 Hey everybody, today we're debating whether or not trans men are men and we are starting right now with Vosh's opening statement Thanks so much for being with us Vosh. The floor is all yours Hi, I'm Vosh so When we talk about subjects like these there's this irritating semantic inflation with a bunch of different definitions we tend to have of Man women sex gender I feel like oftentimes these discussions are had in bad faith or at least out of ignorance a lot of these Discussions have been settled for example like for years now the idea that sex and gender are distinct things to be discussed Distinctly even if these categories are related to each other This has been established and brought up in like basically every field and format that these issues get talked about in so We have to re-litigate it time and time and time again, right? Well, are there differences between sex and gender? Yes, of course There are Because we create the words in the terms we create the ideas if we believe that there are two distinct things to be referred to Then there are that's how language works. You can distinguish words. That's the point of a language Languages become more useful the more specific their terms are After all and I think that an example of language being very Unspecific of language being very vague and useless would be one in which the term woman What does it mean to be a woman? What is a woman? What are categories or traits associated with woman is one which includes something as distinct concrete and Biological as genitalia or gametes, but also something as ephemeral and socially influenced as long hair Sun hats dresses piercings things that we absolutely Culturally associate with women but really have nothing to do with biology We just arbitrarily decided those things look nice on women and that's only now, you know There have been plenty of times in the past that we've had different ideas in those particular subjects So if language is to be useful, we have to acknowledge that we're talking about different things sex and gender Are trans men men? Well, I mean it depends on what you mean by man. What category are you referring to? I've seen a lot of people try to define what specifically it means to be a man or a woman in biological terms This fails quickly Not because there's no worth to biological analysis, but because again that would be talking about sex Obviously, we're playing different games here if we're talking about Man or woman as a social category, right? What definitions are we adhering to and you know, there's just Not a consistent set. You just you cannot come up with a consistent concrete defined and Reliable set of definitions to describe in a social sense what it means to be a man or a woman Without excluding people who you would otherwise consider to be a part of that group Or including people who you think shouldn't be a part of it. There's just no real way to do it Which is why I think that the entire concept is arbitrary and useless We refer to people as men and women because it can be socially useful. It can be a shorthand It can give you an idea of what to expect with them. What basic understandings or Premises or expectations you should bring to the table when talking to them But in terms of like rigidly trying to define in a concrete sense what it all means I think that an incredible amount of time has been wasted on this particular subject So until we decide to do away with the whole thing until we recognize that we really are wasting our time with these definitions Yeah, trans men or men trans women or women. I don't really care about the particulars If somebody wants to be treated a given way, I think they should be I really think when you say you're a man or a woman You're basically just saying here's like a general block of expectations that I want you to Keep in mind when engaging with me. This is a different set of social roles, you know Take these ones work with this It's not just about femininity or masculinity because femme boys aren't women and butch women aren't men you can want to bring a set of expectations to the table with gender and then Contradict or challenge them with uh non-conformist behavior. It's just a Part of the complexities behind social roles And the less time we spend worrying about them and the more time we spend trying to fix material problems I think we'll all be better off for it Thank you very much for that opening vosh and want to say folks if it's your first time here at modern day debate I'm your host james want to let you know We are a neutral debate platform hosting debates on science religion and politics We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from if you haven't yet Hit that subscribe button as we have plenty more debates coming up You don't want to miss out on them. So hit subscribe right now. We're gonna go over to sondi for her opening Thanks so much for being with us sondi the floor is all yours I can screen share. Yes Okay Thank you one second Whatever I'll do it like this Okay Hi, thank you so much for hosting this debate james. Thank you so much vosh for being here I'm really excited to talk with you today and today I will argue the case for the proposition that trans men are not men So before we get into it, I'll define a couple key terms. I'm sure vosh is familiar with these Just for the audience and just so we have a general understanding going into this debate So a transgender man is somebody who is assigned female at birth but who identifies as a man A cis gender man is a non-trans man So a person who is assigned male at birth and who also identifies as a man So what does why does trans man have man in the name? I've heard people make this argument that if it has man in the name, it's no different than saying tall man Or black man, but things like anti-truth have truth in the name yet. There are not truths So one thing to alleviate some confusion about this is many people in the literature refer to Trans men as trans identifying females that way we're clear about exactly what we're talking about And one more thing about why it's important to actually have this debate and to actually know what we're referring to and we refer to men Is because we have we use the term if we use a term we should know what we're referring to Otherwise, it's equivalent to just not understanding a different language If the word has no meaning then we should cease to use it And then it also is false that trans men are men if the word has no meaning But first I'll give a quick Um account for the biological view for other species. We have adult males and females We have lion bug rooster tiger, etc, etc So it'd be quite astounding if we didn't have any adult human males or any word to refer to adult human males for our own species Yet we would have them for a plethora of other species Clearly the word man is the best candidate for how to refer to adult human males. It's the ordinary use of the word It's generally most trans inclusive philosophers and activists agree that generally the term man and women are used refer to adult human males and females Under the social view of gender which sounds like something sort of vange kind of posited in the opening statement Someone is a man if and only if he exhibits the social cultural or behavioral traits typically associated with males, right? Something like something typically associated with females a guess according to law should be long haired sun hats dresses piercings things like that So I assume the opposite would be the case for men Things that we typically associate with them Another definition I've heard thrown around there is a man is somebody who encompasses the social archetype of a male So when these people are referring to men, they're referring to people who encompass this social archetype I think both of these definitions do not escape the objection of Feminine boy as wash mentioned earlier, but we can get more into that later in the debate This view is the self identification view. This view is very dominant in mainstream media nowadays Someone is a man if and only if he identifies as a man Obviously this I'm not the first one to say this is a viciously circular definition You don't obtain any feature in reality simply by identifying as having such And it's just a referent that's circular and uninformative ultimately Okay, and now I'll touch on the gendered brain view. This view has been floating around academia and the debate sphere I've heard a lot of people say transgender people have brains closer to the opposite sex or the sex that they Identify with and therefore their identity is valid The first thing I will note is that not all trans men do have brains closer to males And certain homosexual men may have brains closer to females and males yet we would say that they're so met So I would say that under the gendered brain view it would still be false that trans men are men Okay, and now we have the prescriptivist view the prescriptivist view I think fascia would touch on this too is that we ought to treat Trans men as men. Maybe to reduce harm increase happiness as a courtesy We ought to treat trans men. They want to be treated as men. So we should treat them as men One thing with this is that it conflates truth with utility, right? So it can be useful to lie to people sometimes like in the case of terminally ill patients Sometimes will lie to them about their chances of survival in order to increase utility increase their chance of survival increase their well-being So a lie can be useful But it has nothing to do with the proposition are trans men men Because it can both be true that trans men are not men and also be true that we ought to treat trans men like men These two statements are not mutually exclusive. So under the prescriptivist view It's still is false that trans men are men And I think that Ultimately any view that you take on what you're referring to when you refer to a man all of these different views It just ends up being true that not all trans men are men There's not a definition that can be 100% trans inclusive And that's a big problem with this debate is the special pleading and the gish calloping that happens when a definition or referent Is given counter examples and then people want to revert to something else But i'm excited to get into this debate, especially like the social worldview and thank you vosh and thank you james once again I'm ready to get started Thank you very much for that opening as well sondi We are going to jump into open conversation Just a couple of quick housekeeping type things folks one if you didn't know this modern day debate is available via podcast Find us on apple podcast spotify. You name it Check us out. It's 100% ad free What are you waiting for find us on your favorite podcast app right now We're going to jump into the open dialogue. Thank you very much vosh and sondi. The floor is all yours Of course, so we can take the irrelevant arguments off the table right off the bat I don't think that being feminine makes you a woman or masculine a man So the whole fem boy tom boy thing doesn't mean anything to me As for the pink blue brain argument, I also don't care about that I don't care a person can have the pinkest brain in the world and I could still call them a man And think of them as one if they asked me to and vice versa so with regards to the other things um Your truth and utility prescription argument is true in the sense that what is useful and what is true are not the same thing Of course, the ultimate problem is that when it comes to language and definitions. We actually get to decide what's true See, we're not doing math here. This isn't a two plus two equals five situation definitions Can be expanded or contracted to include different understandings of how the world works as our Enig's grow. So do our definitions This is then the case for basically every social construct We've ever had our understanding of what a biological female is purely biological Not even social has also adjusted with time. We're not simply looking at for example Um the the presence of genitalia as we might have in the past a deeper understanding of genetics and gametes Are now available when it comes to making these decisions So if one were to say then that a person who had not previously been considered a biological female now is due to a Deeper understanding of genetics. This would not be a utility versus truth argument We simply change what the truth is adjust our definition and get a better understanding of the world for it I think there is utility in referring to trans men as men purely force harm reduction purposes But I also think it's true. I think that in fact the reason there's utility in it is because it is true The only thing that I care about is the argument from self-identification I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I don't think it's circular It turns out most definitions if you get to the root of them are pretty impossible to nail down, right? You've probably heard of or maybe even seen the vsauce video. What is a chair? Turns out nobody can define what a chair is by nobody I don't mean not just internet people or people who do the debate circuit I mean nobody like it's not possible to because our understanding of a chair is so socially constructed It's a matter of what's useful to us Okay, so are you endorsing this self-identification view? I know you mentioned you don't see it as circular So a man could be somebody that identifies as a man Of course Okay, so I will address the argument from circularity first So while it is true that at a certain point we run out of words to describe things And this can be seen if you ask somebody well, what does that mean? Well, what does that mean? Well, what does that mean at a certain point? We run out of words and when we do run out of words what we do is we point to things within reality As we just start pointing to particulars Let me try to derive a universal like with triangles and we start pointing to acute obtuse triangles and trying to see what they have in common That is how we um take that idea Now the problem with saying a man is somebody who identifies as a man is that not only is it circular It's viciously circular because if somebody were to ask you vash, I mean is somebody who identifies as a man What is that? What is a man? I could point to myself I'm a man. I could point to other men. There are billions of them. I could point to lots of them I love point to get mad. Okay. So so if somebody asks you what is a man you I don't think you would need to point because you seem like we still have words left to give so If they were to point to two men like these are both man. What do they have in common? Would you do this with a chair? Um, I think we would do that with anything That's how we come up with categories is that we look at what things have in common But the the chair argument I would say I've heard a lot of trans activists say well If you can't define chair then we don't owe you a definition of man or woman And the first thing I would contest with that is well You're the one that made a claim about men and women when I never made a claim about a chair I never claimed a stool as a chair. I never claimed a bed as a chair Yet trans activists do claim that trans men and trans women weren't so when you do claim for the truth of something You do need to define it The second argument is that um, just because Something like a chair. It doesn't really have something that we give Um thought to if you're engaging in this debate or engaging in the gender discussion I'm gonna assume that people don't give thought to the gender thing either. I don't think it's particularly important But you're also making a claim. I could be out in the park I could point to the bench or maybe a bit of a stone outcropping that I could sit uncomfortably and say Ah a chair you could insist rigorously that it is not a chair That it is a bench or an outcropping or some other thing that is like but not like a chair And we could have an argument what a chair is the only consequence of this would be the calories We burn by yelling at each other It's a meaningless discussion because at the end of the day a chair is just a general term We have to describe a thing we sit on people's specific boundaries will expand or contract based on their preferences It's like arguing whether or not a pop tart is a sandwich. They're deliberately meaningless questions This is why I do not like the circularity argument definition in a purely like linguistic sense at the root of all things They're all circular We generalize a concept and the worth of a term is how specific an image we can evoke What does it mean how useful is it? But there's no truth value in any of these terms We make the terms if we want we could split the term chair into seven words Terms can have truth value like for example before humans came into existence for homo sapiens came into existence Do you think gravity existed? Well, sure Do you think the do you think gravity as a concept existed before the word gravity existed? Yes, we gave term to the concept. Yeah, so we just recognize that concept some force Among these large masses of objects and we put a word to it. That's with any concept But that's a concept first of the word itself Not created But that's a truth value to a universal concept not to the word the word gravity the truth If one were to say for example, no gravity can refer to this that the other but not to this particular phenomena Actually, gravity doesn't specifically refer to the way save matter interacts with dark matter or the way light bends around black holes We're going to re-term this it'll be a different word There would be no truth value with that because again We made the word gravity the fundamental universal concepts remain the same biological sex remains the same But experiential phenomena the way we term and define things We build those boundaries and when it comes to Especially when it comes to something that's defined relationally Socially like gender there is no discovery of gender our understanding of it has changed enormously over time and between cultures even today So the idea that we're discovering and giving name to some kind of fundamental truth is just not the case here we're all winging it and I don't think we should wing it in ways that are exclusionary or harmful if we are having A discussion on an arbitrary concept. We should lean towards ones which give greater understanding and lesser harm Yes, so with the man is somebody who identifies as a man lessening harm or whatnot I would still argue that when you say a man is somebody who identifies as a man or any time Anybody ever uses a word in the definition it leads to an infinite regress Whereas if we don't have words at all like say we both couldn't speak or communicate We would still have our senses to point to things So that's discreet right at a certain point all you can do is discreetly point to things Whereas if you define a man as somebody who identifies as a man who identifies as a man who identifies as man It ends up being infinite. There's no way to ever come to a close there. This doesn't mean anything What does it mean to be cool? See you can find synonyms for what it means to be cool You can find lots of them in fact But in reality at the end of the day We all learn what it means to be cool by being shown examples And despite that the examples were shown are the highest level of arbitrarity What was cool 50 years ago is not cool today and what is cool now will not be cool 10 years from now So we're talking about a concept coolness Which everyone has some understanding of which exists all over the world Which is fully social and which can be referred to only through direct example I don't like see there's infinite regress thing. This is something that I did not learn from reading linguistics But I did learn from the internet debate pro circuit I think this is just a weasley way of trying to apply to trans identification A greater standard for justification than exists for any other term or concept because I just don't think that we do this for Other things the infinite regress of coolness. Who cares nerd? What's cool is cool Yeah, so which what other word besides man and woman do you define we use the word in the definition Use the word in the definition. What do you mean? You said a man is somebody who identifies as a man Which uses the word man in the definition of man So what other words besides man and women do we use to define themselves? We could just say like a man is somebody who identifies with the gender role associated with masculine behavior But not exclusively if you want to like avoid the word man That is purely a semantic argument Okay Because I can construct an infinite number of definitions for man that adhere to my understanding of what a man is Without actually using the word man. That's just a word game But if you talk about like how much are we actually advancing our understanding of the concept? Well, whether or not you have synonyms because cool has many synonyms They're only synonyms and a synonym does not give you an understanding of a word, right? Like you don't learn what cool is by learning what the term rad means And because when you read the definition for rad, it's like oh rad. Oh, that means that's something sick Well, we're not learning anything. We're just finding extra words here Would you say that something is cool if it identifies as cool? Um, if it's identified to be cool, then certainly identified or identifying Well, something can't identify as cool because coolness is a concept not a person So it would have to be identified from outside Yeah, I think that's this comes into my other thing like there's no feature of reality You obtain simply by identifying as having such so I don't know why this thing wouldn't be true for man But that's not the infinite regress argument Now we're talking about whether or not self-identification is a valid metric for social claims But infinite regress is something that would apply to the term cool as well because outside the description of synonyms You kind of have to just point to real life examples. Well, is it cool? I think we identify things as cool if we show some type of enthusiasm or Friendliness towards it towards the noun, then we call it cool. That's not what cool means and you know it I think that's like the literal definition Being enthusiastic. Oh, I mean, I can check really quick, but I think that's actually the definition Wait, wait, do you think that people use the term cool by looking up the definition of cool and going? Oh Well, I mean, I can look really cool. Yeah Enthusiasm just means that it brings you some type of amazing sense It doesn't have to be like enthusiasm in the way that you're describing it When you describe something as cool, you just have a preference towards it. You like it But liking something and it being cool are not even remotely the same thing and anyone who uses the English That's why I defined it as having friendliness or enthusiasm towards a noun That Also, isn't really how we use towards a noun. What do you mean? Like now this person plays sting idea So like wait thinking that like liking a thing would mean that thing is cool. Yeah, you could call it that Absolutely. Um, if you like a water bottle that water bottle is cool. Do you Do you really think that's how people like people's understanding of the term cool is just a sit in him for when they like a thing I I didn't just say when they like a thing. I said when they show enthusiasm towards a noun Show enthusiasm. Can you give me a can you give me a counter example? Uh, sure. Absolutely. We can acknowledge that things or people are cool despite not liking them Like the cool kids in school who we actually quite dislike because they're unapproachable and standoffish We can say that things are cool even though it's an act and like the act is not something you personally enjoy Like I think that skateboarding is cool and a kind of like post ironic like sunset overdrive Wow, look at how hard you're trying sort of way But I have no personal affinity for it and find skateboarders quite annoying actually What is a risen cool is an incredibly see the interesting thing here And I think that anyone watching will understand that when they think of the term cool it goes beyond, you know liking a thing um Is that by trying to concretely define coolness all you've done is robbed it of its coolness you've taken a worthwhile and useful English term and you've crippled it in a In a An attempt to bring it in line with the absurd standards you hold for gender definitions In reality, if you were to similarly cripple every word of the English language, we would all be dead men There would be no Shakespeare We would all be limping like zombies through the streets The fact that these words are fluid that they have meanings and definitions that we kind of Pick up on and pull and twist and play with that's not only English that's literature and To have all of that wiped aside and going no A man has to be no it can't be regressed. It has to have this specific definition We don't we don't apply these standards to anything outside of scientific technical definitions Like what grain of soil constitutes an acceptable range for like apartment construction stuff that we decide the boundaries for We don't do this narratively Um, I would say like with cool. We don't define something that's cool if it's called cool Now to make the use mention distinction a little bit clearer cool must refer to something Right, maybe it's maybe it's not