Howdies. Just for clarity, the argument that women are women because they "facilitate the ability to form a breeding pair with a male" was said by Sargon of Akkad, and not Destiny (the person whose face you see at 18:25). Destiny actually does a very solid job of debating reactionaries like Sargon, so do feel free to check out his work. Sorry for creating any confusion in that regard
then are you okay with male woman cuz sex and gender are not the same so a male can be a woman but still a male since sex is not the issue but gender is, if you dont accept that then you relink gender to sex after separating them. my issue is being forced to go along with you and not be allowed to disagree because forcing me to say whatever you like , means that i can force you to hear whatever i like it goes both ways, refer to yourself as anything and i will refer to you as anything unless you have an inherit problem with being a certain thing that only you believe that you are not.
and the bathroom thing cannot be argued because its not a rational thing its emotional, they are just uncomfortable and it all stems from the fact that most females are just scared of males but that is a separate problem, if someone is trans for their comfort then they should respect others comfort. if its an attraction thing then gay men should be allowed in the female bathrooms but the females would still be uncomfortable so its not a trans thing its a female thing , and as established gender and sex are separate and bathrooms are not gender based but sex based.
1- ‘TransgenderED’ is not a word, and is generally seen as derogatory as word-error goes, because it implies that the adjective ‘transgender’ is derived from some fictional verb- where someone ‘transgenders’ people and after that action, they ‘become transgenderED’ 2- ‘Transgenderism’- also not a word and a generally derogatory misconception- as it implies that being transgender- is because you learned sort of ‘ideological belief’ (‘Transgenderism!) or that there is some Trans Agenda called ‘Transgenderism’. 3- This Foucault-Butler ‘linguistic use via gender behavior’ - the ‘if it walks, talks and quacks like a duck’ theory of transgender validity is DEEPLY problematic. (Not the intent of the authors, but the theory itself is by logical necessity- actually invaliding of trans gender identity, the synonym for which is ‘transphobic’, however much the authors did not realize this is the logical consequence of this theory.) And glaringly so. It only ‘validates’ trans identity- for those trans people who DO chose to come out, and socially and generally of necessity- also medically transition- and are able to ‘pass’ as a pre-existing Binary gender- according to whatever fits the public visual and behavioral social signifiers of the gender binary in that era and locale. But what of the trans people who aren’t out, or who are NON-binary and can’t fit Butler’s ‘women are people who PUBLICLY identify ‘as’ women-gender, BY dressing, and enacting ‘woman signified’ behavior? What of transgender people who choose Not to change names, appearance, get surgery or take hormones- to ALSO ‘look and act cis’ (who are not binary and or who are binary trans, but can’t or who choose not to- adopt the cis look and gestures that are opposite-gender cis-signified?) Not ONLY does THIS- albeit increasingly popular’ ‘If it quacks like a duck’ Foucault-Butler ‘linguistic use’ theory obviously and overtly INvalidate both non-passing, and non-binary tran identities - because obviously a trans woman who and dresses and acts boy or man like (which is every trans girl and woman there is, at some point in her life) - and every non-binary trans person who either still appears and acts (passes as) cisgender, or does not ‘pass’ as either man-signified nor woman signified- obviously doesn’t fit the ‘language use’ criteria of gender identity. They ARE still ‘a duck’- but do NOT ‘walk, quack, nor swim’ like a duck, so to speak. It ALSO invalidates the gender identity of Passing Binary trans people- because it is superficial- it relies on rxternal appearance and behavioral Gender ROLE cionstruct signfiers, which ANYONE, trans or not, can deploy, to 'validate' Gender IDENTITY- which is different from Gender Roles, is NOT a construct, but instead intrinsic (not 'essentialist, not 'magical' or ontologically transcendent, not some odd Platonic Form, just integral to that trans individual) - and has NOTHING whatsoever- to do with 'appearance' or 'gender behavoir'. (And if it did, then why in ordinary linguistic usage - do trans people SO so often get accidentally misgendered, because they are as transgender as the day is long, but don't 'look' or 'act' - in linguistic- in social signifier terms- 'like' the gender they actually ARE?) This is not an insufficient validation of trans gender: it actually- however unforseen the consequences of this theory are, by the trans allies who created and developed it, and the younger or less philosophically oriented trsns people who offer it- actually transphobic. I’m not making any accusations- just pointing out the unintended but unavoidable logic embedded in it. If you accept the premises of any argument, you're committed to accept the conclusion, come what may. If you accept that public external Gender Role Enactment - ie fitting a social construct role (Butler) is IDENTICAL to Gender Identity (Foucault) - that gender IDENTITY is ELIMINATIVELY REDUCIBLE- to - is and is ONLY- ‘the linguistic use we apply to people who look and act manly or womanly according to local gender ROLE constructs (Foucault) then your committed to agreeing that non passing people and nonbinary people don’t have valid genders identity. Unfortunately - instead of validating trans identity- this Linguistic Use theory invalidates trans identity and validates any number of transphobic arguments: that 'being trans' is JUST 'trying to fool people by dressing and trying to 'act like' the opposite gender, that 'being trans' is not a natural variation, but artifice driven by unexplained or delusional thoughts, that being transgender is a CHOICE and a thin choice at that- to look and act a certain way in public presentation, not an authentic identity, just to get others to talk to and act with you ‘as if’ you were the opposite gender, that there 'is no such thing as non-binary', that it takes a whole complex theory just to try to ‘convince’ people of something that isn’t real. The misconception that just because Gender ROLES are social constructs (and we all agree there) MEANS that Gender IDENTITY- is reducible to- that Gender IDENTITY- ‘just IS’ acting out a Gender Role- is an error that does seem to somewhat ‘validate’ fully passing binary trans identity- but is actually deeply invalidating passing, non-passing, and every non-binary trans gender identity.
"You wouldn't call infertile women lesser women or heaven forbid not women" I really wish I could say that I've never seen anyone call infertile women lesser
The one thing that prevents me from completely agreeing with your admittedly great case for the validity of trans people is the fact that there's still people who display a gender expression which contradicts their gender identity. I can't quite see how someone can choose their gender identity while acting as if they belonged to a different gender. It makes gender seem like an empty concept. I also find a bit hypocritical the disdain we feel towards transracial people. I think a good argument can be made about the social constructionism of race. In case anyone replies to this, I'm not trying to be a douche or anything. I'm genuinely interested in understanding all of this
If gender seems like an empty concept then.. uhh... Good? Gender abolitionist or gender apathetic views are pretty much widespread in trans communities. One of the major aspects in the dissolution of a social class is the mobility into and out of it. Along with the loss of distinction between classes. To quote the funny: When everyone is super, no one will be.
im trans and the only part of this i take issue with is the tomato argument. tomatoes are always, in every context, by definition, BOTH a fruit AND a vegetable. they fit both definitions and those definitions are not mutually exclusive!!
This turned out real good! Happy to have given some input. The debunk section especially is great because it shows how weak a lot of the arguments are when given any type of scrutiny. PS: the Ouran gifs are always welcome
While I do not fully agree with you, I have to give credit where credit is due. As someone who will support people who are trans, but not advocate that its a good idea, I can see a lot more into the idea. I still find it hard to promote something that is shown to link up with so many mental health issues and suicide, but I also am an american at heart and therefore believe you can do whatever you want in terms of changing yourself (within reason of course :) ). This video made me look at the topic in a new light, but did not change my mind, purely because of personal experience with people around me. The way you argue your points is incredible, and I cant help but admire how you put together arguments. While you may not have convinced me of every pro-trans idea, such as the fact that there are more than two genders, as well as non-binary which is less of gender and more of an idea, you have made me rethink many of my ideas. Anyone who disagrees with me I have respect for your opinions and I truly appreciate that there is another side to this argument, because without two sides to and argument, we can never come to the final, most accurate conclusion. Have a wonderful day, and remember, its okay for people to disagree and have any opinion, yes any, because if any opinion is truly incorrect, then the world will eventually come to the conclusion that it is in fact, incorrect. There are most likely many spelling mistakes and such in this paragraph. I appreciate someone who argues so well being on this platform, and even though I may not agree, I can tell your a reasonable person, so I trust that you will always spread messages that you believe in, that are based upon the facts that you know. G'day.
