 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating Transphobia and we are starting right now with Jangle's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us. Jangle's the floor is all yours. All right, so y'all, I promise it does not escape my awareness that two cis dudes are having a debate about what constitutes bigotry against trans people. So let's shorten things up. I want to go ahead and end the debate now. My definition of Transphobia is the belief that trans women is, this is the definition, the belief that trans women are not women and trans women or trans men are not men and a denial of non-binary identities. Done. No hasty generalization fallacies. I have simply defined myself into being correct and if you disagree, I'm sorry that I'm using a definition that's different from yours. See for us, the semantics are the point. We're just having a debate, a spectacle to fuel our own egos that at the end of the day won't really matter to us. Meanwhile, more legislation targeting trans people has been introduced in past in 2021 than in the past 10 years combined. Excuse me, the trans panic defense has only been banned in 12 states as of April 2nd this year. Trans adults and youth who are not supported in their identities face much worse mental and physical health outcomes and it seems that the vast preponderance of evidence supporting social and medical transitioning has not persuaded some people to their legitimacy due to having different definitions. Transphobia is harming trans people as we speak. So let's talk definitions and fallacies and pretend that the root of opposition to the equal rights of trans people doesn't lie squarely in the negative position in this debate tonight and I'll just go ahead and end right there. Thank you very much, Jingle, for that opening statement. We are going to kick it over to T-Jump for his opening statement as well. Want to let you know, it's your first time here, folks, at Modern Day Debate. We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And we want to let you know, we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from. So with that, Tom Jump, the floor is all yours. All right, so the definition of transphobia is dislike or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people. There's absolutely nothing about the definition of woman anywhere in there. It's just something you just kind of made up. So yes, we are using a different definition and that's fine. The problem is, is when someone else says that their definition is right and you have to use their definition or your evil. There's someone else who does that. It's called religious people. This is why the woke ideology is called a religion. If you disagree, you're evil. That's a fallacy. So simply just defining yourself as right and defining anyone who disagrees with who is wrong is what cults and religions do. That is clearly a false ideology. And what you need to do is acknowledge that, yeah, people can still disagree and not be prejudiced in any way. They just think there's a different, more appropriate definition of a word or they think disagree on a fact. And neither of those involve prejudice. Like if a trans person said one plus one equals three and I said, no, it doesn't, it equals two. That's not transphobic. I just think they're wrong about math. The same thing applies to the word woman. If someone thinks the word woman applies to a psychological state and someone else disagrees and thinks it applies to a biological state and they disagree, that's not transphobic. They just disagree about what the correct definition is. And simply defining the person who disagrees with you as being transphobic is a terrible dumb argument that religious people do and just say, well, you just want to sin because, well, evolution leads you to the devil. That's all it is. So the woke answer here of just defining anyone who disagrees with them as being transphobic is just as bad as any religious ideology and not allowing for any kind of criticism or disagreement, which is dumb, like literally dumb. I think one of the biggest problems with the woke ideology is that they don't differentiate between criticism and hate. They just label anybody who disagrees as hateful and that's bad. That's one of the worst things you can do as an ideology. One of the things that shows your ideology is shallow and you can't take criticism as if you just define anyone who disagrees as bad. So calling anyone racist, transphobic, sexist, misogynist is just defining anyone who disagrees with you as clearly a dumb ideology. Now, I'm not against the motivations of the woke community. I think being accepting of everyone is a great thing, but I am against the stupid arguments that a large amount of the woke community uses, which are the same as the stupid arguments Christians use. Some common examples are, well, whatever that thing we're talking about is, well, it was created by bad people, therefore it's wrong. That's a genetic fallacy. You know, for a fact that doesn't ever work as an argument or it empowers bad people, it empowers bigots. That's an appeal to consequence fallacy. It doesn't mean whatever we're talking about isn't true or correct. Also doesn't work. Most people who use it are bad people, they're bigots. Again, the guilt by association fallacy does not show it's wrong. It harms trans people. Appeal to consequence fallacy. That doesn't make whatever we're talking about false or wrong. Calling someone racist, sexist or transphobic because one interpretation of an argument can be considered racist or one group of people uses it in a racist way without considering other non-racist interpretations is a hasty generalization fallacy and we know that's wrong. It's really important to the person that you call them that label and don't call them your definition. Well, that's an appeal to emotion fallacy. Does that make it false? No, so that also doesn't work. All these examples are common woke arguments that are just as dumb and fallacious as Christian arguments that have Christian counterpart using the same fallacy. Oh, that's from the devil. That leads people away from Jesus. Most people believe in evolution hate God. You are harming Christians, a war on Christianity. You just want to sin. Stop attacking my important beliefs. These are literally Christian arguments that we know are fallacious and garbage arguments. So we can obviously see how stupid these arguments are when applied to Christianity, but the woke community can't see how the exact same arguments are just as dumb when applied to their own ideology. And this is a problem. The biggest fallacy in the woke community is that they can't differentiate factual disagreement and hate. If there is a justifiable reason to think that woman is better defined as a biological woman rather than a psychological state, it's perfectly reasonable to use that definition and to disagree or to not accept the definition other people choose to use. There's nothing prejudiced about it. I just think that they're wrong. I think that the word woman since the Latin origin of the word female is literally the meaning of the word woman that it's perfectly reasonable since this is the way the word has been used for the most of history that people could interpret the word woman to mean biologically female. That's perfectly rational. The fact that you want to come along and make up your own definition and say everyone has to use it or your evil is just dumb. It's just as dumb as Christians like imposing their ideology on everyone else. It doesn't make any sense. So my question for Jengles is how can people interpret the word woman to mean biological woman and is that a reasonable interpretation given the history of the word in different cultures? Is that something that people can do