something we like Maybe it's just something that we attribute to something other people like either way Notice how when I said that I didn't use the word cool because using the word in the referent creates an uninformative definition See, we're dead men right now. This is death. You're killing cool right now. It's a murder and this is evidence for the police No, no, no, I no, I no, I mean it We can move off of it if you want but like no, but I mean it though Like I don't think you believe what you're saying right because like here You know what's cool in american culture black people AA ve slang that black queer people come up with that gets taken by black women That gets taken by white women that gets taken by white gays that gets brought into the general public But american culture broadly doesn't find black people or black behavior cool in fact hegemonic american culture is mostly committed towards Um attacking black culture ghetto culture their fashion their aesthetic their way of speaking and then 10 years later Everything they were doing becomes mainstream. So there's something counter-cultural about coolness something has to be Brave daring it has to be evocative. It can't just be likable likability likability is mr. Rogers Mr. Rogers is cool in the same way that's fine It still doesn't mean cool is something that identifies as cool. She'll do that is said that is cool Well, i'm only talking about the infinite regress argument not the identification argument. That's a separate thing infinite regress Comes with using the word in the reference. So a woman is somebody who identifies as a woman A man is somebody who identifies as a man something that is cool. It's something that people prescribe is cool Something that's cool is something that's cool. I don't think you're going to find a better definition than that And trust me linguistics. I mean linguists have tried you can find papers on this stuff These are not ideas that can be baked into a single definition. Do you think that like murder could be called cool? Absolutely. Yeah, there are tons of go read history. There are some metal goddamn murders that have happened throughout history Yeah, they killed Julia Caesar 57 people stabbing them all at once. I don't know that seems kind of cool and countercultural. Hell, yeah So I think maybe you Show enthusiasm towards that idea and concept, but many others don't and that's the way we define it But there are lots of things that I think are cool that I don't like for example The Hugo boss Nazi uniforms are widely regarded as being fashionable in the whole like evil sith dark empire black leather Kind of thing. I don't find Nazis even remotely cool. If anything, that's more like a cosplay. That's larping is cool That's like, uh, how do we make our horrible death soldiers look cool? But an effort was made right? There's a reason they paid out for those leather uniforms Yeah, so back to kind of what I was saying though Would you say that like the definition of man when you say a man is somebody who identifies as a man? And if you were to ask you what a man is Would you be able to like give us any type of any type of thing? Well, I could point to myself. I'm a man How do you know? Because I identify as one of course So you know that people are men and women based off that they tell you that they're a man? How else would you know what's going on in their brain? I have to use the same mode of inference to ask lots of things about a person So, um, take something like somebody a biological male by looking at me Take um, somebody that doesn't speak English for example if they don't I say the words I am a man How do you know that they're a man because one implication of this definition of this a man is somebody who identifies as a man Is that manhood is confined to English speakers or no non-English speaking men Of course, they're non-English speaking men. We have don't identify as men Yes, but they have analogous understandings of gender considering that we have man as a gender to just be The collection of social rules and expectations There's there's the non circular definition a collection of rules and things that we associate with the male sex That's well, that's well, that's just what it is We understand a man to be but you don't have to adhere to those rules to be a man And in fact, we don't there are plenty of like metaresexual or effeminate men who we consider to be part of the social category of men Despite I don't know doing their fancy pants makeup stuff, right? So that definition fails How does that definition because then you commit a special pleading policy? If you say that a man is somebody who encompasses these traits that we typically associate with males, then you say I didn't say that Oh, I thought excuse me. I thought you said that they Encompass these roles or whatnot. No, it's associated with those roles, but they don't have to encompass them There are fem boys and tom boys, right? Like there are a lot of your What was your referent for when you refer to men? What are you referring to? I think that when man as a gender category as something that we Understand or have built for people to identify with or not identify with Is just the roles and expectations Associated with the male sex. That's not a universal thing Well, no, but that's just a set of associations. You can choose whether or not you want to be a part of that group Yeah, so what makes you a man? identifying as part of that group part of what group The one that I just described the the social role thing Right. If man is a collection of roles and expectations associated with the male sex It's like a filter through which you view a person. It's a lens of analysis It's a decision to identify as one because it gives you a perspective I said interview a man is somebody who identifies or maybe encompasses the social roles We typically associate with males. Is that not correct? I think you identify with a set of roles and expectations, but that doesn't mean you adhere to them For example, that's fine. That's fine. I can accept it. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So so under this view It's still false that trans men are men because there's plenty of trans men who do not identify with the social roles and expectations Typically associated with males. Oh, they do by identifying as men That's that's circular No, so we've already done Okay, man is just the collection of okay. It's like okay. It's like being an american. All right So I'm an american in a purely national sense. I was born here But when we say is this person an american we mean more than just what is their nationality often american? It's like a melting pot spirit kind of thing. You know, are you really an american? But what does that mean? Well, what does it mean to be an american? It turns out no one human can meet every category for what it means to be an american because there are so many americas People in the south the northeast the northwest the southwest the center the rust belt They're all gonna have different ideas of what it means to be an american So when a person says like yeah, i'm an american even though they're say like a two-year immigrant or something not even a citizen I'll listen to them But for me, it's more of a general spirit thing. They're saying i'm an american because they They want to be a part of that category not because they want to adhere to every individual Expectation within the category because that's not possible Okay, so that's a little bit. I'll take really good When you say a man a man is somebody who identifies as a man and then I ask you Well, what is a man since you used it in the referent? You say a man is somebody who encompasses or identifies with I guess identifies with is better if I understood Identifies with um these social roles and expectations. We typically associate with males, right? Is that a fair characterization? I think that man like american is a social block It's a big heavy gravitational force that you can enter the orbit of if you choose to I think that there are a lot of things that you might do or see or want to be in that orbit That you might may or may not identify with that you may consider to be a part of your experience But it's something you're in the orbit of and you can choose to break that orbit with an american I consider myself an american because there are some categories that I adhere to some beliefs that I have that I consider fundamentally american but not all and as for men, right? They're like I don't like wearing cowboy hats But I swear to god you go to a third of the men in the south of this country And they'll tell you that owning a cowboy hat is a fundamental part of being a man You ever seen those memes of like the you know the like um big saddle no Ox or whatever you'd like those southern art is your boyfriend a woman memes were like, you know If your boyfriend goes down to the range and he brings a 22 Then it looks like you've got a girlfriend missed like that kind of shit Obviously, that's not the kind of vibe. I'm going for but you know, it is the same Gravitational I still feel like we're not getting a clear answer though because oh you never will no, that's your problem You're trying to get a clear answer on a social construct. You get nobody could do that When you refer to men, what are you referring to? I'm referring to the people who make the decision to orbit around that idea that concept to be a part of that That block Okay, so people that make that choose to orbit around this concept and if I understand correctly this concept is What we typically associate with males in terms of roles and expectations though people obviously um You know break with those traditions quite a bit while still being man Yeah, and under this view not all trans men are men because a lot of trans men don't identify with those expectations And they don't have in this orbit as you would put it Well, you only have to identify as being a man Identifying as a man is Then you're shifting between the two definitions because which one it can be hold on It can be either or but it cannot be like both Okay, so like would you say that a man is somebody who identifies as a man? Or would you say a man is somebody who wants to orbit around these social roles? Those are the same thing Those are not the same thing because people can identify as men but not want to orbit around these social roles No, but orbit around but like like I said, I am a man, but I don't adhere to every social role expected of men It's not even possible for me Yeah, but you you orbit and some people don't even want to orbit No, but so by orbiting I mean like you are when you say I'm a man You're choosing to enter that orbit This is the collection of roles and expectations that you want to define your experience around I disagree plenty of people that identify as men or how even people that identify as women Do not want to orbit around these traits associated with their preferred sex. No, no, no by orbit around I mean that it's the framework through which you want to engage with and even defy these traits So to give you an example, okay being willful being um Argumentative or stubborn means different things when you're a man and a woman I can be argumentative and stubborn with very few social consequences women can't and throughout history It's been worse for them in this regard Now there are plenty of argumentative and stubborn women willful women hysterical women whatever they've made a lot of history That's great for them But if you were to take in just this one sliver this facet of what it means to be a man or a woman You can be a woman and be willful and then your willfulness Even though it is not a feminine trait in the socially expected sense is now understood differently because you're a woman A person can be a man say a fem boy and be very feminine But femininity is different when you identify as a man that is when you identify as a woman The roles and expectations are differently A good example would be women's femininity while often sexualized is not innately sexual Right like a woman can be feminine and present as such and be treated normally But not as often as they would like to be but it's possible Fem boys on the other hand, that's practically a porn term That's like a category on hentai sites because femininity when projected from someone who identifies as a man Very different, but that's different from trans women Trans women if you were going by a biological essentialist argument aren't that different from fem boys and obviously the porn sites Can flake the two but that's their problem not mine But the expectations between the two are very different because there's something about being feminine While being a man that confers a certain set of expectations. So what I mean to say by all of this is There are different expectations associated with People who feel that they're female versus people that feel of their male I can agree to that that still makes it false that all trans men are men under this account because plenty of trans men Just by calling themselves men they do not want to adhere to these Traits and expectations. We have typically associated. They don't have to adhere But they're in the and and they don't identify with them and they don't want to orbit with them So under your view not all trans men are men. They are orbiting with them because they're engaging with the context by which They'll be judged in relation to those expectations. Even if they openly say I do not want anything to do with this. I do not identify with this I do not like this nothing to do with it then by your logic unless they're lying and misguided They would have to be not a man. No, they adopt the orbit and then they reject the characteristics same as me I am an American. I accept that term and everything that it implies But I fervently reject elements of what it means to be an American I will say I'm an American But I want nothing to do with and then I complain about a bunch of stuff like a communist would Yeah, so when you say adopt the orbit, you mean just by calling themselves a man They have agreed to be associated with all of these different things It's like an analytical framework We can we can remove ourselves from it entirely being non-binary But um, if you are to be a man or a woman if you say I am this or that You are entering yourself and you might not like all of it But that is what it means to call yourself a woman if a trans woman calls themselves a woman or a trans man a man They know what they're signing up for there will be expectations placed on them that are new and scary and often A lot of them don't associate their manhood with those expectations They may call themselves men for different reasons, but do not orbit around identify with those types of things So under this view it's still false and I don't that I don't like I don't like cowboy hats and yet I'm an American man So I reject those categories those expectations Cowboy hats are both American and male. Okay, so when you're okay, let's just engage with this when you say you're an American What what does that mean to you? That's a complicated question. I like the theoretical values Associated with this country's identity as a melting pot. They're not true values, but I like the theoretical values Okay, and I have a strong cultural tie to a lot of the stuff this country has to offer Okay, so you like these um values of like a melting pot You like these cultural identities that the country has to offer but Some of them and I do hate whatever ones you like Um, but can people be Americans without liking those things? Of course Perfect then when you refer to an American you are not referring to people who want the melting pot or etc You're referring to something else and that's the same problem. We're having in this today referring to a vibe a vibe That's absolutely what it needs to be an American. Yeah. Is that what you're saying for manhood too though? Well, yeah, it's a social category a vibe is about as close of a term you're going to get in terms of synonyms It's a analytical framework. It's a set of expectations It's a um a lens you view the world through a color It's a it's a something that tints it shapes it shades And you can choose to look at things differently once you're there, but yeah, I really do think that's what it means I think that's what you do as well by the way I think that you may take your womanhood for granted as I take my manhood for granted because I was born into it I didn't have to fight for it, but I think that when I think of myself as a guy and you as a woman I presume I can't see your brain state We want some things associated with Well, it means to be a man and woman respectively and we don't want other things But what we want on the whole is an aggregate is to be understood in the context of man or womanhood And I think that we make that choice too What does what is the vibe of manhood that all trans men associate themselves with? Well, all trans men associate themselves with being a man the vibe is a which is what complicated and It's the set of expectations roles and associations with the middle sex Not all trans men identify with those set of roles expectations associated with the male sex But they identify with being men, which means and this is a problem Those are things are not mostly mutually exclusive You can identify as a man and you can also not identify with um the social roles and expectations associated with men But we can do that with america And that's the confusion we're having because you think we can do that when they don't Can't can we not do that with american? There are plenty of ways in which I reject american behavior and american Social expectations and yet in spite of that I consider myself an american. There's no single Definitional point I could like gesture at to prove whether or not i'm an american in a social or cultural sense, right? What does it mean to say be? Culturally american what does it mean to be culturally white or black mixed race people struggle with this? The answer is that there is no answer There are expectations and roles a person who is half white and half black Or maybe a quarter black three quarters white because of skin tones and pigmentation and the one drop rule that people still adhere to for some reason We should not have racial expectations though just to clarify. Oh, I agree. I don't think we should have sexual expectations Do you think we should have gendered expectations? I don't think we should have any kind of expectation for any of these things Is like would you define race based on the expectations of the races? Well, yeah, we already do White latin people for example, uh, depending on how dark your skin tone is or whether or not you speak with an accent There are plenty of latin people and even like black people descendants wise who are white passing Kamala harris, uh, is um, look what half black have indian or something Yeah, but she gets treated black obama gets treated black But I grew up around latin people who spoke spanish with an like with a thick accent They spoke english, but they were white like skin tone wise so they get treated white But obviously our definition of race is how are you relating this to man? Just curious In the sense that all of it's complete bullshit There are expectations we have for what it means to be this that the other I really don't think we're doing anything other than a framework by which we're meant to be understood Even if that understanding is in service of rejecting everything associated with it I think that a trans man can identify as a man and then reject everything about manhood and have fat titties God bless You're referring to no, no not at all It is Like even just deductively if we were to walk through this in a syllogistic format It would result in a special pleading fallacy because you said a man is someone who identifies as a man Then I was like, oh, well, what is a man? And then you were like somebody who identifies with the social characteristics that we associate with males No, no only identifies With being man the characteristics themselves You didn't say that second part They identify with the broader group the categorization but not the individual characteristics. They could reject everything about the social like Yeah, the broad yes, it's not individual if it's social Um, but yeah, so they identify with the social um traits that we associate with males, right? But I think it is false It is notably false that just because you identify with them as a man you identify with these social characteristics of a male Okay, let me give you an example here Okay, so I consider myself an american now. Let's say I had a time machine. I traveled back to um 1804 in america, right and uh, I I I step out of the time machine Okay, I step into say, uh, I don't know some southern state I have a backpack full of ammunition and weapons that won't be invented for 200 years and I have a judge dread Runt of a time across the south. Okay. I'm imitating Sherman. I'm having a grand old time I'm john browning my way through the countryside Screaming about how I'm an american this that the other now In the time period that I'm in right there and honest to god in most of the south today All the traits that I consider being american have nothing to do with what they understand as being american Initially, the founding fathers were so racist. They thought that germans were too swarvig for the anglo characteristic of the colonies so A characteristic like a a a role a trait. I'm an american That's something that I ascribed to myself But at the same time I could exist in a context where I've reject basically everything associated with that trait with that role for the same reason that there are women Even cisgender women who have historically rejected everything about it. Joan of arc or I don't know Mulan Because they identify as okay, so the problem with this circularity again If I were to tell you a blarg is somebody who identifies as a blarg. Can you tell me what that is? I wouldn't why why would I have to tell you what that is you just told okay? Or if I were to say this on your screen right now as far as I can see there is a blarg. Can you point to it? You made the term. How would I be able to point to it? No, I defined it for you. I said a blarg is something That's a blarg Okay, so Oh, I just defined it so again Oh So what you just said was really dumb a man is someone who identifies a man I'm a man now point to the man on your screen. Okay. Now that that was my question though on your screen It's not that hard right because I've done somewhere I constructed a definition and then I pointed to who what a representation of that is Okay, so in order to create a definition All you have to do is make it circular and then point to an example of it But the problem with that is we don't know what it is. You can literally you can literally do that We we create new words all the time doing exactly this. Oh, this is such a vibe. What's a vibe This is a vibe. Oh, hey, I've now decided here's a new term doobles a doobles like when it's like this It's like like these kind of things, you know like this kind of stuff. Well, there you go We do what we do. This is language. We do this literally all the time I'm not like this sounds facetious, but like we do this constantly new Music genres are invented like this non-stop Yeah, but words get codified if I if I were to say a blog is somebody who identifies as a blog Then I pointed at myself and James and I said we're both blogs. Can you tell me what it is now? Why would I need to know what it is? Someone who identifies based on the information that I gave you can you tell me what that word refers to? you Me and James What? Wait, this is just crazy, because you, wait, hold on, because there's a difference between an example and the actual referring of the word. Like, this can be an example of a triangle without it being the definition of a triangle. What you're mad about is that this definition doesn't seem very useful. There's nothing wrong with what just happened. You said, a blark is when someone identifies as one. I identify as a blark. I now know everything I need to. You're a blark. That's it. That literally, there's literally nothing wrong. There's no problem with circularity. Language exists this way. This is normal. The question is, is this definition useful? Right. You're talking about utility and, hey, I agree. I'm a gender abolitionist. I don't give a shit about gender. So if we could just get rid of all of this and not bother with it, that would be phenomenal. But in the meantime, as long as we have a bunch of arbitrary associations around like what it means to be a man or a woman, a bunch of widely held expectations, mind you, about what it means to be a man or a woman, then people are going to have preferences for which group they want to associate with. And as long as they want them, I'm fine with it. If the word has no meaning, the trans men aren't men. The same way, I can't say a water bottle. And you aren't a woman. Wait, hold on. The same way, I can't say that a water bottle is a blark, because we don't really know what a blark is. A blark has no meaning. You can't say that. So, hold on. Wait, then we would need to know what it means. What is- No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Wait, hold on. What property- No, you just said it. Yes, we do. Yes, we do. Because, for example, me, James, water bottle, these things are all blarks. What is the property that they have in common? I don't know. I don't