non-transgender women or X) that has the meaning that RIGHTLY excludes transgender women on the basis that the latter are not biologically female. In this situation, what will the transgender women demand now? Will they still insist to be called by the moniker X? If yes, then that would be coercive and unacceptable. If not, then let's keep the word "woman" for biological females, as it already is. Let's create a new word for transgender women. How about "wotran" for singular, and "wotrans" for plural?
If transgender women were women, then why use the prefix "trans"? Because they are NOT women! They, instead, are transwomen. I do NOT care about how they feel if their feelings illegitimately trump our common sense of reality. There is also the danger that any man can claim to be a transwoman and the society will have no right to doubt their claim. And once their claim is accepted, then they will have access to women's safe spaces, which are specifically designed to keep men out.
Matt Dillahunty's intentions come from a warm place. Never forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Hello, in the spirt of Dillahunty I'd like to RESPECTFULLY disagree, but also point out my reasons why.
You write:
"It is irrelevant that I may feel suicidal if people do not agree with my calling the apple an orange. It is irrelevant that others may murder me or persecute me. Still an apple OBJECTIVELY is what it is and what it is not. This is not a social construct. There is a difference between an apple and an orange, regardless of whether this difference exists in any human society or elsewhere.
Now replace apple with biological sex."
- What you have here is an example of what in logic is called a "false equivalence" (I'm not accusing you of doing that on purpose but just pointing out the logic). You correctly point out that apples are not oranges. But fruit and gender are NOT equitant. Fruit is an inanimate object. Gender, on the other hand IS a social construct. I think you should go back and listen carefully to what Matt was saying. Gender is not the same thing as Biology. Matt was not denying biological fact. Biological fact, though, is not psychology and it's not society. There is nothing biological about social roles. Clothing, for example is not determined by biology. We tend to were the clothing we feel most comfortable in and/or the clothing that fits in the social context we find ourselves in. There is nothing in biology that compels someone to wear a suit or a dress for a wedding, or to wear a bikini or swimming trunks at a beach. These are social conventions. Gender is expressed in and through social conventions. Biology does not determine how we express our gender. It is, rather, a dynamic between our psychology (self perception) and society (social expectations and roles, recognition, social environment, etc.). Another way to put that is that biology is matter but gender is meaning. Gender is the symbolic value and meaning we attribute to our embodiment. Without society (language, relationships, conventions of different sorts) we wouldn't have the ability to derive meaning from our embodiment. In fact, we wouldn't even have a sense of self (!) because we wouldn't have language which is necessary for thinking and communicating.
It's not that the facts, as you state them and as Matt acknowledged, of biology go away. It's rather that biology (bodies and clomazones) are a separate category from gender (psychology and society). Performing a role, wearing a particular style of clothing, presenting one's self to others, are social/psychological choices indicative of a particular time and place. Think, for example, if you were told that you had to wear the clothing of a gender you did not identify with? You probably would not feel like yourself. You'd probably rather wear the clothing and present the style of the gender you identify with. That is what Matt was referring to regarding the difference between sex and gender. I, for example, am a man. I'm a man not merely because of my biology but because of how I relate to myself and others. If I was told I had to wear women's clothing I would probably feel uncomfortable. Not that there's anything wrong with wearing the cloths of other genders, but the point is rather that gender is an expression of the self to others.
I get what you mean when you write "If transgender women were women, then why use the prefix 'trans'? Because they are NOT women! They, instead, are transwomen. I do NOT care about how they feel if their feelings illegitimately trump our common sense of reality." However, that does not trump our common sense of reality. Rather, our COMMON sense of reality is common precisely because it is a social convention that we take part in. Our common reality includes biology (bodies) but also things that are less fixed (and even bodies are not necessarily fixed since our bodies are always changing as we age) - such as language, which itself is a social commons - relationships, expression, and our sense of self. Social reality is a different substance then biological reality. Biology is what a body does and how a body functions. Gender is our social identities and styles. It's a social fact as oppose to a biological fact. Just because it's not determined by biology doesn't make it any less real, just like the words I write are not "organic" or "biological" but rather a social convention based in the code of English used in order to communicate. "Reality" includes multiple layers which are conventionally material but also symbolic and social. Think, as another example of clock time. Clock time does not exist as a material entity but that does not mean it is not objective. It is a social convention that humans are able to organize around because we are able to interpret symbols and recognize patterns. Gender is like the symbolic layer of our embodiment.
Anyway, I'll just end it at that.
Best.
@@Tom-rt6df "False equivalence"? Hmm! I can't help but feel that your characterization of my comments about apples and oranges and all that as a false equivalence is itself a false equivalence. The question is not whether or not something is a false equivalence, but to what degree is it not relatable/relevant and to what degree is it relatable/relevant.
You wrote a lot and although I agree with some of the things you said, I find most of what you said irrelevant to what I had said. I did not at all discuss matters having to do with social constructivism and such, as important as they may be (and not necessarily that they are valid).
My arch concern is the public discovery and universal recognition of reality for what it is and not for what we wish it to be.
Although each one of us is constantly influenced by social forces, each one of us experiences everything in his/her biological body and biological brain. We are all biological every moment of our existence. That is the substrate upon which societies are built. Our biology gives us a narrowly limited set of expressions by which we conduct our individual and social lives. For example, the sort of clothing we wear fits us 'just right'. What do I mean by 'just right'? Well, the sleeves of the blouses we wear are not fifty five miles long. Yes, they would have been fifty five miles long if we were giants the size of mount Everest. This is perhaps a silly example to show the determinative role biology plays on societies. But, for now, it serves the purpose of showing that biology is the substrate upon which societies (human or non-human) are built. Our psychological lives are squarely and almost exclusively dependent on our brains and bodies. In fact, many mental illnesses that used to be diagnosed as purely psychological are now categorized as physiological whose locus is found to be in the brain. What I am trying to say is that it is eminently important to find out to what extent our beliefs, mores, and even possibly what is considered as knowledge, are the byproducts of our particular societies and therefore they should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. But NOT ---- repeat: NOT ---- everything is a social construct in the NON-TRIVIAL sense of the notion of "social construct". To see my point, imagine if I claimed that everything is a biological expression of all the we believe and do and live, and that BIOLOGICAL EXPRESSIONISM" rules supreme and trumps social constructivism. What would that accomplish? Nothing!
So, how do we understand reality for what it is and not for what we wish it to be?
When you see a biological male with danglers between his thighs, what do you call it?
What it is IS regardless of the fact of you, I or anyone else existing to tell what it is.
The Moon exists not because I happen to say so. When I am dead, and before I was conceived in my mother's womb, Moon existed just the same!
So, how do we understand reality for what it is and not for what we wish it to be?
@@fraiopatll633
"I can't help but feel that your characterization of my comments about apples and oranges and all that as a false equivalence is itself a false equivalence. The question is not whether or not something is a false equivalence, but to what degree is it not relatable/relevant and to what degree is it relatable/relevant."