rationally and to how can people disagree with you about facts or definitions without being transphobic? We are going to jump into open conversation. Want to let you know, though, folks, we are absolutely thrilled for many juicy upcoming debates. In particular, this one on the bottom right of your screen is happening this Saturday. In particular, Matt Dela Hunti versus Christian scholar and apologist Dr. Kenny Rhodes on whether or not there is good evidence for God. It is going to be a blast, folks. So if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button and that notification bell so that you don't miss out on that epic debate this Saturday. With that, gentlemen, thanks so much. The floor is all yours for open discussion. You are muted. It's not a zoom call unless that happens, right? So I think the answer to both your questions is that, yeah, there are instances where you can interpret the definition of woman purely in the biological sense in what you mean by biological is like the chromosome chromosomes or gametes. That's usually what we mean. Not secondary sex characteristics, which are also biologically really quiet. By the way, is he really quiet for you? James, a little better. That's better. There we go. OK, cool. So the answer to both of those is, yeah, you can find individual instances in which you can do that in a way that is not painful. But what this discussion is, it's not just about can you do this? Is it possible to do this? All right. There are always going to be individual instances in which yet you can do a thing without it being the thing that it usually is. But it is how about this? Can we at least agree on this? The impetus, the core motivation to specifically anti-trans bigotry, the core of that is to believe that trans people are not who they say they are. What do we at least agree on that? Not, I don't think so. I think it's more that people see them as delusional and that's more the core of the bigotry. Well, that's the that's the follow up. You have to start there. If trans women are not women and they say they are women, then they must be either delusional or either or duplicitous. All right. And if you look at the history of transphobia, that is what the root is. Trans people in media have always been very often been categorized as duplicitous. They're lying. This is where the transpanic defense comes from or that they're delusional, which is where we get a lot of like the medicalization and not like medical care of a medicalization like psychiatric medicalization of trans people. The root of that is the core belief that they are not who they say they are. Can I say the root of the bigotry is the delusion itself. I think that I don't think that anyone or can you I can you believe that trans people are delusional without also believing that they are not what they say they are. Sort of like you could say like if you understand what they mean by the word, they don't actually think they're saying that we have X, Y chromosomes or XX chromosomes and those gametes. They're not making the claim that they have those biological traits. They use a different definition of woman having to do with psychological states, gender roles, and those kinds of things. Most people, I would say, understand that they're using a different definition. They just think the use of that definition is incorrect. There's also a group of people who are very transphobic, who also think they're delusional and who think they actually mean they're biological women. I think that's the minority. I'm asking you if the second group. All right, I'm being incredibly charitable and saying that the first group or not. First of all, there's a hasty generalization fail. So you have to say that if someone is if we say someone is transphobic, then. Right. So nobody's perfect. Everybody has biases. And but would the second group exist without that core tenant, that core belief that trans women are not women? Maybe. I mean, I can imagine lots of reasons where they could think that still. Can you name one of those reasons? I'm not and I'm not doing the thing where I'm not saying that that is that would apply to everyone. All right. I'm saying with the second group, the one that we both agree are hateful, transphobic, bigots, would they exist in that ideology where they have that impetus towards transphobia without that belief that in this case, trans women are women because let's let's be honest, trans men are a thing that we always forget about. But so most so the same people who are transphobic also hate people who do drag for the same reasons. It's even though they don't identify as a different sex or gender. So the same bias would exist even without the label of being identified as a woman. OK, that biases against gender nonconformity, which is different than being trans. So if someone is transphobic, they are specific. Their hatred is of trans people in particular, not just gender nonconformity, because that's where you get to, like, terfs, terfs don't mind, say they don't mind gender nonconformity, but they hold that definition that trans people are men in dresses or something like that, that they are not who they say they are. Can you be transphobic without the belief that trans women are not women? Well, I think of it from the perspective of like the more Republican side who just hate any men who dress up as women or even identify as women because it's like God's ordained thing that you're OK. But again, that's gender nonconformity. So I identify those as the same thing. Like when I'm talking about transgenderism, that's normally what I think of is that larger group of people. OK, well, I can educate you here. If we're just talking about just like terfs, trans exclusionary radical feminists or whatever, then maybe. Yeah, sure. I think. No, OK, so OK. So let's. OK, well, we'll come back to that. One, gender nonconformity is not the same thing as being trans. All right, people can play them all the time. They are different. You can be a cisgender man and and wear nail polish. That would be an act of gender nonconformity. OK, I totally want to grant that I'm saying here. The people who are bigots against trans people are usually also bigots against gender nonconformist for the same reason. So I think the core of their bigotry is in the same place. Usually, but not necessarily. All right, because again, that's what we get into terfs. Like, yeah, if you if you look across the pond, that is turf island and the terfs, the trans exclusionary radical feminists will typically say something like if you are a man and you and you think you're a woman and you like wearing dresses, we'll just do that. It's fine. You can be a man in a dress, but you're not a woman because my definition of woman is someone who was born with X X chromosomes. And because of this belief and this is where this is not incidental. At the end of the day, we're going to we're going to go to bed or watch our Netflix and everything's going to be fine. But this that belief, the core of that belief is the impetus. It's not incidental, this belief that is the impetus behind opposing things like the Equality Act in the United States. It's the impetus behind like opposing self-id laws. And well, that that part, I think I disagree. So I think that the majority of people in the United States have the more classical Christian just gender nonconforming equal bigotry towards them as trans people. I think that in the case of terfs, I think you're probably right. I don't really know much about terfs. So but in that case, I think you're probably right that the fundamental prejudice they have against trans people is that they're not what they identify as. But I think in America, the fundamental bigotry has more to do with usually religious bigotry about OK, OK, I'm not asking where