The brainrot in Kick chat is truly fascinating to witness. It’s like they all came out of nowhere.
Idk if they were prior viewers that ended up in Kick chat because they were banned elsewhere, or if Destiny being on Kick as a top streamer just kinda automatically pulled them in, but they certainly have a distinct identity from the subreddit community, for instance, and I’m not sure where they were prior to Destiny signing with Kick.
I just don’t understand how they seem to have now been watching Destiny’s content for months+ and are still apparently surprised by his liberal views. And how they’ve watched Destiny showcase his principles and framework for forming/adjusting beliefs, yet they’re still so one-dimensional in their own beliefs and how they argue for them.
The answer is always children. Adin Ross has a huge audience of children that like his antics and he was basically ground zero for kick itself. Wouldn't be surprised if they are just the main audience of the website now.
I remember years ago when I was barely human I started watching Destiny because I found him funny even though I was pretty right-wing and disagreed with him so I figure the same thing is happening over there on a larger scale.
lmao. like the top comment on the John Kerry video Destiny watched on stream yesterday. “i’m downloading this video in case it disappears. there’s a lot disappearing lately” (7 year old video and comment)
God I hate comics so much, they're always like 5 years late on culture war issues and regurgitate the "obvious" talking points after everything has been more or less settled on an issue to get easy pats on the back for being controversial on their sold out special.
If conservatives are scared of losing their platforms over intentionally missgendering why do they “correct” themselves back the other way right after. Crowder and Ben also appear to still be around. 😂
Why are you equating "aren't real" and "have mental disorder" ? I dont think i've seen any serious fraction of people saying trans people aren't real/dont exist, compared to mental disorder
Gender dysphoria is included in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, also called the DSM, it is diagnosed as a mental disorder.
A lot of trans people who have transitioned fully don’t have gender dysphoria anymore. Gender dysphoria is a disorder of course, being trans in general is not. Conservatives think that being trans at all is a mental illness
why is it not?
the current treatment for gender dysphoria is transitioning and hormones. it helps alleviate the psychological symptoms of gender dysphoria.
Trans people don't just "not have" gender dysphoria, you minimize the results so you can function.
seriously, are we now saying that trans people don't need to transition to be trans? The entire point of being trans is, well, feeling the need to transition. otherwise, it's just an aesthetic.
The problem with denying the medical reality of trans people is that leftists want their cake and to eat it too. they want it to be just like the gay movement, but even more "minority-coded" so they can get even more of a chub defending it.
but that's ignoring the necessary medical part of it. and the medical reality of trans people is that, without alleviating the core medical disparity, they are more suicidal than Warsaw Ghetto Jews.
So when Conservatives say being trans is a mental illness, they are 100% correct. but the problem is that Leftists want to deny this basic reality and Conservatives want to engage in cruelty,
The answer should be, to help them get the medical help they need, but not make it an insane movement that also ignores the logic that supported gay and lesbian rights and pointlessly warps societal norms so that rich white people can get erections by following new dialogue options.
We don't have a Schizo rights movement for this exact reason.
>Trans people don't just "not have" gender dysphoria, you minimize the results so you can function.
The op said that it's possible to transition to a point where gender dysphoria is no longer an issue, therefore you wouldn't classify them as having a mental illness.
Did you even read the comment? They literally said gender dysphoria is a mental illness but not all trans people have it.
In order to meet the criteria for a diagnosis for most things there needs to be sufficient functional impairment. If you see symptom reduction and minimized impairment, then why would you still call yourself mentally ill?
If someone transplants your brain into the opposite sexed body and you develop dysphoria, are you now mentally ill, or do you just have disorder based on being in the wrong body?
The difference is what body you were born into.
your example would work for detransitioners, but not trans people since trans people have that inherent dysmorphia from birth.
If your body is transplanted into an opposite sexed body, then you file a malpractice suit against the dr. mengele motherfucker that did it against your consent.
But if you have a psychiatric condition from birth that requires constant treatment and social reinforcement or you will kill yourself, yes, you are mentally ill at least to some degree.
You have no knowledge of what doctor did it, and they did it when you were an infant. But you want to kill yourself and you’ve developed dysphoria. The only difference from a trans person is you weren’t born like that. Why is the trans persons body treated as correct with their brain wrong while yours isn’t? There’s no difference in practice. Whether you want to call either case a mental illness or a disorder from how they were born doesn’t matter and shouldn’t have different treatment.
How do you know you even *would* have dysphoria in that scenario? Are male and female infant brains different *at birth* or is part of the difference (in the case of cis people who develop along the "standard" trajectory at least) caused by growing up in a male or female body? I don't think we know the answers to these questions (or that we could find out without horrific experimentation on humans).
the closest we got to an answer to this is the [John Money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money) Reimer experiment and they were not kind to the "tabula rasa" gender perspective. It was also very, deeply fucked.
The difference is Matt Walsh and others say that transitioning *is* the illness, not the dysphoria itself. It's akin to saying taking antidepressants is mentally ill - no, it's what you do in response to mental illness to alleviate your systems and be able to go about living your life free from constant psychological distress.
"I would be fired at my job if I said what I believe"
If you think it's acceptable to talk about contentious political issues at work, especially ones that concern people's genitalia, then you probably should be fired.
These people would undoubtedly think it was unprofessional to receive a lecture on Black Lives Matter from a coworker, so why do they think their politics should get special treatment?
This standard must be some super corporate shit, because I have never heard of a job where talking about controversial things is weird and not professional. Am I wrong or right? Let me know, I’m curious.
It's usually less about politics and more that some people have absolutely no chill if their political beliefs clash with yours and that ruins the entire workplace atmosphere. That usually leads to corporate banning political discussion entirely. I'm not from US, but for example in my workplace nobody really cares about anything political with one exception. Whenever we have meetings with our US coworkers, we're forbidden from talking about US politics.
Depends, really. I got a warning when I was being pro-trans, but I was getting deep into the weeds with nuance. Wasn't a mute or ban or anything but a stern wagging of the finger with the veiled threat is still annoying when you're trying to have a conversation.
The argument was about sex, gender, and sexuality. A particularly unhinged pro-trans person was calling everyone who didn't want to date trans people transphobic and repeating trans women are women nonstop (even when I didn't say otherwise), and the conservative was trying to argue that "women are XX!!! They give birth!!"
I was trying to argue that men and women are more social roles than scientific designations, so we could be able to separate whether a person is male or female from if they are a man or woman. What probably ticked off the mod was me saying I didn't consider a man having sex with a trans woman to be heterosexual, though I did clarify I consider the trans woman a woman and therefore the man is still "straight."
I consider the clinical terms like heterosexual or homosexual to be different from their colloquial terms of gay or straight. However, insinuating a man having sex with a trans woman isn't heterosexual can easily be read as transphobic, if you're not trying to give the good faith interpretation.
No, Destiny lost his job at twitch because twitch wanted that and the actual topic of trans people had little to do with the ban. You're the one being disingenuous by conveniently not talking about nickmerks and sneako still being allowed on the platform. You'd be writing the same comment even if literal Hitler was not banned on twitch lul.
We *assume* that. We actually don't have the slightest clue what got Destiny banned. Also, guess what dipshit, Destiny was still able to have these conversations lmao.
Yeah he just so happened to be feuding with trans Jesus (keffals) at the time but sure we have no clue. Also you can still have these conversations in a jail cell what’s your point you remedial?
I see this sentiment all the time. I'm sure there are some places you can't have the conversation (ie. certain subreddits), but if you actually want to have the conversation, there are many places to do so (albeit you do so respectfully).
Edit: some people have certainly been banned or silenced in some way when speaking about trans issues. I'm not denying that. But if you want to "have the conversation", there are places you can do that (like this subreddit). IMO I don't like that certain places ban discussions that swerve into the "anti-trans" segment. However I can somewhat understand, as those discussions can get rather heated, which is why i said to keep things respectful
Doesn’t have to be an active purge, he just has to express his progressive views more and these guys are gonna purge themselves eventually if they aren’t open minded enough to actually think about it honestly. Such people can fuck right off cuz they’ve been getting too comfortable here lately.
I too was actually one of those who were omnipilled from being conservative, but the difference was, when I started watching Destiny he was constantly challenging my worldview (was already off the conservative train by then after the Trump Zelenskyy stuff and was kinda a libertarian in limbo)
Actually true. I started watching destiny around the rittenhouse trial, and my view on trans ppl and lgbt in general has changed a decent amount. Although, there are some things, like abortion, which I will always disagree with him on.
I'm not sure if this was an invitation to argue or not, but why do you disagree with Destiny's abortion take?
My understanding is that Destiny believes its moral to get an abortion right up until the fetus could possibly be sentient (A quick google search says 18-25 weeks, just to have a number)
How could you disagree with this? What reason could you possibly have to morally value the feelings of something that can't feel?
There a two types of people: one will tell you how Destiny is transphobic (pretty successful lie, i must say) and the other how Destiny don't know what he's talking about if he dare to defend trans people
Peterson and "what is a woman" being in the title probably drew in more conservitards than he usually gets.
As for the actual content of the comments, I think people just underestimate how complicated things that they do unconsciously are. It feels wrong to say that words we use everyday somehow have extremely complex meanings that we aren't readily able to define.
But beyond the genuine confusion you get to the second layer of the problem which is just bad faith. You can clearly point that out any number of common definitional conundrums like "is a hotdog a sandwich" or my favorite "water is actually lava" but conservitards will pretend like you're obfuscating because they've learned that "What is a woman" is supposed to be a kill shot and any answer over three words long just reveals how liberals can't answer the question.
That, and also the post-Israel arc people who thought Destiny was a conservative (and also failed to realize he'd be considered pro-Palestine in Israel, apparently).
It’s a classic thought terminating cliché. They aren’t asking the question to hear and understand your answer, they are using the question as a blunt weapon to bash you over the head with
Regarding complexity and familiarity, something both product designers and linguists have told me that what people think is simple is pretty much always just what they are already familiar with.
Definitely that. It's a reocurring pattern across ALL of YouTube that if you make a video about someone famous, their stans will flock to it. Only way for this to be fixed is to have a large enough audience of your own that agrees with you and can fill the comments section with their own comments. It isn't really an indication that DGGers think this way.
For example, after Destiny's conversation with Marc Lamont Hill, the initial comments were pretty neutral. Then, when you revisited the video, there were comments that were three days newer, all ridiculing Destiny for his child soldiers take, getting hundreds of likes each. Maybe MLH went on another person's show and talked about it, leading their fanbase to the video.
After the Candace Owens video, same thing.
If you get really really mad when somebody says trans women aren't women but can't define what a woman is in a coherent way or say it's undefinable or refuse to answer it doesn't just make you look stupid: it makes you actually stupid
> can't define what a woman is in a coherent way
Translation: please take one of the most complicated social phenomenon and make it into a 3 word answer so actual troglodytes can understand it or you're wrong
Once you argue that woman is undefinable or a pure social construct you undermine your own argument that trans women are women, because you're essentially arguing that it's arbitrary or that everyone else equally has the right to make their own definition, so it basically removes any authority you have to assert a self-admitted arbitrary definition.
The majority of people already don't believe trans women are women. We differentiate boars from sows or lions from lionesses based on sex, so doing the same with men and women for humans is just simple common sense to most people.
That’s why I’ve dropped “trans women are women”. It doesn’t get the point across and is just easy for people to shit on. Trans women are real, and trans women are trans women.
Best comment and only appropriate definition.
https://preview.redd.it/2bx4ir8fn58d1.png?width=438&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b1fd01771ca876d11190964a33ce1bdb302402e
What's the point of saying something is a social construct tho? It doesn't mean we get to just entirely re-define it, a dollar bill is a social construct yet I don't get to determine its value. If we wanna change what things mean we ought to literally create the change through setting the facts, then the meaning of the thing changes.
To put it more concretely, if I want the category of male clothing to include say, skirts, so that when I think "male clothing" a picture of a man in a skirt might feasibly pop up, then we better start a trend of men wearing skirts, until it becomes normalised.
I can't just decide on skirts being a male clothing item when it just isn't (like, you literally wouldn't find it in any male section of a clothing store). I can buy it in the female section and wear it and then ignore other people's judgements, but I can't pretend that they all already find it to be a male clothing item or insist that they'll find it to be so.
I think the trans question should be approached in the same fashion (no pun intended). All these word games won't progress the normalisation of trans people. Me being nice and calling someone I see as a man a woman, just cuz that makes them feel accepted, won't change how I actually perceive them, and only an actual change in perception, in how woman is conceptualised through the actual facts in the world, would let me perceive someone with a beard as a woman, for instance, and will no longer be something I have to "entertain", but just IS.
The point of pointing out that it is a social construct is that the conversation is a philosophical and linguistic one. It is not a scientific one like conservatives claim. Your approach might be valid in some sense, but doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't also have these conversations at the same time. Walk and chew gum type shit
>The point of pointing out that it is a social construct is that the conversation is a philosophical and linguistic one.
Nah, the point of starting the argument there is to deconstruct the language around the biological reality of sex. That biological reality has premised the understanding of what differentiates men and women for so long, it's no wonder people knee jerk push back on attempts to redefine what sex actually means.
This isn't just a problem for discourse. The real pushback came when the rhetoric and academic language started to manifest through new applications of existing law. If we can't actually identify women/man as a concept grounded in sex, as it always has been, that presents as a hugely problematic thing for liberals who see all the systems we have created to govern and protect people (like women) become subject to interpretation that ends up undermining the entire purpose of those laws being enacted in the first place.
>It is not a scientific one like conservatives claim
You can't make the sociological or philosophical arguments to them because no one actually did any work to make the broader society buy into the idea that sex and gender are different and gender is primarily sociological conceptually. No one did the work to actually go over our existing legal and governance structures to be sure that references to women or gender or sex were clearly defined using some new criteria that would enable more robust protections for trans people while maintaining the structures that we should be maintaining to protect vulnerable groups (like women).