- Fraio, I called it a false equivalence because you wrote that "an apple OBJECTIVELY is what it is and what it is not. This is not a social construct. There is a difference between an apple and an orange, regardless of whether this difference exists in any human society or elsewhere. Now replace apple with biological sex."
That analogy does not work (and is a false dichotomy) for a few reasons which I pointed out (and which you did not address): 1) Gender is NOT the same thing as Biological Sex. Biological Sex is bodies, Gender is social roles and identities. Plus 2) A "social construct" can also be OBJECTIVE. I gave the examples of clock time and language. Clock time is OBJECTIVELY what it is but it is but also not "real" in the material sense. It's real as a social construct. There is no such thing in the material world as June 2, 2023. That is a social fiction, but it's ALSO not subjective. It really exists objectively as a SOCIAL FACT, just like gender.
"You wrote a lot and although I agree with some of the things you said, I find most of what you said irrelevant to what I had said. I did not at all discuss matters having to do with social constructivism and such, as important as they may be (and not necessarily that they are valid)."
- It's valid because biological sex is not the same thing as gender but you are writing as if they are the same thing. Matt, and basically everyone, agrees that biological sex is a material category of the body. It's just not the same thing as gender.
"My arch concern is the public discovery and universal recognition of reality for what it is and not for what we wish it to be. Although each one of us is constantly influenced by social forces, each one of us experiences everything in his/her biological body and biological brain. We are all biological every moment of our existence. "That is the substrate upon which societies are built."
- I disagree. Society is the substrate upon which all meaning is built. We have bodies and also, at the same time, are SOCIAL and historical at every moment of our existence. The mere fact of biology does not determine our social existence. Like I wrote before, we would have no idea what ANYTHING at all means - biology, psychology, writing, thinking, words, etc. - without society and social facts like language - which are not biology. It's not just that we are "influenced by social forces" - WE ARE SOCIAL. We are the social force. Our "Selves" only exists because we are social. In other words, we would not have thinking and consciousness without society because we would not have symbolic understanding of what anything means and therefore no way of communicating or understanding anything at all, including ourselves. Our "brains" in the abstract do not spontaneously generate meaning. We have meaning because we are able to mediate our experience (like having a brain) through society via language. REALITY is not an either/or between biology and society, or between being "individual" and being "societal". These are simultaneous layers of reality.
Think of this analogy with a computer (yes human beings are far more complex than computers but this is just in order to demonstrate a point): biological sex is like hardware and gender is like software. Without hardware there is no computer, but if the computer has no software then it can't function. Some people have Male hardware (reproductive organs, chromosomes) but feminine software (psycho-social identity, and MIND/Consciousness) and vice-versa. Our minds are not just the brain. Our minds are our ability to use the brain to interact and intensionally create a world. Which is another example: World and Earth are not the same thing, in the same way that biology and gender are not the same thing. Without the earth we would not exist. But the fact that we exist and have to exist on a planet does not in itself determine the world. The world is a product of human activity in time, also known as society (our connection to history, meaning, infrastructure, ect.) . Gender is both a product and a producer of society. It is the embodied consciousness that attributes meaning to realities such as biology.
"Our biology gives us a narrowly limited set of expressions by which we conduct our individual and social lives. For example, the sort of clothing we wear fits us 'just right'. What do I mean by 'just right'? Well, the sleeves of the blouses we wear are not fifty five miles long."
- Blouses, and all clothing, are made by people for people. If someone with a 7 foot, 300 pound frame wanted to wear a blouse (regardless of their gender) then that blouse can be tailored because clothing doesn't exist in nature and we don't just exist as mere bodies in "nature" but as intentional historical creatures who create our selves with our minds and actions with others. Otherwise we'd all be naked living off the land like other animals and not in architectural creations in cities with roads and infrastructure, typing on computers. Biology does not determine that (it's always there but it's not the thing that creates Society. It's a condition of possibility for creating but not itself the act of creating). Biology is always there insofar as we are embodied but the body in and of itself does not create meaning.
"NOT ---- everything is a social construct in the NON-TRIVIAL sense of the notion of 'social construct'. To see my point, imagine if I claimed that everything is a biological expression of all the we believe and do and live, and that BIOLOGICAL EXPRESSIONISM" rules supreme and trumps social constructivism. What would that accomplish?"
Again, it's not an either/or. The biological and the social are simultaneous layers of our reality. Simultaneous. "Social construction" doesn't mean "just make it up" - it means we are bound by our ontology (our mode of being) to create meaning in a world of actions and meaning with others. Language is a social construct. The measurement of time by clocks is a social construct. Gender roles are social constructs. Etc.
ALL of this though is diverging from the original point which is that in the United States right now there is an attack on transgender people who are just trying to exist. Their existence is itself another confirmation that biology does not determine gender. That is true for all people.
"So, how do we understand reality for what it is and not for what we wish it to be?"
- "Reality" includes a world of our making (civilization, art, politics, music, fucking, playing living - these things are not predetermined). Some people, though, are more passive and reactive and maybe can't comprehend that human beings actively produce the world they live in.
"When you see a biological male with danglers between his thighs, what do you call it?"
- What a strange thing to ask? People don't put their hands down the pants of the people they meet to check their genitals (I mean unless they're looking to be arrested). Like I wrote above, we're not like other animals living naked in caves. Maybe you'd prefer that (I don't think you do and hope not) but I happen to like modernity (I like participating in discourse such as this for example on Modern machines like the computer). No one is saying that biological males don't have dicks. Rather, there are biological males who are transgender, in which case they live socially as women. Some of them get bottom surgery though most don't. Those "danglers" between the thighs of biological males do not determine ones gender but rather is a fact of a biological embodiment. I think we agree on that, though, so some of this is just taking past each other.
Either biological reality trumps socially constructed reality, or not. If not, then there is no limit to what may be 'constructed'.
That's no way to run a universe.
@@Tom-rt6df You're simply wrong to state that gender is separate to biological sex.
In all cultures in the World males and females have evolved according to the roles and activities which is highly specific to them .
Males, being bigger and stronger and faster - are physically equipped to hunt in remote and harsh locations for long periods of the year , whilst the family nest was occupied by the resident females , and they would look after young children, gather fruit , berries etc , and be very socialized to such an environment. AND THEY EVOLVED THUS !
For tens of thousands of years - ingrained in our very DNA to this day .
Use your common sense, this is so evident - the general differences btw males and females ..
Social construct was as it necessarily was.. and become bred into humankind. Our early early ancestors went through the fires to forge us , as we will for future generations.
You can't just wipe the slate clean here. Truth and reality will "intervene".
After he recited his well-learned speech he instantly starts interrupting. Classic.
