My cat had four kittens. Within the first week, anyone could tell the one female from the other three males just from their behavior. I don't understand how those kittens could possibly have fallen victim to the imposition of any sex-biased social constructs. They certainly weren't compelled to wear sexually stereotypical garments (we just left them naked). Instead of teaching, schools are now indoctrinating, which seems to be more confusing than enlightening. It's a sad commentary on society when they can't even differentiate between boys and girls.
Thank you for making this video. Your presentation is so even-handed I feel confident sharing it with anyone who wants to know more about the origins of gender theory without worrying about whether they'll be offended by >Gasp!< a Christian. There may be some who will dismiss you simply for that, but their Ergo Decedo is not your problem.
This video was very helpful. Please do more videos like it. You mentioned that you’re considering doing a deep dive into Judith Butler’s work, Please do. Thank you so much Dr. Cooper.
Really well done and clear, Dr. Cooper. Defining 'essence' here would have strayed from your objective, but Thomas Aquinas treats the matter of essence in wonderful and great detail, not just building upon the Aristotelian view, but using the Aristotelian view as a basis for rational, intellectual human thought; which is part of our essence and approbation of our human-ess. Thank you for your thoughts.
I am almost finished with my undergraduate studies in psychology. You did a great job looking more into this. I have come across a lot of ideas and beliefs about this very topic and it is sad and crazy it is promoted in the universities who call themselves scientific. There were a few people who also had an influence in the Modern Gender Theory.
I know I am very late here three and a half year after the video came out but maybe you see my comment anyway. First of all thank you for your videos and other content. I am from Denmark so my english spelling is nothing near perfect and some of the words I use for for concepts may mean something different in english and in an american context. But now I try anyway. I am a danish minister and I am not an expert on Kierkegaard but I did study under some of Europes most recognized Kierkegaard researchers. What I learned about Kierkegaard when I was studying theology in the University of Copenhagen was that he is very different from later existencialist philosophers in the sence that he is also an essentialist. Kierkegaards approach was that you make a choice about who you are. But when you choose you risk to make the wrong decition and become another person than the person you were meant to be. Another option is that you do not make a choise at all and then you will miss the mark no matter what. Kierkegaard is hard to figure out because of the many characters and pseudonyms in his writing. It is therefor not always clear what his own opinion actually is. But when I read him it is my clear impression that he thinks of humans as individuals created with a distinct and unique perpose each. But not all people reach the self-perception and purpose they were created for. We were created to be someone specific. And I believe that Kierkegaard in that case is thinking of faith in God and a relation to him. It is probably not your intention since you only mention him briefly but I get the impression that you put Kierkegaard in the category of existencialists laying the ground for social constructivism. And I think that is wrong interpretation of Kierkegaard. Thank you agian for your videos. This is just my humble opinion and my little effort to give the great danish philosopher some credit.
Excellent presentation! I love how you discussed the source of contemporary gender theory, and contextualized/contrasted it classical theories. That alone is commendable. But using that classical theory to also check and critique not just socially left but socially *right* ideologies is really quite even-handed. I’m glad you’re willing to seek the truth *per se*, and not just try to support one of two faulty sides in an important debate.
Our hormones are shown to influence behavior and emotions and feelings as well though... such as how puberty, lymbic systems, menopause, aging, pregnancy, birthing...they shown to change sexual attraction, and amount of aggression and energy...
I know this comment is a year old. I often wonder if certain transgender folks don't have correct hormone balances? I know that the hormonal throws of puberty and menopause (which I'm beginning myself now), really play havoc on one's thoughts an behaviors. It's an interesting question to think about. Perhaps this possible hormonal issue could even change the brain?
@@m_d1905 hormones definitely effect behavior and thoughts and personality hormones drive a birth control generally has warnings about causing emotional instability like suicidality or aggression and testosterone is known to cause aggression as well typical puberty has surges in these hormones that is why teenage years and early 20s are emotionally turbulent typically in premenopausal and menopausal women this often occurs as well you are absolutely right about both of those men experience this as well lower energy levels for example as their testosterone dips and of course impotence is common as well women of course when they are pregnant have hormonal shifts and for a good while after giving birth as well. Our bodies are so complex and each one unique in many ways...seems pretty foolhardy to think we can tinker with it all the time without any negative effects.