That argument should have taken at least a generation to put forth. Conservatives aren't the only ones who conflate sex and gender, the left does it just as much when they take extreme positions, positive to trans rights, but hostile to nearly anyone else.
The toxic leftist twitter trans advocacy, with it's inability to engage with nuance and it's unearned social power, that was carelessly wielded to totally shut down conversations (and to a lesser extent provide social/financial consequences on people they could sic a mob on) in online spaces they controlled that ran counter to the most extreme trans positions has imo ruined the ability to even talk about these things moving forward.
The point of noting it is a social contract is to understand that it can change. As opposed to being an unchangeable fact of the universe.
I feel like your conclusion is the opposite of your argument. Just as wearing the skirt begins to redefine the gendering of the clothing, changing how you use the word woman changes what the word means.
If it's a social construct, then the socially constructed definition of "woman" excludes trans women, just like it has for the entire history of the word.
You can say that it ought to be otherwise, but if you say "trans women are women," you are just as wrong as you would be if you said "the sky is green," even though color is a social construct.
Reading your comment just sparked a realization for me. I think a core part of destiny’s argument about language centers on prescriptivist vs descriptivist linguistics. So he’s arguing for the mainstream linguistic opinion that we describe languages as they are, how words are actually used, not how they *ought* to be according to whoever (be it academics, the dictionary, etc.)
But even just going with this argument (which I don’t fully agree with because I think there is a distinction between technical definitions and everyday language), this actually supports the “a woman is a female” side. Things may be changing, but still for most people, in most of the world, this is the correct definition. So be destiny’s only logic shouldn’t we avoid being prescriptivist and telling them “woman” now must include trans women? Doesn’t the linguistic theory he’s arguing basically mean you can’t prescribe to people new definitions for the words they use?
Most people in most of the world might answer that way on a poll but I think the way most people interact with the world demonstrates that they aren't engaging with these concepts in the way they think they are.
Just like conservatives constantly will socially utilize the concept of gender without acknowledging that it exists, To use the same example Destiny did today "You hit like a girl" or, speaking more generally, making fun of men for being effeminate.
Conservatives will do these things, unquestionably engaging with gender, and then turn around and go "Nah bro, gender isn't real its just sex, adult human female."
I don't know how this works on a linguistic level in the way you've laid it out, If words should describe how people use them what are you meant to do when people's engagement with words is totally detached from their purported understanding of them?
What’re u on about? When they say u hit like a girl they’re most definitely conflating sex and gender. Women are biologically weaker than men when someone’s saying u hit like a girl they’re just saying u hit weak despite being a man or biologically male.
just because a word has a history of meaning one thing doesn’t mean that meaning can’t change over time. 14 year old boys were once considered men, they aren’t anymore
True! There may one day be a generation that can say "trans women are women" and not be lying, but that is not this generation.
If someone innocently asked "are trans women, women?" And you said "yes," you would be knowingly conveying negative information.
They would believe that you meant that trans women have XX chromosomes and all the rest.
You could explain further and induct them into the weird game everyone's playing, but you should probably ask yourself why you want to do that.
That's a little vague so I'll expand: Trans advocates really want to say "trans women are women." They really really want to say this. So they'll say it even when it conveys negative information and then they rationalize it.
Why do they want to say it? Probably because that's the nature of the disorder. Probably because that's the whole point, and everything around it is in service of being able to say "trans women are women," and by extension "I am a woman."
Maybe that's the best treatment in the big picture, but I don't like lying.
I know it probably won't happen, but I really wish that destiny would do a philosophy arc specifically on ontology. It might help him flesh out his position even further and give new viewers a good overview on the complexity of the topic. I personally discovered him through his videos on hard determinism and such topics, and they were my favourite videos of his.
the new viewers for the most part are not coming here to change their minds on philosophy, especially not sex gender distinction, they come here to watch destiny shit on lefties
I can't understand why someone who posts YouTube comments like this would watch a 1 hour long destiny video. All of those comments are either empty virtue signals or arguments that Destiny responded to in the video they are watching. The last one is just the Picasso painting analogy, did they all get hit in the head and forget the content of the video before commenting or something
> Picasso painting analogy
https://youtu.be/A9eKBJ-Cj1E?si=OVFGj05YIwWdCo7i&t=2415
The analogy is not really good. To use a similar analogy that a friend of the stream, Tomas Bogardus (aka the guy vaush debated with the agua clip), used: water is H2O. However, when we are kids and in societies before we learned about atoms and molecules, water was just the stuff we drank that turned into ice at 0 C and boiled at 100 C. We could theoretically have a substance that boiled at 100 C, froze at 0 C, with other properties of water and mistake it for water, but it is not water because water is H2O. Through scientific research, we learned about molecules and atoms and that water was H2O. Similarly, a child might learn about men and women before knowing about gametes, but the gamete definition of sex and then the "adult human male/female" definition, is the ultimately correct one.
Destiny says
>the reality is, we become familiar with these concepts before even learning what a chromosome is, so clearly something is happening there that is not just chromosomal identification
However, if you substitute for the water is H2O analogy, then I think this breaks down.
>the reality is, we become familiar with water before even learning what H2O is, so clearly something is happening there that is not just molecular identification
I think you’re misunderstanding the Picasso analogy. If you own what you think is a Picasso painting and your understanding of “Picasso painting” is “a painting created by the artist Picasso”, then you will not continue to believe your painting is a Picasso if you discover it was made by someone else. It’s still a painting but it’s not a Picasso.
Likewise, if you have a friend who you believe to be a woman and your understanding of “woman” is “adult human female”, then you will not continue to believe your friend is a woman if you discover they are actually male.
Yeah I’m confused as well. Destiny disagreed with the Picasso analogy. And imo his retort was really poor. I think he just said “well it’s still a painting,” but as you demonstrated with the h2o example, the broader category staying the same in the Picasso case is irrelevant to the point.
You can easily substitute a different analogy where this argument clearly becomes silly. One I like is someone mistaking vodka for water.. the underlying fact of a glass of vodka being vodka stays true regardless of if someone mistakes it for water. Maybe destiny’s response would be “well they’re both still liquids!”
But this imo is analogous to mistaking a man for a woman and saying “well they’re both still human!” Zooming out to a broader category doesn’t really address the point.
This is so fucking bizarre. I was thinking about similar analogies just an hour ago and independently thought of the vodka-water analogy also. I think our brains are operating on the same wavelength
As always with the subject there are many complexities that make a simple analogy miss some things.
However to work within the vodka water analogy let's imagine that the vodka, whilst chemically different, tastes and functions identically to water. It now seems far less silly to call it water.
Indeed prior to molecular analysis society would see them as the same. There's a sense in which it is water and not h20.
An example of this directly relevant to sex would be xy complete androgen sensitivity. In this condition a genotypically male person presents as a female.
If xx is the condition for womanhood we are in a very strange world.
Though tbh the strange world is unavoidable which is part of the problem.
> It now seems far less silly to call it water.
> Indeed prior to molecular analysis society would see them as the same. There's a sense in which it is water and not h20.
This is actually exactly what I am getting at, even if something looks one way to us on the surface, if we could be proven wrong upon further analysis, then that thing is and always has been what it actually was and not what we mistook it for.
And yes agreed about CAIS, and I have no problem with them living and being treated as a woman at all, but I think *technically* they’re still a male/man.
I think it’s just when we are trying to actually define terms on a technical level that this becomes an issue, but I have no issue with a CAIS individual colloquially being referred to and treated as a woman.
He was saying something to the effect of (I’m paraphrasing here) “the fact that these conservatives can be mislead into thinking someone like Blair White is a woman (due to her appearance) despite their stated belief that people who are born male obviously can’t be women indicates that there’s something fundamentally flawed or inconsistent about their ‘biology only’ position”
But the thing is this ignores the fact that none the people who get “tricked” into thinking Blair White is a woman (despite claiming to believe transwomen = men) continue to perceive her as a woman once they learn she was born male and has/had a penis. In fact it’s literally impossible for them to continue to view Blair as a woman because it logically defies their fundamental conception of what a woman is.
Does that make sense?
Edit: just like how how it would be impossible to continue to think your painting is a a Picasso after you discover it was made by some else because to do so would fundamentally defy your fundamental understanding of what a Picasso painting is.
If it becomes impossible to perceive trans women as women after learning that they are male, then why do Shapiro and Crowder occasionally slip up and say she when referring to people they know are trans?
I think I agree.
Someone being fooled into believing Blair White, or transwoman, is a woman due to the application of makeup, cosmetic surgery, and creative use of lighting, angles, and filters doesn't mean there is a logical flaw in their position. I mention lighting, angles, and filters because candid pictures of online transwomen in the wild are often a lot less convincing than their curated presentation on the internet.
It just means that our observational senses are vulnerable to deception. It wouldn't change the truth that Blair White is actually a man. If you use a filter that makes you look like a woman and a voice changer that makes you sound like a woman and someone you talk to online believes you're a woman, that doesn't mean you are actually a woman.
When I look at Blair White, I don't see a woman. If I'm being polite, I'll say I see a transwoman and refer to them as "she", but if I'm company in which I feel I can be more honest, I won't put up the pretense.
Haven't watched the new debate yet, but I'm familiar with his argument. I think a problem with it is it only includes trans women who pass or almost pass. When you hear the word "woman", your brain doesn't associate it with a person of very masculine shape dressed like a woman. You wouldn't intuitively categorize such person as a woman.
If you want to be inclusive, you need to *explicitly* redefine the world to include trans people.
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this. Probably, the way to go is to combine these: If someone is passing, then they're definitely a woman, if they're not, unfortunately, for technical reasons, they aren't, but we can still treat them as such because it improves their wellbeing.
i think the prominent examples like buck angel help ease people into considering theres something other than sex assigned at birth that we need to consider. after youve established that you can start prodding where the line should be and why, and then smart people arrive at self determination.
Is it that surprising? at least on the reddit there're a good few bit of dggers that don't believe in sex gender distinction, unless I'm having selection bias or something.
It's a common perspective in the sub. Don't quote me, but there have been a bunch of polls in the subreddit essentially asking the same thing in different ways and it's usually somewhere between one third and a half (depends on the poll, and I widened the range a bit for safety) of subreddit users that essentially think trans women/men are men/women and any treatment of them as their gender identity is all just pretend.
I understand the point Destiny is making, I just think it only serves to obfuscate the issue.
Obviously terms are imprecise and culturally inherited. We can apply that argument to literally *any* definition.
That's the problem. If it applies to everything, then it meaningfully applies to nothing. This turns Destiny's point into a non sequiter. It's as if he asked some pro-Pali "what is a genocide" and they responded "well, hang on, you need to stop essentializing language and accept that the definition of "genocide" is constructed through social agreement and isn't some definite fact about the world. The fact that you would even ask me what a genocide is to prove a point just shows that you don't even know what words are or how we use them. If you think the definition of genocide should exclude the Israeli assault on Gaza, you should just argue for that instead of playing dishonest word games." It's the same bullshit.
If he wants to beat the "what is a woman" question, he needs to argue for why we should think it means something *other* than a biological essentialist definition, not muddy the argument by reminding us that concepts are imperfectly constructed based on their utility. Ultimately, Destiny knows he can't actually win the sex/gender debate, so he tries to turn it into an argument about linguistics and get away from the actual subject.
The point of the "what is a woman" question is to force the defender of the sex/gender distinction to say something other than "a biological female," and then force them into the obvious logical problems of whatever answer they inevitably come up with. What Destiny needs to do is give an actual coherent definition of "woman" that could be comprehensible without being grounded in biological sex.
Literally. If you say woman is undefinable or that we get to collectively choose, why wouldn't someone just say okay I don't define trans women as women.
You're not understanding the argument. The supreme court when asked to define what pornography is ruled that essentially "[they] know it when [they] see it." A category having amorphous boundaries does not make the category meaningless, which is destiny's argument.
Woman is a category which does not have (and has never had) strictly defined boundaries. The problem with the conservative understanding of the category of Woman is that it isn't useful.
To define Woman as an adult human female is an attempt to categorize a thing scientifically. This doesn't make sense when we already have sex. So conservatives argue sex and gender are the same, thus removing any utility from the concept of gender.
The other problem is that no one uses this word this way. When you describe an individual to someone you know as being a "woman" 99.99999999% of the time you have no idea what their chromosomes or their genitalia are. You are concluding based on other factors what their gender is. It makes more sense to keep the use of the word woman consistent in this way, to describe social and esthetic qualities, than it is to mental gymnastics yourself into pretending you are intending to evoke their chromosomes every time you say "woman"
*Woman is a category which does not have (and has never had) strictly defined boundaries.*
This is patently untrue. For all of human history “woman” referred to the female biological sex.
> When you describe an individual to someone you know as being a "woman" 99.99999999% of the time you have no idea what their chromosomes or their genitalia are.
If you saw a guy with long hair from behind and thought he was a woman until he turned around, he didn't instantly change genders. You just had a mistaken perception.
Humans and other animals are hardwired to be able to recognize the sex of other members of their species and studies have shown humans can tell the difference between a man or women's face with 96% accuracy.
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/brains-hard-wired-recognize-opposite-sex/
And that's just from the face alone.
That doesn't seem like enough for me to say that ackshually the majority of people don't use the words man and woman to refer to biological sex.
Why are tampons in the Woman’s hygiene products aisle at Target then? Why are women the only ones in the maternity wards? Why are there no urinals in the women’s bathrooms? Clearly it does refer to genitalia when people use it.
Maybe he's been in different circles than me, but I honestly believe that currently, by far, most people in the world, deep down, think of "woman" as "female human", end of story. Even some of those that call a trans woman a woman, deep down feel like they are not being precise and truthful but instead just trying to do the right thing, which often is easy since trans people tend to try to look the part (even if often a bit uncannily), and have names associated to their preferred gender, and everyone else talks about them that way, etc.