That's typical of him. Civility goes only one way
As an atheist, I have the greatest respect for Matt for his opinions on religion but he’s simply wrong on gender identity and is a part of the gender “religion” based upon the same “feelings” that Christians exhibit that he criticizes. Lastly, it’s my opinion that the atheist movement has created the gender identity crisis as a result of removing the structure of religion and replaced it with identity .
Finally, his opinion on sports and bathrooms is ridiculous and lacks credibility for more reasons that I can count. Matt, you’re not a woman so how dare you render opinions that women shouldn’t have the right to be offended by men using their private spaces; taking their jobs; scholarships; raping them in prison: etc. Don’t you find it curious that this issue is rarely talked about with women invading men’s spaces: it’s because it’s largely not happening. Lastly, transgenders are not being murdered left and right not committing mass suicide. The largest percentage of transgender people is because it’s become trendy; it’s a social contagion and a way to be part of the woke religion. To the extent they are committing suicide, it’s because they are mentally unstable, not because there are “bigots” out there.
No, religious beliefs and the phenomenon of gender and its expression are not analogous.
Women's fear of transwomen in bathrooms is equivilent to a white person fearing black people sitting next to them on the bus. Their fears are irrational, not based on any evidence, and purely discriminatory. These women are the minorities as the majority of women accept trans people. We don't need to respect their irrational fears, just as we are not going to ban black people from white buses again.
You are looking at this from the perspective of the bigot. Try learning the perspective of trans people and maybe you'll find a tiny bit of empathy to hang onto so you can grow that empathy "muscle" and make it stronger, not weaker. It's very weak right now and it's full of anti-trans fearmongering.
Imposing your subjective beliefs on society and disrupting societal norms seems analogous to me.
@@wet-read 100% analogous.
You're mistaken. These are totally different subject matters.. Religion makes claims about ULTIMATE reality. Gender identity deals merely with ones state of mind and how they choose to identify... Not even in the same ball park...
The argument was lost when Matt tried to reframe the sports model. Even if one were to divide it by weight class, men would dominate such sports. It's a basic fact, Matt lost this one.
Yeah he's advocating, intentionally or unintentionally, for disolving women's sports entirely.
That's the point, though. He knows that men will dominate the new single stream and this way, transgender women will be competing against players as physically capable as them, and not just women and have an unfair advantage.
@@72seventytwo Yeah, but it would be cis males in every event all the time, at least in physical categories. The trans women that compete are ranked so far down the men's list that they are functionally amateurs. So yeah, they can play sports, but it'll be in the YMCA leauges, not as professionals. And women will be shut out of paid athletic programs entirely. There's not enough money to go around to pay all the men who want to play professional soccer as well as trans and cis women. It's why sports is segregated in the first place.
@@72seventytwo so the solution to stay consistent is to abolish women's sports. If Matt took the intellectually honest and defensible position, he would divide it in, 3 categories, male female and trans.
Matt argued that the evidence against the proposition is in the depression and suicide rates. That is plain insufficient because one has to demonstrate that the depression is due to denial of the bathroom of choice. It could be due to other factors that have yet to be ruled out.
In any case, it is not about harm because in that case one might as well have unisex bathrooms.
I never understood why "gender is a social construct" is a justification. First, social constructs have societal utility (which I would argue shouldn't be able to be upended by a single individual's subjective interpretation). Second, the idea that gender is a spectrum is a social construct itself. So, why should a minority preference for Social Construct A be the standard for the whole of society who prefers Social Construct B? Aren't social constructs implemented based on the utility for the majority of society rather than small segments of that society?
In addition, harm is not sufficient to impose restrictions. For example, we do not hold Marilyn Manson or Ozzy Ozborne liable for people going out and causing harm as a result of their music or artistry. Their art is not the "cause" of the harm, and regardless of how many people do harmful things after listening to their music, most would agree that we should not restrict art on that basis alone. Even if many, many people cause harm as a result of the art, most agree that the cause of the harm is not with the individual who created the art which the other person acted on. Why then should something like separate bathrooms or the view that sex/gender are the same thing be ascribed as the "cause" of harm?
Yeah, it's like stereotypes have no statistical origin or something, and the thing you need to learn is expand the awereness that there are also unique stories, minorities and odd cases and to react neutral rather than hostile as is a knee-jerk reaction in the face of unknown.
The problem is saying gender is a social construct. "Gender" itself is not a social construct, it is comprised of physical characteristic, gender roles and gender expressions. The last two are a social construct. "Blue is for boys, pink is for girls" That's all a social construct for instance.
Replace gender with skin color and you will see how bigoted this idea is.
That's a valid point. In general, I'm okay with distinguishing between sex and gender, as terms. It's useful to note that there is a difference between what we mean by "biological male" and "the qualities a particular culture at a particular time happens to deem masculine." The former is innate and objective; the latter is malleable and contingent.
That said, when people use the term "construct," they often seem to be implying that whatever is "constructed" must ipso facto be trivial, suspect or deliberately deceptive. But the fact is, we live in a world of constructs. Languages are socially constructed. As are nations. As are currencies, marriages, laws, etc. A more useful question we might ask is, what are they constructed from?
The irony in the whole thing is that on one hand they are saying that gender is just a social construction and it shouldn't matter, yet on the other hand they are specifically wanting to be part of the social construct by being able to get access to the bathroom they think their gender expression matches with. The fact is that gender absolutely matters even for these trans people because if it wouldn't, they wouldn't have any problem with being in a bathroom that doesn't match with their perceived gender. It's rather insane that we so-called "cis" people are being told to not take gender so seriously while at the same time the exact opposite is encouraged for the trans people.
After listening to Dillahunty talk about science & facts for so long its odd to hear him basically talk about how he "feels" and disregard "the science". Strange times...
Science can be applied to feelings and what is going on in people's heads. It may have bigger error bars than measuring G but it can still be science.
What is unscientific about investigating and following evidence supporting the idea that people fall into more than 2 groups about how they see their gender and that in some people the group they fall into and aspects of their brains appears to be different from their sex?
This is what you would expect from something as messy as biology and evolution. Natural variation is the basis for how we got here.
Bro forgot about the social sciences
@daveansell1970 "Science" can be applied to anything, but is the evidence clear and argument strong for these "feelings"? Far from it and that's the problem with Dillahunty here. He seems to have chosen his feelings over the concrete evidence in science/biology. There is no strong argument (really none at all) for his feelings here and he knows it, you know it.
@@frankiefc3 cope
@@frankiefc3 no, he is just answering a different question to the one you are answering. Though even the physical biology is nowhere near simple. You can be XY but apparently female, you can be XXY and various other collections of sex chromosomes, genitalia which isn't obvious if it is male or female, (intersex babies have had a gender assigned which is simplest to a achieve surgically, and then later have been sure they are the other sex), and many other weird artifacts of biology.