@@m_d1905 transgender doesn't mean they are attracted to the same sex though it means they experience body disphoria so they feel they were born in the wrong body it goes more in the category with anorexia nervousa or bulima or internalized racism (self hate for any aspect of one's physical appearance)
I simply wanted to know what the origins of this theory were, so it is frustrating that this video is being messed with. This is a perfect introduction, Dr. Cooper. I am still in college, and this sort of thing is just not taught. I noticed that, when I was younger, these ideas were not encouraged, nor socially prevalent, therefore it should be easy to find and understand why this philosophy came to be so intertwined with college campuses/classes, the sociopolitical sphere, and the younger generation. Yet, where it originates from, as well as dissenting perspectives are actively covered up. I sense that something else is up here. As you said, this sort of ideology is a stark departure from previous western thought. I get the feeling that it is being politically weaponized, perhaps to shift/subvert perspectives of younger generations, perhaps maliciously... At first I accepted it, but as it develops, it seems to be having quite a worrying effect on younger people. It almost completely disconnects the reality of the physical body and the self, hurting ones own ability to accept themselves as they are, as well as the act of self-reflection to an extent. It is practically a refutation to Christianity. I am not a Christian, but it is hard to deny that it's ideas are inherent to western culture. To conclude, I think that this ideology is causing generational conflict and dissonance... A confusing and divisive ideology to live one's own life by. It's impact, whether designed or on purpose, is completely erasing traditional western values, almost subverting a generation that cannot understand those that came before them.
I would agree that one is not born a woman. One is born to become a woman. Only by accepting the situation will one become a woman. One cannot decide to become a man without being born to become a man. If one tries (this seems to me to be a mostly subconscious desire driven by dissatisfaction), one only becomes a confused being, bad at being the woman one was supposed to be. Not all women need to live up to some social expectation, but they need to accept the kind of woman they are born to become. Some are born to become women with many masculine traits or to simply not desire a family and typical female roles, and that is fine. Only when society does not give a woman any room to become herself, does she start imagining that perhaps she was somehow born into the wrong body and life altogether, and if she could only change this and that external factor things would be so good. That is an entirely dangerous idea. Most people will go down that route and never be satisfied, but simply find new challenges and try to escape indefinitely. Faith is fundamentally to accept, and be thankful for, that God has put you in the correct situation and to accept that situation and it's challenges, even though it seems difficult.
Many thanks, particularly for the necessary explanation of the essence of Existential thought, if that's not a contradiction in terms.... It occurs to me that the definition of the word "gender" is central to the mess we're in, and that definition in turn depends on the definition of the word "sex". Sex is the presence or absence of a Y chromosome; males have one, females don't. This trait is absolutely binary, it is determined at conception, it can be verified empirically, and it is unchanging for any given individual. I sometimes read or hear the expression "biological sex"; the word "sex" expresses a biological concept, so there is no sex other than biological sex. It is not "assigned at birth", it is recognized. So what is "gender?" After thought I believe the best understanding of the word "gender" is that it's the social interpretation of sex, i.e. the expectations and assumptions about differences in male versus female behavior, dress, work or family roles, speech patterns, etc. These expectations and assumptions will vary from one culture to another, and within a given culture they will vary over time. So it seems to me that gender in fact is "a social construct", but it's a socially-constructed version of sexual dimorphism. There are exactly two genders, male and female, because there are exactly two sexes, male and female. The other fictional fantasy "genders", indeterminate in number, simply reflect the childish narcissism of people who want to insist that they are exempt from the realities of the world; one might as well assert the ability to fly or be invisible, or to be magic. Critical to my thinking is that gender is not a statement one makes about one's self, it is a statement a culture makes about sex. An individual might be more or less comfortable with their own sex and with what their culture says about their sex, but that discomfort changes neither biological reality nor social reaction to biological reality. Those who argue that gender is an individual feeling about themselves are not actually arguing that gender is "a social construct", they are more nearly arguing that gender is an anti-social construct. I believe those who choose to reject what their culture says about their sex, i.e. "trans gender" people, ought to be free to do so with no punitive social reaction, but the rest of us are under no obligation to indulge a pretense that is contrary to fact. A society that values both freedom and truth will allow individuals to maintain the "trans gender" pretense about themselves, but will not allow the corruption of language or the expectation that others be compelled to join in that pretense.