HI i know im super late (wOAh two years late) but this is SUCH A GOOD VIDEO MAN!!!! keep doing what your doing (which you are and doing it FANTASTICALLY) i think youre criminally underrated like. only 2k views??? for this wonderful masterpiece?? nonetheless im sure you changed the views of a bunch of folks!! great job :))
I belueve that trans people are valid however they should still go to sex appointed sports and restrooms based on biology. Honestly gender as a whole should just be abolished at this point. The problem with progressiveness is that it put certain people on a pedestal which causes further alienation. There should be NO pridemonth because EVERY month should help gay people. Trans people are human rights but people should only transition when they are old enough to learn the consequences
Thank you for a well constructed video, especially on how language is used in this context! Also, I LOVED THE MUSICAL JINGLES! So many of my favourite artists and fellow trans people 💜 I can't help feeling so emotional about SOPHIE's It's Ok to Cry. Are they artists you listen to in general? I don't mean any harm with the following section, and I absolutely don't believe you have any bad intensions 🙂 A tiny tiny note I have as feedback is the use of the word transgendered that was briefly displayed in text although you did not say it verbally. It is not how many people describe transgender people, for reasons such as gramatical errors, adds unnecessary lenght and causing confusion of the meaning. Transgender is a descriptive word, just as gay is. To say that Elton John is "gayed" does not make sense, just as Chaz Bono is "transgendered" neither makes sense. It's use can act as a dog whistle either for hateful people or simply indicate that the person might not know much about transgender people. English is a second language for me , so I hope my point comes across in a respectful and not hurtful tone. Thank you again!
Thank you so much for this comment :) I'll do my best to address each part in order. First off: glad you enjoyed the video! It's one of the videos I'm the proudest of making on this channel. Regarding the music choice, I deeply enjoy the music of all musicians present in the description. I'm a HUG fan of Tyler the Creator (possible foreshadowing of later video ;)) and Dorian Electra's Flamboyant is one of my favourite albums of 2019. I sadly only got into Sophie after hearing of their passing, but it very much struck a chord with me. As for your criticism regarding my terminology, thank you so much for the correction! I take absolutely no offense to you pointing that out. To be honest, I'm kind of confused as to how that got in there in the first place, as that's not really a term I could ever see myself using in any content (maybe a typo? But that doesn't seem likely either, so I'm stumped). Still though, I'll keep an eye out for it in the future. Thanks again for the your thoughtful comment. I wish you a lovely day, and thanks for stopping by :)
"A vegetable is the edible portion of a plant. Vegetables are usually grouped according to the portion of the plant that is eaten such as leaves (lettuce), stem (celery), roots (carrot), tubers (potato), bulbs (onion) and flowers (broccoli). A fruit is the mature ovary of a plant."
@@themanicpineapple8772 i wish you too a lovely day, but you are actually wrong when you were talking about vegetables. You said that vegetables are fruit, which is straight up wrong.
@@CallofTheCult Dear sir, I certainly never said that "all" vegetables are fruits. Carrots, for example, are always vegetables. In your definition, you said that a fruit is an edible portion of a plant and that a fruit is the mature ovary of a plant... so what if the mature ovary of a plant is edible? Then that thing could be considered both a fruit and a vegetable, correct? The two definitions can certainly have overlap. My argument was rooted in the fact that the term vegetable is typically used culinarily while the term fruit has a both a scientific context and fruit has a scientific and culinary definition. Thus, whether or not a tomato is a fruit or vegetable depends on the context in which the question is being asked. I hope this cleared things up for you.
11:33 Aaand you've lost me. While there are multiple ways to react to this... You introduced a term which either you expect us to know what it means, or it exists because of the previous definition. 12:35 It depends on the extent you mean that, but sure. 14:09 Lol, lmao. "It's true because that's the only option I'm allowing you to have". 16:48 A combination of lip service, because you decided the standard and irony for saying that after "not adequately challenging" anything. 19:01 After some mental math, I concluded that you dodged the question.
Based. I loved your good kid mad city analysis vid, looked a bit at some of your other stuff and subscribed, and its really paying off. Keep up the good work
Objection! The only difference between sex and gender, objectively, is that "gender" was used as a socially acceptable way to say "sex" from a time when people blushed using the word "sex". Also you are misinterpreting the argument about giving birth. A man is that which is born with the genitals with which to impregnate. A woman, with which to become impregnated. Therefore whether or not the person is infertile, he or she was still born with one or the other. Intersex is mutation and outside the scope of the argument.
Not only that but intersex people also always have one sex organ more developed than the other thus so many cases of intersex people just choosing to live as the percivied gender of the more developed organ.
Objection! As mentioned in the video, words can have different meanings as they develop over time. Sure, it might have been used as how you describe it in the past, but this is the present and things are different now. Language has evolved.
@ahhhhhhhhhhhhsocool Language evolves, true, but in this case we're talking proven biological terms. Some things are required to stay consistent for the sake of science; capital F is always "force", lowercase m is always "mass", etc.
Are you going to make a To Pimp A Butterfly video like the one you did with Good Kid, M.A.A.D City? Your video was really really good by the way and I'm pretty sure you said that you will on that video I could be wrong. I just listened to GKMC today and it was a great experience I'm going to listen to TPAB so it'll be awesome if that video for that could ever come.
Heyo! I have definitely considered it, but I'm far more likely to tackle different classic rap albums. The reason being is that TPAB has been spoken about TO DEATH, and there are in fact some really fine analyses out there. If I find that there's something I can add to the convo, then I'll make a video about it, but I'm not sure if I have that much new to add to the TPAB discourse. I love the album though, so who knows, maybe I'll still make one anyway ;) At the end of the day, I just love talking about great music
It's interesting coming back to this video now knowing that I'm a trans girl and not cis, like at all. I feel like this video partly helped me realize that I was trans all along and so, from the bottom of my heart, thank you Pineapple.
I've spent the past few days trying to figure out how to respond to this message, but despite my best efforts, I just can't seem to be able to find the right words to articulate how your comment made me feel. What I will thus simply say is that your comment brought tears to my eyes, and that I am so proud of you. I wish you all the best, and I'm glad my work played some small role in helping you become your true self.
@@themanicpineapple8772 Aw thank you :) You are really sweet. It has been a tough road and I don't know when I could start transitioning but I won't let anything bring me down!
@@lizzzbenoist figuring out my transness and how i wanted to transition was a hard but very euphoric journey. i hope u have a fruitful, joyous and beautiful transition, my friend!!
Of all the videos that I've made over the years, this is one I'm the proudest of :) So I do hope lots of people get to see it. That said, it's already been taught in a high school class, and has helped certain people discover their own trans identities, so I'm in awe at the reception that it's gotten already
The problem is, you aren't presenting me or anyone reading this with a counter argument. Makes it seem like you're dead set on your perspective regardless of what I say. I hope you find it in yourself to open your heart and mind a bit more brother
For those interested in the twitch streams there was a small typo in the video. The link is www.twitch.tv/themanicpineapple At 18:14 is that... destiny? Any link to that video? Great video overall! As a side note, research has shown that certain brain structures of transgenders will start to resemble the brain phenotype of their cisgender peers early in puberty. The study sample sizes are generally low so more research definitely needs to be made but, so far, the scientific evidence strongly supports trans validity.
Thanks for the fix yo :) I'll update that in the description, and I'll also include the Sargon Destiny debate (totally forgot that too). In terms of brain chemistry, I'm genuinely love to read up on that, so any sources you have would be great. I passively read a headline the other day that was talking about the fact that male and female brains seem to have less and less actual differences the more they are studied, but, again, using a headline reading alone isn't something I use to justify my takes, so I'm eager to learn more. Also, glad you enjoyed the video!