But Matt was talking about gender which is the group you are treated as and feel you should behave as. Given the huge messyness of biology, expecting this to be simple would just be dishonest without huge evidence. Given that there is a group of people who apparently feel very uncomfortable in their socially assigned gender, it is very plausible that there is something biological going on. And there is a fair amount of evidence that there is (not clearcut which is unsurprising), that various forms of LGBT people have different brain scans, and definitely that women who are exposed to more testosterone in the womb think in a more stereotypically male way.
Given that definite understanding of this that doesn't involve talking to people about their feelings may take a while, I would say that believing them is the rational default response, especially as it is by no means an extraordinary claim.
Maybe it would make everyone less uncomfortable if there was a third gender we could assign people to like in Thailand, but the right wing seems to be as resistant to this as trans people.
Watching Dillahunty try to make an argument here reminds me of my teenagers struggling to argue against common sense family rules.
Matt is right!
@@Riky_Jones Exactly
@@monicadaniels784 they don’t get it
@@Riky_Jones It's worse than that, they enjoy not getting it!
@@monicadaniels784 you got that right Monica
Matt has casually redefined “man” and “woman” to mean “masculinity” and “femininity”
We don't have gender specific washrooms in airplanes. Make all public or restaurant washrooms single person rooms & don't specify gender.
That’s because they are for one person only. You can’t have large venues with restrooms for only one person - you’d be queuing up for hours 😂😂😂😂
Are you dumb?😂
Nobody is gonna pay to redesign single use bathrooms... and not phesable
@@morbidmanmusic Step one: take existing bathroom and put inside lock on outer door.
Step two: Remove signage signifying which gender the bathroom is for.
Done.
Nope. Men's and women's restrooms. Follow the rules.
@@cnault3244 step three: go piss in the woods if men's and women's bathrooms bother you, weirdo.
Listening to Matt on this subject is like listening to Sye Ten's evil mirrored twin.
What you believe in your head doesn't account for objective reality.
It's "When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.."
But this new argument suggests that you take the lemon seeds, genetically modify them to grow a cow, then eat that cow
Love Matt. Hes helped me with deconstructing. But, I find that he has left one cult for another. Sad.
It's almost like most atheists are complete leftards first, 'atheists' a distant second.
What did you deconstruct?
@@piggypooo Believing in the bible and god/s for the last 36 years of my almost 40 year existence.
@@watchandjewelryloft4713 ohh gotcha!
He has not helped you, he has bought you into his own ideology and this is where it leads. Him dating a trans man and arguing the side he argues here. There is no stability in this man, morally. That is seen and verifiable by his actions and this debate.
Can't believe l am actually agreeing with Dinesh over Matt. Dinesh put Gish galloping Matt in his place. I can't believe even such simple facts can be denied.
lol! what was the deal breaker for you ?
It’s pretty scary, right? Especially when you consider how rationally and comprehensively he can dismantle arguments from people about the truth of their religious beliefs. But when it comes to gender, we just have to accept people’s subjective experience?
what simple facts? The made up ones Dinesh offered?
You mad? How were you made? Man or woman or woman with woman.
Well then you didn't listen and comprehend... 😂😂😂
It's very interesting to see a man like Matt coming up with arguments non-scientifically and non-skeptic. It looks like he's just there because Dinesh is a religious person, and he must be against anything religious people believe/support.
Ah, because religious people can totally be objective and not use the very science they claim to support and then selectively apply it to support their "God"
@@ToHoldNothingWhat are you blabbering on about?
@@jameswitt108 Sarcasm escape you? I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of religious people trying to selectively use science while claiming it can't answer some questions, but totally proves their "God"
@@ToHoldNothing TLDR
@@jameswitt108 Alright, smartass, how about 10 words? Religion accusing science of biased thinking is pot meeting kettle"
First time ever, and i`ve heard à LOT of matt, that he really sounds stupid but in a smart mans suite. I dont know why he is mixed up about this and not well read on the subject. His facts are wrong and i think he should read more about suicide rates etc.
But its not unrealistic to think that he is defending his trans friends. He could have a LOT to loose i guess , in social life if he is objective.
Nope. He has the basic facts pretty much nailed on this. It's just a completely bigoted and sexist issue anyway. It's only people assuming that males are more dangerous than females, and males who behave like women are even more dangerous. A sign on a door indicating no one born with a penis is allowed, never has and never will keep people more safe.
Even if billions of trans individuals commit suicide, that affords no reason to abandon reason and objectivity and commitment to a scientific understanding of the world and reality. In other words, the rate at which trans individuals commit suicide and self-harm (for whatever reason) is irrelevant to determining whether or not a trans woman is a woman or a man. This does not contradict our positions with respect to supporting and advancing trans rights and their freedom of choice and life styles, etc.
@@fraiopatll633 Stop you are rejecting science period.
Woman or Man in what contect Sex or Gender.
If you think they are the same then you not Matt have rejected objectivity and reason.
Just because you feelings want them to be the same. Science and clearly established a difference.
Notice how you only focused on suicide rates. But COMPLETELY ignored MURDER RaTES?????
That shows alot about what you listend to.
I see a lot of people in the comments disagreeing with Matt, but they can't explain how he is wrong. I'm wondering if many of these people are simply pre-disposed to disagreeing with transgender folks.
@@jackeagleeye3453 Haven't I explained why he is wrong?
But there is another face to the coin. Has Matt explained why he is right? If so, then why is it that a lot of people you see in the comments are not convinced? How difficult could that be for Matt? Aren't we all open-minded and quite reasonable? Or, is it that Matt is pre-disposed to agreeing with transgender folks? Is Matt pre-disposed to disagreeing with the rest of us? Are you pre-disposed to disagreeing with the rest of us? Is that a nice thing to do?
Disclaimer: This was a Dilettante Presumption Theorem: All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed do not necessarily reflect official positions or views or any other entity, past or present. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying endorsement of interpretations and factual statements.
Can you answer a simple Question?
Men who think they are Women are Fighting to be in Women's Change Rooms, Locker Rooms, shower areas and Washrooms.
How come Women who think they are Men aren't Fighting to be in the Men's Change Rooms, Locker Rooms, shower areas and Washrooms?
To you last question: They are, trans men are just less politicized than trans women. This debate is about controlling women's bodies, and to do so men have to control how we define women.
4:47 Dinesh pronounces accoutrements "a-cooter-mint lmfao
Not the way I heard him pronounce it.
How's your Hindi and Konkani?
...btw, the French pronunciation is something like 'ah-coo-tra-mahn'. It is a 'loanword' from the French language, and we what were learnt to talk posh use the French pronunciation.
@@PrenticeBoy1688 lol touche...Monoglot making fun of someone's second language pronunciation...