the motivation to have the belief comes from. All right, you can believe trans women are not women because your God says so or because it's it's just biology or any number of ways to get there. So you're pointing to the way to get there. I'm saying that that belief is core. It's like transphobia does not exist without that core belief. And again, this is not saying that core belief. If you have that, you are automatically an evil person who wants all trans people to die, OK? Trying to be right. But that's what I'm addressing here. Sorry, just to interrupt for a minute. The core belief thing is the part I'm trying to answer here. I think the core belief of the prejudice in the US isn't a core belief that trans women aren't what they say they are. I think the core reason that they are bigoted against trans people has more to do with that more collective thing of gender nonconformity and not adhering to the stereotypical gender roles in Christianity. OK, so what you're saying is here. Yeah, but no, it's not what you're saying is trans Christians. It's mostly Christianity believe that trans women are not women because God has assigned gender roles, right? That the core belief is still the same. Again, you're attributing the vote. We're you're talking about the motivation of that belief. So we can have a fruitful conversation as long as I'm not again. I'm trying to be very charitable and saying that if you believe if you have a definition that says that trans women are not women, that doesn't mean you want trans people to die. All right, that doesn't mean you hate them. All right, it just means that that belief is the cause of transphobia. Transphobia does not exist without that belief. And this is specific to transphobia. We're not talking about gender nonconformity. OK? So I can definitely grant that for the sake of the argument. I'm happy to grant that. OK, cool. That took some pulling teeth to get there. But we got there. So. But like, as you said, in the beginning, there are people who can still say trans women are not women for like a justifiable reason because they just disagree with the definition, right? OK, but if we want to play that definition game, all right, I can just say so I think you're a transphobe. That doesn't mean I think you're evil. I think all of us have biases, but you like be an apt for that. Well, no, so I would say that like if you define transphobia as a bias or prejudice of some kind, simply disagreeing about a definition would not imply any bias or prejudice. It's just that's how you just learned English. So I like if you said one plus one equals three and I said, no, that wouldn't be a bias or a prejudice. I just disagree about the fact. So there seems to be this really simplistic understanding of like bigotry and prejudice that says that you must have a motivation that means that you want to lessen or discriminate against a group of people. But this really isn't the case. If we look at the entire history of like civil rights movement, the various civil rights movements we've had in the United States, decide that was against the civil rights movement, never really thought of themselves as hateful. They were just stating facts like like the phrase separate, but equal is a big red flag for a reason. All right, you can say that two groups of people are equal, but they're separate categories. The issues are when this gets into like legal categorizations. Well, if one category tries to associate with the other, oh, that must be a bad thing. I think most of us would agree that the like Jim Crow laws were racist. Even though they were equal, the fact that they had to be separate, which just so happened to disadvantage black people, way more than white people, we wouldn't buy this definition that oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. They're totally equal, which they just got to be separated. We wouldn't buy that as not racist, right? Yeah, sure, the Jim Crow laws were definitely racist, but it is possible to just disagree about a fact and not be bigoted. Right. OK, the fact that it is possible does not mean it is like the like determining factor on whether or not something is or is not transphobic. And this also brings what do you mean? Could you clarify that? So like if there's a group, say group A of a label, like trans women or not women and some of that group just disagree about the definition and some of that group are bigoted and transphobic, then you can't say the the whole collection of the thing is transphobic because that would be a ace generalization. There's a part of the group which is and there's a part of the group which isn't. Do you think that bigotry is binary? Let's put OK, this is like getting into my like this simplistic understanding of bigotry. Well, no, no, it's biology. All biology is a spectrum. I know. Cool. Awesome. So do you think so? Do you think that you can there's a there's a spectrum of bigotry at one end is just well, no, I want trans people to have all the rights they want. I might even like be able to have sex with a trans person. But I don't think that trans women are really women. I don't think trans men are really men. All right. That could be like on one end of the spectrum. And then on the other end are the things that we rightfully cannot say on YouTube. OK. So but still that that transphobia spectrum is there. How about that? Sure, from like zero to 100. Like maybe. Well, so like if I like if I think of someone who just was brought up being taught the word woman as referring to biological female, learned the Latin etymology of the word, which literally is synonymous with female and woman. And so they just came to the conclusion that woman means female. And then someone else comes along says, well, no woman is a psychological state. They just I feel they they can have zero bias and zero prejudice. And just because of their previous knowledge of the definition of the word, they could just disagree. You can. OK. So on zero bias, yeah, based on their previous knowledge, these things are mutually exclusive, zero bias regards to trans people. Like they have no prejudice against trans people. Like obviously they have bias against previous facts, but they have no bias in regards to trans people. So they wouldn't be transphobic at all. But obviously, yeah. OK. But again, you're this is like this is this simplistic understanding of bigotry. Bigotry is not the is not necessarily only the intentional malicious hatred of another person, the intentional malicious discrimination or the thought that they are lesser than you. All right, that is the problem that we're running into in the biggest conversations in our society right now. All right, there is a lot of cultural inertia that informs like bigotry in the modern world. All right, it's these presuppositions that we don't really question. That is where bigotry comes from. It doesn't have to be this abject hatred for another person. Like every single again, every single civil rights group in history. Like if you go back 20 years ago and say that, OK, and look at people, like what are your views on gay people? Oh, I don't hate gay people. I think people should be able to do what they want. But you know, marriage is between a man and a woman, right? It's not homophobic. I don't hate gay people just because I want to protect the institution of marriage. Like that was the argument there. And that was homophobic, wanting to deny the right of gay people to marry is homophobic. I'm not going to put them on the same level as someone who wants to see us all lynched. But the fact that there was that bigotry there, again, this is baked into the culture like bigotry is a lot of times like just unquestioned assumptions. That's where bigotry comes from. There's not the need for malicious intent there. Malicious intent can certainly be a part of it, but it's not a requirement. It's not determinant of bigotry. Where is the bigotry in that we make up words to describe things and they made up words to describe things that you just disagree with? Now, because where is the bigotry in that? OK, can you think? Well, actually, what is an instance of bigotry that it wouldn't just involve making up words, using words to describe things in a way that what's a what's a definition of bigotry that you couldn't just define yourself out of? I'm not sure I'm following. So like, oh, sorry. Let me rephrase that. No, that's my fault. All right. What is your definition of bigotry? And let's see if I can just define my way out. All right. Bigotry Google the definition. I don't know. Nothing wrong with that. Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion or faction in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. Oh, OK. So James, do not let people clip this. I'm using a rhetorical device. OK. You know, no, no, no, no, no, I hate purple people. Fuck it. OK. Just just in case I hate purple people. And based on that definition, it's not unreasonable. Purple people are worse than everyone else. Some bigotry is just it's just a fact that purple people are dumber. All right. It's not like I said, it's unreasonable. No, that would be unreasonable unless you had like evidence. So it would be an unreasonable belief in the context of the religious theistic debate is one that is like a delusion, a belief that is persistent in the face of contrary evidence. So in the case of like the definition of woman, it's not unreasonable, as you mentioned at the beginning, to define woman as biological female, because that's a standard thing in most cultures across the world. So that's not how it's not unreasonable. It's not unreasonable in every single context imaginable. So for example, I'm absolutely fine with using the definition of sex. It says, you know, you know, gametes in certain contexts, like if you are going if you're talking about reproductive biology, biology, I'm not saying like I wasn't making an all inclusive claim here that it's always right to just call trans women, not women, because like just going up to a transfer to say, you're not a real woman. Obviously, that would be transphobic. But there are definitely cases where it is very reasonable to adopt this definition, not always, but there are cases. And because there are cases where it is reasonable to adopt this definition like past history, where you were brought up, how the word is used in your society, how the word is used in your country. Then it's not bigotry because it's not an unreasonable attachment to a belief. It's just the definition of the word as you were brought up. Now, if it was unreasonable, like if you just made up a new definition of black or something that says black people aren't human, they're less than human because I'm going to make up this definition that has no basis in reality. It has no like prior usage, has no history. Just I'm just going to make it up. That would be an unreasonable position. You actually brought up a really, really great point. And I'm not sure if you you understood it like based like what you're our determination of what is reasonable. What is reality, in fact, is based on the culture you grew up in. So you just find it. Well, based on so I grew up with this definition of my entire society at the office's definition, you know, this is just what this is just how we define reality. All right, reality has always been known to me as this. I'm not bigoted if I think that black people are just more suited to be slaves because I live in 1824. OK, so that definition excuses. It says that I don't hate the I don't hate black people. All right, they're just based on my recollection of things that I grew up in. This is just where they ought to be, right? Well, it's obstinate and persistent. So if you present contrary data like say, well, actually, no, here's all the scientific data that shows they're essentially equal in all respects. And then they maintain that belief, then it would be bigotry. If they had the belief first and then we're presented with this data and I mean, like, oh, I guess you're right. Then they wouldn't have had bigotry. They wouldn't have been bigoted before and they wouldn't be bigoted now because they don't have an obstinate or unreasonable attachment to the belief. They just happen to have it because of history. And when you present contrary data, they change. They're perfectly fine. So there's two, there's two problems with that. All right, and I want to bring them up and stop me if you want to answer one before I bring up the other. OK, the first one there is people are often motivated to hold on to their current like status quo. This is not they want their status quo status quo is where you find comforts. All right, this is I think this is kind of reasonable. All right, we want to maintain homeostasis in our body and the more comfort, the more familiarity we have with a certain scenario, the better and safer that we feel. All right, but so people are going to be motivated to reject evidence. And there is there are countless studies. This is I'm I'm saying this is empirical fact. People are motivated to reject evidence that challenges the status quo far, far more than they are willing to reject evidence that confirms a previous like bias. OK, so that's that's the first I agree. Why is that a problem? Like so that would look like, for example, if I present you evidence that essentially proves you false and it's very good evidence and then you reject it, then you be bigoted. Same with a religious person. If I present you evidence that people don't rise from the dead and you still believe it, you're delusional. But that doesn't that's not a problem. That's that's just how you identify if someone's bigoted or biased is that if they don't change their mind when presented with very good evidence, then that's when you can identify that they're bigoted. OK, well, this comes in the second one. Trans people are who they say they are. They are not lying about their identities. So why do we get to decide? Why does intent? We are placing a lot of emphasis on intent when it comes to bigotry. Bigotry must be intended, but that's really not how bigotry manifests itself in the real world. Bigotry is often a result of careless or ignore action. Right. It is not intent is not again, is not the determinant factor. Bigotry can be a result. It can be a thing that happens to other people. And I don't think that I think I'm quite confident that the vast majority of trans people would say that saying that trans women are not women is itself transphobic. Why ought our definitions as cis people be more true than their definitions? Why ought we decide what is good and bad or harmful for a marginalized group of people like this? We shouldn't. They can define themselves however they want to define themselves and their definition because definitions are arbitrary is just as legitimate. But what they can't do is then tell everyone else they have to accept their new definition. If they want to make a new definition, that's fine. Their definition is just as legitimate, but they can't force everyone else to change their definitions. Okay, the definition here is transphobia. What? If you know, I was talking about woman here. So in the case of a woman, they can make up their own definition of woman and say, woman is a psychological state. And therefore I am a woman and that's perfectly consistent. That is perfectly logical. But what they can't do is then force everyone else to adopt their definition of woman. And if they don't, then say that they're evil. That's that's religion levels of crazy stuff. Okay. Stop the well once stop jumping to