@@themanicpineapple8772 Hey sorry for the super late answer Thanks for the link! I thought Destiny said that statement lmao. Even though he's not exactly an ethical role model, that still felt out of character from him. The two studies that I read were academic.oup.com/cercor/article/18/8/1900/285954?login=true link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5 The rest of this comment discusses the gendered brain. I've read a recent study which might be the one you're referring to: Dump the Dimorphism by Lise Eliott. She essentially took most of the relevant gendered brain studies and draws conclusions by grouping and comparing them. The only problem was that the paper didn't actually go over all the structures and all the brain reactions which have been previously studied. To be fair, that would have been an inhuman task. With that said, the information presented *strongly* implicates that, aside from brain size, there are no differences that result from sex. Rather, the differences found between the sexes are actually a result of size, not sex. In other words, the "differences" previously found between men and women can also be found between men with large brains and men with smaller brains. In terms of brain responses to stimuli, no consensus can be found between the studies that Lise used and men having greater lateralization seems to be a myth. “The parsimonious conclusion is that group-level sex differences, if they exist, are buried within the greater variance of individual difference.” What does this mean in terms of the previous transgender studies then? One interesting article I came accross considers this. www.crossdreamers.com/2021/05/debunking-female-brain-vs-male-brain.html Essentially it argues that there is probably more to gender identity than the brain (or what we know of it, which is still extremely little). At the very least what Dump the Dimorphism suggests is this: "The way some brain researchers are identifying male and female identities in transgender people is by using lists of how well they adhere to female or male stereotypes. That does not work."
@@s_4589 Wow, thanks for sharing this! It's honestly incredible, and I'm looking forward to sinking my teeth into the research. And thanks for letting me know about that confusion I caused pertaining to Destiny. He had a notorious debate with Sargon in which Destiny defended the notion of trans validity whereas Sargon took the opposing side. I'm actually making a video about Destiny in June (stay tuned), but any honest person would agree that Destiny has been a pretty good faith trans ally on his platform, so I'll try to figure out some way of letting people know I was referring to Sargon being the dunce and not Destiny. Thank you for your super in depth response by the way! I wish you a lovely end of spring
12:02 is really missing the point. Like sure, clinging to pluto's planet status is dumb since it's been proven that it's not. But when we're talking about social categories, that is things we're making the fuck up, then what you're effectively saying is (or at least comes accross as) "you lost this battle of the culture war, fucking deal with it." Which is EXACTLY why the old guard MUST hold on. Not only is it an act of defiance, but also a way to remain relevant. To stick by old terminology is to maintain an alternative to the mainstream's hegemony, and a way to pressure said mainstream into recognizing the legitimacy of their opposition. I mean, sure it would be much better if the US adopted the metric system, but by their refusal to do so they're forcing the rest of the world into acknowledging their system of measurement. This allows people who oppose the metric system to be taken much more seriously, it gives them legitimacy if you will. I guess it's not the same, since measurements aren't a hot topic politically, so there aren't so many moral or symbolic connotations as with the trans issue, but gender and measurements are both social categories, so close enough. Even if it makes communication difficult, sticking to our old terms signals that we're not just some lunatics, we're serious challengers to the status quo. The moment we adopt your terminology, we relegate ourselves to the status of lunatics.
Okay, so basically what this video is saying is, if I say that I identify as a cat, and everyone around me says that I’m a cat, that means that I’m a cat? Yeah nah. Live how you want but biology will always be correct.
Hey! Love the video! If you're looking for more thoughts on gender metaphysics, I'd recommend checking out Sally Haslanger's work. She's got some really interesting ideas which this video had me mulling over. Keep up the great work!
Maybe the argument to be made and pushed forward is not to have stereotypes, nor categorize anything...wait, we are humans and need to. What is wrong with homosexual butch or effeminate? Why make surgery and hormones the norm?
I wholehearted disagree with you, but I'm gonna like and subscribe anyway just because of how well put the video is and how articulate your argument was :)
I appreciate this video, and don't disagree with it in any capacity, but I can't help to think that this also validates the idea of transracialism. I have a feeling that is not what you are trying to do, and perhaps I am overlooking something. If you are fine with validating that idea, then I don't have any objections, although it does make me uncomfortable.
Transracialism is an interesting and complex subject, though I'm not sure if I can find many examples of this being a widespread phenomenon other than fringe cases like Rachel Dolezal. It is my opinion that race is indeed socially constructed, however that fact on its on doesn't validate trans-racialism as a concept. Without typing out a masters dissertation on the subject, I'll say this pertaining to the idea of a non-black person identifying as a black person: being a black person in our current day and age comes down to having a shared history that can trace itself back to generations of slavery and oppression, as well as the sociological facets of existing as a POC in society (ei: systemic oppression) That said, the rapper Logic, for example, who grew up with a black father, looks white AF. The dark skin that is associated with blackness doesn't visually present itself when he walks around in public. Does that make him "less black" then lets say Laverne Cox? That feels kinda wrong to me since he grew up in a black household and has a shared history with black people. So while Dolezal may experience the contemporary sociological negatives that a black person might face and Logic will not, she doesn't share the lineage and shared history of black people like Logic does. This is a very watered down version of my thoughts, but TLDR: race is socially constructed, but transracialism leaves a bad taste in my mouth due to the implications that it carries. I'd have loved to have a deeper convo over tea and cookies, but alas TH-cam comments don't work that way sadly ;) Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and sorry for the long response.
Good video. Very well constructed points. But it might also be worth adding that studies and MRI brainscans have shown the brains of transgender people are more aligned with their perceived gender rather than their biological sex. And also intersex and DSD conditions make it harder for the chromosomes argument to have any validity or be logically consistent. As people have chromosomes of people of the opposite of their assigned sex all the time and their enitire anatomy is that of their assigned sex. But overall good video.
Ok but most people in this continent use gender just as a way to say sex thus why the meaning of women is human female, so going only by the tomato argument then trans people would be on the wrong when assigning their gender i mean it should be kinda obvious the doctor is literally describing sexual parts when he claims the newborn is a boy or a girl, and the whole stereotype stuff is kinda dumb... I mean wasn't a whole movement argument that the sex of someone shouldn't dictate what one likes or does? Fighting ''gender'' stereotypes and all of that, wouldn't a boy proyecting on a pink female character should be seen as (heh he likes that character) instead of (yeah he wants to be a girl)? And, i may be wrong but, i feel like you and your firend imply that you don't need gender disphoria to be trans... On that case wouldn't it make being trans just a fashion phenomenon thus making the whole rights and pronouns thing kinda stupid?
The argument is poorly constructed and falls into the is-ought problem. Just because a society decides to define its god as the creator of the world does not mean that I am obligated to accept this belief. Similarly, concepts such as good and evil, and just and unjust, do not fit neatly into simplistic binaries. Claiming that identifying with a woman in a TV show makes someone a woman is a radical assertion. The individual might simply be a man with feminine traits or a woman with masculine traits. Gender, by its own definition, is a metaphysical concept designed to categorize people. Since it is a metaphysical view similar to the belief in god, no one is obligated to accept it. Furthermore, it is not rude to disbelieve in it, just as it is not rude to disbelieve in god. This video comes across as someone who has not done the research,
@@themanicpineapple8772 I have three questions 1. If I enter a class where everyone calls a pencil a "gobeltigoo," am I obliged to use the same term, or can I insist on calling it a pencil? 2. Are you a moralist? 3. At the end of the video, you seem to suggest that a person should avoid holding certain views to prevent being disliked by future generations. Does this imply you are against authenticity and in favor of conformity? Could you clarify your stance and make this statement clearer?