@@PrenticeBoy1688 I am pretty good with French pronunciation but I only parle un peu and the peu I parle is probably only barely understandable
The International Trans Headquarters building collapsed today. Engineers say the building failed because too many of the nuts identified as bolts.
its amazing that i have watched videos of Matt Dillahunty before and everything he says is 100% true and logic.He have debated with a lot of educated people and always was a winner at least in my eyes. And now because he does not want to make his trans friends sad he makes logical mistakes and says things one would not expect of him.
I agree with you! I agree but not necessarily with the reasons you proffered. I think he truly believes that it is the right thing to say in support of trans rights precisely for the reasons he gives, etc. etc. He has lost his deeper commitment to objectivity especially when it comes to social constructivist ideology.
it boggles my mind and confuses me greatly. it's like all his rules change as soon as the subject goes to this. kind of like how jordan peterson with politics and then his rules change when it comes to god.
@@jhibbitt1 I was thinking the same thing
Sounds more like your personal bias to be honest. 😊
@@guycd1 Nobody can be 100% objective, but i am trying to judge the arguments and not the view.
Wasn't Matt supposed to be the science and facts guy? Also, wouldn't all this be easier if we referred to personality rather than gender and use the bathroom (and sports team) of your sex as before
Exactly.
Matt has thrown science & logic out the window as he's banging a troon called Arden Hart.
There are Trans men who look exactly like Matt. You really want them using the women's room because they happen to have or were born with a vagina. So stupid.
many times in college I used the female bathrooms in the dorms instead of having to walk to another building or floor to find a "mens bathroom". Never was a problem. People need to grow up.
@@pcproffy Maybe the women were shit scared to tell you to leave because of guess what: MALE VIOLENCE.
He is the science and facts guy lol still is 😁😁😁
How insane this clip… a theist being more appreciative of science than a skeptic?! People like Matt are loosing all their credibility when they say shit like that.
Matt is using gender-inclusive language. A language used by the medical and scientific community. Using gender-inclusive language means speaking and writing in a way that does not discriminate against a particular sex, social gender or gender identity, and does not perpetuate gender stereotypes.
@@brotherjohnnyxXxX well, it feels pretty discriminative to me and other women most of this language. Being called a uterus-haver so that males who “identify as women” can feel more comfortable and reassured that my biology is unimportant to my experiences in this world. I think you would do good to educate yourself a bit more on what passes as be kind, I have and changed my mind as a consequence.
@@liberosisnow Your biology and experiences as a woman do not cease to be important just because trans women exist and the usage of a language that doesn't exclude them, does not affect your life in any way.
Wow Matt is going by feelings people feel there is a God so it must be true there is a God this is the first of Matt's video's I've seen that i think he is wrong
Yes. People feel there is a God, therefore there are people who feel there is a God. People feel they are a gender, therefore there are people who feel they are a gender. So I'm not sure you think he is wrong. I think you just want him to be wrong.
@roxydejaneiro5640 He is an atheist, so he is wrong about one or the other his argument could be used for truth of a God if feelings are facts
@@roxydejaneiro5640just because they feel something doesn’t mean they are that gender
Matt: I care about the truth. I consider myself a skeptic. You should always ask questions and when people tell you to accept God on faith then that's a warning flag. You always need to be ready to justify it. People claim they've experienced God and I'm happy to accept they had an experience, but that's different from objective reality.
Random person: Yeah, that's excellent points. I agree. This is partially why I'm a skeptic in some of the claims about what it means to be trans.
Matt: WHAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!! :@ :@ :@ :@ :@
19:08 "If I was dressed as a woman, you wouldn't even know [if I was a woman]!" Oh, I think we would, Matt...
"Gender is entirely a social construct".
"Your gender is a fundamental part of individual identity".
The pro trans advocates do like to contradict themselves. Telling us that something which is supposedly a societal construct is also something in being within the individual.
Why can't a social construct be a fundamental part of individual identity? You're not making sense. I'm an American. It's fundamental to who I am and how I interact with the world, but there's no objective universal concept of America.
@@ronhoward121 As I said, the narrative claim is that gender is ENTIRELY a social construct. If something is ENTIRELY that then it logically cannot also be partly something else.
^You couldn't be ENTIRELY American but also partly something else.
@@ronhoward121 And your analogy is false. You are NOT somehow American in being despite how you may feel. There is nothing that necessarily marks you out as that rather than something else in that regard. Our nationality is not a fundamental part of our being.
@@digglyda Now I'm confused. My criticism was that "it is ENTIRELY a social construct" but that doesn't mean if can't also be a fundamental part of individual identity. Your second analogy sounds more like you're objecting to someone saying they were "entirely a woman". Me being entirely American is not analogous to the concept of gender being entirely something else. But if your biggest complaint is some weird semantics about what the word entirely means, I think you're wasting a lot of time.
The appropriate analogy would be for you show that if "American is entirely a social construct" then it can't be partly something else.
@@digglyda What is fundamental to my identity is personal to me, isn't it? I suppose you're probably an absolutist, and think there's some objective best way to identify?
This really pains me to watch when Matt, who claims to be a skeptic, doesn't use his standards of skepticism when it suits his argument. I watched another talk with Matt and Jordan Peterson, where Jordan claimed that the mystical experience produced by some drug allows the smoker to stop smoking proves the existence of the supernatural. Matt countered brilliantly with something like, "all this proves is that if they experienced what they thought was a mystical experience, they are more likely to stop smoking", thus it doesn't prove the supernatural. Where is that Matt? If I had that skeptical Matt here listening to this Matt saying the fact that high suicide rates prove that transgender people are emotionally harmed by going into their own biological bathroom, he would have a fit. Wouldn't a true skeptic argue that all that proves is transgender people just have high suicide rates? It could be true that no matter how society accommodates them, their suicide rate remains high. I don't know, but my point is Matt isn't being a proper skeptic here. I idolized Matt because of his logical prowess and his quick wit, but sadly logical consistency isn't one of his characteristics.
I would not say the mere fact that trans individuals have a higher suicide rate is enough to claim it is due to social stigma, but rather the documented fact that social acceptance significantly reduces the suicide rate.
Same. He's the last person in whom I expected to see such a blatant double standard and logical breakdown
What does skepticism have to do with this? This is psychology... Not claims about ultimate reality... You don't understand the discussion...
Matt is the one who is actually FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE and the DATA on this issue. People like YOU follow the science until it conflicts with your BIGOTRY. We are talking about REAL HUMAN BEINGS being denied their human rights! Get a clue
@@migbham1 The science doesn't support your BIGOTRY and you're big mad
One of the very few points I would disagree with Matt on (though I would fear debating him). I totally agree with the "transmedicalist" side that gender disphoria is a scientifically verifiable disorder - you can have "feminine" brains or brain "modules" (in fact isn't that how homosexuality and the sexual spectrum can be very neatly explained? regions responsible for sexual attraction develop partially or entirely as if in the opposite sex?). The only argument in favour of "transtrenders" ("it's just an identity I choose") is basically the same as for religion - "less depression and suicide" (sure you can get similar effects through secular meditation and community, but studies confirm supernatural placebo gives it a bit of an extra "oomph"), and the conclusion should be as if with religion - you can believe what you want (whether it is god or total separation of sex and gender), but it doesn't make it true.