well, if you don't do this, you're evil. All right. How is that different because how is saying that someone is a transphobe and saying that they're evil different? Are those two the same to you? Yeah. Like my last debate with forgot her name now. She said that calling someone a transphobe is like calling someone an asshole or something. So yes. In most of the conversations I've had, it's usually a derogatory term saying you're a bad person in some sense. Oh, cool. Hey, man, you might be really interested in like critical race theory and Robin D'Angelo, because they try to like remove the stigma of racism and bigotry, you know, so we can like talk about them and their effects without people getting all defensive about them. Maybe you'd be interested in that. So no, that aspect of critical race theory. Yes. And all the other aspects that are very bad, not so much. Okay, cool. Um, sorry, James, by law. All right. If we didn't mention critical race theory in a debate, your channel would be shut down. I just saved you. Okay. Uh, so I think most people, you know, I'm not even to the, I think most people, I believe that most the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of bigotry is due to biases is due to like ignorance is due to like this, uh, motivated reasoning to maintain a comfort level within the status quo. It is not, I don't believe in like, you know, someone is just inherently evil and therefore they don't already think like I do. And I kind of reject that. And because of that, I won't, I don't, I view people as like complex individuals. You are not diagnosed by, uh, like you're this negative trait about you. Everyone has negative traits. I think that's fair to say. One of your negative traits might be this bias, this bigotry against a group of people that you are not familiar with. All right. Now, on one hand, we can say that that person is evil and ought to change their behavior. And, uh, and those are two separate things. They might not be evil. That could be, but they're not evil based on that alone. But I think that they ought to change their behavior because we are putting a lot, again, we're putting way too much impetus and importance on the intentions of someone. All right. When we talk about like effects in society, when we talk about racism, why do like, why should, let's see, let's talk about like anti-black racism, uh, for example, it's analogous to this. Why should white people get to define what is anti-black racism? All right. It kind of seems like maybe a black person's definition of that of anti-black racism ought to take more precedence. How about that? What should a black person be, uh, or black people as a whole have more of a say in what constitutes anti-black racism than white people as a whole? I know that's generalization, but when we talk about like groups, we have to, I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that the definition of like an action should be defined by a group of people. I think there's some kind of an objective measure of the definition. So when we talk about like bigotry in general, we're often concerned with the effects that bigotry has on other people, right? And it is generally accepted in the literature. Wait, do you disagree with that? I don't know. Like I just take the definition like bigotry can have no effect on people. It's still bigotry. I don't define bigotry based off its effects. Okay. The reason that we're having this debate and the reason it's important in the first place is that bigotry has a material effect on people's lives. Sure, but cool. That's the reason there's lots of bigotry that doesn't to like bigotry isn't just okay. Well, there's lots of, okay. There's lots of bigotry that does. All right. And I would argue that my statement that bigotry often does have material effects on people is the reason we're having this debate because it's seen as important by people for that reason. All right. So the bigotry doesn't always harm people. Cool. Mine's my, but we're talking about it because it often does. I'm not quite understanding the point here. Like we talk about ontological arguments on here. The fact that we're having a debate doesn't, isn't relevant, but I don't understand your point here. Okay. So the point there to sum it up there is the reason we're talking about bigotry is because it can harm other people. Now, when we talk about, you're going to hate this. All right. But just work within my definitions. All right. Adopt my framework here. And when we talk about privileged people versus marginalized people, all right, privileged people. Often are willfully or just through circumstances blind to the bigotry of others. They are, it's like the fish is not aware that it's wet. You've, you enjoy a lot of assumptions that benefit in your favor. You will enjoy a default status in most settings. You enjoy just this lack of differentiation from your own identity that makes you blind to other people. All right. And so when we say like, and so a lot of like privileged people are not in a great position to decide what constitutes bigotry against a marginalized group of people simply because not that they're evil, not that they're malicious, simply because they lack a knowledge of firsthand experience. All right. I'm not saying that every single black person is going to be a better source of what is and is not anti-black bigotry than every single white person. But as a general rule, it's usually better for a marginalized group of people to decide what is bigotry against them than a privileged group of people. And we don't want to say marginalized versus privileged. I'm not talking about it's like numerical status. Okay. Well, I mean, I would definitely disagree. I would say that if we're trying to define some kind of a term that has a negative or positive impact on one group, neither the group or the one causing or the ones to define it, you're going to need some kind of independent, non-partial source to give a definition here. So I definitely wouldn't think that, but you're non-partial independent source of harm. Science. Science. Can you prove scientifically that calling that going up to a black person or going up, going up to a trans person, let's stop using black people as an analogy, going up to a trans person, screaming the teaser at them. Can you prove scientifically that that has caused them harm? Yes. How? Psychological studies, neurological studies, we can measure their emotions, measure their dopamine serotonin levels to see if they're depressed. So we, yeah, we can definitely measure that. Cool. We can. Is that how we usually do that stuff though? No, we can usually just make generalizations that if you're yelling at someone in their face and calling them things that make them feel bad that we can infer that, yeah, they probably feel bad. Okay. So why is that as a rule in society? Why is that bad? Why is what, why is what bad? Why is it generally a good rule in society to not do that to not call people slurs? Right. So just the fact that there are probably plenty of individual instances where that wouldn't cause any harm, do you think that, well, yeah, you can definitely point to, you can't say that every single person who's had the teaser, shouted at them, has been harmed. Is it a hasty generalization's fallacy to say that that's probably transphobic? No, I agree. I say that's transphobic. I'm literally screaming in someone's face. A slur at them is definitely transphobic or racist, for sure. Okay. What if they were just like practicing a new word that they heard? Uh, that would not be transphobic or racist. No. Okay. What if they saw like a little kid who just heard it and like said it to somebody like, no, you couldn't blame the kid. What if it was an adult gay man, like an adult gay man who uses the term as a