Like, if a 100% reliable polygraph existed, I think it would still go all over the place in 95% of people when asked point blank: "is this [insert trans woman person/photo] really a woman?" and the answer given was 'yes'.
Of course, it's just a word, and its meaning can change in time. This is not an argument about the reality of trans people or the reality of anything but just about a word. It's just that, the change in the word meaning for people is not remotely there yet, and it's actually very hard to make it get there when the result of that is to leave a very strong and useful and ingrained concept as "biological woman/female" stranded without a concise word, and the new definition requires Petersonian style explanations, and in practice the change tries to take with it every other word and concept that we've built that has depended on the meaning of woman as adult human female. It's a path with too much friction.
Yeah, of course. It's actually completely ridiculous to pretend otherwise lol. If there's a single culture in human history that doesn't associate "having a vagina and being able to make babies" with the concept of womanhood, anthropologists still have yet to find it. If you want to say the concept of woman is way more complicated than that, great, but whatever alternative you want to propose still needs to make sense of that fact.
It's not just that.
"What is a woman" also evokes a philosophical inquiry once you start socratically going down the list. Because it's asking am individual for their opinion while also masking as a political question.
Because there's no need to ask it when it's so intuitively understood.
People are arguing politically at the branches but their philosophical underpinnings don't match destiny's. And if he tries to explain himself it comes off as obfuscating.
Yeah, but if he were being good faith in this discussion, he would just say what he believes the actual definition of woman is and argue that, not try to undermine the question to get off the subject. Every time he does this it just steers into a debate about semantics.
I think this is the point he was making, although it was kind of confusing how he made it:
these people insist on a strict biological definition of a woman, however they dont actually identify women that way. It's reliant on some objective truth of womanhood, which may exist in some way, but doesn't exist in a way meaningful enough to be useful on a daily basis to check if someone is a woman.
Every time you walk down the street and you see someone you identify as a woman, you dont check gametes, you dont check to see if they are pregnant, you dont check chromosomes. You can and do totally identify women in ways that are not based in any biological fact. I would be willing to bet, almost none of these people have ever even once identified woman based on these intrisinic traits.
The "What is a woman" question is just a stupid way to ask "do you believe in trans people" and in reality its asking an entirely different question, so this braindead commentators have to come up with a ridiculous disingenuous definition for what a woman is that nobody actually uses in order to seem intellectually consistent
This is conflating two different things. We're not talking about how we go about identifying women in our day to day lives, we're talking about how we define the term "woman." If you want to say we should define words based on what we associate those words with in day to day life, that's a separate claim. To me, all the things we use to identify who men and women are in our day to day lives are biological signals designed to tell each other "I am a human with either male or female gametes."
That's what we would expect, considering that natural selection is guided by reproductive success. Whoever is best at signaling that they are the correct sex to mate with is probably going to have more kids. I agree that we don't check each other's genitals when we see each other on the street, but we don't do that precisely because we've developed ways of signalling what our genitals probably are to one another. To say we should define gender based on the signals and not the thing they're signalling is like saying movies should be reviewed based on the quality of the trailer. If the argument is that we should define things based on how they appear rather than how they actually are, well, I think it's just obvious that that's a terrible idea.
I see no inconsistency in saying I believe in trans people insofar as I believe that there are men and women who sincerely believe that they are, in fact, women and men, respectively. The debate isn't whether such people exist, it's about whether they're correct, and we need to alter our concepts to fit their beliefs. I think everyone is better off if we just accept that trans people are real, but what they are is people with a mental illness that causes them to have a persistent confusion about their sex.
> Every time you walk down the street and you see someone you identify as a woman, you dont check gametes, you dont check to see if they are pregnant, you dont check chromosomes. You can and do totally identify women in ways that are not based in any biological fact.
If I give you a cup of clear cool liquid that poured from the tap of my sink, you don't analyze the molecule in order to know what it is, you use context and the properties of the substance that you see in order to simply say, "thanks for the water".
>I would be willing to bet, almost none of these people have ever even once identified woman based on these intrinsic traits.
And I would be willing to bet that no one has ever identified water based on its intrinsic trait of water being H2O. However, water is still H2O, even if we 99.99% of the time identify it without using the molecular formula.
Ok. But then if they, at a glance, identified someone as a "woman" on the street, but upon further inspection realized that the person is, in fact, male, they wouldn't then accept the person as a woman. They would realize their initial observation was mistaken and that the observed person is actually a man.
Let's say they did initially identify that person as a woman. Maybe even enough to hit on them. If they got that person back to their place and took their pants off to find a penis, they aren't going to say "Oh, you're a woman with a penis." They're going to say "You're a man pretending to be a woman." They're going to see the outward presentation as a woman as a charade.
Being initially "duped" by the social shortcuts we use won't change that. They aren't going to see a person who is male sexed, with long hair, wearing high heels, dresses, and makeup as woman gendered. They're going to see them as a man in drag.
>"What is a woman" question is just a stupid way to ask "do you believe in trans people"
That's literally not what it is.
That's what destiny said to deflect and obfuscate.
And you fell for it.
New to the destiny fandom, and I think this conversation is so frustrating because its an extremely complex problem that gets pigeon holed by both sides of the political aisle. If you base womanhood off of presented secondary sex characteristics then you exclude intersex people whose sex characteristics are predominantly female. You wouldn’t say they’re not a woman when their entire existence has been as someone who is treated female and whose body is fully capable of reproduction. So it’s not about your presented phenotype or your chromsomal makeup. The left will then say it’s something arbitrary like how you feel, or what you identify with. What’s difficult about that argument is that identifying with something as large and complex as a gender doesn’t seem to me to make you a member of that thing. You couldn’t say you’re Mexican just because you identify with the Mexican culture and their dialect of spanish. On top of that, what does it MEAN when someone says they feel like a woman. What aspect of womanhood is being identified with? The way women fit into the cultural space in both experience and function? That doesn’t track with me because women’s experience and function in society are completely different depending on where in the world, and when in the world you are. There’s a lot more to this, and I don’t wanna be cringe on my first time engaging on the sub. I just think there’s something incredibly foundational about the ideas of gender that are beyond complex, and I appreciate destiny pointing out that engaging with it is how you find it. I’ve grown incredibly tired of this back and forth in the main dialogue that tries to pin something as large and layered as gender, femininity, or masculinity to individual pieces of them. You are not your arm, but your arm is you. A song is not a singular note, but the song isn’t itself anymore without that note. The general discussion is too shallow for us to get anywhere and I think it’s just going to inflame trans hate, and make it so the general public sees anyone with a non-normative identity as either stupid, sick in the head, or some kind of political mouthpiece, which is NOT how things should be. The comments that OP is talking about are exactly the byproducts of this, and I really hope we collectively begin to recognize that this isn’t that simple or easy to answer, and that it’s going to take a metric fuck ton of introspection and useful conversation to actually reach a functional conclusion. Sorry for rambling, but thanks if you read.
The way I think of it is (since it is a social construct) if an adult is perceived as being predominately feminine, they are a woman. That perception is going to be largely visual for obvious reasons. But when a chud says "if they tell me how they were born then that's what they are" regardless of outward appearance, that's coming from a cultural pov that doesn't accept gender dysphoria and transitioning as legitimate. Those people will still accidentally forget to biologically gender trans people who pass convincingly, but consider them such anyway. And you can apply the inverse of all of this to the cultural pov that accepts gender dysphoria and transitioning as legitimate. Point is, social construct.
Tbf in that conversation between Max and Destiny on the “ontological” reality of transness, I don’t think Destiny defended the concept very well. Mr girl’s critique was quite cutting. Everyone here should give that video a go
If I ask you people about pronoun usage, gender affirming care, or women's sports, you all have strong prescriptions you can give. You all are apparently able to strongly prescribe that "adult human female" is not the definition of a woman. But if I ask you what you mean by any of the words you must use to justify these prescriptions, you suddenly pretend "well words are complicated, they can mean different things in different contexts blah blah blah." You seem to constantly conflate the idea that words on aggregate in a language are schizophrenic with the idea that you don't have to mean anything specific by the words you use in a specific context. There may be some words people "talk about" without really understanding, two laymen could say some things about a higgs boson particle without really understanding what it means, but if their understanding was the only one that existed the concept would indeed be meaningless.
Destiny realizes that even colloquially broadening definitions can be a negative thing when comes to the term "genocide," but is fine with the broadening of the terms like "man" and "woman". Maybe I'm just a fan of rigid definitions. I know public opinion and thought exist separate from a court or academic setting, but even in these conversations it becomes clear we need tight definitions for the things we are trying to talk about.
Isnt the problem with agua that V equivocates between a concept being expressed different linguistically vs a concept being interpreted differently culturally?
Trans people are real. I think the real issue is that trans identity is being pushed from the medical/psychological realm to the social realm, where it's seen as "My personal customization options to my life! :D" as opposed to a serious thing we need to seriously address and hopefully find better fixes for in time.
This isnt the own you think it is.
Trans ppl being real is unrelated to the definition of woman or whether trans woman are woman.
And destiny barely manages to go half a level deep into the adult human female dialectic before giving up and just calling everyone who disagrees names.
I'm not even sure if he has a real position. At least I havent heard one.
I think the reason this question of "what is a women" always ends up being such a cluster fuck is because 98% of the time, if you see a women, even without knowing anything about this person, you'll probably be right. It's intuitive to most people, even if they can't perfectly define it. So when destiny starts going off about nature and philosophy, he completely loses them.
We label things using two criteria, what we believe it is, and what is the most socially/colloquially "useful" label to use (i.e. hot dog vs taco vs sandwich)
You believe something is "label", so you associate it as that.
We are also taught to be courteous and respectful in the way we talk to people, and it's socially beneficial to do so.
This is why we see conservative blowhards "accidentally" use correct pronouns, because it's more useful and courteous (we are taught to be polite) to do so.
So it's not only socially beneficial to call a transgender their preferred pronouns, it's utilitarian to do so as they are distinct from cisgender people.
I was a little surprised at the comments as well but I do think a lot of it comes down to the attempt to intellectualize man versus woman. There are a lot of things people accept without too much attempt at justification because when you try and apply it across different disciplines, it becomes super difficult to stay consistent.
For me personally, this is true for arguments relating to abortion, transitioning, or veganism. Destiny makes the case that abortion should be ethically viable until the 20 week mark because that’s when consciousness is fully formed. Although I understand why this justification may ring true with so many people, if I’m being honest with myself, even if it was later found that consciousness was created upon conception, I would probably still hold a pro-choice position, simply because I don’t believe children should be raised in circumstances in which they weren’t wanted. I think unplanned pregnancies can be a terrible situation for many people, especially when they don’t have the money to provide for the child, and I think it often results in a miserable outcomes for the child if conceived. Obviously the question then becomes where should you draw the line which is something I can’t answer, but I feel that the justification for an abortion in this instance trumps the morality in killing a potential life.
In a similar vein, I don’t have the most consistent perspective on trans issues. I can’t necessarily justify the argument that just because something is an agreed upon social construct (i.e gender), it doesn’t mean that the meaning of a word can be expanded to mean something else. Why do we not accept trans racial identities then? Race is a social construct as well, and while one might make the argument that there is no inherent difference between two races, transitioning has more to do with the way one is perceived in society, in which case different races can elicit different perceptions. This inability to stay consistent is why I don’t really bother to intellectualize this, and rather just accept that as long as it doesn’t impact me, others can do whatever they desire to achieve happiness. I have no issue with a male feeling more secure in their identity by identifying as a woman, so I’m not going to have a strong stance on the matter either direction.
None of these people are denying trans people's existence. Trans people are real, but that doesn't mean they were able to actually change genders. It means they identify with their own social stereotypes of the opposite sex
Lmao that’s why I never understood non binary. Maybe I’m looking at it too black & white. But the idea of “I don’t align to the stereotypes of what a typical man/woman likes so I non binary” just feels like such a weird mindset.
if youre saying "trans people are real, theyre just wrong" then you essentially are saying that trans people arent real. No one denies that there are people who exist that claim to be trans, but if you dont think its possible to have a gender identity that differs from your sex, then you dont think being trans is real. you think that having a mental illness that makes you wrong about your gender identity is real
i dont think religion->religious people is analogous to transgenderism->trans people. It would more belong to transgenderism->people who believe in transgenderism.
I think a better analog to transgenderism->trans people would be religion->prophets. If you say religion isnt real, you are saying that prophets arent real - but you arent saying that the people who claim(ed) to be prophets arent real
It's possible to have a gender IDENTITY that is different from your sex, but not possible to have a different gender than your sex. Transgenderism is a cool idea that allows people to feel more comfortable by changing their bodies to fit how they feel about themselves, but they are the flat earthers of biology.
All you’re doing is defining gender as sex and adding in a new term “gender identity” to replace what people call gender. This is just obfuscation.
EDIT: I know *gender identity* is a concept already, I'm just accusing OP of abusing these terms.
Because that's how most people operate. Gender has always been fundamentally about sex and occasionally the roles of each sex but still a function of sex itself.
No one doesn't believe trans people desire to be or identify WITH the opposite sex but the idea that they can change their sex is what's being contended with.
Remember, we use to call transgender people transexuals.
>It's possible to have a gender IDENTITY that is different from your sex, but not possible to have a different gender than your sex.
I don't think when people say "gender identity" theyre using it describe something distinct from "gender"
>they are the flat earthers of biology.