care. Wait, why- Okay, and that's the same problem with the definition of a man. Wait, no. Again, you're attacking utility. First of all, things that all belong to a group or to a term, don't have to have- No, it's not utility. Uninformative has to refer to- That's utility. That's a fallacy. That's a fallacy. No. No, no, no. It's not a fallacy. Don't misuse the term fallacy. No, it is. No, no, no, please. Please, no, no, no, stop. Wait, stop. Please. Wait, no, no, no. Listen. What you're just describing right now are useless terms. You're describing terms that don't provide meaning. They don't elucidate. They don't give you understanding. That's fine. There are lots of words like that. That's what a contradiction is. Like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, please, please, no, you need to understand this. If you ever- Because you're going to be showing this PowerPoint off to like 70 more people and they're all going to tell you this and you need to learn now, okay? Language does not give you a right to utility. Usefulness, consistency, broadly shared terms between things within a same definition. Language guarantees none of these things. I don't know why. I don't know where this misunderstanding of linguistics came from. If you want, you can read like the big theorists that understand that they're basically throwing their arms up in the air, going, we have no fucking clue how language works. None of this works this way. Like, you have to read Wittgenstein or something. The idea of like, well, it's a fallacy to have a term that refers to a thing when you don't know that- No, it's not. That's not what a fallacy means. A fallacy- Can I give you an example? Wait, no. A fallacy is a logical contradiction. When you say a blarg is this, these are blargs, and leave it at that, you have not constructed a logical contradiction. You have actually created a perfectly consistent and self-contained bubble of information. It's just useless info. Can I give you an example? So if we had a squared circle, can you envision a squared circle? So again, square and circle have mutually exclusive- Well, first of all, you can- Correct. It's a contradiction. Something can't be both square and both circle at the same time, because it violates the logical law of non-contradiction. Well, that would really- If I were to tell somebody, if I were to tell somebody envision a squared circle, they would always never be able to do it because it's a contradiction. Right? Hold on. And that is what renders that uninformative. You're incorrect. And that's why we have the fallacy of non-contradiction. I have googled squared circle and found multiple definitions. It can refer to a boxing ring. You can have a circle enclosed with no square. That's not what I'm referring to. You could have asked for clarification. Oh, well, that's interesting. It's almost like language is an imperfect way of referring to real world ideas and your attempts to try to apply a kind of failed logical consistency onto these arbitrary social categories is kind of stupid and self-defeating. You can have a squared circle. I'm envisioning it now. You can't see it by mind because, you know- Okay, you can drive, but can you envision a shape that has four equal 90-degree angle sides of square and also simultaneously is a round plane with a 360-degree angle? Like that is not possible because it violates the law of non-contradiction. They have mutually exclusive definitions. Correct. They have mutually exclusive definitions. So if I were to tell somebody and gave them that background envision a squared circle, they'd never be able to do it. It's uninformative. So what does that have to do with- The same applies- Wait, hold on. The same would apply to man. The same applies to man. If you say somebody who identifies as a man and I say, what's that? Somebody who identifies as a man, social stuff doesn't have to work. So identifies as a man, then it would be the same with the bar I gave. No, wait, hold on. You have no idea what you're talking about. Okay, so let me explain this to you. When we talk about a square and a circle having mutually contradictory definitions, the reason for that is because we are assuming that the definition for both those things adheres to the mathematical description of a square and a circle. Both of these terms have mathematical descriptions. If you were to twist those definitions, then you could create a squared circle with any set of categories, characteristics, or non-literal meanings. But again, we're referring to physical mathematical constructions. To try to ascribe the law of non-contradiction as applied in this case to social categories, betrays, and just, I'm not going to- I'm not going to- Plagic is universally applied. No, no, no, no. You don't understand what a social category is. You were unable to- Plagic is universally applied. No, no, no. It's applied to social categories. It's applied science. This is like one-on-one stuff. This is like an economist talking about like supply to- I don't know. Like the first thing I hear every time I take a philosophy class is that logic is universal. No, no, stop. Logic is universal, but the logic of social constructs and concretely defined mathematical categories are different. This is the reason why nobody has a definition for what it means to be black. You can look if you want, by the way. There are philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, and biologists who have all gotten on the case. There's no answer to it. We also don't have an answer for what it means exactly to be biologically male or female. Because there are exceptions in intersex people, where the gametes may be in an interstitial point where it's impossible to concretely determine this. In reality, outside of the abstract definitions of mathematics, everything and all logic is conditional to our circumstantial analysis of the situation. That's just how life is. Especially with language, where we make the words. None of this has anything to do with the definition of man. You propose two mutually contradictory concepts. No, I have not. You just haven't understood the concept. A man is somebody who identifies as a man, and then a man is somebody who identifies with the social world we typically associate with males. These two don't have to be true at the same time. Being a man is looking at the world and being viewed through a given framework associated with those roles and expectations. Now you're changing it. Do you understand that? Because you even talked about an internal perception before. I've said this about a dozen times. I'm going to say it one more time. There are roles and expectations we associate with being a man. They change from culture to culture, time period to time period. That is what we think of as a man in a social sense. We have strong understandings of this, by the way. Short hair, lack of piercing type of clothing, how you act, how you treat people. These are social things, not biological, but we believe them strongly nonetheless. And they're different here than they are in Saudi Arabia, India, and Russia, or all over the world. And when a person identifies as a man, or is told they're a man and just goes along with it, as many people do, most people are cisgender, that's because they choose to, or simply are, engaging with that perspective. Imagine it as like, I'm trying to boil this down to the most reddit brain thing that I can, like a class in an RPG or something, right? A class in an open-ended RPG. We're playing that one game that's Diablo but not. What is it called? Path of Exile, okay? Everyone gets the same skill tree, okay? Anyone can build into anything, all right? However, you're choosing to engage with the world from the framework of the class that you got into from the get-go. There are sets and frameworks and decisions, like being an American, right? Like, I'm an American, but what does that mean? I don't know. Nobody knows what it means to be an American in a social sense, but that doesn't mean that it's useless to think of people as Americans because people might have different meanings, different understandings. And that's why this isn't useless. We do have preconceptions of what it means to be a man, different ones, contradictory ones, but they still exist. And when a person says, I identify as a man. Do you think they should adopt contradictions? Logic, if we can agree it's a logical contradiction, do you think it can be a contradiction? No, it's not a logical contradiction. You just said contradiction. No, okay, no, no, see, this is your problem. You're trying to apply a 101 understanding of logic. This is a contradiction in definition, which is not a logical contradiction. Which is a reference. Okay, hold on, hold on. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on, hold on, no, no, no, no, stop. Are you aware of the fact that different cultures have contradictory definitions of what it means to be a man in terms of like socially? Like, are you a man? Like that kind of thing. People refer to different things, but when I'm saying, for example, I will say, when I refer to a triangle, I'm referring to a three-sided- We're talking about social constructs, not distinct mathematical abstract concepts. What is a social construct? I really wish you would have Googled that before talking to me. I really think I understand how most people use the term, but I want clarification. Because as far as I'm concerned, under your framework, every single word is socially constructed. Is it not? Yes. Perfect. Now let me, now let me continue. Did we not invent the word triangle? No, the concept of a triangle is not socially constructed. The term we created for it is. The concept of a man is not socially constructed. The term is. Now define what that concept is. No, incorrect. That's what a social construct is. A triangle is not a social construct. Our understanding of it is, and certainly the word for it, a man is a social construct, and the word we've constructed for it is as well. That's the difference between a social construct. So you didn't answer what a social construct was and the way you're using it. No, but you don't even know what they are. Listen, a triangle, the concept, the mathematical concept of a three-sided, three-angled polygon or whatever, not a polygon shape. That is a, it is an abstract thing that exists in the ether, that we pluck from the universe and we give a word to. The word triangle has not always had the same definition and doesn't currently. There are multiple social definitions for the word triangle that don't actually refer to a mathematical property. You could, like, there are words for triangle that are direct translations from other languages that refer to like a menage-tois or like a three-way or something like that. What is the social con, the distinction again? Like, what's the social construct? That man can't be something that's identified within reality? A social construct is a concept that we have defined socially but is not emergent from the universe. It is something that we have built. It is something that understandings have shifted because they are a product of our mind and our perception. Everything, well, not everything, but most everything we deal with on a day-to-day basis is to some extent a social construct. And the question is, to what extent do we like, is empirical engagement like valuable here? We used to think empirical engagement was very valuable when it came to race. This was the, like, phrenology, skull-measuring whole business, right? Well, we know that race exists in a social construct but social constructs aren't necessarily completely detached from, say, innate mathematical properties. So let's analyze these skull shapes. Scientific racism had a good heyday for about 150 years but at the end of it now with our current understanding, it seems like race was, yeah, pretty much just a social construct. It wasn't actually tied that much to a mathematical understanding of what it means to be white or black. Okay, so when we, when you say a social construct, if I understood correctly, it's a concept that we define socially that is not emergent from the universe. Yeah, like, we don't pluck the definition or the understanding of this thing from some kind of abstract. Well, then this gets into this problem. Do you think that men and women existed before homo sapiens developed complex language? The social construct of what it means to be a man or a woman in a gendered sense? No, of course not. So there were no men and women prior to the Western linguistic development? Wait, but before the word man and woman? Yeah, were there men and women before the word ban and women? Yeah, there have been analogous terms to those in previous languages. Okay, so then it seems that they are emergent still from... No, no, that's not, wait, no, that's not emergent from the universe. That's different languages giving different terms to the same fundamental, like, part of... What does emergent from... Are humans not emergent from the universe? Oh, oh, God. No, do you understand the difference between a triangle, something that you can arrive at from first principles and what it means to be a man, something that you arrive at through observation and explanation? I think all concepts are that which exist within reality. Okay, sir. So can you... Can you define... You're engaging in... Wait, hold on. How is a man, how is a human man not emergent from the universe? So what you're doing here is called scientific positivism. That's something you should write down to look up in the future. There was a philosophical movement about 200 or so years ago that's mostly died down that was under the impression that the laws and principles of scientific analysis were capable of solving all human problems because everything we are and everything we do adheres ultimately to scientific principles. They were wrong. They were actually deeply racist lunatics who believe that all of their pre-existing social biases were just them understanding the material thread of reality. In reality, most social stuff is done through social work. Sociology, anthropology, history, interpretation, analysis, economics, political theory. The idea that, say, for example, communism is plucked from the threads of the universe simply not true. It's a product of human understanding, a subjective, partial, human understanding within the universe is consciousness. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Everything is within the universe. Is it, did it emerge from the universe? From first principles? Something like consciousness. So you're misunderstanding these terms. No, I'm not. We don't understand what consciousness is. What do you mean when you say emerged from the universe? As far as I'm concerned, everything emerged from the universe. Okay. If something's definition is self-evidently a product of the systems that have been used to construct it, that is to say like a triangle, like mathematical and scientific theories like gravity, like our understanding of atomic structures and molecular structures, these things are to some extent subject to our social interpretation, but we're mostly just observing and giving names to the universe. With things like what a man is, we made that. What a man is would die with our species. A triangle with not. There are plenty of things that we take for granted in the day-to-day that if the earth was annihilated in a nuclear hellfire, would not reemerge. It's a triangle. Okay, so, okay, I actually, so the concept of man, if humans were to go extinct, extinct, that would die. But this gets into the implication of like, do you think the word human or homo sapien is a social construct too? Yeah, yeah. Our difference in species differentiation is one. Taxonomy? Yeah, that is 100% socially determined. There are literally arguments within the field of taxonomy, or taxonomy, whether or not like two species should be considered the same or not. Like this is ongoing debate. Yeah, I mean, I agree with that, but clearly it's not a social construct. It's very a scientist, trying to... No, it's literally a social construct where they're arguing over whether or not it would be more or less useful to us, socially. Socially to separate these definitions. It is literally a social construct. Okay, so when you say like a man is a social construct, what do you mean by that? I mean that these are things... We made it. We're not pulling this from the universe. We're not arriving at it from first principles. We get to choose what it is. We choose the terms. Taxonomists get to decide whether or not a red flying squirrel and a beige flying squirrel are the same species. And we get to decide what a man is. These terms, there's no harm in making a wrong decision. You can't make a wrong decision. What a man is is different here than it is in Mexico. I mean, that's just south of the border, right? But they're not wrong. Male. Do you think male is socially constructed? Yeah, of course. Like I said, we don't actually know... Male, not man. M-A-L-E. Yeah, we don't actually know where the exact line is because there's not really a way to know. It's kind of a spectrum. Interesting. There's an American scientific article that discusses this. Before humans came into existence, were there males and females? The spectrum exists for mammals and most living things. And it's not a social construct. No, no. The terms we've given are, though. All words are socially constructed. Yes. That's not how you're using social construct. So if you're asking, is there like an objective biological like male or female gametes? Even that very species to species. So you could argue that's not a social construct in a human sense. But did males and females exist? Whatever, however you may determine that. Before we had the word male and females, did males and females exist? In terms of like the inseminator and the inseminatee, like this process, this biological archetype existed before we gave term to it. Absolutely. Okay, so then it's not a social construct. It's a concept we identified. Okay, but where we draw the line between male and female is, because throughout all of the existence of species on this planet, there have also been genetic anomalies that do not concretely fit within the male-female dichotomy. This continues with our species today. So while the process of reproduction through male, female, mammalian, whatever, right, that's been going on for a long time. To look at that and go, ah, yes, there are two distinct categories. That's an us thing. That's an our brain thing. That's not a universe thing. We did that. Yeah, so I'd say we make the words to refer to the phenomena, right? So we made the word male to refer to something. And here we're talking about man to refer to some phenomena. So when we- We put boxes on the real world. We create the categories. And categories are definitionally social constructs. A thing may exist in reality, but are going over to a go. Yeah, I think we agree here because we both agree gravity existed before the word gravity existed. Yeah, of course. But that's- Yeah, so it's something like that, right? So like with the term man, when we say man, what phenomena are we referring to? Or referring to a social phenomenon. Of? Of the traits, roles, and expectations that we generally associate with, the identity associated with all of those traits, roles, and expectations. But that's not correct because you still would refer to people as men as you've said to me if they don't identify with those things. No, no. The identity. They identify with the identity. The identity is constructed and socialized around all of those traits. Yeah, plenty of trans men don't identify with the identity of male typical traits. Of no, no, no. Of male. No, you keep- This is- It's like 50 times I keep saying this. The only thing that you're identifying with is being a man. Being a man is this orbit, this framework, this construct. You can reject every single individual characteristic associated with being a man and still be one. Okay. There are cisgender women who have made an effort to reject every single- But then you realize the word, are you familiar with the use mentioned distinction? Yes. Okay. So you're mentioning the word man, correct? Not using it? I mean, in this context, I think I'm doing both. What contradiction do you think there is? Because if you said that somebody can reject every referent for man, but still be a man, it just seems that a man is somebody who identifies as a man means a man is somebody who identifies with the word man. Well, yeah, in the English language, sure. Okay. So if a man is somebody who identifies as the word man, then you still run into the problem of the only men are English-speaking men. Well, then there would be- Right. And whatever the Spanish word for man is, I could only guess it mano. Then there you go. They have the mano. Wait, hold on. Okay. So if we have a hermano as someone who identifies as a hermano and a man is somebody who identifies as a man, you do realize that would make the English speaker not a hermano so they don't identify with that word and that would make the Spanish speaker not a man because they don't identify with that word. Wait, we already have that. Under the youth dimension distinction. Yeah, we already have that. The definition for what it means to be a woman- Yeah. So then- No, no, no, wait, wait, this isn't even a trans thing is the thing. What it means to be like a good woman has varied through Christendom to Islam to like modern day America to India to like- so like if a person was like a woman in like a social sense in America in the 1920s the clothing she wore the way she talked the way she acted whatever and then she went over to say I don't know like Afghanistan she would not be considered a woman in a social sense she would be considered like a Western woman she would be recognized as biologically female but the idea of like oh now she like the idea of these like social roles being culturally identical across borders that's the whole point like that's why these are social- Then you have to see that there are no non-English speaking men. Well, we would call them men in the same way we do with- Okay, so what- Okay, okay, hold on. No, no, no, no, no, no, wait, wait, I can't let you get away with that. Okay. That is true in the case of like every word. So for example Russians don't have the word soldier they have a different word. So technically there are no Russian soldiers except we're not idiots. So the Russian word for soldier whatever it is, you know, they're like oh they have those okay so let's not be stupid and understand that's a soldier. What like this is what I meant at the very beginning with talking about chair and American things you were never able to provide a contrary example to the like stick up your ass you have for trans identification would fuck over all language. You would destroy your killing language you're murdering it right now and like no, no, no, no, genuinely like your lack of understanding of the way language functions the ambiguity of language you define cool as thing you like when it's a noun you would kill you would take the American literary classics and you would choke them to death in their sleep no language could survive your drive to exclude trans men has a casualty count beyond what you could imagine if you were reshaping the universe to exclude them in the fashion you chose to for no reason by the way you would fuck over the entire construct that we have for referring to things these are not standards you can apply elsewhere because because language just does not work the way seriously there aren't men who don't speak English well then there are no any things that don't there are no chefs in Mexico because they have a different word for chef then should they not okay this is where we need to get clear about the use mentioned distinction I've been very clear it's but we can't even move past step one we didn't step in for hours when we say chef we are not saying the word the letter C-H-E-F we're referring to some phenomena when you say man a man of somebody who identifies as a man you are saying somebody can be a man if they identify with M-A-N correct no I'm speaking no I this is very simple males exist in all countries in all cultures it's just how we're built and in every culture there are sets of roles and expectations associated with being male and those social roles because these are social because they're roles right that's not biological that is what I mean when I say man now different cultures have different words for it but all of them are similar in the sense that they have this distinction it's not the same everywhere right India has illegally recognized their gender like pre-Spanish colonization Philippines had like their fucking gay femboy priestesses or whatever I don't know different cultures of different ideas and regardless of the words we're using to describe it understanding these terms shift they don't have a concrete definition because they're social constructs then the manner of identifying as a man is simply saying this is the category that I wish to belong to even if I reject what does that category mean I just said the category of what we associate with but you already conceded that that is not a necessary condition to be a man no I can't keep saying this you identify with the category not with all of the things associated with it like how I identify with the category American despite rejecting an overwhelming majority of what people consider American to refer to so there is no contradiction here because