term of endearment and so they see a trans person and they scream the T slur at them? Is that transphobic? Uh, I doubt he would be transphobic. No, no, no, our hypothetical person here. This gay person uses the term endearingly. All right. So like he means it as a compliment. He means it as a compliment. So he goes up to, he meets a new trans woman that he does not know and he calls her the T slur. So no, I would say, no, I'd say that's not transphobic. I mean, she was meaning it as a compliment and then she would have to correct him and say, no, that's actually bad and it would only be transphobic or bigotry if he continues to do it after. So he gets to decide what is and is not transphobic, but the trans woman who has heard that word all her life to demean her says, no, is incorrect in her assessment that's being shouted at and called the T slur screamed at it by a stranger. She is incorrect in her assessment that that was actually a transphobic event. Yeah, because I think the bigger disagreement here is they don't think bigotry is about social norms. I think it's about intention. I think intention matters for bigotry and prejudice. And so we just agreed that we just agree that intention that is not a good core component of bigotry. Bigotry. No, I don't agree with that at all. I don't agree with that at all. I agree with the state. Okay. Do you agree that bigotry is often based in ignorance? Uh, I don't know. And so you don't know. I don't know. I don't have a position. Maybe. Maybe. Normally, when I think of bigotry, like it's a belief to have a belief, you need to be a human. So nonhumans with nonbeliefs and nonintentionality can't be bigoted. Like if you don't, such like a crime, if you don't intend to do the crime, you didn't really kill anybody. It's not first degree murder if you didn't intend to do it. So intention matters a lot to these things. I don't think something can be bigoted if you didn't mean it to be bigoted. Okay. Do you think that's people who like, I want to say the words white straight cis men? Do you think that a lot of white straight cis men intentionally go out of their way to learn a lot about other like identities? Like so, for example, both of us most people won't do that. Yeah, most people won't do that. I definitely agree with that. So would you agree with me that the vast preponderance of evidence says that transitioning has very, very like measurable psychological and health benefits for trans people. Do you agree with that? I'll give that a 50 50 because I like in the past study, the past debate, James said there was a lot of good evidence that the opposite can happen to. OK, the opposite can happen to. But my statement was the vast preponderance of evidence. And just like so the argument was was that 98 90 something percent of kids who want a transition but don't get it grow out of it. And I think most of the people who get the transition keep it. But OK, OK, we cannot talk about what we cannot talk about just to finish the argument for a second. So because trans people are psychologically more hurt in society, they don't fit in as well. They're less happy in general. The people who didn't get it done actually were more happy in general. So technically, there are arguments that it does have a negative side effect. OK, so we have two people. All right, we have two Gregs in our society, both 30 year old white men. All right, Greg over here thinks that trans women are gross, that they are duplicitous, but they are liars. He hates them and he is going to vote against this pro-trans bill in his state. Greg number two doesn't really know, but like, I don't know, like sex is defined like this way. It's like you're what's between your legs. That's what sex is. So no, I think they like they're weird and he's also going to vote against the same bill. Does their motivations matter in terms of the effects of voting for that bill? No, but I'd say they're both bigoted. They both think they're weird and retreating group. OK, well, the second one just doesn't know. Well, he said he thinks he's weird. So if it's just straight up ignorance and he literally doesn't have an opinion on it, well, he thinks it's weird because he hasn't been exposed to it. I guess it's just it's just the cultural norms he grew up with. He just kind of thinks it's weird. I would also I would agree that it's bigoted, but I would call the first one evil and the second one ignorant. Yeah, so I don't think that just not knowing about something necessarily means you think it's weird. Well, if you're not familiar with something, you kind of think it's weird, right? Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. And that's kind of what weird means, right? Out of the ordinary. I guess. But normally, weird has a negative connotation to it. Like people think new things are exciting necessarily, right? I think a lot of the weird stuff is really cool. Sure. Yeah. But like in general, when someone calls something weird, it usually has a negative connotation to it. So if he's just straight up ignorant and doesn't have an opinion one way or the other positively or negatively, then I don't know why he would vote against the bill. Why is he voting against the bill? Well, he has a negative depiction of them, but it's not. But he thinks it's a reasonable negative depiction. All right. He just doesn't know anything about transitions. He's never spoken to a trans person, never read up on it. And he just thinks that like this isn't going to help anybody. Like they're just trying to like get weird protections and stuff. Like they don't need that stuff. I want to vote against it. Yeah. So I say those are both bigoted. But if there's a person who doesn't have a negative opinion on it at all, then I'd say they're not bigoted. OK. Yeah. But a lot of like negativity comes from like a lot of people associate negative things with with things that I'm not familiar with. All right. That's just how humans are wired, right? Safe is familiar. Unfamiliar. Don't like that. Don't like that. Like it's kind of an ingrained threat response. I'm not saying it's everybody. But I'm saying it can be a route of things. A lot of people just do not trust things that they are not familiar with. Now, you both called them both bigoted and I would absolutely agree. But the first one is an evil piece of shit. And the second one just doesn't know stuff. But the effect, the point of that was to say that the effect of that is the same for the trans person who's going to be denied whatever fictional like benefits that that bill would like give to them. Doesn't matter where the motivation that trans women are not women came from. She experienced bigotry that negatively affected her. And I think it's far more important than trying to isolate individual semantic examples where you can say trans women are not women while also not hating them. I think that's a far more relevant important point that we're talking about. And like when we're talking about like in society, this is where the conversation is. Again, this is why we're having this conversation in the first place. Well, actually, I would totally agree. That is definitely a more significant issue. The fact that it has more impact on our lives is definitely significant. That's not why I came here to debate. I'm not saying that laws against trans people are good. No, I'm saying that taking the position that trans women are not women, taking that definition isn't inherently transphobic. Like I have no problem with the goals of the world community or acceptance of trans people. That's perfectly fine. I'm on board. But I do have a problem with the bad arguments that they use. That's the reason I'm here to debate. I want to show that just claiming that someone who disagrees with your definition isn't transphobic. That's