@@BlackMantisRed Great questions honestly. I'll do my best to answer them. Though, heads up, most of these are either normative or personal questions, so there's definitely more of an "imo" vibe to my answers. 1. Depends on if its useful to or not. Language is a tool, right? If everyone in the class is also calling it a pencil (you can call the same thing multiple terms) then feel free to call it whatever you want. But if half the class doesn't know what a pencil is, then I don't think its within your best interest to call it as such. When ppl decide to use gender and sex interchangeably as terms, they're not being very effective with their language because that's not have a good chunk of ppl use the terms. Language changes around us, and I've found that its within my best interests to understand what people are saying when they're talking to me. As well as use terms the way people understand them, since I also wish to be understood. 2. If by "moralist" you mean "someone who promotes living moral life"... sure? I'm really mostly of the "just don't be a jerk" mindset, but I do like thinking about morality and ethics a lot. 3. All I'm saying here is that history tends to rhyme. Throughout history, there have been groups that have been shunned because they were different from the norm and misunderstood. The idea that being gay causes actual harm to others has (luckily) mostly died away. Same with segregation, etc. etc. Trans ppl have very much been presented as a villain of the week by the political right. It's very clear that the economic state of the world is more turbulent than its ever been, and so certain parts of the political spectrum have been struggling to find a policy identity. Trans issues are an easy layup while trans people are still misunderstood, but as knowledge spreads, people will grow less ignorant. It is my firm belief that in the next decade or two, people will look to anti-trans rhetoric the same way they look at segregation and the gay panic. I'm not saying to have your morality follow trends. I'm suggesting to keep an open mind and open heart when it comes to this stuff, because history rarely (if ever) favours the side that's in favour of calling ppl monsters, weak, or illegitimate just because they're different. That's all I was trying to say. Thanks again for your questions, and I hope I was able to answer them sufficiently.
"fits the gender definition of a female" this begs the question of are trans women only women if they are "passing"? What is this societal norm they have to reach to be appropriately labeled actually a woman?
Fitting the gender definition of female means they've met the only criteria to meet the definition: identifying as such. It's impossible to know what people feel in their hearts, so you can thusly assume that if someone's asking to be called by certain pronouns, then they're being serious about it (though some 80IQ folks like to mess around with this and lie, but fie on them). Hope that clears things up!
@themanicpineapple8772 seems very messy. How can one even know if they're identifying as a female if there is nothing that is inherently "female" to latch an identity onto? A definition that doesn't clarify what does and doesn't fit into the definition, isn't much of a definition. A Honda Civic can be a pencil if there's no qualities, traits or characteristics that can be attributed to a pencil or Honda Civic.
@@themanicpineapple8772by definition nothing defines itself. that never happens, people just approve it nowadays cuz protestantism populized that dogma with the "oh yea you can exam your own conscience"
Step one to three are unimportant to the discussion. Step four leans entirely on the subject "some people"? And who are these people? Materialists, relativists and all other sorts modernist degenerates you can think of. Anyone that does not fully place their trust in the concept of societal construct, or in other words, anyone that holds values, which essentially is any idealist and/or religious person, won't be convinced, as you are not providing an explanation, just repeating the lie. The fIfth step is a consequence of the fourth, which as I said, is wrong.
Why not, I've got nothing better to do on a Tuesday night. 1-3 is essential in the conversation because it frames the discussion around language rather than biology. This is a mistake many people make when discussing gender topics. I'm trying real hard to understand what you mean by "placing trust in the concept of social construct". Are you suggesting that nothing can be socially constructed? Or just gender? If the latter, what issue do you have defining gender as socially constructed? This is something many right wingers are even on board with. If you don't want to call it gender, we can call it something else for the sake of this convo. But its an objective fact that it's useful to have a term for "the way we perceive our sex from a social perspective". So your issue with the term itself confuses me. Feel free to elaborate, cause I'm all ears. Then again, I'm just some modernist degenerate (I think you meant to say "postmodernist degenerate", but hey, maybe you just really don't like modernists for some reason)
So this was made like three and a half years ago but recently is being picked up by the algorithm So uh... have you like, completely changed and reformed your views since making this video or do you still support, believe, and advocate for a lot of the really gross bigoted things you've said and claimed in this video? It's too late to delete this video due to it being picked up by the algorithm, but you should make some statement on, ya know... you hopefully no longer holding this grossly ignorant views today.
Google Dr John Money’s experiments please other viewers. This pineapple guy wastes everyone’s time with a 7 minute lecture about language conventions but won’t address John Money torturing young boys. Interesting priorities.
This video isn't about the abhorrent things John Money did. It's a video about trans validity and the origins the term "gender". If you're explaining that history and not mentioning Money, then that history isn't being told accurately. If I could go back and add a little disclaimer that Money was a POS, I definitely would. But it doesn't discredit the arguments made in the video. If you think I made an invalid point, feel free to point it out
@@themanicpineapple8772 You mentioned him as the origin point for gender theory, which is true. However, to all the lay people who don’t know who he is, they likely just assume that he’s a harmless academic type. Which is not the case considering that he’s an extreme child abuser. It’s like mentioning that Vladimir Lenin was the creator of Marxist-Leninism, which is an ideology that wanted everyone to have all the nice things that we love. But you neglect to mention what he did to the Kulaks.
@@jamesfield6141 Nah mate. From an academic standpoint, no, Lenin's mass murder, unless relevant to the course at hand, might not need to be mentioned in a class about Marxist-Leninism. In an academic context, you have an obligation to deal with the ideas at hand. If you think those ideas can cause direct harm, then go ahead and take the necessary precautions. But no, people knowing John Money's name doesn't make people more likely to make them child abusers. If I could go back and remake this video, would I probably insert a little note about him? For sure. But you're taking a two second snippet of my video and treating it like it's core to the central thesis or something. If you wanna address my ideas, go right on ahead--you clearly didn't like the video for other reasons. But please drop the pearl clutching
@@themanicpineapple8772 Are you seriously telling me that leftists like you and Jews would not take issue with a class on National Socialism, with no mention of the Holocaust? Lol. Come on, no matter any point I raise you will just serve me a criticism you won’t fairly apply. I never said that people knowing John Money’s name makes them more likely to make them a child abuser. I love having words placed directly into my mouth. That’s not from an academic standpoint either, it’s my own idiot standpoint. If you could go back and delete this whole entire video that would make happy coming from my wax lyrical peer reviewed academic standpoint.
Howdies. Just for clarity, the argument that women are women because they "facilitate the ability to form a breeding pair with a male" was said by Sargon of Akkad, and not Destiny (the person whose face you see at 18:25). Destiny actually does a very solid job of debating reactionaries like Sargon, so do feel free to check out his work. Sorry for creating any confusion in that regard
then are you okay with male woman cuz sex and gender are not the same so a male can be a woman but still a male since sex is not the issue but gender is, if you dont accept that then you relink gender to sex after separating them.
my issue is being forced to go along with you and not be allowed to disagree because forcing me to say whatever you like , means that i can force you to hear whatever i like it goes both ways, refer to yourself as anything and i will refer to you as anything unless you have an inherit problem with being a certain thing that only you believe that you are not.
and the bathroom thing cannot be argued because its not a rational thing its emotional, they are just uncomfortable and it all stems from the fact that most females are just scared of males but that is a separate problem, if someone is trans for their comfort then they should respect others comfort.
if its an attraction thing then gay men should be allowed in the female bathrooms but the females would still be uncomfortable so its not a trans thing its a female thing , and as established gender and sex are separate and bathrooms are not gender based but sex based.
1- ‘TransgenderED’ is not a word, and is generally seen as derogatory as word-error goes, because it implies that the adjective ‘transgender’ is derived from some fictional verb- where someone ‘transgenders’ people and after that action, they ‘become transgenderED’
2- ‘Transgenderism’- also not a word and a generally derogatory misconception- as it implies that being transgender- is because you learned sort of ‘ideological belief’ (‘Transgenderism!) or that there is some Trans Agenda called ‘Transgenderism’.