Trans people really do exist
@@oliviamaynard9372 I agree 100% they do. But they are basically divided into two camps: those that believe it's medical (gender dysphoria) and those that believe it's performative (simply a choice).
@@bulhakov It isn't some choice. Like being gay isn't
@@oliviamaynard9372 That's what I also beleive. But not what the tucute/transtrender side of the gender dysphoria debate believes.
That's because Matt is woke now and has to justify it somehow. I used to admire the guy but now he's just another sell out.
14:11 "Transwomen are women"
I love you, Matt, you are a huge inspiration to me and will always be, but I think you're off on this one. Fundamentally, transwomen are men. The only way round this is to legitimise gender over sex. But an implication of doing so would mean that Adam Graham, the man who got sentenced for double rape, could suddenly identify as 'Isla' and successfully get put in the women's prison. On what grounds would you deny Isla's self-identity, and what kind of precedent would this set for who has authority to decide? Gender dysphoria used to be officially considered a disorder, which is what it should have remained (while trying to tackle stigma a different way). Thank goodness they denied Adam to an abundance of potential rape victims. Foxes who identify as hens shouldn't be released into the henhouse. Likewise, I think we should ensure that nothing threatens the legitimacy of fact
Not to mention the terms gender and biological sex have always been interchangeable. We all have identities; the term 'gender identity' works perfectly well to describe the concept without redefining gender completely.
as Matt said plenty of times on the atheist experience. 'beliefs inform actions" and "I try to believe as many true things as possible". How does someone indentifying as 'gender fluid' measure up to those quotes?
True can be a state of fluidity. A person’s own gnosis and self can have nothing to do with your experience or truth, while simultaneously being valid of itself while yours exists in the same fashion, and doesn’t depend on what you might consider universal constants of your own truth.
@@Rednilsunwood Really? You honestly believe that you can shift between genders daily? You beleive this? Or is your position that people can claim they can?
Dinesh D'Souza documentaries are very unintentionally funny
And pathetically inaccurate
Your statement has nothing to do with this debate.
@@Lisa-rc1mi Yours also not.
How so?
@@lindseyroy1629 They are baaaad sweety, thats how so 😂 . Go watch some and find out .
Matt's argument on using bathrooms is so stupid and illogical. People assume your gender based on physical appearances and not on your psychological feelings or emotions. Or do people need to ask every person about how they feel about their gender in the west?
Your bathroom at home is for ALL genders, unless you have two, which specifically states who can use what, then that's no different from public restrooms.
@@powerdavid6235 maybe you should understand the difference between the private and the public. In homes, bathrooms are share by people who are acquainted with each other but in public it is used by people who are complete strangers. So how can a man and a woman use the same bathroom in public? 🤷
@@av2370 Let's see, womans bathrooms have stalls only, so how would they know if a man is using the stall next to them?. Mens bathrooms also have stalls, so what's stopping a woman using that stall?. You asked "How can a man and a woman use the same bathroom in public", and I just answered that very easy question.
@@powerdavid6235 then why is there different public bathrooms for Men and Women in the first place? You people talk about respecting the rights and feelings of others, but what about those genuine women whose rights and feelings are threatened by the presence of men in their bathrooms? As i see, you people don't care about the right and feelings of others as long as your demands are met. Isn't it?
@@av2370 I don't like giving history lessons usually, because you can easily find out these things online if you choose to. But you may be surprised to know that "seperate" bathrooms for men and woman only came about in the late 19th century because religious organisations felt it was "Immoral" for men and woman to share the same bathroom, up until then no one cared about it. I couldn't care less if a woman wants to use the male bathroom, she's in a stall. And how is a woman threatened by a man relieving himself in the stall next to her?. she can't see him, and the same goes for a woman using the stall in a mans restroom. If a man enters a womans bathroom to attack them then no sign on the door is going to prevent that unfortunately. Nearly ALL disabled restrooms are unisex, what have you got to say about them?.
Dillahunty is such a disappointment to the sceptic community 😢
Agreed.
Imagine setting up an absolute meritocracy for sports, where women would practically never win against their male counterparts. How demoralizing would that be for women, who currently can be professional athletes and actually experience the struggle and joy of winning against an evenly matched opponent...
Sports are rarely evenly matched and never fair.
see people say this but like the whole concept of sports in general is mainly where people born with exceptional genetic factors are at an advantage so like, if you take the sex you're born with as a factor analogous with other genetic factors, then separating sports by gender is useless, at least theoretically. in todays society, there is a good reason for this but its because of the social constructs that have been in society for so long up to this point
women are not bigots to want to stay safe.
Nothing to stop a man crossdressing and walking into a woman's bathroom any day. Why is there no epidemic of abuse and where is outrage??
Jeez... from Dinesh v Hitchens to Dinesh v Dillahunty.. we're gonna need another Hitch...
Absolutely. 👍
The only way to accept Matt's argument is to first commit to the cult beliefs he attempts to defend.
What particular point do you think he got wrong
And what cult would that be, the cult of objective logic? Because he was defending logic the way I saw it. Are you wearing your god glasses today?
@@jerrylong6238 The cult of “they”
@@truesoundboy1 everything he literally is arguing with reality which by definition is insanity
@@jerrylong6238 objective logic oh fuck no you mean no logic 🤣😂
There needs to be a line drawn between genetic gender (aka biology) and social gender (psychology). Most of the fights are coming from the inability to distinguish between the two... as people are actually fighting over possession of words, and that is in turn interfering with the debate.
There is. Is called sex and gender. People who conflate the two cannot figure out why everyone keeps calling them transphobic lol.
@@jonathan4189 Because gender doesn't mean anything. It's just the social manifestation of sex. And the two have been interchangeable since time immemorial.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 In. Certain. Cultures. Just like homophobia. Thanks for the factually incorrect fallacy of tradition. That’s not super tiresome to hear again in this discourse.
Humans have always expressed gender along a spectrum related to the culture in which they lived. This is a historically documented fact. In some cultures, being trans was celebrated, in some it was tolerated, in others it was a death sentence.
You want to force a common but arbitrarily defined cultural norm on a everyone because of whatever bed-wetting fear-based reasons you have. Other people want to extend basic human dignity to the trans community. Which one of these groups has the assholes in it?
This is rich. It's called sex and gender you twat.
Adding fancy sounding qualifiers is not a win, it's obfuscating from pre existing language that already describes such things. Gender, btw, existed as a concept in language for centuries, it was only maybe 200-300 years ago at the most that we saw a conflation of gender and sex because of prudishness to even mention intercourse (a thing that most people will do in their lives)
No one possesses words, they're social constructs as well, they merely function on rules that are a little more stringent in some aspects, like semiotics, philology, etc
The modern English word gender comes from the Middle English gender, gendre, a loanword from Anglo-Norman and Middle French gendre. This, in turn, came from Latin genus. Both words mean "kind", "type", or "sort".