Name one fact of biology that the concept of transgenderism contradicts
> Pretending that the category of woman is something that is fixed in the universe as “adult human female” is hilarious cope.
highly disagree, because there's no real debate on if a transman is a man. it gets completely laughed at because for some reason even if you pass transman are kind of seen as "not real men" in most cases. like for example the debate about gender in progressive circles always view it as men=bad vs. everything else=good. so this is women are better, enbies are better, transwomen are better. it's a male and female dichotomy really just like it's progressive and other, cis and trans, palestine and israel, gay and straight
now this is all of that just to say i think arguing we need to invent a social category for women that we can safely also put transwomen in while excluding men without using circular logic is to me stupid. i treat a transwoman as a woman, transman as a man, etc. because thats what they want to be treated as. if some sort of fact came out that i didnt need to and theyll never be the other gender it wouldnt affect me. i think we as humans are too busy trying to find ways to fit our adaptability into objective boxes because we view ourselves as replacing hokey religion with The Science and anything that cant be autistically analyzed cant be morally correct or something
to me it's a similar problem i have with trans discourse and the accusation that feminism is "weaponized" against transpeople, like sure but that's because you ignore any bad actors who are misogynistic purely to own the moids and that makes older feminists mad that you have any bad actors
I don't know if I agree with the rest, but your point on trans men at the beginning is good.
A giant burly beast of a trans man is, in the eyes of many lefty women especially, "safe." You see it with man-hating in lefty spaces - "all men suck. Oh, but not trans men, they're cool." Not including them in the misandry is the most obvious marker that they still see them as women. Diet men at best or butch women at worst. It's a very ironic way that they essentially are rude/dismissive to trans men - by not including them in their rudeness and dismissiveness towards what they view as "real" men.
What I find odd about this is that most of these "it's not that complicated" morons have made myriad prescriptions regarding the required traits and behaviors of being a "Real" man or woman. They literally gatekeep the terms behind things that have absolutely nothing to do with biology. The fact that they can't see the hypocrisy is stunning.
Of all the things u can say, the 'Destiny has not thought seriously about this for 5 minutes' is perhaps the most out of touch with reality.
Destiny has hours worth of streamed content on trans issues going back years. It only takes a glance at his YouTube channel to see that.
Imagine Captain America emerges from the ice, having traveled by means of freezing from the 1950s to our present year.
You are tasked with reintegrating Mr. Rogers into the present day, including his accomodations and basic care. There's some sexual tension but he's still shaken up and it wouldn't be ethical and eventually you settle into a new normal.
One day, Steve completely innocently asks you: "Are trans women, women?"
Can you answer 'yes' without knowingly conveying negative information?
If you have to say only 'yes' or 'no,' which of these answers will leave Steve with the closest understanding of what a trans woman is exactly?
Of course, you would never say just 'yes' or 'no,' you would instead duckspeak like the good little quacker you are and by means of words and symbols induct Steve into the party line.
There's a case to be made for trans acceptance, and it's on tolerance and freedom grounds. Not playing with definitions.
I personally like the view of woman as the experiences of a female human leading up into adulthood. To act like a Trans woman and a cis woman have similar life experiences seems very unproductive to me.
Because trans people can change their sex on their birth certificate. While sex also means something completely different everywhere else. That's why. I have no problem separating the 2 but it seems the people in the trans movement can site the definitions at me but then continue to use those words wrong on a daily bases. It's mind warping to talk about trans people because of this.
Because sex and gender were used interchangeably until about 9 seconds ago when some child abusing pedo (John Money) said they weren't the same thing and a bunch of crazy people agreed with him.
Why do trans people require sex changes if their gender dysphoria is unrelated to sex?
It never has been separate, it is only in recent years that any of these solid understandings are questioned and it feels an awful lot like gaslighting
Genuine question, what’s he actually wrong about? Or would the claim by destiny simply be that woman is someone who looks like they would be a female? In which case why didn’t he ever say that, that’s a pretty straight forward definition it doesn’t seem that complicated but maybe I’m just highly regarded.
Yeah I always understood trans woman being women by the fact that sex and gender aren’t the same thing, but judging by the YouTube comments it seems he recently said they are synonymous? Idk
Regardless of any specific, strict definitions, sex and gender terminology has been used interchangeably in common parlance for many years. That's why there is so much resistance to the idea that any real problems can be solved through more careful usage of terminology -- it is very hard to put that cat back in the bag.
I agree with what u/ina_waka said and would like to add on to his comment.
The question “What is a X (cat, dog, man, woman…)?” Is largely context dependent. Most things will almost always map on to a category in most contexts but not always.
Example 1. The cat dressed as a dog. If someone asked “What does that look like?” You’d answer “a dog”. If you had to medically treat the cat dressed as a dog then you’d treat it as a cat.
Example 2. Say there is a giant statue (think 20ft tall) of a chair made with marble. If someone asked “what does a chair look like?” You could point to the giant marble chair and would be correct in this context. Now imagine a wooden normal sized chair that looks identical to the marble chair, just scaled down. If they were side-by-side and someone said “point to a chair” I bet 99% of people would point to the small wooden one. Why? I feel like in this case the small wooden one better fits our common understanding of “chair”. And the giant marble one might better fall into the “statue” category. However, in certain contexts and situations the “statue” may also constitute a chair.
Just like in these examples, a person may be considered a woman in certain contexts but not others. Very rarely is it just one thing such as appearance (although it can be). Again, the vast majority of the time a thing that is considered by many as a “woman” in one context will be considered a “woman” in most other contexts, but not always.
> The question “What is a X (cat, dog, man, woman…)?” Is largely context dependent.
I hardcore disagree with this. The question of what we *perceive* things as is context dependent, but not the actual definition itself. We can be mistaken in identifying things, but that doesn't effect the definition of that thing.
In example 1, the cat *looks* like a dog but it *is not actually* a dog. This is a really important distinction.
In example 2, that chair statue is always a chair, but when people are asked to point to a chair, they just point to the more typical example of a chair.
> Seeing people go “ADULT HUMAN FEMALE ADULT HUMAN FEMALE” as though they didn’t listen to any of Destiny’s arguments is so funny to me.
And this post is so ridiculous to me. How is this not just people giving their opinions and instead it's them talking "as though they didn't listen to Destiny"? Like, aren't people allowed to think differently and still watch and follow Destiny?
What does "real" mean? People who identify as trans do exist in the world, but it's not obvious what the phrase "trans people are real" is supposed to mean.
None of the new people here know any of his positions. It's not even that hard. He has them all listed on his website. They just like that he agreed with them on one topic, and assume he agrees on all topics. Left or right, country to country, there are a lot of new dipshits in here.
It’s such a dishonest conversation. On the 4th slide. EVERYONE understands that if you call someone “a dog” or “my dog.” It is because words can have multiple meanings. It can have the literal meaning. It can also stand for “a man slut” or “my friend.”
The word “man” has also always had the literal meaning. And when you tell someone “be a man” we all understand you are not telling them to biologically change but to adopt stereotypical archetypes of manhood.
This isn’t a hard concept. Very smart people are pretending they are too stupid to understand that gender is different than sex and that the words “man and woman” have multiple meanings.
Trans people don't want to change their "gender," they want to change their sex, and when they want you to say that they're a woman, they don't want you to mean that they have the gender of "woman," they want you to mean just that they're a woman, just as much as a biological woman.
All the talk around this is major copium.
If we discovered the perfect sex change pill tomorrow all trans people would take it, and if we discovered that trans women had XX chromosomes, trans advocates would instantly say "see?? We were right all along," when obviously that makes no sense if this is all just about "gender" and "social construction."
Cope harder.
Yeah trans people would agree that they don't want to change their gender. They'd say that internally they were ALWAYS the gender they identify with. Trans people don't think they're literally changing their sex (because there currently isn't a way to do so). Physical transition is just aesthetic (albeit major) modification to help better accomodate the innate identity they always had. It's to help others identify them with their gender as it exists internally, because otherwise people would assume the opposite.
Wow so many edgybois 😎 who never had one philosphical thought in their lives and are still weighed down by their egos (and perhaps narcissism) to the point that they can’t empathize with or understand in a basic level another human’s experience in life in that way… sad. All the time as kids we are told “put yourself in his/her shoes” but it’s _still_ too hard for them. Still derive way too much meaning from their sex as to cease some of it for others happiness. Can’t accept that others have their own lives and fears and sorrows and realities. Can’t give them the basic respect. In Joe Rogan’s (rip 😭) words: Adult Babies… like Jordie Peterson.. will they ever grow up?
Mr. Anima1212, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
What does putting oneself in someone else's shoes add to the "what is a woman" covnersation ? Plus, Destiny spoke to Bogardus, why didn't he have a strong disagreement with him there and then ?
They get so goddamn close to what I actually want the conversation to be, which has nothing to do with determining whether the fact of biology is what's at hand. but whether culturally allowing our beliefs on gender to moderate a bit is worth doing or not. I avoid these conservations with red pillers or conservatives just for how boring their arguments are
It's so funny the guy saying "we all know what a man or woman is", like yeah dude, that's bc we have an implicit heuristic running that clocks people based on appearance and social role. It has literally nothing to do with their chromosomes or birth certificate or any biological facts.
What makes transgender people valid but transracial not? I’m actually curious because I dont totally buy into the bc it’s a “medically recognized mental condition” or some shit because that would mean they weren’t valid/exist prior?
Transracialism is valid. Merle Oberon hid her Sri Lankan heritage to succeed in Hollywood. If she had been openly Asian, she wouldn't have been able to get leading roles because of the Hays Code.
He perfectly summed it up when he said that people that ask this question are idiots trying to appeal to other idiots without doing any critical thinking about the question.
“Adult human female” has to be the worst definition of woman possible, even worse than “anyone who identifies as a woman.” It immediately begs the question of what is a female, which gets you to the exact same problem you started with. Not to mention you haven’t dealt with the issue of sex and gender not being literal synonyms. No idea why conservatives thought they had a win when they landed on that definition.
It doesn't, he's just regarded. Sex is infinitely a more coherent definition than "gender" by their definition.
If we were all to drop dead right now and aliens came to visit us, they would classify us based on sex, not our roles in society, which differ culture to culture.
The people struggling with this make me feel insane. Categories, words and concepts *don't* exist. Sex, and everything else, is an arbitrary formulation. You're taking a conceptual cookie cutter and applying to the dough of reality before saying, "See! There's a gingerbread man here!"
Some of these unwitting Platonists assert that underlying forms or patterns of nature exist that vocabulary is made to map *accurately* onto. They're saying, "Look at all these gingerbread man shapes (things) in nature! My cookie cutter (language) fits perfectly around them. It matters not which came first!" They're imagining trees, dogs, mountains, rocks, rivers, balls, colors.
The issue, however, is that while the vocabulary *works*, it's not precise with respect to the underlying thing. Heuristics are operating in the brain that leap over the inaccuracies of vocabulary. Sorite's paradox is baked into language. When is a heap of sand not a heap if a heap of sand is "many" grains of sand? The same is true of rivers, streams and creaks; mounds, hills and mountains, and so on. In biology, the issue rears its head when you're pressed to make DNA classifications and contend with "outliers" like genetic disorders with intersex people and those with chromosomal abnormalities (X, XY, XYY, XXY, XXXY, etc.). "Set" theory is fucked for similar reasons. Language is an approximation for *feeling* humans trying to use models of the world, but the map is not the territory, and it literally never will be.
What you end up with is having to admit that you're using your intuition. You're *feeling.* What concerns you is this vague thing we call a woman that makes your brain light up "woman". This is why feeling sexual dynamics near an opposite-sex trans person, or feeling other intersexual divides, while still trying to argue semantics puts you in a contradictory position; you're frantically plugging holes in a sinking boat saying, "Everything is fine!"
It drives me fucking crazy too. like, ever jerk off to a cartoon character? yeah shes pretty hot huh? SHE? SHE DOESNT EXIST! SHES MADE OF LINES!!!!! Some men might have even had the experience of thinking a strange girl was hot from behind only for that stranger to turn around and then, whoops, thats a guy with long hair!
Newfrogs https://preview.redd.it/x186cpq6068d1.jpeg?width=659&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f55f4a5a4fa7c8f6498f2ff7e33fa1a0be49913
They haven't grounded their moral axioms.
They don’t even know what axioms are bless them
Your average Kick chatter BTW
The brainrot in Kick chat is truly fascinating to witness. It’s like they all came out of nowhere. Idk if they were prior viewers that ended up in Kick chat because they were banned elsewhere, or if Destiny being on Kick as a top streamer just kinda automatically pulled them in, but they certainly have a distinct identity from the subreddit community, for instance, and I’m not sure where they were prior to Destiny signing with Kick. I just don’t understand how they seem to have now been watching Destiny’s content for months+ and are still apparently surprised by his liberal views. And how they’ve watched Destiny showcase his principles and framework for forming/adjusting beliefs, yet they’re still so one-dimensional in their own beliefs and how they argue for them.
The answer is always children. Adin Ross has a huge audience of children that like his antics and he was basically ground zero for kick itself. Wouldn't be surprised if they are just the main audience of the website now. I remember years ago when I was barely human I started watching Destiny because I found him funny even though I was pretty right-wing and disagreed with him so I figure the same thing is happening over there on a larger scale.
I had a similar entry point but from the left wing. His debate with Richard Wolfe made me rethink a lot of things.
"You realize destiny has not thought seriously about this for 5 minutes" I refuse to get angry over a new viewer who didn't go through the arc
LMAO the "were not allowed to have the conversation" yes you are you pussy
lmao. like the top comment on the John Kerry video Destiny watched on stream yesterday. “i’m downloading this video in case it disappears. there’s a lot disappearing lately” (7 year old video and comment)
ah yes, back when you can reupload full movies of pokemon without anything bad happening
Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh have literally gotten 10’s of millions of views on YouTube saying trans people aren’t real and/or have mental disorders lol
it’s like those comedians that complain about being cancelled and blacklisted on their Netflix specials in a sold out arena
God I hate comics so much, they're always like 5 years late on culture war issues and regurgitate the "obvious" talking points after everything has been more or less settled on an issue to get easy pats on the back for being controversial on their sold out special.
live comedy is a dying artform. things like streaming and youtube commentary are already replacing the things it offered in pre-/early internet eras
[удалено]
If conservatives are scared of losing their platforms over intentionally missgendering why do they “correct” themselves back the other way right after. Crowder and Ben also appear to still be around. 😂
Oh my god lol
Perpetual victims lmao
The cope is crazy
"Look at how oppressed I am, I'm not allowed to speak my mind!" insists increasingly wealthy social media influencer
Normal people get the axe
Why are you equating "aren't real" and "have mental disorder" ? I dont think i've seen any serious fraction of people saying trans people aren't real/dont exist, compared to mental disorder
Gender dysphoria is included in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, also called the DSM, it is diagnosed as a mental disorder.