3- This Foucault-Butler ‘linguistic use via gender behavior’ - the ‘if it walks, talks and quacks like a duck’ theory of transgender validity is DEEPLY problematic. (Not the intent of the authors, but the theory itself is by logical necessity- actually invaliding of trans gender identity, the synonym for which is ‘transphobic’, however much the authors did not realize this is the logical consequence of this theory.) And glaringly so.
It only ‘validates’ trans identity- for those trans people who DO chose to come out, and socially and generally of necessity- also medically transition- and are able to ‘pass’ as a pre-existing Binary gender- according to whatever fits the public visual and behavioral social signifiers of the gender binary in that era and locale.
But what of the trans people who aren’t out, or who are NON-binary and can’t fit Butler’s ‘women are people who PUBLICLY identify ‘as’ women-gender, BY dressing, and enacting ‘woman signified’ behavior? What of transgender people who choose Not to change names, appearance, get surgery or take hormones- to ALSO ‘look and act cis’ (who are not binary and or who are binary trans, but can’t or who choose not to- adopt the cis look and gestures that are opposite-gender cis-signified?)
Not ONLY does THIS- albeit increasingly popular’ ‘If it quacks like a duck’ Foucault-Butler ‘linguistic use’ theory obviously and overtly INvalidate both non-passing, and non-binary tran identities - because obviously a trans woman who and dresses and acts boy or man like (which is every trans girl and woman there is, at some point in her life) - and every non-binary trans person who either still appears and acts (passes as) cisgender, or does not ‘pass’ as either man-signified nor woman signified- obviously doesn’t fit the ‘language use’ criteria of gender identity. They ARE still ‘a duck’- but do NOT ‘walk, quack, nor swim’ like a duck, so to speak.
It ALSO invalidates the gender identity of Passing Binary trans people- because it is superficial- it relies on rxternal appearance and behavioral Gender ROLE cionstruct signfiers, which ANYONE, trans or not, can deploy, to 'validate' Gender IDENTITY- which is different from Gender Roles, is NOT a construct, but instead intrinsic (not 'essentialist, not 'magical' or ontologically transcendent, not some odd Platonic Form, just integral to that trans individual) - and has NOTHING whatsoever- to do with 'appearance' or 'gender behavoir'. (And if it did, then why in ordinary linguistic usage - do trans people SO so often get accidentally misgendered, because they are as transgender as the day is long, but don't 'look' or 'act' - in linguistic- in social signifier terms- 'like' the gender they actually ARE?)
This is not an insufficient validation of trans gender: it actually- however unforseen the consequences of this theory are, by the trans allies who created and developed it, and the younger or less philosophically oriented trsns people who offer it- actually transphobic. I’m not making any accusations- just pointing out the unintended but unavoidable logic embedded in it. If you accept the premises of any argument, you're committed to accept the conclusion, come what may.
If you accept that public external Gender Role Enactment - ie fitting a social construct role (Butler) is IDENTICAL to Gender Identity (Foucault) - that gender IDENTITY is ELIMINATIVELY REDUCIBLE- to - is and is ONLY- ‘the linguistic use we apply to people who look and act manly or womanly according to local gender ROLE constructs (Foucault) then your committed to agreeing that non passing people and nonbinary people don’t have valid genders identity.
Unfortunately - instead of validating trans identity- this Linguistic Use theory invalidates trans identity and validates any number of transphobic arguments: that 'being trans' is JUST 'trying to fool people by dressing and trying to 'act like' the opposite gender, that 'being trans' is not a natural variation, but artifice driven by unexplained or delusional thoughts, that being transgender is a CHOICE and a thin choice at that- to look and act a certain way in public presentation, not an authentic identity, just to get others to talk to and act with you ‘as if’ you were the opposite gender, that there 'is no such thing as non-binary', that it takes a whole complex theory just to try to ‘convince’ people of something that isn’t real.
The misconception that just because Gender ROLES are social constructs (and we all agree there) MEANS that Gender IDENTITY- is reducible to- that Gender IDENTITY- ‘just IS’ acting out a Gender Role- is an error that does seem to somewhat ‘validate’ fully passing binary trans identity- but is actually deeply invalidating passing, non-passing, and every non-binary trans gender identity.
"You wouldn't call infertile women lesser women or heaven forbid not women"
I really wish I could say that I've never seen anyone call infertile women lesser
The whole trans thing has always been hard for me to understand, and this helped me get it thanks for making a goated vid
Thank you for keeping an open mind. And sick profile pic btw ;)
@@themanicpineapple8772 thx man
As a trans person, I appreciate and approve this message.
Me too. Thank you!
WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH EXCELLENT VIDEOS? SHOW ME YOUR LICENSE RIGHT NOW
Officer, please slow down, or ima need to find me in happiness jail :) *you're too kind, thank you
The one thing that prevents me from completely agreeing with your admittedly great case for the validity of trans people is the fact that there's still people who display a gender expression which contradicts their gender identity. I can't quite see how someone can choose their gender identity while acting as if they belonged to a different gender. It makes gender seem like an empty concept.
I also find a bit hypocritical the disdain we feel towards transracial people. I think a good argument can be made about the social constructionism of race.
In case anyone replies to this, I'm not trying to be a douche or anything. I'm genuinely interested in understanding all of this
If gender seems like an empty concept then.. uhh... Good?
Gender abolitionist or gender apathetic views are pretty much widespread in trans communities.
One of the major aspects in the dissolution of a social class is the mobility into and out of it. Along with the loss of distinction between classes.
To quote the funny: When everyone is super, no one will be.
im trans and the only part of this i take issue with is the tomato argument. tomatoes are always, in every context, by definition, BOTH a fruit AND a vegetable. they fit both definitions and those definitions are not mutually exclusive!!
I just have one thing to say. Trans rights are human rights. That's it. That is all.
Short, sweet, and true :)
They aren’t though
@@themanicpineapple8772 it’s false there are no “trans rights” and “human rights” isn’t a consistent term
@@Saber23 Bot tier comment. AI: write me a poem about spaghetti
@@themanicpineapple8772 boy what the fuck are you on about?
this was way more informative and well explained than i expected, damn dude good job imma repeat these now
"all that lieth betwixt" Contra, is that you?
Super cool video man, ty for talking about it 🤘
I'm glad someone caught that little reference ;) And glad you enjoyed the video
This turned out real good! Happy to have given some input. The debunk section especially is great because it shows how weak a lot of the arguments are when given any type of scrutiny.
PS: the Ouran gifs are always welcome
Thanks yo, that means a lot. The Ouran was 100% Serena though, so I can take no credit for it ;)
@@themanicpineapple8772 As always, your editor has discerning taste :P Y'all are a great team.
While I do not fully agree with you, I have to give credit where credit is due. As someone who will support people who are trans, but not advocate that its a good idea, I can see a lot more into the idea. I still find it hard to promote something that is shown to link up with so many mental health issues and suicide, but I also am an american at heart and therefore believe you can do whatever you want in terms of changing yourself (within reason of course :) ). This video made me look at the topic in a new light, but did not change my mind, purely because of personal experience with people around me. The way you argue your points is incredible, and I cant help but admire how you put together arguments. While you may not have convinced me of every pro-trans idea, such as the fact that there are more than two genders, as well as non-binary which is less of gender and more of an idea, you have made me rethink many of my ideas. Anyone who disagrees with me I have respect for your opinions and I truly appreciate that there is another side to this argument, because without two sides to and argument, we can never come to the final, most accurate conclusion. Have a wonderful day, and remember, its okay for people to disagree and have any opinion, yes any, because if any opinion is truly incorrect, then the world will eventually come to the conclusion that it is in fact, incorrect.
There are most likely many spelling mistakes and such in this paragraph.
I appreciate someone who argues so well being on this platform, and even though I may not agree, I can tell your a reasonable person, so I trust that you will always spread messages that you believe in, that are based upon the facts that you know. G'day.