There are also intersex or hermaphrodites that is also biological xxy, rather than xx, or xy. And of course there are a lot of similarities between male and female as well as differences. Even within male and female the primary hormone levels vary and they even change in individuals over time.
Intersex individuals are the exception rather than the rule as they only make up 1 out of every 100,000 births, and from an essentialist perspective they are biologically and hormonally of hermaphroditic essence.
Without Memeing hermaphrodites have all make and female primary and secondary features yes this is true for hermaphrodites. Intersex is not the same thing as hermaphrodite. Also it’s like 1/5 at the least. You should do your research. Also not all females or males have the high levels of estrogen or testosterone that causes the corespondent behaviors and attractions typically associated with each sex. In fact all women have some testosterone naturally and all men have some female hormone as well. During pregnancy and nursing some of these hormones are passed through the blood stream and milk. It has been shown that some women experience hyperarousal during pregnancy and find masculine associated features very attractive while others are practically repulsed by them and tend to be more attracted to more feminine associated characteristics. This is only one example of many on how sexuality varies for men and women throughout life and from individual to individual. If you study a little reproductive biology you would also understand that in the womb while developing the Genetalia even begin the same.
I think the problem you have with gender essentialism is that in order to define the 'essence' of a male human you have to demonstrate what it is that all male humans have in common beyond anything that all humans have in common, or what all animals have in common, ie; it can't just be 'God created men as men', which is a completely circular argument.
Gender And sex are two different things sex Male and female gender the expression masculine or feminine which either sex can express. Second wave feminism goes against gender ideology. They fought for women to not be limited in the gender roles of thier time. They do not believe a person can change sex and actually stand in opposition to that notion
Just because SOME societal expectations exist regarding gender roles does NOT mean that they exist in totality thereby negating the existence of an essential gender nature.
Thank you for this video - I found it very helpful as I had no idea about de Beauvoir’s influence in modern gender theory. I’m currently writing a research paper on children and gender dysphoria. Specifically, on why I think pediatric transgender medicine is blatant medical malpractice because true consent can’t be obtained from our youth on such drastic matters. The hormone disrupting therapies and, of course, the sex reassignment (or “affirming”) surgeries carry huge physical and mental risks that I do not believe our children can comprehend and I personally believe parents and doctors do a grave disservice to children when they sign kids up for these life-altering procedures. To be clear, I have no problem with adults going down this road on their own time and on their own dime - to each his own. But I firmly believe that childhood innocence deserves to be protected and this is nothing short of a form of socially acceptable child abuse. I’m sure what I’m saying will upset some people, some adults, but I can’t really help it. I’m a mother and based on my research so far, I’m horrified at what’s being allowed medically at such sweet, tender ages. I am very interested to hear anything further from you on modern gender theory, especially how it relates to children, if possible. Again, thank you for your eloquent and informative video.
This is the same flawed argument of 'we don't know what's best for us' that has been used against abortion for young people, unequal age of consent for queer people and educational bans such as Section 28 in Britain. This oppressive argument has been heard and debunked time and time again - what young trans people like me need is to be educated and empowered (through the likes of schooling and gender clinics) to make our own informed decisions. What really sounds better? 'Childhood innocence', characterised by ignorance and powerlessness, or allowing trans people the resources to mitigate trauma-inducing biological characteristics, which are so prevalent during puberty. What really seems like 'child abuse'? Allowing young people to take long-term health risks (which may or may not occur), or forcing a known trauma upon a helpless pleading child.
Hey I got a question, so if God created all humans, why does it seem like Jesus came only for some of us? Like if you were in south america practicing child sacrifice or whatever they did you had no way of knowing Christ until the Spanish came over, so were all those people just fucked? The bible and Jesus as well seem very ethnocentric, focusing on isreal and the generations of Adam, which makes me think Adam must have been not the first man but rather the first man made in God's image, or another way of putting this would be that men exist who aren't made in God's image, or that maybe to be a man you must be made in God's image otherwise you are some other being.