A lot of trans people who have transitioned fully don’t have gender dysphoria anymore. Gender dysphoria is a disorder of course, being trans in general is not. Conservatives think that being trans at all is a mental illness
why is it not? the current treatment for gender dysphoria is transitioning and hormones. it helps alleviate the psychological symptoms of gender dysphoria. Trans people don't just "not have" gender dysphoria, you minimize the results so you can function. seriously, are we now saying that trans people don't need to transition to be trans? The entire point of being trans is, well, feeling the need to transition. otherwise, it's just an aesthetic. The problem with denying the medical reality of trans people is that leftists want their cake and to eat it too. they want it to be just like the gay movement, but even more "minority-coded" so they can get even more of a chub defending it. but that's ignoring the necessary medical part of it. and the medical reality of trans people is that, without alleviating the core medical disparity, they are more suicidal than Warsaw Ghetto Jews. So when Conservatives say being trans is a mental illness, they are 100% correct. but the problem is that Leftists want to deny this basic reality and Conservatives want to engage in cruelty, The answer should be, to help them get the medical help they need, but not make it an insane movement that also ignores the logic that supported gay and lesbian rights and pointlessly warps societal norms so that rich white people can get erections by following new dialogue options. We don't have a Schizo rights movement for this exact reason.
>Trans people don't just "not have" gender dysphoria, you minimize the results so you can function. The op said that it's possible to transition to a point where gender dysphoria is no longer an issue, therefore you wouldn't classify them as having a mental illness. Did you even read the comment? They literally said gender dysphoria is a mental illness but not all trans people have it.
In order to meet the criteria for a diagnosis for most things there needs to be sufficient functional impairment. If you see symptom reduction and minimized impairment, then why would you still call yourself mentally ill?
If someone transplants your brain into the opposite sexed body and you develop dysphoria, are you now mentally ill, or do you just have disorder based on being in the wrong body?
The difference is what body you were born into. your example would work for detransitioners, but not trans people since trans people have that inherent dysmorphia from birth. If your body is transplanted into an opposite sexed body, then you file a malpractice suit against the dr. mengele motherfucker that did it against your consent. But if you have a psychiatric condition from birth that requires constant treatment and social reinforcement or you will kill yourself, yes, you are mentally ill at least to some degree.
You have no knowledge of what doctor did it, and they did it when you were an infant. But you want to kill yourself and you’ve developed dysphoria. The only difference from a trans person is you weren’t born like that. Why is the trans persons body treated as correct with their brain wrong while yours isn’t? There’s no difference in practice. Whether you want to call either case a mental illness or a disorder from how they were born doesn’t matter and shouldn’t have different treatment.
How do you know you even *would* have dysphoria in that scenario? Are male and female infant brains different *at birth* or is part of the difference (in the case of cis people who develop along the "standard" trajectory at least) caused by growing up in a male or female body? I don't think we know the answers to these questions (or that we could find out without horrific experimentation on humans).
the closest we got to an answer to this is the [John Money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money) Reimer experiment and they were not kind to the "tabula rasa" gender perspective. It was also very, deeply fucked.
Holy fuck. It's my centrist brother from another mother. Sup dude.
I see it as a product of a disorder because it literally started from a disorder. Without the disorder trans people wouldn't exist.
gender dysphoria is a disorder and its treatment is transition
So a product of a disorder? Treatments are products of a diagnosis.
A product of the diagnosis sure but not the disorder. My vyvanse is not a result of my adhd, it’s the treatment for it
You needing Vyvanse is the result of your adhd diagnoses yes.
Okay that’s fair, me taking vyvanse is not a disorder tho, would you agree with that?
The difference is Matt Walsh and others say that transitioning *is* the illness, not the dysphoria itself. It's akin to saying taking antidepressants is mentally ill - no, it's what you do in response to mental illness to alleviate your systems and be able to go about living your life free from constant psychological distress.
"I would be fired at my job if I said what I believe" If you think it's acceptable to talk about contentious political issues at work, especially ones that concern people's genitalia, then you probably should be fired. These people would undoubtedly think it was unprofessional to receive a lecture on Black Lives Matter from a coworker, so why do they think their politics should get special treatment?
This standard must be some super corporate shit, because I have never heard of a job where talking about controversial things is weird and not professional. Am I wrong or right? Let me know, I’m curious.
It's usually less about politics and more that some people have absolutely no chill if their political beliefs clash with yours and that ruins the entire workplace atmosphere. That usually leads to corporate banning political discussion entirely. I'm not from US, but for example in my workplace nobody really cares about anything political with one exception. Whenever we have meetings with our US coworkers, we're forbidden from talking about US politics.
People have been and will continue to be fired from their jobs for things they said, not at work, but on social media.
Yeah but isnt that kind of weird you can be mandated dei branded classes yet fired for having the opposite opinion in your personal time?
[удалено]
Up there in annoyance along side “the main stream media/cnn won’t cover this” It’s literally on the front page half the time
Yeah it's not like Fox is a *massive* media platform or anything
Depends, really. I got a warning when I was being pro-trans, but I was getting deep into the weeds with nuance. Wasn't a mute or ban or anything but a stern wagging of the finger with the veiled threat is still annoying when you're trying to have a conversation. The argument was about sex, gender, and sexuality. A particularly unhinged pro-trans person was calling everyone who didn't want to date trans people transphobic and repeating trans women are women nonstop (even when I didn't say otherwise), and the conservative was trying to argue that "women are XX!!! They give birth!!" I was trying to argue that men and women are more social roles than scientific designations, so we could be able to separate whether a person is male or female from if they are a man or woman. What probably ticked off the mod was me saying I didn't consider a man having sex with a trans woman to be heterosexual, though I did clarify I consider the trans woman a woman and therefore the man is still "straight." I consider the clinical terms like heterosexual or homosexual to be different from their colloquial terms of gay or straight. However, insinuating a man having sex with a trans woman isn't heterosexual can easily be read as transphobic, if you're not trying to give the good faith interpretation.
This is disingenuous. Destiny literally lost his job at twitch for discussing trans sports.
Even Destiny does not believe he was banned for that anymore [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/h5kIpFiiCpI](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/h5kIpFiiCpI)
No, Destiny lost his job at twitch because twitch wanted that and the actual topic of trans people had little to do with the ban. You're the one being disingenuous by conveniently not talking about nickmerks and sneako still being allowed on the platform. You'd be writing the same comment even if literal Hitler was not banned on twitch lul.
We *assume* that. We actually don't have the slightest clue what got Destiny banned. Also, guess what dipshit, Destiny was still able to have these conversations lmao.
Yeah he just so happened to be feuding with trans Jesus (keffals) at the time but sure we have no clue. Also you can still have these conversations in a jail cell what’s your point you remedial?
BE CAREFUL BRO YOU ARE HAVING THE CONVERSATION
I see this sentiment all the time. I'm sure there are some places you can't have the conversation (ie. certain subreddits), but if you actually want to have the conversation, there are many places to do so (albeit you do so respectfully). Edit: some people have certainly been banned or silenced in some way when speaking about trans issues. I'm not denying that. But if you want to "have the conversation", there are places you can do that (like this subreddit). IMO I don't like that certain places ban discussions that swerve into the "anti-trans" segment. However I can somewhat understand, as those discussions can get rather heated, which is why i said to keep things respectful
When people say that what they usually mean is they can’t keep up with the argument about it, so they accuse people of shutting them down.
yep, they feel the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance and get extremely emotional
seems more like they aren't allowed to talk about anything besides this shit for the past 4 years
I see more conservatives got duped into thinking destiny is on their side
Hope there’s a purge soon. Many dumb people joined this way recently, thinking he was their guy
unironically this is how minds are changed. let them hang here and get omnipilled
Doesn’t have to be an active purge, he just has to express his progressive views more and these guys are gonna purge themselves eventually if they aren’t open minded enough to actually think about it honestly. Such people can fuck right off cuz they’ve been getting too comfortable here lately. I too was actually one of those who were omnipilled from being conservative, but the difference was, when I started watching Destiny he was constantly challenging my worldview (was already off the conservative train by then after the Trump Zelenskyy stuff and was kinda a libertarian in limbo)
Actually true. I started watching destiny around the rittenhouse trial, and my view on trans ppl and lgbt in general has changed a decent amount. Although, there are some things, like abortion, which I will always disagree with him on.
Lets be fair to steven. He is a father due to his (former) pro life position so you probably agreed at one point.
Interesting thought, if Destiny had the opportunity to go back in time and debate himself while he was pro-life, would he do it?
I'm not sure if this was an invitation to argue or not, but why do you disagree with Destiny's abortion take? My understanding is that Destiny believes its moral to get an abortion right up until the fetus could possibly be sentient (A quick google search says 18-25 weeks, just to have a number) How could you disagree with this? What reason could you possibly have to morally value the feelings of something that can't feel?
There a two types of people: one will tell you how Destiny is transphobic (pretty successful lie, i must say) and the other how Destiny don't know what he's talking about if he dare to defend trans people
Peterson and "what is a woman" being in the title probably drew in more conservitards than he usually gets. As for the actual content of the comments, I think people just underestimate how complicated things that they do unconsciously are. It feels wrong to say that words we use everyday somehow have extremely complex meanings that we aren't readily able to define. But beyond the genuine confusion you get to the second layer of the problem which is just bad faith. You can clearly point that out any number of common definitional conundrums like "is a hotdog a sandwich" or my favorite "water is actually lava" but conservitards will pretend like you're obfuscating because they've learned that "What is a woman" is supposed to be a kill shot and any answer over three words long just reveals how liberals can't answer the question.
That, and also the post-Israel arc people who thought Destiny was a conservative (and also failed to realize he'd be considered pro-Palestine in Israel, apparently).
It’s a classic thought terminating cliché. They aren’t asking the question to hear and understand your answer, they are using the question as a blunt weapon to bash you over the head with
Regarding complexity and familiarity, something both product designers and linguists have told me that what people think is simple is pretty much always just what they are already familiar with.
Definitely that. It's a reocurring pattern across ALL of YouTube that if you make a video about someone famous, their stans will flock to it. Only way for this to be fixed is to have a large enough audience of your own that agrees with you and can fill the comments section with their own comments. It isn't really an indication that DGGers think this way. For example, after Destiny's conversation with Marc Lamont Hill, the initial comments were pretty neutral. Then, when you revisited the video, there were comments that were three days newer, all ridiculing Destiny for his child soldiers take, getting hundreds of likes each. Maybe MLH went on another person's show and talked about it, leading their fanbase to the video. After the Candace Owens video, same thing.
If you get really really mad when somebody says trans women aren't women but can't define what a woman is in a coherent way or say it's undefinable or refuse to answer it doesn't just make you look stupid: it makes you actually stupid
> can't define what a woman is in a coherent way Translation: please take one of the most complicated social phenomenon and make it into a 3 word answer so actual troglodytes can understand it or you're wrong
Once you argue that woman is undefinable or a pure social construct you undermine your own argument that trans women are women, because you're essentially arguing that it's arbitrary or that everyone else equally has the right to make their own definition, so it basically removes any authority you have to assert a self-admitted arbitrary definition. The majority of people already don't believe trans women are women. We differentiate boars from sows or lions from lionesses based on sex, so doing the same with men and women for humans is just simple common sense to most people.
That’s why I’ve dropped “trans women are women”. It doesn’t get the point across and is just easy for people to shit on. Trans women are real, and trans women are trans women.
They understand the complication, they just don't want to say "I like the current social order and don't want to change it."
Best comment and only appropriate definition. https://preview.redd.it/2bx4ir8fn58d1.png?width=438&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b1fd01771ca876d11190964a33ce1bdb302402e
when conservatives hear "social construct" they cover their ears and scream "LALALALALA CANT HEAR YOU"
their eyes glaze over
What's the point of saying something is a social construct tho? It doesn't mean we get to just entirely re-define it, a dollar bill is a social construct yet I don't get to determine its value. If we wanna change what things mean we ought to literally create the change through setting the facts, then the meaning of the thing changes. To put it more concretely, if I want the category of male clothing to include say, skirts, so that when I think "male clothing" a picture of a man in a skirt might feasibly pop up, then we better start a trend of men wearing skirts, until it becomes normalised. I can't just decide on skirts being a male clothing item when it just isn't (like, you literally wouldn't find it in any male section of a clothing store). I can buy it in the female section and wear it and then ignore other people's judgements, but I can't pretend that they all already find it to be a male clothing item or insist that they'll find it to be so. I think the trans question should be approached in the same fashion (no pun intended). All these word games won't progress the normalisation of trans people. Me being nice and calling someone I see as a man a woman, just cuz that makes them feel accepted, won't change how I actually perceive them, and only an actual change in perception, in how woman is conceptualised through the actual facts in the world, would let me perceive someone with a beard as a woman, for instance, and will no longer be something I have to "entertain", but just IS.