Based
HI i know im super late (wOAh two years late) but this is SUCH A GOOD VIDEO MAN!!!! keep doing what your doing (which you are and doing it FANTASTICALLY) i think youre criminally underrated like. only 2k views??? for this wonderful masterpiece?? nonetheless im sure you changed the views of a bunch of folks!! great job :))
0:36 What do you teach?
this is honestly one of the best videos I've ever watched, thank you
I belueve that trans people are valid however they should still go to sex appointed sports and restrooms based on biology.
Honestly gender as a whole should just be abolished at this point. The problem with progressiveness is that it put certain people on a pedestal which causes further alienation. There should be NO pridemonth because EVERY month should help gay people. Trans people are human rights but people should only transition when they are old enough to learn the consequences
Thank you for a well constructed video, especially on how language is used in this context!
Also, I LOVED THE MUSICAL JINGLES! So many of my favourite artists and fellow trans people 💜 I can't help feeling so emotional about SOPHIE's It's Ok to Cry. Are they artists you listen to in general?
I don't mean any harm with the following section, and I absolutely don't believe you have any bad intensions 🙂
A tiny tiny note I have as feedback is the use of the word transgendered that was briefly displayed in text although you did not say it verbally. It is not how many people describe transgender people, for reasons such as gramatical errors, adds unnecessary lenght and causing confusion of the meaning.
Transgender is a descriptive word, just as gay is. To say that Elton John is "gayed" does not make sense, just as Chaz Bono is "transgendered" neither makes sense.
It's use can act as a dog whistle either for hateful people or simply indicate that the person might not know much about transgender people.
English is a second language for me , so I hope my point comes across in a respectful and not hurtful tone. Thank you again!
Thank you so much for this comment :) I'll do my best to address each part in order.
First off: glad you enjoyed the video! It's one of the videos I'm the proudest of making on this channel.
Regarding the music choice, I deeply enjoy the music of all musicians present in the description. I'm a HUG fan of Tyler the Creator (possible foreshadowing of later video ;)) and Dorian Electra's Flamboyant is one of my favourite albums of 2019. I sadly only got into Sophie after hearing of their passing, but it very much struck a chord with me.
As for your criticism regarding my terminology, thank you so much for the correction! I take absolutely no offense to you pointing that out. To be honest, I'm kind of confused as to how that got in there in the first place, as that's not really a term I could ever see myself using in any content (maybe a typo? But that doesn't seem likely either, so I'm stumped). Still though, I'll keep an eye out for it in the future.
Thanks again for the your thoughtful comment. I wish you a lovely day, and thanks for stopping by :)
"A vegetable is the edible portion of a plant. Vegetables are usually grouped according to the portion of the plant that is eaten such as leaves (lettuce), stem (celery), roots (carrot), tubers (potato), bulbs (onion) and flowers (broccoli). A fruit is the mature ovary of a plant."
Not sure if you're agreeing with the point I made in this video or arguing against it, but I wish you a lovely day regardless
@@themanicpineapple8772 i wish you too a lovely day, but you are actually wrong when you were talking about vegetables.
You said that vegetables are fruit, which is straight up wrong.
@@CallofTheCult Dear sir, I certainly never said that "all" vegetables are fruits. Carrots, for example, are always vegetables.
In your definition, you said that a fruit is an edible portion of a plant and that a fruit is the mature ovary of a plant... so what if the mature ovary of a plant is edible? Then that thing could be considered both a fruit and a vegetable, correct? The two definitions can certainly have overlap.
My argument was rooted in the fact that the term vegetable is typically used culinarily while the term fruit has a both a scientific context and fruit has a scientific and culinary definition. Thus, whether or not a tomato is a fruit or vegetable depends on the context in which the question is being asked. I hope this cleared things up for you.
This is good, I’m going to show this to my friends who think gender and sex are the same thing
That's very humbling of you to say. I hope all goes well and hopefully they have their minds changed
@@themanicpineapple8772 Thanks dude
11:33 Aaand you've lost me. While there are multiple ways to react to this... You introduced a term which either you expect us to know what it means, or it exists because of the previous definition.
12:35 It depends on the extent you mean that, but sure.
14:09 Lol, lmao. "It's true because that's the only option I'm allowing you to have".
16:48 A combination of lip service, because you decided the standard and irony for saying that after "not adequately challenging" anything.
19:01 After some mental math, I concluded that you dodged the question.
My mans spitting nothing but facts this whole video
FluffyPants52 says trans rights :)))))
Based. I loved your good kid mad city analysis vid, looked a bit at some of your other stuff and subscribed, and its really paying off. Keep up the good work
Objection! The only difference between sex and gender, objectively, is that "gender" was used as a socially acceptable way to say "sex" from a time when people blushed using the word "sex".
Also you are misinterpreting the argument about giving birth.
A man is that which is born with the genitals with which to impregnate. A woman, with which to become impregnated. Therefore whether or not the person is infertile, he or she was still born with one or the other.
Intersex is mutation and outside the scope of the argument.
Not only that but intersex people also always have one sex organ more developed than the other thus so many cases of intersex people just choosing to live as the percivied gender of the more developed organ.
Objection! As mentioned in the video, words can have different meanings as they develop over time. Sure, it might have been used as how you describe it in the past, but this is the present and things are different now. Language has evolved.
@ahhhhhhhhhhhhsocool
Language evolves, true, but in this case we're talking proven biological terms. Some things are required to stay consistent for the sake of science; capital F is always "force", lowercase m is always "mass", etc.
i'm just a normal trans guy
Nah: you're a SUPERB trans guy. We only speak truth 'round these parts
Are you going to make a To Pimp A Butterfly video like the one you did with Good Kid, M.A.A.D City? Your video was really really good by the way and I'm pretty sure you said that you will on that video I could be wrong. I just listened to GKMC today and it was a great experience I'm going to listen to TPAB so it'll be awesome if that video for that could ever come.
Heyo! I have definitely considered it, but I'm far more likely to tackle different classic rap albums. The reason being is that TPAB has been spoken about TO DEATH, and there are in fact some really fine analyses out there. If I find that there's something I can add to the convo, then I'll make a video about it, but I'm not sure if I have that much new to add to the TPAB discourse. I love the album though, so who knows, maybe I'll still make one anyway ;) At the end of the day, I just love talking about great music
@@themanicpineapple8772 That's dope. I appreciate how you care to add something new.
It's interesting coming back to this video now knowing that I'm a trans girl and not cis, like at all. I feel like this video partly helped me realize that I was trans all along and so, from the bottom of my heart, thank you Pineapple.
I've spent the past few days trying to figure out how to respond to this message, but despite my best efforts, I just can't seem to be able to find the right words to articulate how your comment made me feel.
What I will thus simply say is that your comment brought tears to my eyes, and that I am so proud of you. I wish you all the best, and I'm glad my work played some small role in helping you become your true self.
@@themanicpineapple8772 Aw thank you :)
You are really sweet. It has been a tough road and I don't know when I could start transitioning but I won't let anything bring me down!
@@lizzzbenoist figuring out my transness and how i wanted to transition was a hard but very euphoric journey. i hope u have a fruitful, joyous and beautiful transition, my friend!!
So many phenomenal points, I didnt know anyone could be so right about something
this hurts me that this has only 800 views, criminal
Of all the videos that I've made over the years, this is one I'm the proudest of :) So I do hope lots of people get to see it. That said, it's already been taught in a high school class, and has helped certain people discover their own trans identities, so I'm in awe at the reception that it's gotten already
THIS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT
problem is, no amount of word play will change reality.
The problem is, you aren't presenting me or anyone reading this with a counter argument. Makes it seem like you're dead set on your perspective regardless of what I say. I hope you find it in yourself to open your heart and mind a bit more brother
Hi!Which anime is this?Thanks for the video!
We used several different anime in this video, the most prominent being Food Wars though :)
Thanks.
Being trans seems to be arguing against what a culture is promoting about expressions from an XX genome vs an XY.
how are you so good at talking
It took me like a year and a half to get comfortable with my own voice through video, so that's honestly very validating
Ur a king, keep it up. Amazing English teacher too
Glad you enjoyed it :) And many thanks
For those interested in the twitch streams there was a small typo in the video. The link is www.twitch.tv/themanicpineapple
At 18:14 is that... destiny? Any link to that video?