We are in trouble from the get go on two fronts in this video. First the acceptance of the 'essentialism' of the pagan pair: Plato and Aristotle. The Bible does not know of any such thing; we are created as whole beings, and Paul underlines this in Galatians 3:28. The church has too easily borrowed the pagans to fuel its philosophy. Not good. Thus we are in no position to agree with aspects of post-modernism that criticise the groundlessness of a sinful world, and rightly so. But we must also remember that the sinful, fallen world is dominated by...paganism. A monist construction of reality that merges 'god' into the creation completely. God is no longer separate and our 'imageness' becomes undefined...so the only basis for anything is social construction, irrespective of its nonsensical separation of the person from their physical aspect and from its objective reality. Paganism is borne on the notion of Evolution, which attempts to assert that the cosmos made itself and this set of random accidents is the definitional substrate of reality. See Dr Peter Jones on 'Paganism in the Church': th-cam.com/video/QC4fO-Kzjck/w-d-xo.html
Aren't the gender roles based largely on reproductive rights and responsibilities? For example, I see the masculine reproductive role as being analogous to the responsibilities of a physician, while I also see the female reproductive role as being analogous to the role of a pharmacist. The complementary dichotomy of physicians and pharmacists explains to me why men are quasi-pastors to promote spiritual responsibilities. This is to prevent the spiritual irresponsibility of fathering unwanted and unsupported children, which can lead to abortion. As the opposite of a dope addict is a physician, it is likewise true that the opposite of a rapist is a pastor and being a rapist is a masculine role.
Yes he did and no you did not. It was wise to look closer at this. This has a powerful influence on this culture, beginning over 40 years ago. The church has to stop being ignorant about it and the Word of God.
![[Full Episode] Hell's Kitchen Thailand EP.14 | 12 พ.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MNspIlqlJcc/mqdefault.jpg)
How is it not obvious that we are born with certain fundamental characteristics while others develop over time?
My cat had four kittens. Within the first week, anyone could tell the one female from the other three males just from their behavior. I don't understand how those kittens could possibly have fallen victim to the imposition of any sex-biased social constructs. They certainly weren't compelled to wear sexually stereotypical garments (we just left them naked). Instead of teaching, schools are now indoctrinating, which seems to be more confusing than enlightening. It's a sad commentary on society when they can't even differentiate between boys and girls.
Thank you for making this video. Your presentation is so even-handed I feel confident sharing it with anyone who wants to know more about the origins of gender theory without worrying about whether they'll be offended by >Gasp!< a Christian. There may be some who will dismiss you simply for that, but their Ergo Decedo is not your problem.
Thanks!
This video was very helpful. Please do more videos like it. You mentioned that you’re considering doing a deep dive into Judith Butler’s work, Please do. Thank you so much Dr. Cooper.
Really well done and clear, Dr. Cooper. Defining 'essence' here would have strayed from your objective, but Thomas Aquinas treats the matter of essence in wonderful and great detail, not just building upon the Aristotelian view, but using the Aristotelian view as a basis for rational, intellectual human thought; which is part of our essence and approbation of our human-ess. Thank you for your thoughts.
I am almost finished with my undergraduate studies in psychology. You did a great job looking more into this. I have come across a lot of ideas and beliefs about this very topic and it is sad and crazy it is promoted in the universities who call themselves scientific. There were a few people who also had an influence in the Modern Gender Theory.
I know I am very late here three and a half year after the video came out but maybe you see my comment anyway. First of all thank you for your videos and other content.
I am from Denmark so my english spelling is nothing near perfect and some of the words I use for for concepts may mean something different in english and in an american context. But now I try anyway.
I am a danish minister and I am not an expert on Kierkegaard but I did study under some of Europes most recognized Kierkegaard researchers. What I learned about Kierkegaard when I was studying theology in the University of Copenhagen was that he is very different from later existencialist philosophers in the sence that he is also an essentialist. Kierkegaards approach was that you make a choice about who you are. But when you choose you risk to make the wrong decition and become another person than the person you were meant to be. Another option is that you do not make a choise at all and then you will miss the mark no matter what. Kierkegaard is hard to figure out because of the many characters and pseudonyms in his writing. It is therefor not always clear what his own opinion actually is. But when I read him it is my clear impression that he thinks of humans as individuals created with a distinct and unique perpose each. But not all people reach the self-perception and purpose they were created for. We were created to be someone specific. And I believe that Kierkegaard in that case is thinking of faith in God and a relation to him.
It is probably not your intention since you only mention him briefly but I get the impression that you put Kierkegaard in the category of existencialists laying the ground for social constructivism. And I think that is wrong interpretation of Kierkegaard.
Thank you agian for your videos. This is just my humble opinion and my little effort to give the great danish philosopher some credit.