Would Shakespeare have understood "gender" to mean what Matt says it means? Would Bertrand Russell? MLK? Would anyone before 2014 have used the term that way outside of a small group of academics? If the argument is "Look, we want to change the word "gender" to mean something other than what it traditionally has meant because it would be more inclusive of transexuals, transvertites & gynophiles, then ok. I can understand that. But to claim this is what the term itself means sounds weird to me.
It was definitely used in that way before 2014 and I am sure any quick google would show that it was used in at least the second wave of feminism, if not before.
They used to show that the social roles of women and men that were created up until that point were doing a disservice to men and women, and the gay rights movement took it on board as well.
So no, while Shakespeare and wouldn’t have used the word in this way or possibly even been aware of the idea behind the distinction, de Bouvior was aware of this distinction, even if she didn’t used gender to describe it, in The Second Sex.
The first used of gender for social norms in OED Was in 1963, so Bertrand Russel may well have been aware of this distinction too.
I would also had that i was aware of this distinction in discussion at a-level in at least 2012 and I wouldn’t describe my FE college as the centre of any small group of academics in any field
@@whynot217 SO Shakespeare would have agreed that Queen Victoria could have been a man and Macbeth could have had a period?
Interesting
@@whynot217 So back in 2013 if you asked a random sample of a few hundred people in, say, rural Michigan, downtown Beijing or eastern Nigeria most of them would say "Why, of course men can get pregnant and women can have erections! Gender is a social construct, don't you know?"
Come on, you don't believe that. You KNOW you don't believe that.
Words obtain their definition by social consensus. Matt is holding a minority opinion on the meaning of the word "gender" (which was only used this way in 1955 for the first time) for political reasons.
This isn't to say his reasons are not valid, IMO I'm only stating facts. To say "Trans women are women" rather than "Trans women are men who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are psychologically and emotionally women trapped in men's bodies" is choice, not a "fact"
@@santosd6065 Clearly isn’t what I said, but you sure set that strawman alight
If a man wants to dress up and claim he is a woman, that's up to him. It is not up to trans people whether everyone else accepts that claim. I'm not sure how a guy that spends a lot of time using this same logical arrangement against religion can't see this. At the end of the day, a false claim is a false claim.
That doesn't mean I hate trans people or don't respect their right to live as they see fit.
Because the last atheist that spoke against the trans community nearly lost his channel and all forms of income. On top of being harassed. So Matt being a coward, is simply following the trans dogma.
Who are you referring to?
I think Matt has been indoctrinated into that trans cult. They seem to have taken over the group Matt was affiliated with. I guess that's the problem with building a community around a single disbelief - it leaves the door open for other ideologies when people aren't paying attention!
Secular humanism is more important than atheism.
It does, though. And the science goes against you based on people who have actually studied this subject.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 You say it does, I say it doesn't - how do we go about proving who is correct? Claiming science goes against something without providing any scientific evidence at all is useless.
Matt is the most religious man I have ever seen. Also loosing to DinDin is a big L.
I hear Personality here, not gender. A Tom Boy is a personality, not another gender.
So Much respect for Matt, but on this one... Let's say that Im not convince that a gender outside of sex exists 😂. What is the evidence?
Matt for once has abandon logic for emotion. First time I see him using falacies : appeal to emotion.... Must be that he is defending nonsens.
I have the same thoughts. We are told repeatedly that gender and sex are separate things. OK then, so what exactly is gender? Can you even define the term without referencing sex? If not, then they're not really separate are they? To the contrary, they appear to be very closely linked, so much so that we are told that surgery and hormones are necessary when one's sex and gender do not match. "Match?" So sex and gender are actually matched things? Presumably male matches to man and female matches to woman. Can it be the other way? So then I'm back to: what is gender? How many are there and how do we know this?
Abandoned logic for emotion. Like Dinesh always does if he's not abandoning logic for straight up lying, deflecting or to perpetuate some bit of disinformation???
@@gunkulator1heyo, trans person here (male to female).
I will try my best to explain but I would also recommend just searching scientific paper libraries online, sex and gender have been studied for decades and have been described in countless papers.
Anyways, sex is biological in the sense that it is defined by a set of factors such as chromosomes, hormones, etc. It’s what you usually think as sex, male and female.
Gender is your innate sense of your sex. If you woke up in the opposite sex’s body, you would probably wanna switch back pretty soon after, you would get dysphoric about the body you have now, and with not being perceived as you once was. You would want to be your OG sex again.
That’s how I feel, without the whole body switching analogy. I was born male, but have an “innate sense of sex” of female. Okay, that still sounds like garble, what does this actually mean?
Well, I wish to have a female body, I wish to have breast, and have the proper genitalia, etc. When I see girls, I’m jealous I don’t look like that. I’m sad that I will never be able to bare children, as I want to.
Then there’s the societal part of it, which is I wish to be seen that way by others, and also I want to be able to be feminine and be treated in that manner.
When it comes to how I want my body to be, and how I want to be seen and treated, I feel the same as a woman. My brain, has this innate identity of being a woman.
This causes gender dysphoria, it would be good to look up the definition of that (the scientific one).
Does that all make sense? I can clarify if need be.
@@gingy3778 Thanks for sharing your insights. But it still doesnt answer my question. I dont know what you mean by "innate sens of sex", even for you its confusing. You wish to have female attributes.. then whats wrong with accepting being a feminine man? I wish I could fly like a bird but you would probably think i'm delusional if I try transitioning into an eagle.
If all you want is to be feminine, you can be a feminine man. If you want things impossible to have then you are delusional. You are basing the definition of woman either on stereotypes or biology, and both are based on sex. You could try just accepting yourself as you are. If suddenly i was in a female's body i would just accept i'm a woman.. thats it. I can be a woman and still have my unique thoughts and ways.
So objectively, how can I know there are genders outside of sex and you are not just being delusional or mentally ill ? I'm open to your arguments.
Because "being a man", "becoming a man" is something that involves a cultural development. As a matter of fact, different cultures have different ideas of what a man is, and a man from culture X can be considered as woman-like for culture Y. This is because gender is liked to roles in societies, and not every social group is structured the same way. Being a man is not simply being an adult male, because your social group expects things from you as a man, and if you don't provide these things you can be considered "not a man". I understand this is probably a war on words, I don't disagree with the definition of man as "adult male human", it's just that the word "man" has so many other usages and meanings that it cannot be reduced to that. That's why, to clarify, people tend to distinguish between "male" and "man" for referring to different aspects of a person's identity. Male is the mere biological fact of being born with XY chromosomes, testicles and a penis, man is the fact that you recognise yourself as a member of your social group with the role that is generally assigned to males.