when you talk about definitions in this way you can't disprove someone you could never prove somebody wrong if they said yeah I'm American like in a cultural sense like you know I love America American you couldn't prove them wrong because some of the most fervent advocates for America in like a theoretical sense have been people who hated the actual country like John Brown types who would fight and die to make this country less terrible than it is who hated and its people and its leaders but still consider themselves Americans you can't prove them wrong so many words work this way just like you can't prove a person wrong when somebody says they're cool so you can still think they're wrong Americans are people who identify as Americans and then embrace in Spanish are people who identify as embrace and then in English we have men are people who identify as men is that correct yep well yeah okay so that is the problem I'm having with is that it still entails vicious circularity but we've addressed the circularity argument with the cool argument uh can we can we get past so I know that all the language okay okay wait wait wait wait please please let's we're on step one and we're never moving past it I know that you don't actually care about all this and this is all second principles why do you actually what's actually the deal with like trans dudes because like the language stuff bores me because I because like as somebody who has at least a decent read on linguistics I know for a fact that all of this is a smoke screen that people throw up to um waste time when they have a very very poor understanding of the actual linguistic first principles behind what it means to be any definition what like what's the real issue convince me all right let's let's say let's hypothetically let's say that I just I'm not here for the linguistic arguments I'm here for pure utility why should trans men not be men okay a try I'm mentally projecting a trans men using a woman's restroom right now make me angry about it I'm I'm I'm envisioning this I'm manifesting it it's happening somewhere in the world right now what is the deal what's what's wrong I'm not really here to argue the bathroom stuff for the sports stuff for any of the applied ethics I'm just here to argue on philosophical and logical grounds that a trans man is not a man all trans men aren't men I should say no matter what view you take it still ends up being false that all trans you don't believe this and I I don't think you should tell me that I do believe this I should believe well you may you seem very comfortable making prescriptions about other people's brain states so I'm just getting into the you know the swing of things brain states yeah whether or not a person identifies a man that just seems to be an assertion that doesn't really need a brain state it's an assertion of one's brain state what evidence how else could you know what evidence suggests that there is a man brain state that exists what evidence suggests because the brain state is them thinking I'm a man and then they say I am a man which is how you say so it's like the brain has to it's the thinking you're a man is what makes you a man yeah but I won't know till you say it because I can't read people's minds okay so if we had like cognitively disabled adult human males who would say that they're not men what why why would I say that because they don't have the mental capacity to form conscious thoughts about self-identity then I then I would just never know I would just like so by your logic they would be I guess the term is agender well I mean if they were cognitively disabled to the point where they can't even think or speak then I mean I guess it wouldn't even matter I would just treat them like that that would be like me wondering whether they're an American maybe maybe not I don't know I'm not going to have a convo with them right like why would it matter to me of what relevance is that when you ask like what do you care it's I agree that there are people that identify as men the question of this debate is does identifying as a man make you a man yeah yeah and that's where we have our disagreements and whatnot and we don't have any disagreements we both exist in the context of a world where language works the way I say it does and doesn't work the way you say it does well I don't mind I don't mind accepting your framework and then doing an internal critique that's why I want to walk through this logically okay so a man is someone who identifies as a man what are they identifying as they're identifying with the category that is the social roles and expectations associated with males is that fair so far I think so okay they identify with that category of the socials and man's and by identifying with that category they are men yes okay like with Americans okay so if let's say a non-binary or a woman non-binary person or a woman was to identify with the category of all of these things associated with men by your logic that would have to make them men well well yeah if they associate with the category they'd be men interesting saying I'm a man I still think that would lead to conclusions like some people's gender identity is not valid some cisgender women are actually just closeted trans men well if they're closeted so hard that even they don't know it then I don't I don't know what relevance that would be to the system of self-identification if they say that they're a man or a woman and I'll take them at their word because they're just choosing to be viewed in that framework that's all I really care do you agree that there are men who do not identify with the category associated with males well no because they're men they would have to say that they're not men in order to not identify with it like if you say I'm American you're kind of going like yeah this is like the understanding of me that I project even if I disagree with a bunch of people's interpretations of it so if somebody said I'm a man but I have want nothing to do with this broader category in this archetype why would they still be a man for the same reason that a person like me could call myself American while hating America there's a deliberate contradiction and a value the same reason femboys call themselves men and sometimes take HRT have small tits and dress up and like made outfits because they're choosing to adopt a role purely to reject it which is a valid I might argue the only valid choice when it comes to living one's life you're choosing to adopt a framework simply to break it we do this all the time like in the in the expectation thing right like for example there are comedians who have done bits where all they do is go up to the microphone and say nothing now definitionally a comedian or at least a committee act usually has to involve some kind of behavior but the decision to frame oneself as a comedian while saying nothing is a choice and it's a choice that wouldn't work if you were just a sound check guy then it would just be awkward but a comedian standing up there well that changes the framework even if the silence remains the same it's just art so the property that all men have in common is that they identify as men yes the only category which means the category is the social part yeah okay well it's all social okay so by identifying as a man you think you just automatically opt into the category and everything associated with it you opt into being interpreted in the context of everything associated with it interpreted like people see you as such yeah well people will treat you in that fact in that fashion and you'll think of yourself in that fashion if a person says I identify as a man despite being biologically female I think that has a lot to do with self-perception I think that has a lot to do with how other people treat you even if you don't behave any differently than you did when acting as a woman so if okay so you said people will see you that way and you'll also think of yourself that way and that is what I'm pushing back on is false because plenty of trans men society doesn't see them that way and they don't think of themselves that way so not all trans men are men under this age I think they're looking to be interpreted in that framework publicly not all trans men are looking to be interpreted in that framework well if they say publicly that they're men they are very directly you can say you're a man and also say I don't want to be interpreted in that framework but what frame I've never heard a trans man say that what framework would they say okay so I mean the framework I'm a man but I don't want to be thought of as a man that's what they say no you no you can say I'm a man and by the way I don't want to associate with these roles expectations you have with males sure so they're rejecting them like a fenn boy who identifies as a man but acts more girly than girls you know yeah so then that's a choice but I think then that the depth it doesn't when you say a man is so you identify as man and then a man is this category it is possible to identify as a man and then not meet that category well you're in the category you don't meet the expectations the category but that's your choice to reject them it's your will you repeat that last part it's your choice to reject them to reject them yeah to be a part of a category and then reject all of the things people associate with it it's not like any of this means anything after so okay okay this is a little bit confusing to me because would we apply this to anything else within reality like if you identify as six foot but you're not actually six foot like why it is why wouldn't that be the same thing because that's an empirical measurement it can be statistically determined it can be observed absence any social observation or context it wouldn't change culture to culture as long as they use the same imperial units however if one were to say I'm cool that would change massively depending on what where you are sometime like have you have you never met a really like nerdy person like they play D&D or like 40k or whatever and then they're like I'm cool I'm cool and like they're not in a broad social sense they wouldn't be treated cool but there's something kind of cool about the fact that they think they're cool despite being so uncool and that is cool but people won't treat them as being cool for that unless unless maybe you know stuff's changing D&D is getting more popular so maybe the fact that they thought they were cool doing that before people even thought it was cool would make them more cool when people broadly think it's cool now tell me how do you logically disprove any part of that you can't the only way to logically disprove a definition or referent is to ask them what that means and then to apply it to different scenarios and see if they special please but if you did that to the definition of cool they would give you a wedgie and they would give you a swirly that's not how language works when it comes to the term I don't think they would do that they would do that moving like to how would this be applicable to man is in order to disprove that somebody is a man you ask them what it means to be a man how do you know that you're a man how do you know that somebody else is a man well you shouldn't ask a trans person that that's considered quite rude well I'm talking about you and I don't think you're trans I'm not trans but it's it's the same it's the same with the definition of cool I really do not think that language works this way internal consistency and how we describe like social attributes it's just a the most you can do is like an anthropological analysis of how people broadly understand what it means to be a man and to be clear a broad understanding of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a man are two separate things like if I were to go for example to like Saudi Arabia and somebody asked me what does it mean to be a man well I would have two answers right because that's a complicated question on one hand I could say well it's when you identify as a man because like sure right that's true but then I could go like oh well the Saudi Arabian men are considered to be good caretakers of the home if they do this and it's considered masculine to do that and for some reason they really like firing guns in the air at people's birthday parties and they like tipping their cars over when driving in the highway and like all of these things are associated with being a man in Saudi Arabia but it doesn't refer to the fundamental self-identification thing and neither of them can be disproven because you wouldn't say that a Saudi Arabian man isn't a man because he hasn't fired a gun in the air during a friend's birthday party okay so I do like doing that what what just to like shift a little bit what do you think is another feature of in reality that you obtain simply by identifying as having such American so identifying as an American makes you an American in like a cultural sense like socially like are you an American yeah at least it's not a disprovable thing I mean I think that some people might have a stronger case to it if they can you know make the argument but it's not an empirically provable or disprovable thing so I am a fan of anything I think being religious oh people say they're Christian Jewish Muslim but then you see them like not going to church or whatever you can't really disprove them on that well so that's what I'm saying I think there's in all of these three cases there are still necessary conditions that must be met like I'll use like Islam in order to be a Muslim you must believe in a monotheistic God in order to be a sports fan you must at least know what the sport is I think we're gonna read there in order to what was the first one in order to be an American and cultural sense you must at least identify with some of the American cultural traits not none so there are I don't think that's true there are there are Christians for example that actually believe in like multiple deities and they're a Christian then they're they practice they're a different religion tell them that I will like because that's not how categories work wait are members of the Anglican church Christian the ones who broke off from the Pope I don't yeah if they believe in a monotheistic God they need that condition so there's not the definition of Christianity well I know I know I know I know I know we were just talking about polytheism verse month no no no I mean no no no this is important yeah wait the Protestants were not considered to be real Christians after the split in the church after Henry the 8th so are you telling me then that the Anglican church and all the subsequent orders I'll say this in order to be a Christian I suppose you need to believe in Jesus as the Messiah you need to believe in the Bible and you need to believe in the triune monotheistic God right those three things the same way in order to be a man how do you get to decide that what there are people who don't adhere to that who consider themselves Christians and then I tell them they're not the same way what makes you the judge because then they would be a different religion they would have to fit that category okay so Protestants and Catholics disagree are they different religions they still meet those three conditions no but you're the one deciding those conditions who's to say you're not full of shit I think that the my conditions are most consistent and if anybody wants to challenge me on that they're more than welcome to do so no there are literally millions of people who would behead you for saying that right now like they would behead you for this well there's millions of people who would behead either of us for even having this discussion so I agree I agree no no but you but like no no no no no no this is the critical thing you impose a fake standard of consistency where none exists what you're doing right now you just did a social construct you're like well objectively you're not really a Christian if you don't meet these categories I literally just came off off the dome says who Christianity is a social construct okay let's take something like a right-handed person do you think that's a social construct absolutely absolutely yeah people can you think right and left are social constructs like in the sense that the relative like to you I get but like broadly not really no though actually yeah I would say so because you could argue like is left or right a deliberate direct 90 degrees to you or does it refer to like 180 like a fan of you to your left and right different people might understand left and right to mean like directly or like tilt left or right would you just say left or right do you mean a 90 degree switch or do you mean like this or that there are cultures that never even had concepts of left or right they would use cardinal directions but just you do think that our directions of left and right are socially constructed well do you mean a direct 90 degree from where you're facing forward yeah because I think anything else we have like northeast and other measures for that so if something with 67 degrees from where you're facing so that would be to your right but not like fully would you consider that to be to your right or is that partially but not fully no oh well that sounds like a bit of confusing ambiguity there now if you want to well 67 is almost to 80 it's but it's more farther away from zero so it's like that's how mathematics works too so does it become right if it hits the 45 degree and then past that it would be right something 135 it would go back truly to the right if it hits a 90 degree angle just like a triangle it's truly a triangle once it's 180 degrees and you add up all sides like that's how it works isn't it interesting how socially speaking when people are saying something is around you they'll say it's to your left or right if it's at about a 90 degree from where you're facing but if something's behind you there seems to be a wider arc so like if you're facing forward something that's in front of you is in front of you and then left and right is here but if it's behind you it's kind of like just anywhere in the 180 degree slice you notice that like if somebody says like somebody's behind you they can just be a little bit behind you they can be like like kind of right here but that's more right than it is behind isn't that odd do you think that like contradictions can be true in language absolutely well like if somebody identified as an atheist and also identified as a Muslim would you see that as a contradiction yeah and those people literally exist that's literally wait no that's not my question is that is that a contradiction to be an atheist and Muslim at the same time it's not a logical contradiction it's not a logical contradiction to be an atheist and a Muslim at the same time no it's a semantic contradiction but people use those in literature all the time for example you know a person is happy and sad that's pretty common right like those are considered contrary emotions atheistic Jews probably outnumber religious Jews in the United States a lot of Jews really don't go for the religion stuff that much but they're considered Jewish by like everyone including themselves I think the confusion is like the reference when we refer to a Muslim we are referring to somebody who believes in God and when we're referring to an atheist we're referring to somebody who lacks a belief in God and these two things can't be true at the same time you can't lack a belief in something and have a belief in something it's either or well I didn't agree to those definitions I don't know what a Muslim is but you don't agree that atheists lack a belief in God and Muslims believe in a God atheists lacking a belief in a God I guess it would depend on what you mean by God exactly because there are definitely like people who are considered atheists who are kind of spiritually leaning or have metaphysical beliefs that might overlap with what I would consider to be like religious as for Muslim though good fucking luck finding that out are the are is the Saudi royal family Muslim because according to your like Shias and Sunnis all of the my thing is about contradictions now like take your typical atheist who just believes that there is nothing out there and besides like humans well what about people you believe that they do you think it's a contradiction if somebody says that they lack a belief in God and at the same time they hold a belief in God clearly that's a logical contradiction what about people like Elon Musk and the idiots who care for him who are oftentimes atheists but they believe that we live in a simulation that's being controlled by a higher intelligence like a computer or an alien race isn't that kind of like believing in a God despite not adhering to any sort of medical that's not what I was asking about no no wait wait I want to know if somebody believes that they believe that or somebody believes that they're in a reality where everything's a simulation controlled by a higher intelligence some kind of machine entity or whatever would you say that's a kind of religion or is that a scientific speculation because I'm pretty sure people like Neil deGrasse Tyson have also made claims to that effect I think the way that gods are usually defined in the literature of red is some all-powerful all-knowing deity that is outside of space and time that seems like it kind of fits the definition so if that if that fits then so be it but I think we're getting a little bit off topic not at all but this is in fact the exact topic that we're on you'll never be able to find clear definitions for any of these the most you can do is make an argument here's why I think these things are contradictory but you can't arrive at an empirical answer no it's objectively conscious okay so now that I gave you my definition of god do you think that an atheistic muslim is a contradiction can you both hold a belief in what I just mentioned and can you lack a belief in what I just mentioned clearly that's a contradiction I mean considering the fact that we're talking about the metaphysical people's minds can be changed on a day-to-day basis depending on their personal experiences in terms of like an aggregate I'm not talking about changing minds over a period of time I'm talking about at this moment in time can you hold these two beliefs simultaneously if your definition of muslim involves not being an atheist then no you couldn't be both okay perfect these social constructs that you call social constructs can have logical contradictions yeah but there's no contradiction before you said they couldn't so now we can agree I said there's a difference between a logical and a semantic contradiction because I know muslim atheists like personally because they're culturally Muslim. Hey, I put up a Christmas tree. Why do I do that? I don't believe in Jesus Christ. Maybe you just like the tree. Well, why do I need to do that to be a Christian? That's a very arbitrary thing for me to have gotten into considering a total lack of religious belief in my part. And all the Jewish people, like Bernie Sanders, does Bernie Sanders even actively practice Judaism? But everybody calls him Jewish, right? Like I know plenty of Jewish people who are culturally Jewish and who know rabbis and stuff, but who don't personally care about or practice anything concerning Judaism. This may be to do with the idea. Well, are they Jewish? I don't know what I haven't looked into Judaism enough to know what you need to believe to be Jewish. I can probably only speak to Islam and Christian. But you acknowledge that like by your you are or aren't a Christian, it would be like you would be arguing like different lines for what it means to be Christian throughout like the time, right? Like you might argue right after the split with the Anglican church that like, oh, well, you aren't really a Christian unless you're Catholic. And then it's, oh, well, you're not really. And people may define it that way. If different people can define something like that in different ways. I ask them when you say Christian, who are you referring to? When you say man, who are you referring to? What are you referring to? What phenomenon are you referring to? That's the questions I ask. But if the answers are contingent upon people's personal biases and experiences, then what you're talking about is definitionally a social bias. It's a social construct. Well, I never denied that all words are socially constructed. Well, if all words are socially constructed, and we agree on that, obviously, because who made words besides humans, then we have concepts exist mind independent within reality. Christianity. I'm talking about concepts in general. Well, yeah, but concepts can also be socially constructed. Christianity is socially constructed in a literal sense. Yeah. So social constructs can still exist within reality, though, like that's what I was showing. And you seem to agree because you believe social constructs can have logical contradictions. The same is true for transgenderism. Well, anything can have a logical contradiction if there are mutually exclusive terms. However, the problem is, once you deal with how these terms are used in real life, you realize that very rarely there are logical credit contradictions. More often, there are semantic ones where you can have Muslim atheists. You can have Christian atheists. There are plenty of them. You can have people whose values seem contradictory, but then you look a little closer and realize that things are just a lot more complicated than