not okay. That is a bad arguments. Obviously, the fact that it has an impact in society and that impact in herm people, that's definitely bad. And that's something we should talk about. But just because it has a negative impact on other people doesn't mean it's okay to label everyone who disagrees as transphobic. That is a fallacious argument. That is bad. So I'm on board with the consequences thing and that we need to try to give acceptance as many people as possible. But what I'm not on board with is the fallacious arguments to try and justify the fallacious justifications to try and get there. So the reason I'm here isn't to debate the more bigger issue. Like I agree with you on the bigger issue. The reason I'm here is to show that these semantic arguments of saying that all that saying anyone who uses this phrase or this phrase in general is itself transphobic when there are clearly cases where it's not is a fallacious argument and we should not do that. Okay, cool. Did I say that? I've actually always tried to be very, very, very clear and very, very concerned and like deliberate. Yeah, you totally agree. Like right at the beginning, you said, yes, there are cases where it's not transphobic to I'm saying that there could be cases and there probably are cases. All right. Yeah. And that's and that's the full extent of what I'm trying to argue is that now there are cases in which it would not be your definition of transphobia. There are definitely people out there who say, well, I just don't think trans women are women, but I want them to have every single right. I don't take less of them. I don't hate them. That's your definition of transphobia. So I I'm conceding that under your definition, it's not transphobia. To me, the like transphobia is at its core, the belief that trans people are not who they say they are. This does not have to coincide. This is not have to like be present with hate. Let's stick with that definition. So transphobia is the position that trans women aren't who they say they are. Now, I think trans women are who they say they are. I think that trans women, when they use the word women mean a psychological state. So they are who they say they are. I don't think the word woman refers to that, but I do think they are who they say they are. Yeah, but the bigotry there is they're not who they say they are because the correct definition is the biological one. No, I would agree that would definitely be transphobic if you're trying to say that my definition is correct and you have to use my definition, I would agree. But I didn't say that I just this is the definition I use. I use the definition of woman as it refers to a biological female. They don't they use different definition. As I said earlier, you can make up your own definitions, definitions are arbitrary. It's perfectly legitimate to do that. So I agree that trans women are who they say they are. I just think the definition of woman more accurately refers to something else. And so I don't use that definition, which is why I would say trans women are not women by my definition, but trans women are still who they say they are. So if I were to have like a quick summary of the the points that we've made up so far, so my definition of transphobia is like you believe that trans people are not who they say they are based on having a different definition and you thinking that yours is correct. Okay. Your definition doesn't necessarily is like you have to hate them or you have to have negative like in one discrimination against them. And therefore you can have this definition that trans women are not women without necessarily having a hatred behind it. Okay. Is that is that fair? Yeah, yeah, just like your prejudice against trans. Okay, is it also fair to say that the negative position in this debate that that is the probably going to be a far, far, far more associated with transphobia, transphobic laws, harmful outcomes for trans people than the positive position. What are the negative and positive in this? So the positive position in this debate is mine because I say it is transphobic. The negative position is yours. Is it fair to say that the negative position is far, far more associated with more overall harm in society? I don't understand the question like is, is thinking that trans women aren't biological women associated with harm? Is that what you're asking? Is that the root of the transphobia that harms trans people in our society? No, I'd say the root is religious bigotry. I don't think the root is disagreement on the definition. Again, the religious bigotry is the motivation to the root. I would say it's the root like I don't the disagreement about the definition isn't the root of bigotry. People can easily say I disagree with the definition and not be bigoted. So disagreement about the definition is clearly not the root. You can define any sort of like the way you said it earlier, I think would be the root. So if I say woman is objectively biologically female and anyone who doesn't use that as objectively wrong, that would that what I would agree would be the root. Just disagreeing about the definition would not be the root. No. So the root of the definition trans women are not women because because woman is a role defined by God. Again, the because is the motivation for that root. We're kind of circling in on this. What I'm really, really concerned about, again, this is just this is just a fun little argument that we're having. But every single case, every single like civil rights movement, every single like equal rights movement, human rights movement and human history on the other side of it were not these people who knew that they were evil, who knew that they were wrong, who knew that they had irrational hatred. They felt justified in opposing that those equal rights laws. And what one of the principle ways they did it was to try to define themselves not as hating someone, but as just stating of like just stating objective facts. If you look at some of the history of the KKK, as it started to get less and less popular, they sort of to try and rebrand themselves like, we don't hate black people or we're just pro white people. All right. That's not big a tree. I don't think that black people are generally afraid. I don't think that I'm just pro white people. All right. So there's a lot of like you can very easily if you are in a bigoted position, define yourself out of it by saying, like, oh, no, no, no, no, no, I don't think that they're worse. I just think that they should be separate. And then the results of keeping them separate, the necessary like the next step of that is, well, how are you going to vote when their rights come into question? So so I'm not seeing the connection here. I think it's perfectly fine for a position to say, here are the facts and we're going to use the facts to support the position. If they're real facts, then that's perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Do you think that your definitions are about this? Do you think that your definition of a woman is objectively correct? No, there's no objective words. Awesome. Oh, fantastic. All right. Glad you'd be surprised how hard that is to get people to like admit. So yeah, like I think what I was trying to say earlier is that I agree that the source of the bigotry is when you do think there is an objective correct thing like woman is biological sex because God that would be the source of the victory. But someone just saying, I don't think that is the best use of the word for me would be a separate kind of a thing. So OK, cool. We agree on that. So do you think that bigotry necessarily requires motivation? Just to know because it was a little unclear. Probably. Yes. So I think that bigotry, racism, sexism, all those things entail a