Excellent presentation! I love how you discussed the source of contemporary gender theory, and contextualized/contrasted it classical theories. That alone is commendable. But using that classical theory to also check and critique not just socially left but socially *right* ideologies is really quite even-handed. I’m glad you’re willing to seek the truth *per se*, and not just try to support one of two faulty sides in an important debate.
Faulty? Matthew 19:4
I have been inspired by your thoughts and words - thank you !!!
Our hormones are shown to influence behavior and emotions and feelings as well though... such as how puberty, lymbic systems, menopause, aging, pregnancy, birthing...they shown to change sexual attraction, and amount of aggression and energy...
I know this comment is a year old. I often wonder if certain transgender folks don't have correct hormone balances? I know that the hormonal throws of puberty and menopause (which I'm beginning myself now), really play havoc on one's thoughts an behaviors. It's an interesting question to think about. Perhaps this possible hormonal issue could even change the brain?
@@m_d1905 hormones definitely effect behavior and thoughts and personality hormones drive a birth control generally has warnings about causing emotional instability like suicidality or aggression and testosterone is known to cause aggression as well typical puberty has surges in these hormones that is why teenage years and early 20s are emotionally turbulent typically in premenopausal and menopausal women this often occurs as well you are absolutely right about both of those men experience this as well lower energy levels for example as their testosterone dips and of course impotence is common as well women of course when they are pregnant have hormonal shifts and for a good while after giving birth as well. Our bodies are so complex and each one unique in many ways...seems pretty foolhardy to think we can tinker with it all the time without any negative effects.
@@m_d1905 transgender doesn't mean they are attracted to the same sex though it means they experience body disphoria so they feel they were born in the wrong body it goes more in the category with anorexia nervousa or bulima or internalized racism (self hate for any aspect of one's physical appearance)
@@m_d1905 there are heterosexual trans people because sexuality is different than gender perception
I simply wanted to know what the origins of this theory were, so it is frustrating that this video is being messed with. This is a perfect introduction, Dr. Cooper. I am still in college, and this sort of thing is just not taught.
I noticed that, when I was younger, these ideas were not encouraged, nor socially prevalent, therefore it should be easy to find and understand why this philosophy came to be so intertwined with college campuses/classes, the sociopolitical sphere, and the younger generation.
Yet, where it originates from, as well as dissenting perspectives are actively covered up. I sense that something else is up here. As you said, this sort of ideology is a stark departure from previous western thought.
I get the feeling that it is being politically weaponized, perhaps to shift/subvert perspectives of younger generations, perhaps maliciously... At first I accepted it, but as it develops, it seems to be having quite a worrying effect on younger people.
It almost completely disconnects the reality of the physical body and the self, hurting ones own ability to accept themselves as they are, as well as the act of self-reflection to an extent.
It is practically a refutation to Christianity. I am not a Christian, but it is hard to deny that it's ideas are inherent to western culture. To conclude, I think that this ideology is causing generational conflict and dissonance... A confusing and divisive ideology to live one's own life by. It's impact, whether designed or on purpose, is completely erasing traditional western values, almost subverting a generation that cannot understand those that came before them.
So helpful. Thank you.
Nominalism and gender, exactly. ¿What about Alfred Kinsey and John Money, and even Engels in the origin of the familiy, and the Frankfurt School?
Fantastic video
Thank you!!
I would agree that one is not born a woman. One is born to become a woman. Only by accepting the situation will one become a woman. One cannot decide to become a man without being born to become a man. If one tries (this seems to me to be a mostly subconscious desire driven by dissatisfaction), one only becomes a confused being, bad at being the woman one was supposed to be. Not all women need to live up to some social expectation, but they need to accept the kind of woman they are born to become. Some are born to become women with many masculine traits or to simply not desire a family and typical female roles, and that is fine. Only when society does not give a woman any room to become herself, does she start imagining that perhaps she was somehow born into the wrong body and life altogether, and if she could only change this and that external factor things would be so good. That is an entirely dangerous idea. Most people will go down that route and never be satisfied, but simply find new challenges and try to escape indefinitely. Faith is fundamentally to accept, and be thankful for, that God has put you in the correct situation and to accept that situation and it's challenges, even though it seems difficult.
Sometimes these feelings are complicated by victims of sexual violence especially if they were victims of this type of abuse in childhood.
Many thanks, particularly for the necessary explanation of the essence of Existential thought, if that's not a contradiction in terms....