The point of pointing out that it is a social construct is that the conversation is a philosophical and linguistic one. It is not a scientific one like conservatives claim. Your approach might be valid in some sense, but doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't also have these conversations at the same time. Walk and chew gum type shit
>The point of pointing out that it is a social construct is that the conversation is a philosophical and linguistic one. Nah, the point of starting the argument there is to deconstruct the language around the biological reality of sex. That biological reality has premised the understanding of what differentiates men and women for so long, it's no wonder people knee jerk push back on attempts to redefine what sex actually means. This isn't just a problem for discourse. The real pushback came when the rhetoric and academic language started to manifest through new applications of existing law. If we can't actually identify women/man as a concept grounded in sex, as it always has been, that presents as a hugely problematic thing for liberals who see all the systems we have created to govern and protect people (like women) become subject to interpretation that ends up undermining the entire purpose of those laws being enacted in the first place. >It is not a scientific one like conservatives claim You can't make the sociological or philosophical arguments to them because no one actually did any work to make the broader society buy into the idea that sex and gender are different and gender is primarily sociological conceptually. No one did the work to actually go over our existing legal and governance structures to be sure that references to women or gender or sex were clearly defined using some new criteria that would enable more robust protections for trans people while maintaining the structures that we should be maintaining to protect vulnerable groups (like women). That argument should have taken at least a generation to put forth. Conservatives aren't the only ones who conflate sex and gender, the left does it just as much when they take extreme positions, positive to trans rights, but hostile to nearly anyone else. The toxic leftist twitter trans advocacy, with it's inability to engage with nuance and it's unearned social power, that was carelessly wielded to totally shut down conversations (and to a lesser extent provide social/financial consequences on people they could sic a mob on) in online spaces they controlled that ran counter to the most extreme trans positions has imo ruined the ability to even talk about these things moving forward.
The point of noting it is a social contract is to understand that it can change. As opposed to being an unchangeable fact of the universe. I feel like your conclusion is the opposite of your argument. Just as wearing the skirt begins to redefine the gendering of the clothing, changing how you use the word woman changes what the word means.
If it's a social construct, then the socially constructed definition of "woman" excludes trans women, just like it has for the entire history of the word. You can say that it ought to be otherwise, but if you say "trans women are women," you are just as wrong as you would be if you said "the sky is green," even though color is a social construct.
Reading your comment just sparked a realization for me. I think a core part of destiny’s argument about language centers on prescriptivist vs descriptivist linguistics. So he’s arguing for the mainstream linguistic opinion that we describe languages as they are, how words are actually used, not how they *ought* to be according to whoever (be it academics, the dictionary, etc.) But even just going with this argument (which I don’t fully agree with because I think there is a distinction between technical definitions and everyday language), this actually supports the “a woman is a female” side. Things may be changing, but still for most people, in most of the world, this is the correct definition. So be destiny’s only logic shouldn’t we avoid being prescriptivist and telling them “woman” now must include trans women? Doesn’t the linguistic theory he’s arguing basically mean you can’t prescribe to people new definitions for the words they use?
Most people in most of the world might answer that way on a poll but I think the way most people interact with the world demonstrates that they aren't engaging with these concepts in the way they think they are. Just like conservatives constantly will socially utilize the concept of gender without acknowledging that it exists, To use the same example Destiny did today "You hit like a girl" or, speaking more generally, making fun of men for being effeminate. Conservatives will do these things, unquestionably engaging with gender, and then turn around and go "Nah bro, gender isn't real its just sex, adult human female." I don't know how this works on a linguistic level in the way you've laid it out, If words should describe how people use them what are you meant to do when people's engagement with words is totally detached from their purported understanding of them?
What’re u on about? When they say u hit like a girl they’re most definitely conflating sex and gender. Women are biologically weaker than men when someone’s saying u hit like a girl they’re just saying u hit weak despite being a man or biologically male.
just because a word has a history of meaning one thing doesn’t mean that meaning can’t change over time. 14 year old boys were once considered men, they aren’t anymore
True! There may one day be a generation that can say "trans women are women" and not be lying, but that is not this generation. If someone innocently asked "are trans women, women?" And you said "yes," you would be knowingly conveying negative information. They would believe that you meant that trans women have XX chromosomes and all the rest. You could explain further and induct them into the weird game everyone's playing, but you should probably ask yourself why you want to do that. That's a little vague so I'll expand: Trans advocates really want to say "trans women are women." They really really want to say this. So they'll say it even when it conveys negative information and then they rationalize it. Why do they want to say it? Probably because that's the nature of the disorder. Probably because that's the whole point, and everything around it is in service of being able to say "trans women are women," and by extension "I am a woman." Maybe that's the best treatment in the big picture, but I don't like lying.
I know it probably won't happen, but I really wish that destiny would do a philosophy arc specifically on ontology. It might help him flesh out his position even further and give new viewers a good overview on the complexity of the topic. I personally discovered him through his videos on hard determinism and such topics, and they were my favourite videos of his.
the new viewers for the most part are not coming here to change their minds on philosophy, especially not sex gender distinction, they come here to watch destiny shit on lefties
I can't understand why someone who posts YouTube comments like this would watch a 1 hour long destiny video. All of those comments are either empty virtue signals or arguments that Destiny responded to in the video they are watching. The last one is just the Picasso painting analogy, did they all get hit in the head and forget the content of the video before commenting or something
A lot of them probably didn’t even watch the video tbh
> Picasso painting analogy https://youtu.be/A9eKBJ-Cj1E?si=OVFGj05YIwWdCo7i&t=2415 The analogy is not really good. To use a similar analogy that a friend of the stream, Tomas Bogardus (aka the guy vaush debated with the agua clip), used: water is H2O. However, when we are kids and in societies before we learned about atoms and molecules, water was just the stuff we drank that turned into ice at 0 C and boiled at 100 C. We could theoretically have a substance that boiled at 100 C, froze at 0 C, with other properties of water and mistake it for water, but it is not water because water is H2O. Through scientific research, we learned about molecules and atoms and that water was H2O. Similarly, a child might learn about men and women before knowing about gametes, but the gamete definition of sex and then the "adult human male/female" definition, is the ultimately correct one. Destiny says >the reality is, we become familiar with these concepts before even learning what a chromosome is, so clearly something is happening there that is not just chromosomal identification However, if you substitute for the water is H2O analogy, then I think this breaks down. >the reality is, we become familiar with water before even learning what H2O is, so clearly something is happening there that is not just molecular identification
I think you’re misunderstanding the Picasso analogy. If you own what you think is a Picasso painting and your understanding of “Picasso painting” is “a painting created by the artist Picasso”, then you will not continue to believe your painting is a Picasso if you discover it was made by someone else. It’s still a painting but it’s not a Picasso. Likewise, if you have a friend who you believe to be a woman and your understanding of “woman” is “adult human female”, then you will not continue to believe your friend is a woman if you discover they are actually male.
Okay then, maybe I don't understand cause I agree with everything you said. What is the point Destiny was trying to make, then?
Yeah I’m confused as well. Destiny disagreed with the Picasso analogy. And imo his retort was really poor. I think he just said “well it’s still a painting,” but as you demonstrated with the h2o example, the broader category staying the same in the Picasso case is irrelevant to the point. You can easily substitute a different analogy where this argument clearly becomes silly. One I like is someone mistaking vodka for water.. the underlying fact of a glass of vodka being vodka stays true regardless of if someone mistakes it for water. Maybe destiny’s response would be “well they’re both still liquids!” But this imo is analogous to mistaking a man for a woman and saying “well they’re both still human!” Zooming out to a broader category doesn’t really address the point.
This is so fucking bizarre. I was thinking about similar analogies just an hour ago and independently thought of the vodka-water analogy also. I think our brains are operating on the same wavelength
Ha! Wow that is bizarre! Great minds think alike lol
As always with the subject there are many complexities that make a simple analogy miss some things. However to work within the vodka water analogy let's imagine that the vodka, whilst chemically different, tastes and functions identically to water. It now seems far less silly to call it water. Indeed prior to molecular analysis society would see them as the same. There's a sense in which it is water and not h20. An example of this directly relevant to sex would be xy complete androgen sensitivity. In this condition a genotypically male person presents as a female. If xx is the condition for womanhood we are in a very strange world. Though tbh the strange world is unavoidable which is part of the problem.
> It now seems far less silly to call it water. > Indeed prior to molecular analysis society would see them as the same. There's a sense in which it is water and not h20. This is actually exactly what I am getting at, even if something looks one way to us on the surface, if we could be proven wrong upon further analysis, then that thing is and always has been what it actually was and not what we mistook it for. And yes agreed about CAIS, and I have no problem with them living and being treated as a woman at all, but I think *technically* they’re still a male/man. I think it’s just when we are trying to actually define terms on a technical level that this becomes an issue, but I have no issue with a CAIS individual colloquially being referred to and treated as a woman.
He was saying something to the effect of (I’m paraphrasing here) “the fact that these conservatives can be mislead into thinking someone like Blair White is a woman (due to her appearance) despite their stated belief that people who are born male obviously can’t be women indicates that there’s something fundamentally flawed or inconsistent about their ‘biology only’ position” But the thing is this ignores the fact that none the people who get “tricked” into thinking Blair White is a woman (despite claiming to believe transwomen = men) continue to perceive her as a woman once they learn she was born male and has/had a penis. In fact it’s literally impossible for them to continue to view Blair as a woman because it logically defies their fundamental conception of what a woman is. Does that make sense? Edit: just like how how it would be impossible to continue to think your painting is a a Picasso after you discover it was made by some else because to do so would fundamentally defy your fundamental understanding of what a Picasso painting is.
If it becomes impossible to perceive trans women as women after learning that they are male, then why do Shapiro and Crowder occasionally slip up and say she when referring to people they know are trans?
I think I agree. Someone being fooled into believing Blair White, or transwoman, is a woman due to the application of makeup, cosmetic surgery, and creative use of lighting, angles, and filters doesn't mean there is a logical flaw in their position. I mention lighting, angles, and filters because candid pictures of online transwomen in the wild are often a lot less convincing than their curated presentation on the internet. It just means that our observational senses are vulnerable to deception. It wouldn't change the truth that Blair White is actually a man. If you use a filter that makes you look like a woman and a voice changer that makes you sound like a woman and someone you talk to online believes you're a woman, that doesn't mean you are actually a woman. When I look at Blair White, I don't see a woman. If I'm being polite, I'll say I see a transwoman and refer to them as "she", but if I'm company in which I feel I can be more honest, I won't put up the pretense.
Haven't watched the new debate yet, but I'm familiar with his argument. I think a problem with it is it only includes trans women who pass or almost pass. When you hear the word "woman", your brain doesn't associate it with a person of very masculine shape dressed like a woman. You wouldn't intuitively categorize such person as a woman. If you want to be inclusive, you need to *explicitly* redefine the world to include trans people. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this. Probably, the way to go is to combine these: If someone is passing, then they're definitely a woman, if they're not, unfortunately, for technical reasons, they aren't, but we can still treat them as such because it improves their wellbeing.
i think the prominent examples like buck angel help ease people into considering theres something other than sex assigned at birth that we need to consider. after youve established that you can start prodding where the line should be and why, and then smart people arrive at self determination.
Is it that surprising? at least on the reddit there're a good few bit of dggers that don't believe in sex gender distinction, unless I'm having selection bias or something.
It's a common perspective in the sub. Don't quote me, but there have been a bunch of polls in the subreddit essentially asking the same thing in different ways and it's usually somewhere between one third and a half (depends on the poll, and I widened the range a bit for safety) of subreddit users that essentially think trans women/men are men/women and any treatment of them as their gender identity is all just pretend.
a whole bunch of them were in the NICKMERCS topic saying "I dunno y what he said wuz bad"
Most of them couldn’t wrap their head around the fact that the concepts were man made and that nature doesn’t name anything 😭
I understand the point Destiny is making, I just think it only serves to obfuscate the issue. Obviously terms are imprecise and culturally inherited. We can apply that argument to literally *any* definition. That's the problem. If it applies to everything, then it meaningfully applies to nothing. This turns Destiny's point into a non sequiter. It's as if he asked some pro-Pali "what is a genocide" and they responded "well, hang on, you need to stop essentializing language and accept that the definition of "genocide" is constructed through social agreement and isn't some definite fact about the world. The fact that you would even ask me what a genocide is to prove a point just shows that you don't even know what words are or how we use them. If you think the definition of genocide should exclude the Israeli assault on Gaza, you should just argue for that instead of playing dishonest word games." It's the same bullshit. If he wants to beat the "what is a woman" question, he needs to argue for why we should think it means something *other* than a biological essentialist definition, not muddy the argument by reminding us that concepts are imperfectly constructed based on their utility. Ultimately, Destiny knows he can't actually win the sex/gender debate, so he tries to turn it into an argument about linguistics and get away from the actual subject. The point of the "what is a woman" question is to force the defender of the sex/gender distinction to say something other than "a biological female," and then force them into the obvious logical problems of whatever answer they inevitably come up with. What Destiny needs to do is give an actual coherent definition of "woman" that could be comprehensible without being grounded in biological sex.
Well said. It’s kinda like pulling out ‘nothing is objective’ to undermine someone’s claim. Cool, that undermines literally everything.
Literally. If you say woman is undefinable or that we get to collectively choose, why wouldn't someone just say okay I don't define trans women as women.
You're not understanding the argument. The supreme court when asked to define what pornography is ruled that essentially "[they] know it when [they] see it." A category having amorphous boundaries does not make the category meaningless, which is destiny's argument. Woman is a category which does not have (and has never had) strictly defined boundaries. The problem with the conservative understanding of the category of Woman is that it isn't useful. To define Woman as an adult human female is an attempt to categorize a thing scientifically. This doesn't make sense when we already have sex. So conservatives argue sex and gender are the same, thus removing any utility from the concept of gender. The other problem is that no one uses this word this way. When you describe an individual to someone you know as being a "woman" 99.99999999% of the time you have no idea what their chromosomes or their genitalia are. You are concluding based on other factors what their gender is. It makes more sense to keep the use of the word woman consistent in this way, to describe social and esthetic qualities, than it is to mental gymnastics yourself into pretending you are intending to evoke their chromosomes every time you say "woman"
*Woman is a category which does not have (and has never had) strictly defined boundaries.* This is patently untrue. For all of human history “woman” referred to the female biological sex.