Matt believes he is so much more intelligent than he actually is.
What particular point do you think he got wrong
What I hear you saying is I am so dammed jealous of that dam Matt I could just scream. But I know it wouldn't help any.
@@jerrylong6238 lol yea I'm so jealous of that fat belly and bald head of his.
Your point applies to Dinesh about 500x more than it applies to Matt. Dinesh is a felon who has committed fraud and adultery and many other “sins” he focuses on in other people yet he has convinced himself that he is far more righteous and important than he is and that his views about all matters should apply to all human beings. That is arrogance.
I concur
People talking about trans people getting murdered always lose me. The stats on this are sooooo low. Like more people get struck by lightning than murdered for being trans.
whilst i don't doubt it happens, i find it a really weird argument because it seems irrelevant. imagine if atheists went around murdering theists. i would be appalled, but i still would still think they're wrong about the existence of god and it would be like if i said "i don't believe in god" and people responded as if i'd just said "I believe people that believe in god should be killed" that would make no sense
i'd love to ask Matt what he thinkls influence the Social Construct. The social construct cannot just popped out of the blue; there are certain association of characteristics in men and women is because there have always been patterns. Now, that doesn't mean there are people that won't fit into that but that doesn't mean it is entirely fictional/constructs. I have realized over the years that even though Matt says he champions critical thinking and skepticism, he is largely influenced by the whatever is leading the left ideologies. I'd love to see him debating philosophers like Zizek, Chomsky etc. It was obvious when he debated JBP, he barely understood him
Society doe. Society is made up of people. So people do ultimately
He's an excellent debater and extremely intelligent, but it's fair to say he lacks imagination.
also, these social constructs are kind of needless in modern times which makes gender identity kind of pointless and also a contradiction. it reminds me what coleman hughes said. Not an exact quote. "The idea of gender equality was supposed to mean that just because you're a boy, you shouldn't have to do what's expected of you. You can dress as a ballerina and play with dolls DESPITE your sex, but according to trans right activists, then dressing as a ballerina and playing with dolls makes you a girl by definition"
How can Matt be so on-point when it comes to religion, but be absolutely wrong when it comes to gender???!!!
It’s astonishing isn’t it? He actually claims in this video that validating the feelings of transgender people is more important than the truth.
Notice how he responds to the interesting question from Dinesh about sports. He basically says it doesn’t matter because he doesn’t care about sports. He’s a genuine non-thinker.
because he's pandering to the woke mob. His sense of duty to the ''truth'' gets switched off whenever he's not talking about religion.
@@davidgraham8058 I don't understand this obsession with forcing people to think like you. Isn't america always bragging about freedom? convenient that just for the gender topic, freedom doesn't matter that much. People like this uncle tom of dsouza are interested in preaching the truth and interested in science just for the gender argument.
Gotta love how he has to apologize in advance to the group for everything he "might get wrong".
You don’t need to be religious to know that a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
I hope Matt realizes that getting rid of gender in sports would eliminate women’s sports entirely….. what a poor argument
The last person we should listen to on sports is Matt
Why?
Bc he doesn’t seem like a person to do any type of sport, except maybe sumo wrestling lol jk
@@MannyV4690 No way, sumo wrestling is tought, Matt is a giant pansie.
Damn. Matt has lost it. What a shame.
Troll bot. Make an example like a thoughtful human.
This IS the example. Smfh.@@pjaworek6793
@@pjaworek6793lmao. Tell me how hes wrong. Matt use to be about pure facts and now he. Saying "i dont see the point in why we have a women and mens restroom when wr can have one 😂😂😂". Idk man. Maybe its to stop rape and domestic violence? 😂😂😂
In this point of debate dillahunty was wrong.... Sorry his view in sports is ridiculus.. in pool man still dominate in thats sport thats why they have womens tournaments in pool... If a man compete in woman sport it will dominate in that sports.. then you said want to have equal rights... Hahahah😅😅😅
The point I think he's making, is that when conservatives ask "what is a woman" the relevant question is "who is a woman."
It is madness how so many high profile atheists are choosing to die on this hill.
What does this topic have to do with being atheist exactly?
Such as?
@@buckiesmalls It goes to the very essence of atheism. Strip away all the nonsense of the argument; all the social construct baloney; the identity noise; the nonbinary blather, and what you are left is the assertion of a mind/body dichotomy. That the mind exists separate from, and can sometimes be alien to, the body.
In essence, Matt is arguing for the existence of a gendered soul that sometimes, somehow, nests in the wrong body.
Atheism is the rejection of mystical explanations. It is a materialist philosophy. It affirms there can be no mind without body because the mind is an emanation from the body. Your identity, your personality, your memory, your everything are products of the biological functions of your brain and body.
The proper atheistic position is this: you cannot be in the wrong body because there is no other way you can be. Different body - different person.
@@jasonlongton1876 "The proper atheistic position is this: you cannot be in the wrong body because there is no other way you can be. Different body - different person"
Exactly. If I say "I feel like a two spirit person", what evidence can I give to prove that claim? How do I know what a two spirit person feels like? To make the claim "I feel like a different gender" you'd have to experience what different genders feel like to make the distinction. It'd be like if I said "I don't feel like a human. I feel like an alien". How the fuck would I know what the subjective experience of an alien is?
Matt now you are the one tap dancing.
It is absolute harassment and unfair to women if a man walks in the women's bathroom ... No matter how he dresses up, he is still a man and has a penis. There is a reason why women's locker rooms are separate...you can't expect a man swinging his balls and roaming around saying, "Don't be uncomfortable, I identify as a woman. " ... what rubbish. In tennis, the world number 1 female player can't compete with even the world number 100 male player ... there is too much difference in power, and that's why we have separate categories or else it would be unfair to all the female players.
The world has been a pretty strange place for the last five or so years but Matt going along with this crazy Woke trans ideology stuff is the most surprising thing so far. Cant put into words my level of disappointment.
I am a hall of fame basketball player. I identify as that and I live as if I am. I impose on everyone that I am. If you don’t affirm that then I’ll unalive myself. I await the induction. Doesn’t matter if I’m short and out of shape.
No one cares what you identify with...
😂. Exactly
Some sports organisations seem to have rules about what division to put trans people in, based on their hormone history.. Makes sense since hormones is basically what defines your body structure and muscle mass..
Hormones do not solely define that. And it cannot be reversed.
Muscle mass, bone density, reflexes, aggression, etc.
@@davidgraham8058 Born men who undergo transition lose a lot of upper body strength. Born women who undergo transition to male gain a lot of strength.
No added hormones will ever replace biology. Sure, hormones make changes in a person, but at the end of the day males can't truly be female and vice versa. If we don't accept this reality then we can't move forward together.
@@davidgraham8058 men can't be women and vice versa. Agree or disagree?