It occurs to me that the definition of the word "gender" is central to the mess we're in, and that definition in turn depends on the definition of the word "sex".
Sex is the presence or absence of a Y chromosome; males have one, females don't. This trait is absolutely binary, it is determined at conception, it can be verified empirically, and it is unchanging for any given individual. I sometimes read or hear the expression "biological sex"; the word "sex" expresses a biological concept, so there is no sex other than biological sex. It is not "assigned at birth", it is recognized.
So what is "gender?" After thought I believe the best understanding of the word "gender" is that it's the social interpretation of sex, i.e. the expectations and assumptions about differences in male versus female behavior, dress, work or family roles, speech patterns, etc. These expectations and assumptions will vary from one culture to another, and within a given culture they will vary over time. So it seems to me that gender in fact is "a social construct", but it's a socially-constructed version of sexual dimorphism. There are exactly two genders, male and female, because there are exactly two sexes, male and female. The other fictional fantasy "genders", indeterminate in number, simply reflect the childish narcissism of people who want to insist that they are exempt from the realities of the world; one might as well assert the ability to fly or be invisible, or to be magic.
Critical to my thinking is that gender is not a statement one makes about one's self, it is a statement a culture makes about sex. An individual might be more or less comfortable with their own sex and with what their culture says about their sex, but that discomfort changes neither biological reality nor social reaction to biological reality. Those who argue that gender is an individual feeling about themselves are not actually arguing that gender is "a social construct", they are more nearly arguing that gender is an anti-social construct.
I believe those who choose to reject what their culture says about their sex, i.e. "trans gender" people, ought to be free to do so with no punitive social reaction, but the rest of us are under no obligation to indulge a pretense that is contrary to fact. A society that values both freedom and truth will allow individuals to maintain the "trans gender" pretense about themselves, but will not allow the corruption of language or the expectation that others be compelled to join in that pretense.
There are also intersex or hermaphrodites that is also biological xxy, rather than xx, or xy. And of course there are a lot of similarities between male and female as well as differences. Even within male and female the primary hormone levels vary and they even change in individuals over time.
Intersex individuals are the exception rather than the rule as they only make up 1 out of every 100,000 births, and from an essentialist perspective they are biologically and hormonally of hermaphroditic essence.
Without Memeing hermaphrodites have all make and female primary and secondary features yes this is true for hermaphrodites. Intersex is not the same thing as hermaphrodite. Also it’s like 1/5 at the least. You should do your research. Also not all females or males have the high levels of estrogen or testosterone that causes the corespondent behaviors and attractions typically associated with each sex. In fact all women have some testosterone naturally and all men have some female hormone as well. During pregnancy and nursing some of these hormones are passed through the blood stream and milk. It has been shown that some women experience hyperarousal during pregnancy and find masculine associated features very attractive while others are practically repulsed by them and tend to be more attracted to more feminine associated characteristics. This is only one example of many on how sexuality varies for men and women throughout life and from individual to individual. If you study a little reproductive biology you would also understand that in the womb while developing the Genetalia even begin the same.
Rebekah Squires sexual development disorders prove nothing lol
@@LilBitDistributist "disorders" is a little harsh
@@kourada That's what they are. No harshness about it. Just science.
‘Nother great video.
Thanks 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
This is deep.
I think the problem you have with gender essentialism is that in order to define the 'essence' of a male human you have to demonstrate what it is that all male humans have in common beyond anything that all humans have in common, or what all animals have in common, ie; it can't just be 'God created men as men', which is a completely circular argument.
Since coming out after 9 months I've tried ever since to get back in.
Gender And sex are two different things sex Male and female gender the expression masculine or feminine which either sex can express.
Second wave feminism goes against gender ideology. They fought for women to not be limited in the gender roles of thier time. They do not believe a person can change sex and actually stand in opposition to that notion
You forgot John Money. Book: The Man Who Invented Gender - Engaging the Ideas of John Money.
Zohar/Kabbalah Babylon
Just because SOME societal expectations exist regarding gender roles does NOT mean that they exist in totality thereby negating the existence of an essential gender nature.