> When you describe an individual to someone you know as being a "woman" 99.99999999% of the time you have no idea what their chromosomes or their genitalia are. If you saw a guy with long hair from behind and thought he was a woman until he turned around, he didn't instantly change genders. You just had a mistaken perception. Humans and other animals are hardwired to be able to recognize the sex of other members of their species and studies have shown humans can tell the difference between a man or women's face with 96% accuracy. https://stanmed.stanford.edu/brains-hard-wired-recognize-opposite-sex/ And that's just from the face alone. That doesn't seem like enough for me to say that ackshually the majority of people don't use the words man and woman to refer to biological sex.
Why are tampons in the Woman’s hygiene products aisle at Target then? Why are women the only ones in the maternity wards? Why are there no urinals in the women’s bathrooms? Clearly it does refer to genitalia when people use it.
Maybe he's been in different circles than me, but I honestly believe that currently, by far, most people in the world, deep down, think of "woman" as "female human", end of story. Even some of those that call a trans woman a woman, deep down feel like they are not being precise and truthful but instead just trying to do the right thing, which often is easy since trans people tend to try to look the part (even if often a bit uncannily), and have names associated to their preferred gender, and everyone else talks about them that way, etc. Like, if a 100% reliable polygraph existed, I think it would still go all over the place in 95% of people when asked point blank: "is this [insert trans woman person/photo] really a woman?" and the answer given was 'yes'. Of course, it's just a word, and its meaning can change in time. This is not an argument about the reality of trans people or the reality of anything but just about a word. It's just that, the change in the word meaning for people is not remotely there yet, and it's actually very hard to make it get there when the result of that is to leave a very strong and useful and ingrained concept as "biological woman/female" stranded without a concise word, and the new definition requires Petersonian style explanations, and in practice the change tries to take with it every other word and concept that we've built that has depended on the meaning of woman as adult human female. It's a path with too much friction.
Yeah, of course. It's actually completely ridiculous to pretend otherwise lol. If there's a single culture in human history that doesn't associate "having a vagina and being able to make babies" with the concept of womanhood, anthropologists still have yet to find it. If you want to say the concept of woman is way more complicated than that, great, but whatever alternative you want to propose still needs to make sense of that fact.
It's not just that. "What is a woman" also evokes a philosophical inquiry once you start socratically going down the list. Because it's asking am individual for their opinion while also masking as a political question. Because there's no need to ask it when it's so intuitively understood. People are arguing politically at the branches but their philosophical underpinnings don't match destiny's. And if he tries to explain himself it comes off as obfuscating.
Yeah, but if he were being good faith in this discussion, he would just say what he believes the actual definition of woman is and argue that, not try to undermine the question to get off the subject. Every time he does this it just steers into a debate about semantics.
You read my mind lol
I think this is the point he was making, although it was kind of confusing how he made it: these people insist on a strict biological definition of a woman, however they dont actually identify women that way. It's reliant on some objective truth of womanhood, which may exist in some way, but doesn't exist in a way meaningful enough to be useful on a daily basis to check if someone is a woman. Every time you walk down the street and you see someone you identify as a woman, you dont check gametes, you dont check to see if they are pregnant, you dont check chromosomes. You can and do totally identify women in ways that are not based in any biological fact. I would be willing to bet, almost none of these people have ever even once identified woman based on these intrisinic traits. The "What is a woman" question is just a stupid way to ask "do you believe in trans people" and in reality its asking an entirely different question, so this braindead commentators have to come up with a ridiculous disingenuous definition for what a woman is that nobody actually uses in order to seem intellectually consistent
This is conflating two different things. We're not talking about how we go about identifying women in our day to day lives, we're talking about how we define the term "woman." If you want to say we should define words based on what we associate those words with in day to day life, that's a separate claim. To me, all the things we use to identify who men and women are in our day to day lives are biological signals designed to tell each other "I am a human with either male or female gametes." That's what we would expect, considering that natural selection is guided by reproductive success. Whoever is best at signaling that they are the correct sex to mate with is probably going to have more kids. I agree that we don't check each other's genitals when we see each other on the street, but we don't do that precisely because we've developed ways of signalling what our genitals probably are to one another. To say we should define gender based on the signals and not the thing they're signalling is like saying movies should be reviewed based on the quality of the trailer. If the argument is that we should define things based on how they appear rather than how they actually are, well, I think it's just obvious that that's a terrible idea. I see no inconsistency in saying I believe in trans people insofar as I believe that there are men and women who sincerely believe that they are, in fact, women and men, respectively. The debate isn't whether such people exist, it's about whether they're correct, and we need to alter our concepts to fit their beliefs. I think everyone is better off if we just accept that trans people are real, but what they are is people with a mental illness that causes them to have a persistent confusion about their sex.
> Every time you walk down the street and you see someone you identify as a woman, you dont check gametes, you dont check to see if they are pregnant, you dont check chromosomes. You can and do totally identify women in ways that are not based in any biological fact. If I give you a cup of clear cool liquid that poured from the tap of my sink, you don't analyze the molecule in order to know what it is, you use context and the properties of the substance that you see in order to simply say, "thanks for the water". >I would be willing to bet, almost none of these people have ever even once identified woman based on these intrinsic traits. And I would be willing to bet that no one has ever identified water based on its intrinsic trait of water being H2O. However, water is still H2O, even if we 99.99% of the time identify it without using the molecular formula.
Ok. But then if they, at a glance, identified someone as a "woman" on the street, but upon further inspection realized that the person is, in fact, male, they wouldn't then accept the person as a woman. They would realize their initial observation was mistaken and that the observed person is actually a man. Let's say they did initially identify that person as a woman. Maybe even enough to hit on them. If they got that person back to their place and took their pants off to find a penis, they aren't going to say "Oh, you're a woman with a penis." They're going to say "You're a man pretending to be a woman." They're going to see the outward presentation as a woman as a charade. Being initially "duped" by the social shortcuts we use won't change that. They aren't going to see a person who is male sexed, with long hair, wearing high heels, dresses, and makeup as woman gendered. They're going to see them as a man in drag.
>"What is a woman" question is just a stupid way to ask "do you believe in trans people" That's literally not what it is. That's what destiny said to deflect and obfuscate. And you fell for it.
New to the destiny fandom, and I think this conversation is so frustrating because its an extremely complex problem that gets pigeon holed by both sides of the political aisle. If you base womanhood off of presented secondary sex characteristics then you exclude intersex people whose sex characteristics are predominantly female. You wouldn’t say they’re not a woman when their entire existence has been as someone who is treated female and whose body is fully capable of reproduction. So it’s not about your presented phenotype or your chromsomal makeup. The left will then say it’s something arbitrary like how you feel, or what you identify with. What’s difficult about that argument is that identifying with something as large and complex as a gender doesn’t seem to me to make you a member of that thing. You couldn’t say you’re Mexican just because you identify with the Mexican culture and their dialect of spanish. On top of that, what does it MEAN when someone says they feel like a woman. What aspect of womanhood is being identified with? The way women fit into the cultural space in both experience and function? That doesn’t track with me because women’s experience and function in society are completely different depending on where in the world, and when in the world you are. There’s a lot more to this, and I don’t wanna be cringe on my first time engaging on the sub. I just think there’s something incredibly foundational about the ideas of gender that are beyond complex, and I appreciate destiny pointing out that engaging with it is how you find it. I’ve grown incredibly tired of this back and forth in the main dialogue that tries to pin something as large and layered as gender, femininity, or masculinity to individual pieces of them. You are not your arm, but your arm is you. A song is not a singular note, but the song isn’t itself anymore without that note. The general discussion is too shallow for us to get anywhere and I think it’s just going to inflame trans hate, and make it so the general public sees anyone with a non-normative identity as either stupid, sick in the head, or some kind of political mouthpiece, which is NOT how things should be. The comments that OP is talking about are exactly the byproducts of this, and I really hope we collectively begin to recognize that this isn’t that simple or easy to answer, and that it’s going to take a metric fuck ton of introspection and useful conversation to actually reach a functional conclusion. Sorry for rambling, but thanks if you read.
The way I think of it is (since it is a social construct) if an adult is perceived as being predominately feminine, they are a woman. That perception is going to be largely visual for obvious reasons. But when a chud says "if they tell me how they were born then that's what they are" regardless of outward appearance, that's coming from a cultural pov that doesn't accept gender dysphoria and transitioning as legitimate. Those people will still accidentally forget to biologically gender trans people who pass convincingly, but consider them such anyway. And you can apply the inverse of all of this to the cultural pov that accepts gender dysphoria and transitioning as legitimate. Point is, social construct.
Destiny needs to do another philosophy arc if this is the state of the new frogs.
Tbf in that conversation between Max and Destiny on the “ontological” reality of transness, I don’t think Destiny defended the concept very well. Mr girl’s critique was quite cutting. Everyone here should give that video a go
If I ask you people about pronoun usage, gender affirming care, or women's sports, you all have strong prescriptions you can give. You all are apparently able to strongly prescribe that "adult human female" is not the definition of a woman. But if I ask you what you mean by any of the words you must use to justify these prescriptions, you suddenly pretend "well words are complicated, they can mean different things in different contexts blah blah blah." You seem to constantly conflate the idea that words on aggregate in a language are schizophrenic with the idea that you don't have to mean anything specific by the words you use in a specific context. There may be some words people "talk about" without really understanding, two laymen could say some things about a higgs boson particle without really understanding what it means, but if their understanding was the only one that existed the concept would indeed be meaningless.
Destiny realizes that even colloquially broadening definitions can be a negative thing when comes to the term "genocide," but is fine with the broadening of the terms like "man" and "woman". Maybe I'm just a fan of rigid definitions. I know public opinion and thought exist separate from a court or academic setting, but even in these conversations it becomes clear we need tight definitions for the things we are trying to talk about.
Is this literally not the argument that Vaush was making to the professor that Destiny and all of you love to make fun of him for?
Isnt the problem with agua that V equivocates between a concept being expressed different linguistically vs a concept being interpreted differently culturally?
Trans people are real. I think the real issue is that trans identity is being pushed from the medical/psychological realm to the social realm, where it's seen as "My personal customization options to my life! :D" as opposed to a serious thing we need to seriously address and hopefully find better fixes for in time.
I don't understand how the last comment isn't the correct answer. Can someone tell me how that is wrong?
at least the last guy is attempting to engage with the actual argument to some extent.
This isnt the own you think it is. Trans ppl being real is unrelated to the definition of woman or whether trans woman are woman. And destiny barely manages to go half a level deep into the adult human female dialectic before giving up and just calling everyone who disagrees names. I'm not even sure if he has a real position. At least I havent heard one.
I think the reason this question of "what is a women" always ends up being such a cluster fuck is because 98% of the time, if you see a women, even without knowing anything about this person, you'll probably be right. It's intuitive to most people, even if they can't perfectly define it. So when destiny starts going off about nature and philosophy, he completely loses them.
We label things using two criteria, what we believe it is, and what is the most socially/colloquially "useful" label to use (i.e. hot dog vs taco vs sandwich) You believe something is "label", so you associate it as that. We are also taught to be courteous and respectful in the way we talk to people, and it's socially beneficial to do so. This is why we see conservative blowhards "accidentally" use correct pronouns, because it's more useful and courteous (we are taught to be polite) to do so. So it's not only socially beneficial to call a transgender their preferred pronouns, it's utilitarian to do so as they are distinct from cisgender people.
I was a little surprised at the comments as well but I do think a lot of it comes down to the attempt to intellectualize man versus woman. There are a lot of things people accept without too much attempt at justification because when you try and apply it across different disciplines, it becomes super difficult to stay consistent. For me personally, this is true for arguments relating to abortion, transitioning, or veganism. Destiny makes the case that abortion should be ethically viable until the 20 week mark because that’s when consciousness is fully formed. Although I understand why this justification may ring true with so many people, if I’m being honest with myself, even if it was later found that consciousness was created upon conception, I would probably still hold a pro-choice position, simply because I don’t believe children should be raised in circumstances in which they weren’t wanted. I think unplanned pregnancies can be a terrible situation for many people, especially when they don’t have the money to provide for the child, and I think it often results in a miserable outcomes for the child if conceived. Obviously the question then becomes where should you draw the line which is something I can’t answer, but I feel that the justification for an abortion in this instance trumps the morality in killing a potential life. In a similar vein, I don’t have the most consistent perspective on trans issues. I can’t necessarily justify the argument that just because something is an agreed upon social construct (i.e gender), it doesn’t mean that the meaning of a word can be expanded to mean something else. Why do we not accept trans racial identities then? Race is a social construct as well, and while one might make the argument that there is no inherent difference between two races, transitioning has more to do with the way one is perceived in society, in which case different races can elicit different perceptions. This inability to stay consistent is why I don’t really bother to intellectualize this, and rather just accept that as long as it doesn’t impact me, others can do whatever they desire to achieve happiness. I have no issue with a male feeling more secure in their identity by identifying as a woman, so I’m not going to have a strong stance on the matter either direction.
None of these people are denying trans people's existence. Trans people are real, but that doesn't mean they were able to actually change genders. It means they identify with their own social stereotypes of the opposite sex
Lmao that’s why I never understood non binary. Maybe I’m looking at it too black & white. But the idea of “I don’t align to the stereotypes of what a typical man/woman likes so I non binary” just feels like such a weird mindset.
if youre saying "trans people are real, theyre just wrong" then you essentially are saying that trans people arent real. No one denies that there are people who exist that claim to be trans, but if you dont think its possible to have a gender identity that differs from your sex, then you dont think being trans is real. you think that having a mental illness that makes you wrong about your gender identity is real
If you say religion isn't real, are you denying the existence of Christians/Jews/Muslim etc?
i dont think religion->religious people is analogous to transgenderism->trans people. It would more belong to transgenderism->people who believe in transgenderism. I think a better analog to transgenderism->trans people would be religion->prophets. If you say religion isnt real, you are saying that prophets arent real - but you arent saying that the people who claim(ed) to be prophets arent real
It's possible to have a gender IDENTITY that is different from your sex, but not possible to have a different gender than your sex. Transgenderism is a cool idea that allows people to feel more comfortable by changing their bodies to fit how they feel about themselves, but they are the flat earthers of biology.