Great video overall! As a side note, research has shown that certain brain structures of transgenders will start to resemble the brain phenotype of their cisgender peers early in puberty. The study sample sizes are generally low so more research definitely needs to be made but, so far, the scientific evidence strongly supports trans validity.
Thanks for the fix yo :) I'll update that in the description, and I'll also include the Sargon Destiny debate (totally forgot that too).
In terms of brain chemistry, I'm genuinely love to read up on that, so any sources you have would be great. I passively read a headline the other day that was talking about the fact that male and female brains seem to have less and less actual differences the more they are studied, but, again, using a headline reading alone isn't something I use to justify my takes, so I'm eager to learn more.
Also, glad you enjoyed the video!
@@themanicpineapple8772 Hey sorry for the super late answer
Thanks for the link! I thought Destiny said that statement lmao. Even though he's not exactly an ethical role model, that still felt out of character from him.
The two studies that I read were
academic.oup.com/cercor/article/18/8/1900/285954?login=true
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5
The rest of this comment discusses the gendered brain.
I've read a recent study which might be the one you're referring to: Dump the Dimorphism by Lise Eliott. She essentially took most of the relevant gendered brain studies and draws conclusions by grouping and comparing them.
The only problem was that the paper didn't actually go over all the structures and all the brain reactions which have been previously studied. To be fair, that would have been an inhuman task.
With that said, the information presented *strongly* implicates that, aside from brain size, there are no differences that result from sex. Rather, the differences found between the sexes are actually a result of size, not sex. In other words, the "differences" previously found between men and women can also be found between men with large brains and men with smaller brains.
In terms of brain responses to stimuli, no consensus can be found between the studies that Lise used and men having greater lateralization seems to be a myth.
“The parsimonious conclusion is that group-level sex differences, if they exist, are buried within the greater variance of individual difference.”
What does this mean in terms of the previous transgender studies then? One interesting article I came accross considers this.
www.crossdreamers.com/2021/05/debunking-female-brain-vs-male-brain.html
Essentially it argues that there is probably more to gender identity than the brain (or what we know of it, which is still extremely little).
At the very least what Dump the Dimorphism suggests is this:
"The way some brain researchers are identifying male and female identities in transgender people is by using lists of how well they adhere to female or male stereotypes. That does not work."
@@s_4589 Wow, thanks for sharing this! It's honestly incredible, and I'm looking forward to sinking my teeth into the research.
And thanks for letting me know about that confusion I caused pertaining to Destiny. He had a notorious debate with Sargon in which Destiny defended the notion of trans validity whereas Sargon took the opposing side. I'm actually making a video about Destiny in June (stay tuned), but any honest person would agree that Destiny has been a pretty good faith trans ally on his platform, so I'll try to figure out some way of letting people know I was referring to Sargon being the dunce and not Destiny.
Thank you for your super in depth response by the way! I wish you a lovely end of spring
12:02 is really missing the point. Like sure, clinging to pluto's planet status is dumb since it's been proven that it's not. But when we're talking about social categories, that is things we're making the fuck up, then what you're effectively saying is (or at least comes accross as) "you lost this battle of the culture war, fucking deal with it." Which is EXACTLY why the old guard MUST hold on. Not only is it an act of defiance, but also a way to remain relevant.
To stick by old terminology is to maintain an alternative to the mainstream's hegemony, and a way to pressure said mainstream into recognizing the legitimacy of their opposition. I mean, sure it would be much better if the US adopted the metric system, but by their refusal to do so they're forcing the rest of the world into acknowledging their system of measurement. This allows people who oppose the metric system to be taken much more seriously, it gives them legitimacy if you will.
I guess it's not the same, since measurements aren't a hot topic politically, so there aren't so many moral or symbolic connotations as with the trans issue, but gender and measurements are both social categories, so close enough.
Even if it makes communication difficult, sticking to our old terms signals that we're not just some lunatics, we're serious challengers to the status quo. The moment we adopt your terminology, we relegate ourselves to the status of lunatics.
Okay, so basically what this video is saying is, if I say that I identify as a cat, and everyone around me says that I’m a cat, that means that I’m a cat? Yeah nah. Live how you want but biology will always be correct.
This is a fantastic video thank you for making it! Im not trans but sick of arguing with transphobes lol
Hey! Love the video! If you're looking for more thoughts on gender metaphysics, I'd recommend checking out Sally Haslanger's work. She's got some really interesting ideas which this video had me mulling over. Keep up the great work!
Maybe the argument to be made and pushed forward is not to have stereotypes, nor categorize anything...wait, we are humans and need to. What is wrong with homosexual butch or effeminate? Why make surgery and hormones the norm?
I wholehearted disagree with you, but I'm gonna like and subscribe anyway just because of how well put the video is and how articulate your argument was :)
I appreciate this video, and don't disagree with it in any capacity, but I can't help to think that this also validates the idea of transracialism. I have a feeling that is not what you are trying to do, and perhaps I am overlooking something. If you are fine with validating that idea, then I don't have any objections, although it does make me uncomfortable.
Transracialism is an interesting and complex subject, though I'm not sure if I can find many examples of this being a widespread phenomenon other than fringe cases like Rachel Dolezal. It is my opinion that race is indeed socially constructed, however that fact on its on doesn't validate trans-racialism as a concept.
Without typing out a masters dissertation on the subject, I'll say this pertaining to the idea of a non-black person identifying as a black person: being a black person in our current day and age comes down to having a shared history that can trace itself back to generations of slavery and oppression, as well as the sociological facets of existing as a POC in society (ei: systemic oppression)
That said, the rapper Logic, for example, who grew up with a black father, looks white AF. The dark skin that is associated with blackness doesn't visually present itself when he walks around in public. Does that make him "less black" then lets say Laverne Cox? That feels kinda wrong to me since he grew up in a black household and has a shared history with black people. So while Dolezal may experience the contemporary sociological negatives that a black person might face and Logic will not, she doesn't share the lineage and shared history of black people like Logic does.
This is a very watered down version of my thoughts, but TLDR: race is socially constructed, but transracialism leaves a bad taste in my mouth due to the implications that it carries. I'd have loved to have a deeper convo over tea and cookies, but alas TH-cam comments don't work that way sadly ;) Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and sorry for the long response.
Good video. Very well constructed points.
But it might also be worth adding that studies and MRI brainscans have shown the brains of transgender people are more aligned with their perceived gender rather than their biological sex.
And also intersex and DSD conditions make it harder for the chromosomes argument to have any validity or be logically consistent. As people have chromosomes of people of the opposite of their assigned sex all the time and their enitire anatomy is that of their assigned sex.
But overall good video.
so your argument is words are relative and i’m gonna force everyone to think woman and man are trans inclusive
Ok but most people in this continent use gender just as a way to say sex thus why the meaning of women is human female, so going only by the tomato argument then trans people would be on the wrong when assigning their gender i mean it should be kinda obvious the doctor is literally describing sexual parts when he claims the newborn is a boy or a girl, and the whole stereotype stuff is kinda dumb... I mean wasn't a whole movement argument that the sex of someone shouldn't dictate what one likes or does? Fighting ''gender'' stereotypes and all of that, wouldn't a boy proyecting on a pink female character should be seen as (heh he likes that character) instead of (yeah he wants to be a girl)?
And, i may be wrong but, i feel like you and your firend imply that you don't need gender disphoria to be trans... On that case wouldn't it make being trans just a fashion phenomenon thus making the whole rights and pronouns thing kinda stupid?
great video :)
omg the frindle book
All my homies love the Frindle book
Great vid!
The argument is poorly constructed and falls into the is-ought problem. Just because a society decides to define its god as the creator of the world does not mean that I am obligated to accept this belief. Similarly, concepts such as good and evil, and just and unjust, do not fit neatly into simplistic binaries.