you thought. You can have countries that are socially conservative relative to us, but have third genders that are legally recognized because their tradition for such goes back centuries. This is the logical positivism thing, right? The scientific positivism. These are not questions that can be answered with a, well, can you logically prove that you're an American? Can you logically prove that you're a man? Can you logically this, logically that? This is why I say you kill English language, because what you don't realize in a quest to ostracize the transgenders or whatever is that the standards you're applying would fuck over everyone, including yourself. None of us benefit from this. It's like, especially the trad types, right? Like the far-right trad types where it's like a Western hegemony civilization return, but you go and read Shakespeare or whatever. Every other line from Shakespeare is like a metaphor and allegory that when examined, then it's proper meaning unveils contradictions that you have to accept and reconcile rather than to look at that and go, well, that can't be right. You should accept contradictions ever. If there's ever a logical contradiction on something, you should reevaluate. No, no, no, no, no, no. Logical contradictions are not the same as just any kind of contradiction. If a person said, no, no, they're not. If a person says, no, have you read a book? If a person says, I promise you any, any, I was happy. No, no, no, no, no, no, nobody would, literally nobody. If you said, if I'm reading a text and the text includes a contradiction, as in a character believes two things or the book states two things, like, I don't know some life of pie shit. Like if I read that, is that like a mistake? No. Okay, let me, let me give you an example. Life of pie. That's a good example. I personally, I've never read that book. I've only seen the movie. Do you think it's possible for somebody to have both read the book and to have not read the book simultaneously? No, no, no, you see, you still don't understand the meanings of contradiction. No, because that would be a logical contradiction. No, no, no, no, you still. So what I just said was not all contradictions are logical contradictions. Here is a contradiction that is not a logical contradiction. Okay. He was both happy to see her leave, but deeply sad. That is a contradiction in a narrative sense because that identifies distinct emotional experiences that are typically understood to That presupposes that happy and sad are mutually exclusive, which I don't believe. That's because a human emotional. Okay, what two human emotional experiences are mutually exclusive? So yeah, like the reading book thing, you can either have read the life of pie or you haven't. And this exists for everybody on planet Earth. Everybody on planet Earth has either one. This is where they have emotional experiences. I never said I'm not going to speak on qualia because qualia and like phenomenological experiences are a little bit more complex. Oh, wait, real. So wait, so it's just a stick. No, no, no, no, no, no, stop at no point. No, no, no, no, no, no, we're talking about qualia. What it means to be a man is qualia because you have no evidence to prove that there's such thing as a man brain. I'm sorry. I'm not talking about man brain. I'm talking about qualia in the sense of accumulated human experience. Okay, so do you think there's just, okay, perfect. Do you think there's just such thing as feeling like a man? Yeah, absolutely. And people do this all the time. What feeling do all men share? No, that's not how it works. No. Yes, it is. That's a property. No, wait, I'm sorry. Feeling like an American. What property do all Americans share? I don't, I never accepted that. No, no, no, no, see, so wait, explain. So how does this work? Give me any example. Wait, hold on, hold on, hold on. I'm feeling like a whore. Well, what emotional experience do all whores share? Wow. Okay, I'm feeling like such a servant in this house. What emotional experience do all servants share? You realize what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Wait, hold on. Is there such thing as feeling like a man? And if there is a such thing as feeling like a man, then necessarily all men that are real men must have this feeling. And what is that? Okay, can you explain? So wait, can you explain to me? No, no, no, no, no, no. Hold on, wait, I have, I have proceeded this far assuming you are merely ignorant, but I have to expect you're actually acting in bad faith if you don't realize that what you're asking right now is insane. Not insane is that it's difficult for, no, no, no, not insane is that it's difficult for me to prove or whatever. It's insane in the sense that it reveals so much about your thought process. Can you explain to me, is the sentence she feels like a whore, a logically contradictory sentence? I never claim that. Okay, so wait, no, no, no, no, just answer. Yes, no, no, no, no. We are not letting you walk away from this. I have been remarkably. Let me answer. It's yes or no. It's yes or no. You just said no. Hold on. In order to answer the question, you need to ask for clarification. You have to say, well, what do you mean by that, right? And based on that, like response, then you can answer. Okay, hold on. If you're reading a book where somebody says, wow, I feel like a whore, would you, with no further clarification, would you sneer at that and go, oh, wow, what one experience do all whores have? Well, it just seems that it would be colloquially what they're saying, but logically false. How so? Because I don't think any of us can point to one feeling that all whores just the same way. I don't think when you claim gender has to do with your feelings, I don't think you can point. Wait, hold on, hold on. Wait, you answered. I answered your question. Can I please ask one? You answered. No, no, no, because we're not done. I did it. No, I have answered and followed this entire idiotic roller coaster ride of questions that you've provided for me. And we now have to hold you to this specifically. So you are telling me that if a person said, I feel like a whore without further clarification, your presumption would be that they are committing a logical error because your assumption is that they're making the claim. That's not what I said. I said colloquially, likely, what they're referring to is probably feelings of sexual deviance or whatnot. Why not all whores feel that way? That's what they're referring to. Now, if they were to say that all whores share this feeling, I'm going to say- Nobody says that. Nobody has said that. Well, you said that man is a man, as in the gender, is a feeling people have. So what is that feeling? Describe it. No, I didn't. Wait, I did not say that. I have not said the word feeling at any point. We're not moving away from this line. So if somebody said, I feel like a whore, your assumption in a colloquial sense would not be, oh, they think that there's a shared experience that every single whore has had, whatever. You would think that they're referring broadly to a set of traits we associate with whores, like they feel like they've been put upon or that they're being slutty or that they're being sexually exploited. Yeah, that's probably what I'd colloquially recognize that they're referring to when they say that. And then I would ask them, if it was a debate setting like this, I'd be like, you recognize that this is not a universal. Why would you ask that? That's so autistic. No human. I'm giving you advice. No human ever will ever say, I feel like a duh. And what they're doing is saying that there is a shared emotional experience for every single member of that group. But that has never happened in human history. That proves that not all trans men are men. No, it doesn't. No, stop, stop. You're so out of your depth. So your understanding of this, like this is not how people talk, communicate. Your understanding of language is deficient. Now, all I'm saying is that the saying, a person I feel like a whore, they're colloquially referring to a set of shared experiences and understandings. Not everyone might get, by the way, because not everyone might understand what it means to be a whore. They might not have an expectation. So when a person says, I feel like a man, which to be fair, this is something everyone says cisgender people, trans people, men, women, had all of them at some point. Because they have a different referent. They're not literally saying they refer, they're like almost like the language game is complicated. They say, I feel like a man. What they're saying is that they probably feel masculine, but you even acknowledge that there is non masculine men out there. There are no masculine trans men out there. Not just feeling masculine. What about, for example, what about a... That's generally what people mean when they say they feel like a man. They feel masculine. That is often a part of it, but it's not always about feeling masculine. Sometimes it's about feeling put upon in a way that refers to like, for instance, I think I've said like, I feel like a woman after I've been talked over a couple of times, like in a given social setting, I don't think it's feminine to be talked over. What I'm referring to is a kind of broader understanding of like an experience. Now, not every woman has been talked over. Wouldn't that still be a feminine social role, though, to be submissive on people when people are talking? Okay. All right. So if we're, if we're opening up, I feel like a man. I feel like a woman. And I want to clarify that this is still off topic. I'm just pointing out that there is no such thing as a universal feeling that all men have. I've never said there is. The only thing that all men have is that they identify as men. Okay. Now let's get back on topic then. What do all men have in common? Being men. Wish is what? What do all whores have in common? Wait, answer my question. What is it? No, answer. What do all whores have in common? Answer my question. What do all whores have in common? I asked first. No, I, but I've answered this like a million times and you have failed. No, no, no. I have presented so many contrary examples that you have not managed to thread through it all. You haven't done it with American. You haven't done it with chairs. You haven't done it with, um, I gave a, I gave a response to the chairs. No, no, you have not given a response that helps me understand how this is any different. Now, I want to know with whores, what shared, uh, common trait is there too? I don't think this is relevant to the proposition. I'm sure there's some definition out there that I do not know. Then, well, then just an answer. What's the shared experience? I don't think there's a shared experience mind you. Probably a shared concept, but what does this have to do with what do all men have in common? What is the shared, what do all whores have in common? I'm not sure. I'm not sure what people are referring to when they refer to somebody that has that. Remember how many times I've said now, you're desperately trying to apply a standard to gender that no other term can hold up to. What do all Americans have in common? Well, there are still some, um, necessary and sufficient conditions for being anything. What do all Americans have? That should be an easy answer then. You're American. You seem to have no accent, at least relative to me. So you should know. You've been America. Okay. I'll say at the very least in order to be an American, um, you must know what America is. You must know what America is. Yeah. And I'm not saying that's sufficient. That's one necessary condition. Now, fully disagree. You, you believe somebody can be American without ever knowing what America is. Yeah. I think if I went back in time, like really far back, and I found some, like some, some dude under Monsimosa who was like this big freedom guy who's like, ah, tell him, here are my wearers. Hey, for you a deal, you know, that, I think I could go up to that guy and go, dude, this guy's a fucking American. Hell, yeah, brother. For sure. 100%. I don't, I don't think they would be just because they talk a certain way, but that, that gets off topic because you did see an American assembly who identifies as an American. Oh, that's one part of it. Sure. But keep in mind that a lot of people never actually identify as a gender. They just accept what's given to them. I think that social ascriptions can also refer a kind of, um, a kind of utility, especially in the absence of understanding of a concept. So for example, our understanding of what it means to be a man or a woman would not have existed 10,000 years ago, not even remotely. But men and women did exist 10,000 years ago. Males and females did, but their understanding of men and women was super different from ours. I'm going off what you understand them to be now. Off of what we understand to be now, a man today, they didn't have cowboy hats 10,000 years ago. Do you, you think to be a man has something to do with the cowboy hat? Have you ever been to Texas? Yeah, there are people who certainly feel that way. 100%. I'm going off what you've, what you're referring to when you say men, not how other people are referring. Their men were different from ours, but we could still go back in time and point to somebody who's really fucking masculine and manly by our standards today and go like, yeah, that's a man. You know, hell, we can do this with animals. We do this with nonhumans all the time. We assign masculine and feminine ascriptions to animals, buildings, vehicles. We've done it to aliens, fantasy races, demons and gods in our media. We clearly have no issue transcribing what it means to be a man onto things that have nothing to do with men or even biological humanity. But you do realize in the context of this discussion, when the majority of trans activists refer to men and women and refer to trans men and trans women, they're referring to human people because you'll often hear trans rights or human rights or something like that. Well, we are, we are human, sure. But there are trans nonhumans, sure. Like? Well, there are literally like animals that change sex and gender. There are lionesses. Oh, excuse me. I thought being a man was identifying that as a man being a woman was identifying. I did not know nonhumans had the capacity to do that. Yeah, there are primitive gender roles from some other species. Really? And they identify as men or women and then they adopt that gender? Nonhumans do? Well, considering the fact that those lionesses, which were born biologically female, responded to a deficiency of males in their environment by making the choice to start acting like male lions and even ended up growing manes. So wait, hold on. Hold on. Wait, hold on. Wait, stop, because you're about to say something really dumb. So I'm going to be really, really clear about this, okay? Given that gender is a social role, animals have social roles, like wolves and stuff and like monkey packs, their understandings of gender will never know them because we're humans and they don't talk English. But if you're seriously about to argue that there's no social life to like these mammals, then that is like shockingly ignorant. I'm just giving you the chance to not make that mistake. What I am arguing is that not all lionesses have to occupy a female role to be a lioness. Yeah, but how? Just like not all men have to adopt, not all men have to adopt this set of associates with the male category to be a man. I never said, I said they have to be, they have to identify as the category, not the traits within it. How would we know what category a lioness describes to? And I think this would also... No, you still don't understand the difference. The traits that we're referring to with the lioness example are the ascribed social traits and expectations with being a man, not the identification. How do we know what an animal identifies as? They don't as far as we understand it. No, but there are male and female animals in social roles that adopt the mannerisms. I don't think mannerisms, they're biological instincts. Sure, those exist pretty ubiquitously. Wait, we have biological instincts. Yeah, and that's what I'll say. But I think with humans, at least the way I've heard most trans-inclusive people and genders describe it, is that it exists as a result of complex social interaction. And I think this exists in the definition you gave to with all the social roles, expectations we associate with males. This is something that I think uniquely our species has done to a very high level. Yeah, and I think in a very primitive level, there are some other species that have... By the way, what I'm saying is objectively correct. This isn't a social thing. We know for a fact that there are animals that have social lives with other members of their own species, where they will make the choice to act in ways that contradict what you would expect for their sex. Yeah, it doesn't make them transgender just because they occupy a different role. I think that when we call them transgender, it's kind of like when we say animals are homosexual for choosing male partners. In reality, we don't actually know how much of it involves personal conscious choice. We are anthropomorphizing them or humanizing them by ascribing an element of our behavior onto them. Yeah. There was those two gay penguins or whatever. We don't know that the penguins are gay. We know that they've formed a life bond or something, but we don't know. But when we say, oh, the gay penguins, we're basically just kind of going, okay, well, it's kind of like that. Same with the trans thing. I don't think it's even kind of like that. Do you agree that men can often times and do occupy feminine social roles and that has nothing to do with their identity as a man? I don't know how many times I can repeat this. Well, you said it's similar. We can't know what an animal identifies as because they literally can't talk. It's a meaningless trait to ascribe. We only see their behavior, especially considering the fact that the female lionesses seem to physically transition by growing a mane, which I don't even know how the biology on that works, but it's pretty impressive. Again, the concept of trans and gender identification don't work on animals because we literally can't ask them what their identity is. No, I agree. That's what I'm trying to say is I don't think it applies to non-human beings, but you seem to. I think that the broader trend of the acting and behaviors that contradict what you would be sexually like in a sex-based way expected to do and even physical transition are present in the animal kingdom. But obviously, they don't literally have like social identifiers the way we do. Yeah, but they can be gay. Because we can both agree that clearly this is a uniquely human social construct under your view. Well, no, because it happens to non-humans in media. Oh, so you're talking about fictional characters? Yeah, of course. Yeah. So when you say, I noticed you brought up this objection in one of your debates. Like, oh, if we refer to fictional characters as men and women, that proves men and women are not just for human beings. It is kind of strange that people argue that a woman is an adult human female and then they will have no trouble identifying elves, dwarves, AI or any other number of fictional characters as women unambiguously with absolutely no sense of irony. It is kind of confusing, yeah. So do you think that, I think firstly, most trans-inclusive activists would agree that a trans girl and a trans woman are human being terms. But the objection with, well, in media there's other women and men. Therefore, a woman and man is not a uniquely adult concept. I mean, you're just... No, it's not a uniquely human concept. Uniquely human concept, excuse me. So I think that in this context, we're using the term man and woman to convey that which looks like a woman. We all understand that they are not actually men and women and this can be seen in an example like a stone lion. We may call a stone lion lion like, hey, look at that lion over there. But that doesn't change the fact that lion is based on taxonomy. It's not based on what you look like. That is an interesting point. Maybe a lion is more than a specific species of animal. Was Alexander the Great not a lion in his own right? I think I'm referring to the lion as an animal here. If you said biological lion, then no. Alexander the Great was not a biological lion. Well, do you think... I don't really know enough about him, but do you take a stone lion, like a statue of a lion? Do you think that is a real lion? Yeah, it's a lion. It's right there. It's not a biological lion, but yeah, it's a lion right there. If you pointed to a painting of a man and asked, is that a man? I wouldn't go like, well, no, it's a man. I wouldn't say it's a biological, physical human. Yeah. Two-minute warning before we have to go into the Q&A. Oh, good lord. And by the way, people refer to fictional characters as women, even if they don't even look like women. Glados from Portal, Shodown from System Shock. There are myriad examples of people effortlessly ascribing man and woman, terms that are ostensibly human and biological, anywhere they choose to, as long as the vibe is right. And that's what it is, a vibe. Glados is a robot, right? We refer to boats as she. I don't like the idea of we've had millennia of people playing with sex and gender as descriptive and metaphorical terms and analogies. And then like, it's like, well, no, now that trans people have any kind of public visibility, we have to pretend that in reality, we've all adhered to this like nonsensical standard of medical. So if I can respond to the objection that just because we refer to fictional characters as men and women that proves that men and women are not terms just for human beings, I think it just has the same way we use fullsgold and real gold. Like if I were to show you fullsgold and real gold, you wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two, because they phenotypically look the same, such as the case, but we know that. But they know we know their insurance. Wait, wait, wait. Glados doesn't look like. She looks like a big robot. It's not like the there's not like a trick. I don't know how that is. But if we have fullsgold and real gold, the intrinsic properties are different, such as the case with the intrinsic properties of mythological character is different from what we consider men and women. and we just use it to refer to who looks like a man and woman. But GLaDOS looks like a big robot. I don't know who that is, once again. Everyone calls GLaDOS a woman. So, okay, take something like this. Can I screen share really quick so we have the... This is actually a great time to go into the Q&A because we have gone over that two-minute warning. We do have a lot of questions. So this may come back up where you want to, if you want to do a screen share even during the Q&A, I'm okay with that. But I do want to get to these because otherwise people will be like, hey, I've been waiting for two hours. So, this one first, want to do a couple of housekeeping type things. I'm going to use the restroom, so ask Vosh his question first. Deal. Folks, if you have not yet, please do hit that like. I always get like, I always enjoy YouTubers' opinions of this. Vosh, do you think that hitting the like really makes a difference in terms of whether or not, let's say, a video is recommended more or ranks more highly for a while? Or do you think it's actually just like, nah, I don't know if it makes a difference? Oh, no, unquestionably. I think that it's morally wrong to not like the modern day debate stream. Thank you, I appreciate that. But yeah, I really do. I think it really makes a difference. I've noticed with shorts, it's more clear to me. The more shorts, the more the proportion of likes on a short is, it will get way more future views. I've noticed that where I'm like, ooh, that one got a lot of likes right away, right out of the gate. And I noticed I'm like, oh, yep, that got a lot more views. Which makes me think that likes are, at least for shorts, but I think for long form content too, they are indicative of whether or not YouTube is gonna show it to more people. With that, we're gonna jump into the Q and A. So thanks for your likes though, for real guys. Supreme Emperor Keeza says, a piece of furniture, let me just make sure this is for you, Vosh. Otherwise, some of these, oh, Sonvy's back, perfect. So they say a piece of furniture for one person to sit on with a back, a seat, and four legs. This is the definition of a chair from Oxford Dictionary. It isn't that hard. I think this for you, Vosh. There are absolutely chairs without a back, without arms, with more or less than four legs. That's, no, you don't believe that. Think for a second. I know your reflexive desire is to think, oh, these communists, they're specific definitions. No, please, I beg of you, think for a second. Do you really think you've never seen a chair with more or less than four legs, or without, or with a back? What about with a shorter back or a higher back? How high does the back have to be before it stops being a stool? Without arms? You know it's more complicated than that. In reality, all of life is. Trans people have just broken the door open to your understanding. Choose to grow from this experience. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. B, small e, the third. Says, don't pull any punches, Sonvy. And that reminds me, folks, we have put up a poll in the live chat. Now, these polls, in my opinion, aren't super meaningful because people, often things just vote for what they already believed in. But, wanna encourage you, if you're watching live over at Vosha's channel or anywhere else that might be streaming it live, do wanna encourage you, come over to Modern Day Debate if you wanna put your vote into that poll on today's debate question, where do you stand? With this, the next question is, B, small e, oh, we got that. Pointless Poppy says, this is just an issue of whether or not we want to use pronouns to refer to someone's sex, or to use common pronouns to refer to someone's gender. Is that for the, oh, sorry. Yeah, who is that directed to? Who is that for? I don't know. Go ahead, each of you. Sonvy, I haven't heard from you yet. I just, I don't think this is difficult, right? Like, let's get past all of the death of the West whining bullshit or whatever, where you pretend that this in any way meaningfully affects your life. Everything is fine. There are no consistent systems that you can use to perfectly govern and guide people's behavior at the end of the day. I'm just trying to lean in the direction of kindness, equitability, and enriching human experience. I think that this is like what I say leans concretely in that direction. And I think a lot of people are just deeply insecure about their gender and sexuality and think that like the existence of trans people represents some kind of fundamental threat to the hegemony of their lives, which is weak, you're weak, and you can be stronger. And I believe in you. Sonvy, any thoughts? The question was about pronouns, right? They had said, shoot it, reloaded on me. Do you have any thoughts on that, Sonvy? Otherwise, I'm gonna go to the next one. I think you go to the next one. I think that might have been for him. Deal, this one from Sunflower says, Vash, majority of people reject the expansion of the word man to include trans men. Don't you need a majority to support expanding a word we all use? No. When, for instance, black slang gets more popular, it's usually derided for years before it starts entering public. If that was the case, then no word would ever change because no one just comes up with any change in the dictionary and instantly 51% of the country change it. Like no, that's not how it works. You make a moral argument, a semantic argument for what you believe in, and if people are sensible and goodwill, then they'll join you, and if not, then they'll whine about it. But no, nothing happens instantly. The majority of Americans support trans people anyway, so I feel like in this respect at least, I'm still sticking with the majority. You got it, this one coming in from VonZoom, thanks for your support. Says thank you Honor Day-to-day for providing a neutral platform. I appreciate that, all credit to the speakers. They are what make this platform fun. VonZoom also said question for either side, does transgenderism reinforce feminine or masculine stereotypes? Don, do you want to hit it? I've been answering this. I think that one might be for you because I don't believe that a gender is based off stereotypes. I think people sometimes say like, ah, well trans women wear these frilly pink dresses and that's true to an extent. I think that overwhelmingly trans people open up the space for gender expression. The idea that like the existence of trans people is leading to more cis gender women having to like conform to traditional dress standards is objectively not the case. I think that in the abstract, maybe there's a conversation to be had about like what it means when people are trying to affirm their identity and like what trends they follow to do so. But I don't think that's just a trans person thing, right? The main group of people who are affirming, you know, like repressive gender stereotypes for both sides would be cis people. So it's just like that's a broad problem. This one from Thunderstorm says anthropologists trained in race and gender identification can identify male and female from the pelvis. Also a simple chromosome test yields definitive results. First of all, I know anthropologists and it's not true. There's way more variance in hip bone shape than people think. And chromosome tests from bone, not the most reliable process for long-term analysis. Seriously, like you've seen guys, males with wide hips and females narrow hips. Like you know this, okay? Not everyone looks like Nicki Minaj. Second point, trans people don't care. I don't know why people operate under the delusion that trans people are like, well, if I take this pill, my hip bone, why do you think they care? Like I have wide hips. I'm a large person, you know? I have wide hips. And if I died, there was a non-zero chance somebody would go like, yeah, maybe female skeleton. How does this affect my life in any way? It's like the weakest attempt at a gotcha. Like maybe you're living your life to the best, but hundreds of years after you're dead, some other guy might make an accounting error. It just, if that's what you're worried about, like you're not even living right now. You're already dead. You're a dead man. You think in terms of anthropologists. You are waiting for historians to validate your wretched existence. And they won't. You will not be remembered, but you can be. You just have to try harder and be better. You got it. Steven Zivatsky, thank you. To summarize, Vosch hates specificity and truth. Vosch? It's literally, it's just code. I'm just going over like very basic linguistic theory, not just Wittgenstein, not just the crazy lefties or whatever, but like broadly any definitional stuff will eventually start to regress if you go far enough, which is why you have to understand it as a broader striving for meaning, a process of collective referral. Because if you don't do that, like you end up selectively applying standards that just end up fucking everybody over. It's not good. Supreme Member Kizas says, how you identify doesn't mean you actually are what you claim you are. You can identify as innocent. It doesn't mean you are innocent. That's true. Some things are different things. And some things you can identify as. And some things you can't. That different things are different. That's true. It's this attack helicopter thing, right? Like come on, advance your thinking, my friend, okay? You are already a master of self delusion. So I assume you believe yourself to be many things that you are not, okay? But I bet some of those things, despite any empirical evidence, I couldn't actually disprove you on. Do you think you're cool? Do you think you're funny? There's no way to measure that empirically. But honest to God, we really don't have a better way of giving an answer to that question than, I don't know, do you think you are? Really? Do people think you are? Just expand your mind. Look beyond this. Do we have says, how does Vosch tell the difference between someone? Oh, hate me. This says the difference between someone who is lying about identity as a man, versus someone who truly identifies as a man. I don't, I just, I don't care. It'd be like asking me like, how do you tell the difference between somebody who likes anime and who's just lying about it? I don't. This is like a Gamergate thing where it's like, the girls are lying about liking video games. They just play Animal Crossing. I don't like, this is such a non-issue in real life too. Like there's just legions of people who are, what are they getting out of identifying as being trans? Like what big social benefit are they raking up? Like, oh, damn dude. Now like 30 states are like actively have laws targeting you in the half the fucking country hates you. And it was, it was all worth it for this epic meme. Like, come on, come on. And so, so somebody's lying about it. They'll be like, yeah, I'm he him. And then like a year later, they'll be like, actually in my mind, I was a woman. I'll be like, okay. We've got a couple, we got a couple for Sonvy coming up finally. I mean, Vosh, you certainly have a way with people. But this, Oh, I know, I know. Mr. Spencer, thanks so much. I, this always warms my heart. It says James going hard on the just for men. Thank you. My camera's not good enough. I actually have plenty of grays, but I appreciate that. So Vosh bad trans liberation y'all. True, I'm terrible. You do look great by the way, James. Thank you. Like I said, I'm always flattered because if my camera were better, you could even my beard. But anyway, secret XXX stars says, Sonvy, can someone self identify as a Lakers fan or does Lakers fan have a concrete, discrete definition that needs to be used to identify them? Yeah. So kind of like I said, you don't obtain any future in reality simply by identifying as having such. And the same would be true for something like this. There are still necessary conditions in order to be a Lakers fan. Whether that be, you have to know what basketball is. You have to know what the Lakers are at the very minimum. So there's nothing you obtain by identifying as having it are still conditions. You must be met. You got it. Thank you very much for your question. Coming in from BalthasR228 says, does Sonvy agree with Dr. Alden's research on gender identity as it applies to trans men? Who's research? Dr. Alden's, I don't know. But this is not coming in from, be smally the third says, I watched that clip the other day Bosch when Dr. Alden came up in a past debate. It's one of my favorite clips ever where we both were, you remember that? No, we were just choking back laughter and I couldn't even talk. Yeah, no, it haunts me to this day. It truly does. There is a clip. I'll pin it in the comments, but folks, you have to see this. It was where there was, I think he was from Germany and Bosch is debating him and both of us just lost it. And anyway, BalthasR228 says, don't let his word salad trip you up. Get him, Sonvy. Wow. Says, pointless poppy says, the fact that ignorant people place expectations on others for where they are born or what gender they identify as is irrelevant to what the person is. I agree. Oh, I agree. Maybe in different directions. This stuff is complicated. It's complicated, but it's actually oh, so simple. It's one of those things where you can make it complicated. Do you see this one coming in from? Do you appreciate it? Oh, we had says we don't treat socially constructed words in the way you view man, quote unquote, or woman, quote unquote. Wouldn't a sex-based definition be the best definition of these words since it abolishes gender when doing so? Well, we already have male and female, so there's no definitional gain because we already have the exact words you're looking for there if you really care to. Also, there are a ton of things that we associate with men and women that are non-biological. In fact, I would argue the vast majority of things we associate with are non-biological. You don't see people's gametes out in the street, right? But there's so much to a woman. Listen, as somebody who thinks women are pretty all right sometimes, there's so much. It's like, what, is it all like titties and pussy? No, it's not, come on, come on. The clothes they wear, the way they talk, the way they act, the way they look, there's so much to it that's totally socially constructed to the point where it's really easy to do man, woman, when just looking at clothing, right? So the idea of we're gonna fold all of that into a biological term, that's disingenuous. That's just ignoring reality. We have to accept that sex and gender are different things because otherwise we have to pretend that men used to have long hair because of biology, but then short, but then long, then short, then long, then short. Now short again, and it's like, yeah, come on, right? It's complicated. You got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Supreme Emperor Kizas says, Vosch, adult human male being is the definition of man. It's about not, it's about being not identification. So cut his, cut this garbage. So all of those fail. When it comes to adult, depending on where you are in the world, manhood rituals or like rights of ascension, this is more of a tribal thing, but like that happens definitely before like adulthood as we would consider it. And a lot of people today would argue that like you're not really a man and like what, like 18, a college senior? That's a man now? Have you seen what college kids look like? They're babies. They're tall, gangly babies. Ridiculous, no. Human, we call things man that aren't humans all the time, constantly, knowingly we do this. So done all about that one. And for male, it's actually really difficult for us to understand at a glance what people's gamete situation is. Intersex people exist and there are far more of them than you might think. And what's more like you kind of have to assume a lot, you know? I mean, you've seen some trans men, right? They're pretty beefy, tend to be a little shorter but there are short guys. I'm just saying like your experience of what it means to be a man, what the men you know, it's not adult human male. It's a rich tapestry of experience and reference that I think we should be more honest about. This one from D-ManW says, Vosh is an example of our education system being broken. Wow. Be small. Poor Vosh. Look at it there. He's just a nice young man. That's all right. They can cope with this however they like, okay? I just want them all to get better. I'm rooting for them. Be small. The third says, stop talking over based sanvi. This one from Steven Zavatsky says, This is really surprising because I thought I lost the pole. The pole in the live chat right now. The pole in the live chat hates me. They hate me over there. Where? But I love them. At modern day debate? Yeah, yeah, they hate me over there but I love them and that's what matters. It's a one way exchange of dislike. I care for them. Sanvi's right though that in the pole in the live chat right now with 1,782 votes, what's your position on this debate topic? It's 50% so a plurality, the greatest group, the largest group say trans men are men and then 43% say trans men aren't men and then 8% say I'm on the fence. I'm not sure. Wow. The polling results are intersects. God damn. This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? Simon Allen says, for the course, not simping although Vosh is gorgeous. Wow. Oh, thanks. Nice. I appreciate that. I told them in chat, they can't make comments about your guys' appearance but they just couldn't resist. This one from Gabrielle Hughes says, social constructs are ideas created and accepted by people and society. That's it. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. There's a lot of variability there too because categorization will always be socially constructed. Like the biological differences between all the species of all the plants and animals on earth, those are concrete, right? We can do cliental studies on those but like where we draw the lines, we gave names to all the different types. Genetically speaking, every monkey is different but we build the boxes. Well, where are the real differences? And that's always kind of like a vague process. I remember there was drama in the taxonomical research field recently over squirrels. That's why I brought them up earlier. It's just, it's been on my mind. You got it. This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? Steven Zawaski says, the one feature that the most men throughout time and space have shared is being an adult human male. Just give up already, Vosh. I can't beat that one. This one from Gabrielle Yu says, social constructs are, I got that. Ryan, big guy says Vosh, I feel the same vibes that eight year old girls do. I like cute things. I love my mommy. Puppies amuse me and other stuff little girls vibe too. Does this mean I'm an eight year old girl? At the most it could mean you act like an eight year old girl. You could be a girl, but age is not a social construct. Age, unlike gender, is something that we empirically measure the advance of. I also don't like the implication of predation, right? Trans people don't transition to be predators. If you want to find predators, go to the Catholic church. The idea that there's going to be like a glut of trans people who are like looking for, like I guess I just wonder how this works in people's heads where they think like, there's like gonna be like a 40 year old man who's like, actually I identify as a five year old girl, now let me play with your daughter or something. This just, this isn't like, there are real problems in the world, man. Like there are real problems. Like what? Why make more up, you know? That's like, is it possible that could happen? Yeah. And if it does, someone tries creepy shit like that, I think they should be rightfully socially punished for it, completely. But like, let's not pretend this is a meaningful problem that we're dealing with. You got it. Thunderstorm says, triangle is from the Latin triangulus. That's so cool. Rusty. Sounds like Romulan. Rusty Smackleford says, Vosh is the weak man who creates hard times. Yet another W for Queen Sanvi. Thank you. This is what Rusty Curious says, how does Sanvi account for intersex people? Yeah. So I mean, I figured the debate was probably gonna get into this one. I'm kind of sad I did it because the more research I do into the 30, 40 common intersex objections like spire syndrome, CAH, Androgen sensitivity syndrome, a lot of the times they're still very clearly male or female, they just have characteristics of the opposite sex. The only cases that get tricky are like, true hermaphatism and stuff like that. But again, I don't think it's necessarily relevant to the truth of the proposition are trans men men because what is it? Like 99.5% of trans individuals were correctly assigned their sex efforts. That's my answer. You got it. This one coming in from pointless poppy says, Vosh an American can still be an American without engaging in any stereotypical behavior of an American. Can a man do the same? I just think, I think cis men can and do all the time, right? Like leaving aside the whole femboy thing, I think that one of the most beautiful things you can do with a category you've chosen is to reject every part of it, to choose to be a member of a group and then to tear away everything people adhere to it. It's like a fundamentally anarchic preference of mine. I like it when systems are torn down, at least the bad ones. I think it's good at least when you play with them because it opens up the space for people to be free, for people to be able to pursue their interests. So, yeah, I think it's something we should strive to do. Push those boundaries, you know? As long as we're not hurting people. You got it. Cesshoun Nameru says, a country geopolitical definition is not born from the universe. It's born from the human's social construct. This is what Vosh meant, same for gender. Yeah, so I think that the actual concept that we're referring to clearly exists because of mind-independent universal phenomena, like if there were no humans, the continent of America would still exist, right? Wherever we draw the lines on that, it would still exist. So that's kind of what I'm referring to is that the concepts exist objectively. The terms are what we use to describe concepts. You got it. This one from No Mask Poppies as James, why haven't you sent me new selfies in your furry suit as of yet? James. Thank you for asking. What the hell, man? They'd be confused with you, Vosh. I don't know what's going on. Jezor says genders are socially constructed and built with union labor. That's true. That's why we got so many more genders after the turn of the century. The union men fought hard with the coppers and the robber barons and they gave us freedom. You got it. Ryan Big Guy strikes again and says, Vosh, how many fingers does a human being have? Well, I think typically we have five, but obviously there are people with more or less. Five is like the mean, probably the medium, certainly. Or the mode, yeah, mode. The mean's like probably, I don't know, 4.999. But you're at like the fundamental thing that you're asking here, right? Is like, well, okay, like really though, what are we? What do we have? And the answer for that is like, you can read up on taxonomy. Things are a lot more vague than you might think. A lot of the stuff that we take for granted, a lot of the categories that we built have been for our convenience because for the most part they're fine, but you have to learn when to wiggle them down a little bit, right? A good example of this, I think, would be that recently a bunch more research has been done into the effects of heart attacks on women. So, women have hearts, men have hearts. The idea being that given the fact that the majority of medical patients with heart issues are men, they can focus the research primarily on men with heart attacks and stuff. That was based on the assumption in incorrect one that because humans have hearts and men and women both have hearts, it works by saying that we could sort of leave aside the intricacies and just focus on male issues and it would work for everyone when it doesn't. That non-essentialist thinking saves lives. And yeah, I don't know, just a good attitude to have. Do you got it? This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? Daniel says, Sonvy, the argument as X is a blarg, therefore X is a blarg, I'm confused by the wording of this. They say also said his argument is not logical. Why is Vosch's argument not logical? Is it, it is the strongest logical argument, actually. They say it's deductive and they say you can argue with the premise, but it is logical. Okay, I'm a little bit confused with that. I think there's like different illogical aspects to it. One of them would be with the use mentioned distinction. A man is somebody who identifies as a man excludes non-English speaking men, which we would punitively agree non-English speaking men exist. Another problem I have with that is that the definition is uninformative. It doesn't actually tell us what a man is if we use the word in the referent and then it's self-referential and then we don't know what a man is. You got it. And this one coming in from Jesse Carrillo. Is this like one of your memes, Sonvy, from your army of followers? They say, let her cook. Is this, or is this just one of our sexist people in chat? Never let her cook means like. It's sexism, vile. No, she's doing well. Like something like that. Oh, okay. You got it. Vile sexism. This one from Rakhtruaz says saying that a person's gender identity ought to align with their sex commits the is-ought fallacy. Why should their gender align with their sex? Yeah, I don't think I made the argument that gender identity ought to align with sex. I think I say warrant what gender is and why it is different than sex. So I haven't yet to hear a coherent definition of man and woman and all our different genders these days. You got it? I don't think there's ever been a coherent definition for the record. I'm on gender anarchy on this one. We're My says this entire conversation feels like an argument on evolution wearing a different hat to me. Anybody else feel like that? Evolution? Yeah, I don't know. I didn't get it. This one from Supreme Emperor Kizza says, Vash, the only ones who are butchering the English language are people like yourself. Buy an Oxford English dictionary and stop butchering it. I know that this person doesn't consume any media outside of like hentai and maybe like isekai anime. So it's probably kind of a waste of time to refer to anything from English canon. But the English language is complicated and beautiful. The number of words we have, the rich range of expression, it's such wonderful stuff. And it's so sad to see people who probably grew up consuming media, reading books, watching movies that were made with deliberate artistic flourishes that played with identity. Like God, I bet a lot of you are cyberpunk fans. God, imagine being a cyberpunk fan and being anti-trans. Oh God, like the genre. You guys watched Blade Runner and then you came away from that thinking, yeah, I think your pronouns are like biological. Like you're building a box around a lot of people but you're doing it around yourself too. The world is so much larger than you think it is. And I'm just rooting for you is what I'm saying. Okay, I'm rooting for them. James, can you tell I'm rooting for them? He really is. There's so much rooting. This one from made by Jim Bob says, Bosch is the term, quote unquote, social construct, a universal term, or is it a social construct? If the former, what makes something universal versus a social construct? If it, like somebody earlier said, but like if it dies with us, then it's a social construct. The word social construct is a social construct because it's a word. The idea of something being disappeared along with us is not a social construct. That's like a distinction between stuff that people could arrive at through observation of the universe. Not of us, but of like the universe, right? So like a triangle is like a universal phenomenon. That you could arrive at mathematically anywhere in the universe, assuming the rules of physics and what have you are the same. But the idea of like a pyramid, the concept of a pyramid, like in terms of like an architectural sense. Well, the shape is just like four-sided triangular polygon, right? But the concept of a pyramid and what it means, that's like an us thing. I really, like most stuff is socially constructed. Even stuff that we use for like engineering, right? The