Thank you for this video - I found it very helpful as I had no idea about de Beauvoir’s influence in modern gender theory. I’m currently writing a research paper on children and gender dysphoria. Specifically, on why I think pediatric transgender medicine is blatant medical malpractice because true consent can’t be obtained from our youth on such drastic matters. The hormone disrupting therapies and, of course, the sex reassignment (or “affirming”) surgeries carry huge physical and mental risks that I do not believe our children can comprehend and I personally believe parents and doctors do a grave disservice to children when they sign kids up for these life-altering procedures. To be clear, I have no problem with adults going down this road on their own time and on their own dime - to each his own. But I firmly believe that childhood innocence deserves to be protected and this is nothing short of a form of socially acceptable child abuse. I’m sure what I’m saying will upset some people, some adults, but I can’t really help it. I’m a mother and based on my research so far, I’m horrified at what’s being allowed medically at such sweet, tender ages. I am very interested to hear anything further from you on modern gender theory, especially how it relates to children, if possible. Again, thank you for your eloquent and informative video.
This is the same flawed argument of 'we don't know what's best for us' that has been used against abortion for young people, unequal age of consent for queer people and educational bans such as Section 28 in Britain. This oppressive argument has been heard and debunked time and time again - what young trans people like me need is to be educated and empowered (through the likes of schooling and gender clinics) to make our own informed decisions.
What really sounds better? 'Childhood innocence', characterised by ignorance and powerlessness, or allowing trans people the resources to mitigate trauma-inducing biological characteristics, which are so prevalent during puberty.
What really seems like 'child abuse'? Allowing young people to take long-term health risks (which may or may not occur), or forcing a known trauma upon a helpless pleading child.
Hey I got a question, so if God created all humans, why does it seem like Jesus came only for some of us? Like if you were in south america practicing child sacrifice or whatever they did you had no way of knowing Christ until the Spanish came over, so were all those people just fucked? The bible and Jesus as well seem very ethnocentric, focusing on isreal and the generations of Adam, which makes me think Adam must have been not the first man but rather the first man made in God's image, or another way of putting this would be that men exist who aren't made in God's image, or that maybe to be a man you must be made in God's image otherwise you are some other being.
Zygotes are not socially constructed.
Gebasedt!
There's only two; the rest, a prodigy of imagination.
We are in trouble from the get go on two fronts in this video. First the acceptance of the 'essentialism' of the pagan pair: Plato and Aristotle. The Bible does not know of any such thing; we are created as whole beings, and Paul underlines this in Galatians 3:28. The church has too easily borrowed the pagans to fuel its philosophy. Not good.
Thus we are in no position to agree with aspects of post-modernism that criticise the groundlessness of a sinful world, and rightly so.
But we must also remember that the sinful, fallen world is dominated by...paganism. A monist construction of reality that merges 'god' into the creation completely. God is no longer separate and our 'imageness' becomes undefined...so the only basis for anything is social construction, irrespective of its nonsensical separation of the person from their physical aspect and from its objective reality. Paganism is borne on the notion of Evolution, which attempts to assert that the cosmos made itself and this set of random accidents is the definitional substrate of reality.
See Dr Peter Jones on 'Paganism in the Church': th-cam.com/video/QC4fO-Kzjck/w-d-xo.html
I identify as Superman. Not a man. Superman. Respect that.
have you actually watched the video?
@@Oscze Are you questioning Superman?
@stephen noonan Wouldn't you like to know? 🤭
@stephen noonan I don't require any specific attire.
dumbest comment on this app, get back in the coffin, dino
I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body...
That’s sexual attraction not gender
k?
De Beauvoir was at the intersection of three useless ideas: Feminism, Freudianism and Existentialism. Derangement cubed.
cry
Aren't the gender roles based largely on reproductive rights and responsibilities? For example, I see the masculine reproductive role as being analogous to the responsibilities of a physician, while I also see the female reproductive role as being analogous to the role of a pharmacist. The complementary dichotomy of physicians and pharmacists explains to me why men are quasi-pastors to promote spiritual responsibilities. This is to prevent the spiritual irresponsibility of fathering unwanted and unsupported children, which can lead to abortion. As the opposite of a dope addict is a physician, it is likewise true that the opposite of a rapist is a pastor and being a rapist is a masculine role.
what a dumb thing to say
I'm sorry, did I understand that you are a Pastor???.....I didn't hear any explanation of any of this from God's Holy Word...did I miss that part?
Yes he did and no you did not. It was wise to look closer at this. This has a powerful influence on this culture, beginning over 40 years ago. The church has to stop being ignorant about it and the Word of God.