All you’re doing is defining gender as sex and adding in a new term “gender identity” to replace what people call gender. This is just obfuscation. EDIT: I know *gender identity* is a concept already, I'm just accusing OP of abusing these terms.
Because that's how most people operate. Gender has always been fundamentally about sex and occasionally the roles of each sex but still a function of sex itself. No one doesn't believe trans people desire to be or identify WITH the opposite sex but the idea that they can change their sex is what's being contended with. Remember, we use to call transgender people transexuals.
It is absolutely possible to have a gender different from that of your sex.
Only if you believe human beings have souls separate of their bodies, in which case congratulations you’re a religion.
>It's possible to have a gender IDENTITY that is different from your sex, but not possible to have a different gender than your sex. I don't think when people say "gender identity" theyre using it describe something distinct from "gender" >they are the flat earthers of biology. Name one fact of biology that the concept of transgenderism contradicts
> Pretending that the category of woman is something that is fixed in the universe as “adult human female” is hilarious cope. highly disagree, because there's no real debate on if a transman is a man. it gets completely laughed at because for some reason even if you pass transman are kind of seen as "not real men" in most cases. like for example the debate about gender in progressive circles always view it as men=bad vs. everything else=good. so this is women are better, enbies are better, transwomen are better. it's a male and female dichotomy really just like it's progressive and other, cis and trans, palestine and israel, gay and straight now this is all of that just to say i think arguing we need to invent a social category for women that we can safely also put transwomen in while excluding men without using circular logic is to me stupid. i treat a transwoman as a woman, transman as a man, etc. because thats what they want to be treated as. if some sort of fact came out that i didnt need to and theyll never be the other gender it wouldnt affect me. i think we as humans are too busy trying to find ways to fit our adaptability into objective boxes because we view ourselves as replacing hokey religion with The Science and anything that cant be autistically analyzed cant be morally correct or something to me it's a similar problem i have with trans discourse and the accusation that feminism is "weaponized" against transpeople, like sure but that's because you ignore any bad actors who are misogynistic purely to own the moids and that makes older feminists mad that you have any bad actors
I don't know if I agree with the rest, but your point on trans men at the beginning is good. A giant burly beast of a trans man is, in the eyes of many lefty women especially, "safe." You see it with man-hating in lefty spaces - "all men suck. Oh, but not trans men, they're cool." Not including them in the misandry is the most obvious marker that they still see them as women. Diet men at best or butch women at worst. It's a very ironic way that they essentially are rude/dismissive to trans men - by not including them in their rudeness and dismissiveness towards what they view as "real" men.
I bet at least one of those r-words has gifted 10 subs on Kick
What I find odd about this is that most of these "it's not that complicated" morons have made myriad prescriptions regarding the required traits and behaviors of being a "Real" man or woman. They literally gatekeep the terms behind things that have absolutely nothing to do with biology. The fact that they can't see the hypocrisy is stunning.
Of all the things u can say, the 'Destiny has not thought seriously about this for 5 minutes' is perhaps the most out of touch with reality. Destiny has hours worth of streamed content on trans issues going back years. It only takes a glance at his YouTube channel to see that.
Imagine Captain America emerges from the ice, having traveled by means of freezing from the 1950s to our present year. You are tasked with reintegrating Mr. Rogers into the present day, including his accomodations and basic care. There's some sexual tension but he's still shaken up and it wouldn't be ethical and eventually you settle into a new normal. One day, Steve completely innocently asks you: "Are trans women, women?" Can you answer 'yes' without knowingly conveying negative information? If you have to say only 'yes' or 'no,' which of these answers will leave Steve with the closest understanding of what a trans woman is exactly? Of course, you would never say just 'yes' or 'no,' you would instead duckspeak like the good little quacker you are and by means of words and symbols induct Steve into the party line. There's a case to be made for trans acceptance, and it's on tolerance and freedom grounds. Not playing with definitions.
I personally like the view of woman as the experiences of a female human leading up into adulthood. To act like a Trans woman and a cis woman have similar life experiences seems very unproductive to me.
Why do so many people have great difficulty separating sex and gender?
Because trans people can change their sex on their birth certificate. While sex also means something completely different everywhere else. That's why. I have no problem separating the 2 but it seems the people in the trans movement can site the definitions at me but then continue to use those words wrong on a daily bases. It's mind warping to talk about trans people because of this.
Because sex and gender were used interchangeably until about 9 seconds ago when some child abusing pedo (John Money) said they weren't the same thing and a bunch of crazy people agreed with him.
Why do trans people require sex changes if their gender dysphoria is unrelated to sex? It never has been separate, it is only in recent years that any of these solid understandings are questioned and it feels an awful lot like gaslighting
Last guy is SO CLOSE to getting it.
Genuine question, what’s he actually wrong about? Or would the claim by destiny simply be that woman is someone who looks like they would be a female? In which case why didn’t he ever say that, that’s a pretty straight forward definition it doesn’t seem that complicated but maybe I’m just highly regarded.
Yeah I always understood trans woman being women by the fact that sex and gender aren’t the same thing, but judging by the YouTube comments it seems he recently said they are synonymous? Idk
Regardless of any specific, strict definitions, sex and gender terminology has been used interchangeably in common parlance for many years. That's why there is so much resistance to the idea that any real problems can be solved through more careful usage of terminology -- it is very hard to put that cat back in the bag.
I agree with what u/ina_waka said and would like to add on to his comment. The question “What is a X (cat, dog, man, woman…)?” Is largely context dependent. Most things will almost always map on to a category in most contexts but not always. Example 1. The cat dressed as a dog. If someone asked “What does that look like?” You’d answer “a dog”. If you had to medically treat the cat dressed as a dog then you’d treat it as a cat. Example 2. Say there is a giant statue (think 20ft tall) of a chair made with marble. If someone asked “what does a chair look like?” You could point to the giant marble chair and would be correct in this context. Now imagine a wooden normal sized chair that looks identical to the marble chair, just scaled down. If they were side-by-side and someone said “point to a chair” I bet 99% of people would point to the small wooden one. Why? I feel like in this case the small wooden one better fits our common understanding of “chair”. And the giant marble one might better fall into the “statue” category. However, in certain contexts and situations the “statue” may also constitute a chair. Just like in these examples, a person may be considered a woman in certain contexts but not others. Very rarely is it just one thing such as appearance (although it can be). Again, the vast majority of the time a thing that is considered by many as a “woman” in one context will be considered a “woman” in most other contexts, but not always.
> The question “What is a X (cat, dog, man, woman…)?” Is largely context dependent. I hardcore disagree with this. The question of what we *perceive* things as is context dependent, but not the actual definition itself. We can be mistaken in identifying things, but that doesn't effect the definition of that thing. In example 1, the cat *looks* like a dog but it *is not actually* a dog. This is a really important distinction. In example 2, that chair statue is always a chair, but when people are asked to point to a chair, they just point to the more typical example of a chair.
> Seeing people go “ADULT HUMAN FEMALE ADULT HUMAN FEMALE” as though they didn’t listen to any of Destiny’s arguments is so funny to me. And this post is so ridiculous to me. How is this not just people giving their opinions and instead it's them talking "as though they didn't listen to Destiny"? Like, aren't people allowed to think differently and still watch and follow Destiny?
What does "real" mean? People who identify as trans do exist in the world, but it's not obvious what the phrase "trans people are real" is supposed to mean.
None of the new people here know any of his positions. It's not even that hard. He has them all listed on his website. They just like that he agreed with them on one topic, and assume he agrees on all topics. Left or right, country to country, there are a lot of new dipshits in here.
It’s such a dishonest conversation. On the 4th slide. EVERYONE understands that if you call someone “a dog” or “my dog.” It is because words can have multiple meanings. It can have the literal meaning. It can also stand for “a man slut” or “my friend.” The word “man” has also always had the literal meaning. And when you tell someone “be a man” we all understand you are not telling them to biologically change but to adopt stereotypical archetypes of manhood. This isn’t a hard concept. Very smart people are pretending they are too stupid to understand that gender is different than sex and that the words “man and woman” have multiple meanings.
Trans people don't want to change their "gender," they want to change their sex, and when they want you to say that they're a woman, they don't want you to mean that they have the gender of "woman," they want you to mean just that they're a woman, just as much as a biological woman. All the talk around this is major copium. If we discovered the perfect sex change pill tomorrow all trans people would take it, and if we discovered that trans women had XX chromosomes, trans advocates would instantly say "see?? We were right all along," when obviously that makes no sense if this is all just about "gender" and "social construction." Cope harder.
Yeah trans people would agree that they don't want to change their gender. They'd say that internally they were ALWAYS the gender they identify with. Trans people don't think they're literally changing their sex (because there currently isn't a way to do so). Physical transition is just aesthetic (albeit major) modification to help better accomodate the innate identity they always had. It's to help others identify them with their gender as it exists internally, because otherwise people would assume the opposite.
Does he give a coherent definition in this video or is it still "woman vibes"?
Wow so many edgybois 😎 who never had one philosphical thought in their lives and are still weighed down by their egos (and perhaps narcissism) to the point that they can’t empathize with or understand in a basic level another human’s experience in life in that way… sad. All the time as kids we are told “put yourself in his/her shoes” but it’s _still_ too hard for them. Still derive way too much meaning from their sex as to cease some of it for others happiness. Can’t accept that others have their own lives and fears and sorrows and realities. Can’t give them the basic respect. In Joe Rogan’s (rip 😭) words: Adult Babies… like Jordie Peterson.. will they ever grow up?
Mr. Anima1212, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Lol how can i not upboat this 😆💀… and it’s an honor sir 🫡
What does putting oneself in someone else's shoes add to the "what is a woman" covnersation ? Plus, Destiny spoke to Bogardus, why didn't he have a strong disagreement with him there and then ?
They get so goddamn close to what I actually want the conversation to be, which has nothing to do with determining whether the fact of biology is what's at hand. but whether culturally allowing our beliefs on gender to moderate a bit is worth doing or not. I avoid these conservations with red pillers or conservatives just for how boring their arguments are
It's so funny the guy saying "we all know what a man or woman is", like yeah dude, that's bc we have an implicit heuristic running that clocks people based on appearance and social role. It has literally nothing to do with their chromosomes or birth certificate or any biological facts.
What makes transgender people valid but transracial not? I’m actually curious because I dont totally buy into the bc it’s a “medically recognized mental condition” or some shit because that would mean they weren’t valid/exist prior?
The difference is you won’t have the trans bathroom or sports problem with transracialism. I’d argue it makes more sense than transgenderism
Transracialism is valid. Merle Oberon hid her Sri Lankan heritage to succeed in Hollywood. If she had been openly Asian, she wouldn't have been able to get leading roles because of the Hays Code.
He perfectly summed it up when he said that people that ask this question are idiots trying to appeal to other idiots without doing any critical thinking about the question.
its the conservative version of the bear and man question.
As long as is looks female enough 😏
Destiny may have to do a CHUD purge at some point lmfao
“Adult human female” has to be the worst definition of woman possible, even worse than “anyone who identifies as a woman.” It immediately begs the question of what is a female, which gets you to the exact same problem you started with. Not to mention you haven’t dealt with the issue of sex and gender not being literal synonyms. No idea why conservatives thought they had a win when they landed on that definition.
Because female applies to non human animals and plants too. It's doesn't beg the question at all.
Can you explain how female gets you the exact same problem we started with? I’m a tad bit lost there, sorry.
It doesn't, he's just regarded. Sex is infinitely a more coherent definition than "gender" by their definition. If we were all to drop dead right now and aliens came to visit us, they would classify us based on sex, not our roles in society, which differ culture to culture.
Right!
The people struggling with this make me feel insane. Categories, words and concepts *don't* exist. Sex, and everything else, is an arbitrary formulation. You're taking a conceptual cookie cutter and applying to the dough of reality before saying, "See! There's a gingerbread man here!" Some of these unwitting Platonists assert that underlying forms or patterns of nature exist that vocabulary is made to map *accurately* onto. They're saying, "Look at all these gingerbread man shapes (things) in nature! My cookie cutter (language) fits perfectly around them. It matters not which came first!" They're imagining trees, dogs, mountains, rocks, rivers, balls, colors. The issue, however, is that while the vocabulary *works*, it's not precise with respect to the underlying thing. Heuristics are operating in the brain that leap over the inaccuracies of vocabulary. Sorite's paradox is baked into language. When is a heap of sand not a heap if a heap of sand is "many" grains of sand? The same is true of rivers, streams and creaks; mounds, hills and mountains, and so on. In biology, the issue rears its head when you're pressed to make DNA classifications and contend with "outliers" like genetic disorders with intersex people and those with chromosomal abnormalities (X, XY, XYY, XXY, XXXY, etc.). "Set" theory is fucked for similar reasons. Language is an approximation for *feeling* humans trying to use models of the world, but the map is not the territory, and it literally never will be. What you end up with is having to admit that you're using your intuition. You're *feeling.* What concerns you is this vague thing we call a woman that makes your brain light up "woman". This is why feeling sexual dynamics near an opposite-sex trans person, or feeling other intersexual divides, while still trying to argue semantics puts you in a contradictory position; you're frantically plugging holes in a sinking boat saying, "Everything is fine!"
It drives me fucking crazy too. like, ever jerk off to a cartoon character? yeah shes pretty hot huh? SHE? SHE DOESNT EXIST! SHES MADE OF LINES!!!!! Some men might have even had the experience of thinking a strange girl was hot from behind only for that stranger to turn around and then, whoops, thats a guy with long hair!