definitions we have for like, okay, what exact width does a concrete beam have to be before you can have like a rebar in it? Like all that stuff, we choose those. We choose them because we do the math, we look at the data, and it's like, okay, it's really complicated, but let's set a boundary. So we have something to work with to make life easier for ourselves. You know what I mean? It's, you have to know when that's being done because otherwise you'll be played the fool. You'll be a victim of those constructs if you don't know you're in them. You got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. B, smiley the third. It says, son, we don't hold back on these people. Get them. Maxwell Pfeffer says, Vosh is God. He knows all. Wow. You have to say, Maxwell Pfeffer also says, Vosh knows what you've been thinking. He knows if you're awake. He knows if you've been bad or good. So don't question him for goodness sake. This one from- I don't have a surveillance. Any thoughts? Dohia says, if all these definitions are just socially constructed, doesn't that mean, quote, an adult human male is a completely acceptable definition of a man? Well, yeah, well, yeah. If all definitions are socially constructed, then you could make an argument for like complete linguistic anarchy and just say anything is anything. But I trend towards use and meaning, right? Utility, how much harm, how much good, how much descriptive worth do you get? And as I've said before, adult human male is a literally texturally incorrect definition that if you tried to use it to apply to all uses of the term man, you would instantly fall flat. And it would be like, it's useless. That's why the adult human male thing or whatever, like this is just, this is like a fuck over trans people term, right? Like this wasn't being used before. Nobody in like 57 was like, ah, you know, is writing a great book of literature. Like, ah, this thing, it's always been more illustrative than that. So if you can come up with a better definition, sure. But like the biological one does not hold up that well. You got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate it for Sanvi. They say, Stakuria says, does Sanvi know that there's no universal coordinates in space relativity 101? What does it have to do with anything? Is this because I asked about gravity? Is that what it's in response to? It's cold out there too. I don't know. But this one from Red says, the answer is that there is no answer. Quote, Varsh. Varsh, is this true? Well, in terms of trying to find empirics to social categories, yeah. Much like in taxonomy, you'll never find an objective, universally correct answer to what exact distinctions mark the difference between species. You just won't, it's just not a thing. I just think a lot of people got like, red-pilled on the aesthetic of being objectively correct. And they think that like, they're the science guys who are opposed to the like illogical trans people leaving aside the scientific organizations almost universally support trans people in their arguments. But it's just, this is, it's like how Albert Einstein was a really smart guy, but he took a lot of his research and thinking, not just from like physics, but from philosophy and literature, because the really intelligent like renaissance man doesn't just like ground their nose in like logic 101 because that doesn't tell them that much about the world when you're dealing with social constructs. You have to expand beyond that to grow. You got it. No one coming in from, do appreciate it. Ryan Big Guy says, Boss, you could identify as a Frenchman or a Martian. You were still born in America, making you an American. Your beliefs do not change reality. Wait, that's such a stupid example to make. First of all, you can renounce your citizenship and stop being an American in a literal sense. If I moved, renounced my citizenship and then culturally assimilated to another country, like it'd be weird to call me an American. I didn't need to speak English anymore, fucking lost the accent. I could move over to France and then be like culturally French. If there were a ship of colonists that went over to Mars, they would be called Martians. I'm not gonna be on that ship, but it could be. Like, come on, why would you use such a transparently social category to demonstrate what you consider to be like innate reality? Come on, think. This one coming in from, stay curious, is Sanvi. Why do you care why trans people identify themselves by a gender? Why does the question matter to you and what outcomes are you hoping for? It matters to me personally because I care about truth. When I see people saying things that are not logical, I think it's only reasonable to say something about it. It's not that I particularly care how you identify about the truth of the matter. You got it. Red says so, even if Vosh doesn't want to. According to his argument, he could technically identify as black instead of cool right now. Why doesn't he? Wait, hold on. There actually are people who identify as a race. Mixed race people often have a lot of social trouble because it's like, if you're half black or half Latin or whatever, which side do I go with? And it's like a code switching kind of thing. Now, obviously, I'm pretty pale and we do heavily associate race to skin color. This varies depending on what part of the world you're in. For instance, in Brazil, where there's like this incredibly rich tapestry of racial diversity, there are places where it's a lot more in the air than it is here. But keep in mind, this is totally arbitrary, right? Like for instance, a half black person in America is considered black, but there are half Mexican people that are considered white because they're light-skinned enough. Why would a half black person not be considered white? Like they're not more genetically black than they are white to the extent that genetically black and white are even things. The point that I'm getting at here is that if you really investigate the arbitrarity of mixed race identification and all that crap, you realize it's the same deal, man. Seriously, it's all complicated and none of it threatens you. None of it threatens you. Literally none of it, okay? You are being underpaid. Your excess labor is being stolen by the people who employ you. Your social opportunities dry up while everyone is forced online and real world physical spaces disappear as real estate developers eat up downtown areas and sit on them waiting to sell at high prices later. Real things are fucking over your life and this isn't it. This one from Bite Me XD says, Hey, Sonvy, what's the status on you making a YouTube channel? You have tons of people that want to subscribe and also would you ever consider running for office? Note to the second one, but I did make a YouTube channel. It's Sonvy.reasoning. Oh! It's really ugly. I have zero like videos up and somehow I have like a hundred subscribers, but this actually reminds me of something I wanted to say. If anybody has any experience on how to like start or build a YouTube channel, please message me because I would love to have the help. Amazing! I'm gonna put that link in the description box. I didn't even know you had one. I'm gonna find it. I'll put it in the description box. Yeah, I'll send it to you. Deal. Seville says, Vosh, have you dated or had sex with a trans woman? If no, why, and does that make you transphobic, practice what you preach. I'm the worst person to ask this. I've had sex with cis trans men and women. I've filled out the punet square. I'm like the worst, I'm the worst person to hit with this Godja. I'm sure your experience with trans women is primarily like Wojachs or whatever, but there are some fucking, there is a, the world is full of baddies, okay? And in following with the innately contradictory nature of linguistic performativity, some of these baddies are actually quite good. And maybe if you shape up your act, they'll pay attention to you one day. Wow, made by Jim Bob says, Vosh, what determines a contradiction if not logic? Okay, so a logical contradiction refers to, well, it can refer to a lot of stuff, but mutual exclusivity was what we were talking about, basically the idea of law of non-contradiction, a thing can't be a thing and not another thing. That doesn't apply to all cases. Metaphorically, allegorically, it can absolutely be a thing and also not a thing. We do this all the time. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. How can that be possible? Well, you know, that's English literature. If you go to like socially constructed stuff as well, you also make an implicit prescriptive argument for any category you're trying to assign. So it's quite possible to like, while talking about say, for example, gender, to say like, you know, a real man is some kind of rugged individualist who like heads out there and doesn't let anyone to tie him down, but also a real man is somebody who sticks to the family, takes care of his wife and kids. Those are mutually exclusive modes of behavior, but the same society considers both of those to be true. And there are men who will say that both of those things are manly, that there are guys who like idealize taking care of your family, but also being some kind of long wanderer. And they're not committing a logical contradiction. We just have a really innately contradictory understanding of gender, you know? And all I'm doing is recognizing that. I'm not saying that like, because I want to get rid of all of it. I'm not saying this is all good. I just think it's already there and we have to take it seriously. You got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. And I also just added Sonvy's link to the description box if you want to check it out. It's right there next to Vosh's. And folks, I didn't mention if you're listening via the podcast, because folks, if you didn't know Modern Aid Debate is available on all podcast apps, you can find our guest links in the description box there too. So if you're listening via podcast, check out our guest links in the description box there. Con the Stoner, Lynn says, Sonvy are adoptive parents, parents? I answered this question last time. Yeah, adoptive parents are parents. And I think what being a parent has to do with if you take care of somebody as your dependent, not if you're biologically related to somebody, right? Like we don't really call sperm donors, parents or something like that. You got it. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Jamnic06 says, Vosh, thank you for emphasizing that seeking great understanding and deeper knowledge can improve one's quality of life and how we should be focused on more important things as a society. Well, being nice, man, oh my God. Yeah, it's like, I know obviously I'm playing up the being a patronizing snarky div shit to the chat because, you know, antagonism is most fun when it's mutual, but like, yeah, legitimately. I don't know. I think the people most concerned with manhood are the people most entrapped by it, I think. And a critical understanding of the systems that they ascribe to would probably make them a lot happier and would probably make them more manly too because people consider confidence to be a masculine virtue and insecurity is often a product of that internal conflict, so, yeah. You got it. Supreme Emperor Kizas says, Vosh, those species in question are not sexually dimorphic and those lionesses don't become lions by definition. So well done for failing biology. I don't know how you could say they don't become lions by definition when you're citing the definition that you just, wait, what does that even mean? No, what do you mean by definition? The, our understanding of biology, okay. Biology 101 is meant to give you guys a simple understanding of how this stuff works. You realize that, right? It's like when you take physics 101 or economics 101, like you don't learn the deep secrets to confound the experts. The stuff about like what leads to sexual dimorphism and like lionesses turning into lions or whatever on a higher level is like a pretty in-depth subject in terms of research and study. I don't know what I said that you consider to be a violation of biology 101 when this goes beyond that, but you could really like do to look into it. It suggests some interesting stuff. The funny thing is that if you apply the reactionary logic to those lion tribes, what they would do is they would actually socially repress the lionesses that start acting like lions growing in Maine and doing the hunting, right? If you applied their socially reactionary logic, they'd be like, no, actually you can't do that or you're not legally allowed to fill those roles or medically transition via whatever mechanism they do. I don't know. This is a tortured analogy. It's just cool. You got it. This one also, folks, we're 29 likes away from being at 600, so we appreciate your likes. Thanks so much. If you thought that your side was more persuasive in this debate, a great way for more people to see this video, for YouTube to push this video out to recommend it to more, is by hitting like. No joke, it makes a difference. This one's coming in from Srenhok says, Sonvy, define an adult, a human, and a male. Okay, I'll start with the male part. A male is somebody in the context of a million species with an expressed SRY gene. Females do not have an expressed SRY gene. Females haven't expressed SRY gene. Adult, I'll define it in adult as somebody that's 18 years of age or older. And then as for the homo sapien or the human part, I think human is just a taxonomical classification. We evolved from the bonobos to have the traits of our thumbs, among other things with our DNA that I won't get into that because I don't know enough about that, but yeah. Juicy, Samuel Monroe says, Sonvy, do you have a moral issue with categorizing trans men as men? In that case, how? Hugs slash Sam. Do I have a moral issue? Is that what it says? Correct. Okay, no, I have a logical issue. This one from Wah says, Vosch in Walsh's documentary. I think they mean Matt Walsh's, What is a Woman Documentary? Vosch's favorite movie, by the way. Right, is a claimed research text, right. They say multiple trans men say they will quote, never be a real man, unquote. And some say they don't want to. So factually, all trans men are not men. Do you disagree? Yeah, obviously. When people feel insecure, they often say statements like, I will never be a real ex. Lots of cis men do that, judging by the fact that you're making comments like that. I would say you do that on a daily basis. Like, this is not a grounded epistemic argument on the nature of gender. This is a statement of one's personal confidence. A lot of trans people deal with a lot of social problems. They deal with a lot of harassment, that kind of stuff. It's not surprising to me that a lot of them would feel kind of down. Also, note how they said real man. Interesting question. What exactly does it mean to be a real man? Because I've heard lots of cis people say, both about themselves and others, that they're not real men or real women. They're not talking about this in some kind of trans culture war way. They're saying like, you'll never be a real man until you learn to own up to your mistakes and accept responsibility. Now, what the fuck does that mean if man is a purely biological term? Because we've been saying shit like that for millennia. Where did that come from, huh? Were they woke? Is it woke when dads in the 1950s were like real men take care of their, take care of their loved ones? I was like, no dad, you fucking commie. Real men are adult human males. Like nah, nah, I just, I know you're like desperate for the gotchas, but like I really think for a second because the only thing that's been biologically unveiled by the don't know that you left is that your IQ is not high enough to have this conversation. You can work on that. Mercy Faye says, Sanvi, how would you feel if someone called you a man? Would you tell them that they're wrong? You identify as a woman, right? I would just debate them. I'm not a woman because I identify as one. I'm a woman because I'm a female. Juicy, this one from The Unwanted Man says, when will Vosh shave his beard? Is there talk about you shaving your beard Vosh? Now somebody in my community by the way, Photoshopped the picture where I shave my beard and I look like an absolute buffoon. And now it's like, we'll prove them wrong. Shave your beard, bro. I like having a beard, God damn it. And there are pictures of me without a beard from like a decade ago when I was a kid and fatter than I am now. And I didn't look like that. So I don't need to prove anything. If I ever get ripped, like properly ripped, like I've got the cum gutters and everything, I'll shave my beard, we'll see. What was the phrase? Well, you should know, James, you're in great shape. You know, the obliques, like on the side of the abs. And oh, okay, wow. Okay, thank you for teaching me the slaying. This is interesting. Okay, I think I found the picture. You can make better use of it than I can. Yeah, you found the, yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, I don't, yeah, no, I should sue that person for defamation really. That's a fan of mine who did that by the way. It's purely, purely defamatory. Wow, you look great, Vosh. Okay. Thank you. Much appreciated. This, this one coming in from, you look tremendous. Thank you. Just LOL says, stop seeding ground to the left. This is, this issue only exists because we now allow gender freedom. Gender, conformity, laws, like the early 1900s was high IQ. I mean, there are people who literally think that, but like it's, so the actual like psychological explanation for this is that sexually insecure and unsuccessful men feel as though women are being taken for them by way of a bunch of social processes that are being brought about by progressive liberals if they're not fully crazy and Jews, if they are fully crazy. And they think that like the trans thing is just like one more step. Listen, okay, I've got a hot suggestion for you, okay? Trans and queer people broadly are making the world significantly better for you, all right? Because man, they are by far the most socially outgoing, communicative and sexually exploratory people in this shitty country that we live in, all right? If you're having trouble, if you're sitting in your bed like alone or whatever, you're feeling lonely, you're spending a lot of time online, hating trans people. Man, don't go if you're gonna bother anyone, but go to like a queer club or something, go like a bar. I swear to God, it's so hard to have a bad time there. I really feel like you could be better than the man you are now. Wow, thoughts on this one, Sanvi? I was a question, I'm sorry. That one was stop giving ground to the left. This only exists because we now allow gender freedom. Gender conformity laws like the early 1900s was high IQ. I don't think it should be illegal to call yourself a different gender. You got it. That's communism. So, I don't know how to, I don't agree with that part of it, but obviously I disagree that a trans man is man and trans woman is woman and gender ideology and hope. I don't think it should be illegal. Wait, I'm sorry, one second. I just saw someone in your chat, James, who responded, nope, never, I'll pass. Bro, I've gone to shooting ranges where everyone's a cop and everyone's wearing a cowboy hat, okay? I've gone to farms. I've hung out with every single demographic of conservative country and you're afraid of a gay bar? What are you afraid of that you'll see something you like? You're such a coward, you're such a weakling, you're such a woman. Oh my God, I'm disgusted by you. I'm being feminized, just looking at you, right? I gotta scroll my chat down. Sorry, just got real worked up on that one. This one coming in from Mr. Monster says, I didn't even see it in chat, but I'll take your word for it. They say, I definitely believe what a trans man can also, I definitely believe that a trans man can also be a drag queen. Any disagreements? Oh yeah, sure. Yeah, I literally have known trans men and women who are drag queens or kings. A drag queen is somebody who does the costuming as female and a drag king is somebody who does the costuming as male, but yeah, it's got more into that. Traditionally drag is more of a straight, or not straight, sorry, cisgender gay dude going up there, but there's been more of it. I don't even like drag, honestly. I don't like the kits over the top color stuff and drag queens are all way the fuck to outgoing socially for me, but if they're having fun with it, hell yeah. You got it. I'm from do appreciate it. The unwanted man says, what tangible evidence does Vosh have that he's a man? I'm the worst person for this to be asked of. I leaked my own dick pics like a month after starting streaming. This is, I have provided a higher evidentiary standard than most YouTubers. I would ask, how do we know, Matt Walsh is a biological male. The answer, you have no idea. He could be a trans guy, you have no idea, do you? Hmm, maybe you should look into that. Spam his comments with questions such as those. Wow. This one coming in from do appreciate it. Simon Allen says, just love. This one from sunflower says, follow up for Vosh. Are you arguing that the word men already includes trans men or that it ought include trans men regarding majority acceptance? Oh, that's actually a really, really good question. Definitions vary like all over the place, right? Like for instance, people in different parts of America have words for like soda, like they'll say pop or cola or whatever. In reality, when I say like, this is what I mean, I'm making a descriptive and prescriptive argument. I'm saying this is how I use it, trans men or men, but I'm also prescriptively arguing in favor of people using it broadly. If I were to go to another part of the world where like nobody believed that, I could say something like, okay, over here, they don't consider trans men to be men, but they are because I'm making a prescriptive argument in favor of my belief system. It's kind of like, I don't know, like a homophobia thing, right? Or I would say like, it's okay to be gay, but then I go to Saudi Arabia and I'd go like, okay, well, here it's not okay to be gay here, but it's okay to be gay morally. I'm an advocate for that position. You got it. That's a good question. I actually appreciate them asking. Coconut cream pie says, you know it's good. They say, Varsh performed admirably, but since Sanvi is hotter, she won. Gigi Varsh, get a new haircut. This is misundry. This one from... This is misundry. I don't know what to say. Anti-male community. Eris 385 says, some smaller Christian sex may say women are not even human because of the original definition of words in Hebrew and Greek text in the Bible. Yeah, I mean, it's funny because like the current use of the... You know how like people say the origin of man and by man they mean like everyone, like all humans, not just men or women? If I remember correctly, like the reason etymologically that came about is because like it came from like a Greek word and the Greek word that got derived into man in like the broad sense originally meant men. So they took the word that meant me, us, and then it was like this is humanity and like extrapolated it out, right? Which is like kind of a weird implication with women, you know, like where are they left in that? It's not good. People are misogynistic as it turns out. Balthasar 228 says, Vosch has stated in the past that he prefers masculine equines. Am I saying that right, equines? They say... I'm sure you are. Would he also prefer trans masculine equines? I fully respect all modes of transgenderism in the horse community. This one from Simon Allen says, Sondi, would you debate creation? I think this is because you conceded evolution earlier or something to that effect. Oh, I mean, I was just giving a biological definition, but I don't know who is creation. Are they saying that I should debate? Yeah, I think they're saying like they want to see you debate like Kent Hovind or somebody. I don't, we don't really a host Kent anymore, but... I mean, I guess it's not really something I've looked into or something, but I don't know, I'd be open to having a conversation. All American mafia says if the word quote unquote woman can encapsulate any type of human, what is the purpose of using that word anyway? Justify using the word if it's meaningless. That's a great question. It would be better directed at somebody who wasn't a gender abolitionist. No, like right now we have understandings of ideas, cultural meaning associated with the words man and woman. We have a lot of meaning like a lot, a lot, a lot of meaning associated with it. So as long as there is meaning, there is value. And as long as there is value, there will be people who try to define themselves around it. All of us, not just trans people. I'm in favor of free identification in so far as we have gender, but my goal in the longterm is for gender to matter less, not more. Which I'm also arguing for here fundamentally. I'm essentially arguing the ultimate arbitrarity of gender, its complete subjectivity and its ultimate subservience to our social biases. That does kind of indicate that it's maybe not the most worthwhile social construct. I feel the same way about race. You got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Comrade Anthony says, actually yes, you can have read a book and not read a book. I have read, quote unquote, tons of audio books, but not physically read any of them. And that's just a difference on what we mean by read. So like, I think listen to would be more accurate, but you can't simultaneously read a book as in visually read the words on pages and simultaneously not, because that would entail a contradiction. Now what you're arguing is that you just mean something different by read, which is listen to, in which case I also think you can't both listen to something and not listen to something at the same time, because that would also entail a contradiction. So it just really depends. You just need to clarify what you mean there. You got it. This one from, I'm that guy, man. So Sanvi, do you have a YouTube channel? If not, will you make one? It's linked in the description. Check it out. Vosh is also linked in the description. What are you waiting for, folks? Dark E. Boney 89 says, Sanvi, do you believe that transitioning to a trans man or woman is harmful to society in any way? If so, do you believe it is a priority issue? I don't believe it's a priority issue. This one coming in from, Emery King says, Sanvi, what do you get by denying my identity? What do I gain by it? Correct. I don't think all identities are valid. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I don't think all identities are valid. What do I gain? I kind of already answered this earlier, but I care about truth, and you should care about truth too. So instead of saying that, refute a claim that I made. There is like a huge influx of questions for Sanvi right in this list. They say, Supreme Member Kizza says, Sanvi, I know an intersex YouTuber who I can introduce to you, and they can explain what they are privately. Do you have discord? Yeah, I do have discord. I don't know what it is though. Maybe you can link it in the description afterwards when I find it and send it to James. Can you be called a discord user if you don't know what discord is? This one from the chatter says, Sanvi is conflating the correlation of social concepts slash logic with the causation of mathematical logic and it's giving me an aneurysm. What is that supposed to mean? I've studied the philosophy of math, like it's based in logic too. What does causation mean here? I think it's something- Are you familiar with scientific? Out of curiosity, I didn't ask it earlier. Are you familiar with the epistemology of science, like the metaphysical philosophy? Yeah, like the derivation of knowledge I've read a lot on like empiricism versus rationalism, things like that. Okay, just curious. This one coming in from Shan B.76 says, Sanvi, an American must know what America is. So using one of your own objections to Vosh, a person that gets brain damage so that they have no concept of America is no longer American? Yeah, so I would say that I was kind of doing an internal critique of Vosh of Zyu. I'd probably, if you asked me my definition, probably have something to do with nationality and like citizenship. I was just saying that identifying as an American doesn't quite make you an American. Just the same way that identifying as like brain death or whatever you just said doesn't make you brain. So yeah. Oh, excuse me. This one from Joe QR says, for Sanvi, based off your definition, what does man up mean? Adult human male up or do you recognize a different definition? I think when people say man up, they just mean be more masculine. That's what that would mean. This one from Grim Friberg says, Sanvi, would you correct me if I chose to call you person X instead of your name because you can't define what a Sanvi is without pointing to yourself. No, that's correct. So this is similar to, as names truly have, unless you have a name that's like a word, names truly have no meaning. They're just letters that sound good together, right? And you can choose not to refer to me as the letters that sound good together. I would not have picked this name for myself if I could have picked. So it doesn't matter. But if you asked me to refer to you as a man, you're saying I identify as a man. I'm not saying I identify as a Sanvi. I say my name is Sanvi. I like the collection of letters. That's the distinction is I'm not referring to any concept beyond the sound itself, whereas men and women and transgender individuals are. You got it. This one coming in from the unwanted man says, can kids consent to identify as trans for the purpose of medically transitioning? And does their consent apply to use their genitals? At what age? I don't know. Is it for? I assume this is for me, because it's very weird and I get the weird ones. So they can identify as whatever they want. That's not really like a consent because that's in their head. So that's just them. When it comes to medical transition, there are puberty blockers at a young age, like 10 to 12 or so, that reversibly and without harming a person prevent the onset of puberty. So you can have time to decide whether you'd rather take hormones to transition for like surgery stuff, like bottom surgery. That's like an adult thing. Like that's not like 12 year olds aren't getting bottom surgery. That doesn't seem medically prudent. I mean, I will generally agree with like the standard guideline for practice the medical institutions have come up with on this issue and cause that seems to bring about the best results. We have data on it and what's happening right now with regards to transition seems to be like pretty functional medically in terms of the outcomes that we're getting. I do have to go in about 10 minutes. Is that okay? Yes, we're almost there. I have to guess like a race horse. So I'm with you on that. This one coming in from, we're gonna move really fast. So pointless poppy says, why do you think our language requires us to repeatedly remind each other what sex slash gender is? Oh, I'm totally in favor of like the, I think it's real. Not all languages have pronouns that are based on the gender of the person being referred to, by the way. Like this is like an English language thing. There's different stuff in different languages. So yeah, I don't know. There's room for like broader change there, but it's kind of hard to just change a language, you know? You got it. This one coming in from Jamnic06 says, Vosch, thank you for, we got that one. Diego BP says, I almost drowned in Mexico once, but I remember that Vosch had taught me that there's only aqua there, and that it's a social construct. You saved my life, Vosch, truly one of the minds of all time. Swimming along the beach just south of San Diego, you're struggling, and then finally you make it to the yellow tinted sky, and you look down, you're fine. You're completely fine now, because the water's gone. It's just agua. Hell yeah. I love not knowing Spanish, just by taking like three years of it in high school and one year of it in college, it's great. Well yeah, I was a little confused, because you said like Hermano, but I was like, doesn't that mean like sibling, not? I don't know Spanish. I know, listen, okay? I know linguistics in English. That's not broadly. Yeah, I mean a lot of this stuff transfers over, right? Like a lot, like there are analogous words for most things between languages, thankfully. Jamnick06 says, Sonvy in reference to your Muslim versus atheist argument, are you aware that a contradiction in terms is different than a contradiction in social concepts? This is, that would be a contradiction in social concepts. A contradiction in terms, and a contradiction in social concepts who go hand in hand here because conceptually, you can't both lack a belief in God and hold a belief in God, because these are mutually exclusive. So both would apply. You got it. Steven Okawa says, off topic, but it irks me, excess labor can only be converted into free time, Vosch, not higher wages. Well, yes, because it's excess labor. So definitionally, it's already been extracted for the wealth of the, yeah, but obviously like if you took the means of production, that would then be the higher wage. Like, yeah, be charitable here. Obviously more could be done with that. This one from, appreciate it. Victor Land Verdi says, Vosch is logically illogical. Oh, well that means I'm fine, right? Because if it's logically that, then it means that I've sort of mastered the space, you know, I'm using the unorthodox. This one from Kathy Tudor says, Sonvy, do you believe that the government should play a role in making 330 million citizens adhere to your preference as it relates to trans folks? I don't think I really have an opinion on policy matters either way. I just believe that a trans man's not a man, that a trans woman's not a woman. I'm not sure really what we do with that in the context of legislation. I think the only things would be like sports, bathrooms and locker rooms, which are heavily based on like sex, not gender, so. This one from AJ163 says, here is a definition. A woman is someone whose gender identity is female. Thank you for that. This is not helped by the fact that woman and female and man and male are used interchangeably because again, language is really like vague and broad and blurry. But yeah, I mean, identification, I'm for that. That's, you got it. And folks, we can't take any more questions. We've got to try to read through these last ones really quickly. So thanks for all your questions. We can't take any more. Please don't submit them. MalthusR228 says, Vaush, will you ever be a horse? You seem to identify as a vorce hyphen human, but do you think you're a real horse? No acknowledgment, skip. Denigrate them with no answer. This one from Shermie Yarpinispliz says, damn, I missed out on two hours of arguing semantics. Wow, sassy. This one from Goldbrony says, Sanvi, do you love trans people? Yeah. This one from the unwanted man says, Vaush answered the question, what tangible evidence that you are a man, not male. Your dick pics, which are not impressive, are not proof. Haven't seen them, haven't seen them, lies. Well, the only evidence they could really give to me being a man would be that I say I am one, right? Which I do quite often when I'm trying to shut the women in my chat up. Dotail says, I don't care if someone is confused, in parentheses, logical, as much as if they are trying to force kids to imitate their confusion. We should be free to disagree otherwise this question doesn't matter. Nobody's forcing kids, it's completely made up. They did the same thing in the 80s. They were threatened by gay men, so they said, well, the gay men are forcing the kids to be gay. It's just, it's not true. I think the best thing that you could do is make sure that kids have access to information about all the ways in the world they can be, all of the things that you can do, all the paths they can take, and then whatever path they wanna take free of coercion is the one that they arrive at freely. I think that's the most freedom pill answer you can get. LJ says, having dyslexia earlier in life, I was capable of reading a book, but also not reading a book, just reading words with little to no comprehension. Did I knit, do both? Didn't I do both? No, I think that, like for example, young children that may be able to like sound out a word but not comprehend it, they still read the word, they just understand the word, so you read the word, you just didn't get it. You got it. That's all for our questions. I wanna say thank you very much, folks, for all of your questions, and thank you most of all to our guests. It's been a true pleasure to have you here. Vashin Sanvi, thanks so much. This is an epic debate, to say the least. I had a lot of fun and I really appreciate the time. James Sanvi, thank you both. Thank you, thank you so much. My pleasure. Folks, stick around. I'm gonna be back with a quick post credits after show, letting you know about upcoming debates. You don't wanna miss out on that. Wanna say thanks one more time to our guests. We're linked in the description. And folks, thanks so much for all of your likes. We are two likes from 700, so do appreciate it if you can hit that like button, and if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button, because we have many more debates coming up with that. We will see you next time. Thanks everybody. And like I said, stick around. I'll be back in just about 30 seconds. Amazing, my dear friends. We hope that you're doing well. Wanna say thanks for all of your support. Just squeeze the screen down here. A little bit snug, cozy in there. Wanna say thank you guys for your support. It means more than you know. We are excited that modern day debate, thanks to you guys, has been growing so much. It's important to us. We're not ashamed of the fact that we wanna grow. The reason is, we believe YouTube deserves a high class type of YouTube channel. One that's neutral, one that is fair. That gives everybody their fair shot, no matter what walk of life they come from. Christian, atheist, politically, left politically, right, black, white, gay, straight. You name it. We're glad that you were here. We hope you feel welcome. And we wanna say thanks so much for all of your support, my friends. We have got big things coming up. So in particular, a big debate between Cliff Kanettle and Matt DeLondi this coming Tuesday on whether or not Christianity is true, a classic topic for this channel. Folks, if you're new to modern day debate, we are a neutral channel, hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. We really run the gamut here. We have had almost every topic. Like really, we've had a lot. We've had whether or not Bigfoot exists. One of my favorite topics. We have had all of the classic political topics like gun control, abortion, you name it. And I gotta tell you, I always enjoy this. Like I love modern day debate. The reason that I love it is one, it's truly an eclectic community. We have people from all walks of life here. We've got topics from all walks of life. My dear friends, let me share with you some of the values of modern day debate. In particular, it's important to us that things are, as I mentioned, fair. We believe that YouTube deserves a better class of debate channel and we're gonna give it to them. Here at modern day debate, we also value freedom. That people can say what they want, that it's actually genuine. That it's not overly produced and where it's like, oh, you can't say that. Like we just say, hey, gonna let people say what they want. And a lot of people are like, ooh, James, that's a little bit risky, isn't it? That's a little bit, maybe that's irresponsible because what if people say something that's inappropriate or whatever, blah, blah, blah, it's harmful. Would someone please think of the children? We always say this. That's where our third value of competition comes in. If you let a thousand flowers bloom, if you let the chips fall where they may, we believe the best arguments will win out. And so if you're thinking like, James, I'm afraid of those dangerous views, we would say, well, you probably think that those who advocate for those dangerous views have weaker arguments, right? So for example, if let's say it's white supremacy and someone says, you know, I'm worried, James, because we've had white supremacists on the channel before, we've had some pretty controversial people. And you might say, hey, James, I'm worried. And I say, well, you know, you don't think that the white supremacists are actually making the better arguments, do you? And they're like, well, no, of course not. And I'm like, okay, well, then if you think that the arguments against them are clearly stronger, well, then that's our reasoning at modern day debate. As we would say, hey, well, then it's a good thing that the white supremacists' positions being exposed, right? It's almost like a vaccine, the original vaccine idea is you give somebody like a smaller dose of something, a weakened version of it, and then they're immune to it, inoculated for the future. At modern day debate, if we allow people to hear those controversial positions and then refutations, for example, a classic debate on modern day debate was, I won't name the two white supreme guys because I don't wanna take the focus off the actual topic that I'm getting at here, but Vosh and Destiny one time partnered up and that was actually against two fellows who you could say were white supremes. And in that debate, you'd say, well, hey, if you actually thought that Vosh and Destiny were actually refuting these positions, well, then isn't it a good thing that we host this debate? People have a lot of concerns still where they say, well, James, but what if the white supremacists, whoever it is that they're concerned about, they say, well, what if they have a more attractive speaker or a better sense of humor or they're just more charismatic, whatever it is, that might persuade people, even though their arguments aren't as good, and I would say, hey, the research has been done, this has empirically been looked at, is that the research is very clear, it's the elaboration likelihood model, Petty and Cassioppo 1985. It shows that compared to, you could say, central modes of persuasion, such as evidence-based logical arguments, more peripheral ways of persuading, such as the attractiveness of the speaker or how funny the speaker is, or actually, in other words, let me put it this way, those central types of persuasion, those central routes seem to be more effective in attitude change compared to more peripheral routes, like the attractiveness of the speaker. And so I would say going back to our value of competition, it would seem to be the case that the empirical research suggests that, well, no, even in those cases where the speaker might be more attractive or charismatic, the best arguments are gonna win out. And I see a lot of times people, they are like, oh, James, I object and I say, well, okay, great, you object and you usually 99.9% of the time, maybe 100% of the time, actually, they just give me this armchair philosophy of like, well, I think it's bad, James that you host this, and here, they just give some sort of line of reasoning that it's not like they give any sort of empirical support for it, and they say, hey, I give my line of reasoning as well, what's the tiebreaker? And I say, it's the empirical research. I gave mine, like I even cited the citation of the original seminal article, and they never have any. They're just silent, like I've seen even PhDs where I say, well, okay, great, well, what's your empirical research? Have you read it? And they go, okay, well, I haven't read it. I might have to get back to you on that. So I've gotta say, people have so many opinions, but we would say, hey, when you look at the empirical research, it backs our three values, which as I said, one, fairness. We want it to be a neutral platform, and two, freedom. We want people to be able to say what they want, and three, we believe in the value of competition. You know, I hear sometimes people say, oh, a competition, it's so bad. You know, it's like, you know, I don't like debates, because when you're debating, you're not really listening to what the person's saying. You're only thinking about what you're gonna say next, and that means that you're not actually like listening and hearing them. And it's like, well, that doesn't make any sense at all. Like if you're a good debater, you are listening to them because you have to respond to what they're saying. Otherwise, if the argument goes left, unresponded to throughout the debate, the person will point that out to the audience and say, you know, I made arguments A, B, and C. At the start, my opponent didn't even address arguments B and C. They didn't even have a response. A good debater will do that. They'll actually point that out to the audience because the audience needs that. There's just so much information going on in the debate. And so that's why it's like, well, no, no, like, if you're a bad debater, then yeah, it's probably true that you're just thinking about what you're gonna say next, you're not actually listening. But if you're a good debater, you're actually having to listen because you know that you've gotta refute their arguments. So we know that there's a lot of, I think it's, my position is I tend to think that a lot of our culture is a little bit overly polite. You know, they're like, oh, debating's bad. You know, like competition bad. You know, you just be passive. And some of them are even so soy that they'll go so far as to say, you know, you shouldn't say that one position is right or that your position is right and that somebody else is wrong. Which is ironic because I mean, in a way they're kind of asserting that very position, namely this assertion that you shouldn't do that. They're kind of saying like, that's the best way to do things because they're kind of pushing that on people. But the idea is it's so, there's anything to be too much, right? You know, you can have too much of a certain vitamin and it starts to get toxic for your body. You can have too much water and you, that's bad for your body too. You can have too much sleep. Most sleep researchers actually think that between seven and eight hours of sleep is kind of the sweet spot. And if you get nine, that's where they actually start to say, that's actually probably not very good for you if you start going above nine. So the research is clear and you can have too much of virtually anything. And so in that case I would say there is such a thing as being too polite. Like our culture I think sometimes is too polite to where it's just a little bit like it's gone off the rails and it's unreasonable where it's like this is just getting silly. And that's why we are willing to say that stuff, that, ugh. We're not so here for the real deal. I wanna say thank you guys for your support though. We are at 736 likes, that's huge you guys. If we can get to, if we can get to 750, I will show you guys the tattoo. I'm serious, I'll do it. We gotta do it really fast though because I gotta go, I actually wanna go to the, I wanna go work out. So if we can get there in the next two minutes, which is just 24 likes in the next two minutes, I'll show you the tattoo. Have you guys not seen the tattoo? It's real. It's the Subway logo on my back. Like Subway the tattoo, like the, I should say Subway the sandwich shop. I just think of it as a tattoo shop now but, but it's real. I wanna say thank you guys for your support. My dear friends, we're excited about the future. We are constantly working on improving modern day debate because we'll admit there are things that we can improve on. Not perfect, like we've got things, we're a work in progress. But I gotta tell you this, modern day debate has come a long way. In five years, we've hit 100,000 subscribers. We wanna say thank you guys. Thank you to the speakers. Thank you to everybody at Holy Smokes, we're at 747. Okay, we need three more likes in the next minute. I'll show you guys the tattoo. We're really close. We needed two more likes. Have you guys not seen the tattoo? Seriously. But I wanna say this. The reason that I got the tattoo was because when we have our in-person conferences named DebateCon is when we host DebateCon, we were like, hey, this is actually a huge resource for modern day debate. We're gonna actually cover the speaker's lunch at DebateCon and it can also cover like if we get, let's say somebody gets a VIP ticket for the conference, we can cover their lunch as well. So that's actually no joke why I got the tattoo. So I wanna say thank you guys for your support. We're at 750. All right, I'll show it to you. Have you, for real? All right, here we go. It's for real. Oh, this feels so, okay. Very vulnerable for me. Can you see it? It's real. That's the real thing. My dear friends, if you didn't see this, let me know in chat. Cause it is real. Like that's not a, it's not one of those like, you know, you put the corridor in the machine and you twist the thing and it gives you one of those temporary, this is the real thing. It's not temporary. But I wanna say my dear friends, thank you guys for your support. Thank you guys for hitting that like button. Thank you guys also for hitting share. Is if you have not already done so, consider hitting that share button. If you do, oh it is green screening, that's funny, is I don't have a PhD yet. Yuma won, thanks for saying that. I am really close. I am so close to having it. And I wanna say we're excited about that. Is that my dissertation, the goal is to defend it by the end of this year. So really excited about that as well. A lot of cool stuff coming up for modern day debate and that I think is gonna be a really fun, new change in my life. I wanna say thank you guys for all your support. Thanks for all your positivity. Thank you guys for making modern day debate what it is. You guys have helped us so much. Seriously, we appreciate it. We're excited about the future. If you haven't yet, hit that share button. Share this debate with somebody out there who loves debates, loves these topics, whatever it might be. That really does go a long way for real. So hit that share button. We appreciate it. Thank you guys for doing that. I love you guys. I mentioned the debate between Matt Delhonte and Cliff coming up this, what would that be? This Tuesday. You don't wanna miss it. So if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button. Thank you guys. I look forward to seeing you in the next one. And like I said, modern day debate, we are absolutely determined to continue to grow, to continue to do bigger and better things. We appreciate all of your support. Thank you guys. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable and we'll see you next time.