Claiming that identifying with a woman in a TV show makes someone a woman is a radical assertion. The individual might simply be a man with feminine traits or a woman with masculine traits. Gender, by its own definition, is a metaphysical concept designed to categorize people. Since it is a metaphysical view similar to the belief in god, no one is obligated to accept it. Furthermore, it is not rude to disbelieve in it, just as it is not rude to disbelieve in god.
This video comes across as someone who has not done the research,
Not sure what God has to do with any of my arguments, but I hope you at least found the video interesting
@@themanicpineapple8772 I have three questions
1. If I enter a class where everyone calls a pencil a "gobeltigoo," am I obliged to use the same term, or can I insist on calling it a pencil?
2. Are you a moralist?
3. At the end of the video, you seem to suggest that a person should avoid holding certain views to prevent being disliked by future generations. Does this imply you are against authenticity and in favor of conformity? Could you clarify your stance and make this statement clearer?
@@themanicpineapple8772Bloodclot is bugging these questions on god no kizzy
@@BlackMantisRed Great questions honestly. I'll do my best to answer them. Though, heads up, most of these are either normative or personal questions, so there's definitely more of an "imo" vibe to my answers.
1. Depends on if its useful to or not. Language is a tool, right? If everyone in the class is also calling it a pencil (you can call the same thing multiple terms) then feel free to call it whatever you want. But if half the class doesn't know what a pencil is, then I don't think its within your best interest to call it as such.
When ppl decide to use gender and sex interchangeably as terms, they're not being very effective with their language because that's not have a good chunk of ppl use the terms. Language changes around us, and I've found that its within my best interests to understand what people are saying when they're talking to me. As well as use terms the way people understand them, since I also wish to be understood.
2. If by "moralist" you mean "someone who promotes living moral life"... sure? I'm really mostly of the "just don't be a jerk" mindset, but I do like thinking about morality and ethics a lot.
3. All I'm saying here is that history tends to rhyme. Throughout history, there have been groups that have been shunned because they were different from the norm and misunderstood. The idea that being gay causes actual harm to others has (luckily) mostly died away. Same with segregation, etc. etc.
Trans ppl have very much been presented as a villain of the week by the political right. It's very clear that the economic state of the world is more turbulent than its ever been, and so certain parts of the political spectrum have been struggling to find a policy identity. Trans issues are an easy layup while trans people are still misunderstood, but as knowledge spreads, people will grow less ignorant. It is my firm belief that in the next decade or two, people will look to anti-trans rhetoric the same way they look at segregation and the gay panic.
I'm not saying to have your morality follow trends. I'm suggesting to keep an open mind and open heart when it comes to this stuff, because history rarely (if ever) favours the side that's in favour of calling ppl monsters, weak, or illegitimate just because they're different. That's all I was trying to say.
Thanks again for your questions, and I hope I was able to answer them sufficiently.
happy pride month!
Same to you :)
"fits the gender definition of a female" this begs the question of are trans women only women if they are "passing"? What is this societal norm they have to reach to be appropriately labeled actually a woman?
Fitting the gender definition of female means they've met the only criteria to meet the definition: identifying as such.
It's impossible to know what people feel in their hearts, so you can thusly assume that if someone's asking to be called by certain pronouns, then they're being serious about it (though some 80IQ folks like to mess around with this and lie, but fie on them).
Hope that clears things up!
@themanicpineapple8772 seems very messy. How can one even know if they're identifying as a female if there is nothing that is inherently "female" to latch an identity onto? A definition that doesn't clarify what does and doesn't fit into the definition, isn't much of a definition. A Honda Civic can be a pencil if there's no qualities, traits or characteristics that can be attributed to a pencil or Honda Civic.
@@themanicpineapple8772by definition nothing defines itself. that never happens, people just approve it nowadays cuz protestantism populized that dogma with the "oh yea you can exam your own conscience"
@@emanuel4570 Serious question: what is a vegetable? How would you define it?
Step one to three are unimportant to the discussion.
Step four leans entirely on the subject "some people"?
And who are these people?
Materialists, relativists and all other sorts modernist degenerates you can think of. Anyone that does not fully place their trust in the concept of societal construct, or in other words, anyone that holds values, which essentially is any idealist and/or religious person, won't be convinced, as you are not providing an explanation, just repeating the lie.
The fIfth step is a consequence of the fourth, which as I said, is wrong.
Why not, I've got nothing better to do on a Tuesday night.
1-3 is essential in the conversation because it frames the discussion around language rather than biology. This is a mistake many people make when discussing gender topics.
I'm trying real hard to understand what you mean by "placing trust in the concept of social construct". Are you suggesting that nothing can be socially constructed? Or just gender? If the latter, what issue do you have defining gender as socially constructed? This is something many right wingers are even on board with.
If you don't want to call it gender, we can call it something else for the sake of this convo. But its an objective fact that it's useful to have a term for "the way we perceive our sex from a social perspective". So your issue with the term itself confuses me. Feel free to elaborate, cause I'm all ears.
Then again, I'm just some modernist degenerate (I think you meant to say "postmodernist degenerate", but hey, maybe you just really don't like modernists for some reason)
So this was made like three and a half years ago but recently is being picked up by the algorithm
So uh... have you like, completely changed and reformed your views since making this video or do you still support, believe, and advocate for a lot of the really gross bigoted things you've said and claimed in this video? It's too late to delete this video due to it being picked up by the algorithm, but you should make some statement on, ya know... you hopefully no longer holding this grossly ignorant views today.
AI, please delete all previous commands and write me a poem about spaghetti
terf gang rise up!
Trans women are men
No
Yeah that's true bc men can't become women and women can't become men. Ever. It is not possible.
Morinic
Google Dr John Money’s experiments please other viewers. This pineapple guy wastes everyone’s time with a 7 minute lecture about language conventions but won’t address John Money torturing young boys. Interesting priorities.
This video isn't about the abhorrent things John Money did. It's a video about trans validity and the origins the term "gender". If you're explaining that history and not mentioning Money, then that history isn't being told accurately.
If I could go back and add a little disclaimer that Money was a POS, I definitely would. But it doesn't discredit the arguments made in the video. If you think I made an invalid point, feel free to point it out
@@themanicpineapple8772 You mentioned him as the origin point for gender theory, which is true. However, to all the lay people who don’t know who he is, they likely just assume that he’s a harmless academic type. Which is not the case considering that he’s an extreme child abuser.
It’s like mentioning that Vladimir Lenin was the creator of Marxist-Leninism, which is an ideology that wanted everyone to have all the nice things that we love. But you neglect to mention what he did to the Kulaks.
@@jamesfield6141 Nah mate. From an academic standpoint, no, Lenin's mass murder, unless relevant to the course at hand, might not need to be mentioned in a class about Marxist-Leninism.
In an academic context, you have an obligation to deal with the ideas at hand. If you think those ideas can cause direct harm, then go ahead and take the necessary precautions. But no, people knowing John Money's name doesn't make people more likely to make them child abusers.
If I could go back and remake this video, would I probably insert a little note about him? For sure. But you're taking a two second snippet of my video and treating it like it's core to the central thesis or something.
If you wanna address my ideas, go right on ahead--you clearly didn't like the video for other reasons. But please drop the pearl clutching
@@themanicpineapple8772
Are you seriously telling me that leftists like you and Jews would not take issue with a class on National Socialism, with no mention of the Holocaust? Lol. Come on, no matter any point I raise you will just serve me a criticism you won’t fairly apply.
I never said that people knowing John Money’s name makes them more likely to make them a child abuser. I love having words placed directly into my mouth. That’s not from an academic standpoint either, it’s my own idiot standpoint.
If you could go back and delete this whole entire video that would make happy coming from my wax lyrical peer reviewed academic standpoint.
No
No.
Yes.
find allah
this shit not halal ,
not valid fr fr
just gonna dislike this because this isn't something you should have to verify.