psychological state of intent. And if you don't have the intent, then I don't think you could be called bigoted. So before like, let's say before the gay rights movement, so before the gay rights movements, people were not made aware of information. They were not made aware of the arguments in favor of gay liberation. And so prior to that existing, what was the motivation of the gay people? Right? Nobody was intentionally bigoted because they hadn't been exposed to the correct opinions yet. What? I'm not following. They were definitely intentionally bigoted. No, they didn't. Bigots for a long time. No, they didn't know. It was it was just a society they grew up in. It was it was the ignorance there. You kind of defined ignorance as you're only a bigot if you are ignorant and then you keep that ignorance, you keep the opinion in the face of new evidence. That is the line of bigotry for you. It has to be intentional. You have to be willful willfully ignoring evidence. And if you're not exposed to evidence, if you're not exposed to evidence, is they're human beings. So if you know they're human beings, then and you still treat them as less than human beings, that would be bigoted. So you don't need like scientific proof or anything. It's no. What they are doing is more morally bad. We treat like murderers and rapists as we treat them pretty shitty, but we justify it because they're bad people. And so they in their mind that was justified. Again, what I'm getting at here is in society, a lot of the straight people had no idea that there were any sort of arguments. They just grew up in a society that was incredibly homophobic. And the homophobia was baked into society not because out of, you know, because of ignorance, not because it was like they were knowingly harming this group of people that did not deserve it. But you know who was attuned to that bigotry, the gay people, the gay people were very in tune with that bigotry. They were very aware that it was unjust. And then the entire first step of any civil rights movement is raising awareness that challenges those preconceptions that challenges that ignorance. But the point is the bigotry existed before the introduction of new evidence, and therefore bigotry does not require intent. I'm still not seeing it. So I mean, I agree that the reason people hated homosexuality is usually religious reasons. We were totally fine with it before anti homosexual religions became popular. And I think that especially today, people who grew up in the religious society once they're presented with, Oh, there are people too. Pretty it goes goes away pretty fast. But again, once they're once they're once they're presented, once they're presented until they are presented, are they not bigoted? No, until that moment. I don't think so. I wouldn't say they are. I'd say that bigotry, as defined by the dictionary, is a pervasive unchanging belief that like you maintain persisting after you're presented with evidence like just something you were taught by your parents and you haven't thought about couldn't be considered bigotry. I don't think I think the intent does matter. So if someone were experienced a homophobic attack, or well, I guess we can call it homophobic if a gay man was targeted because he was gay, because he was seen he was acting effeminate. He was identifiably gay and he was beaten by another person. You're saying that's no bigotry. Hold on. You're saying that no bigotry occurred unless the perpetrator of the attack was aware of information that would counteract their opinion. Like that they're human. Yes. So like if it was someone who was like a child and their parent told them to hate gay people or something well, it's still a bigotry because they've been talked to hate gay people. Yeah, but they but look there's a rationality there. Gay people are wrong in the eyes of God. There is a rationality there. There is a logical step if you believe that God exists and God sets rules. They end one of those rules is that gay people are immoral degenerates. Well, then it is rational and logical. All right. And until but in dirt and what worries me is that fits within my definition of bigotry ignorance can absolutely fit with mine, too. So no, no, no, because until no, and because until if that person until the moment that they are presented with contrary information and then that is deemed convincing by I guess an outside party until they are presented with that information, they cannot be bigoted. Well, no, I say that if you believe their religious reasons, that's an unreasonable reason. So I would say that's bigoted to it. Like if if there was some scientific reason that came to this conclusion, like the one example I used with Vosh was like if we had like strong scientific evidence at one point that African-Americans had alien DNA and we could define them as not human because they have alien DNA. I mean, that would be a non-bigoted belief. Like it's based on the evidence. It's not unreasonable. And if you were presented with counter evidence that showed, oh, they're actually human and you change your position, that would not be bigoted. Believe me, because it says so in the Bible. No, I would always consider that an unreasonable justification. So like if if the people you would consider that. But again, this is not you're still giving a lot of outs. But until you are presented with evidence, you cannot be bigoted in your opinions. This is a lot of rational justification for believing something. Then you have a rational justification and believe it. You're not bigoted. You just believe a fact about reality. Believing facts about reality can't be bigoted. OK, can we ever know reality as humans? To a certain degree, yes. No, I'm like so my one of the core things that I've adopted more and more about my belief structure is that I'm an idiot. OK, this is true. And I'm not an idiot because I'm not an intelligent. I'm an idiot because I am a tiny person who lives in a tiny, infinitesimally small part of the world with access to a tiny, infinitesimally small part of the like like information that is available to humans. All right. Sure. Oh, I'm an idiot. All right. So I'm not going to have this. I'm not going to have the balls to say that I know objective reality about anything. All I can say is that I just I think that this thing is true and I'm going to act as if it were true. But I'm still really, really, really curious. So what is a scenario in which someone's belief is bigoted is not bigoted before being presented new information, but bigoted if they don't change your mind? What is the scenario in that case? Like the example I just gave, like if we had tons of scientific evidence that African-Americans had alien DNA and they just thought, oh, well, there's the evidence. They have alien DNA. That was give a real world example of this. Give a real world example. Real world example of someone who has a belief and the same belief, the same belief is the same before and after the induction of information or the introduction of information. And before the introduction, they're not bigoted, but after they are bigoted. I'd have to take the time to actually think about that. I don't know if I can come up with an example off the top of my head. I'm this is this is the core of our argument here that transphobia must be intentional. And at the core of that is that the intentionality must be that it cannot be incidental or you have to knowingly hold a false belief or knowingly hold an irrational belief despite the introduction of new evidence. Well, that wouldn't be the core of my argument. That's just a corollary. But the core of my argument is that the reasonability it's reasonable to define woman as a biological female. That's a reasonable thing. I don't see that as inherently bigoted and therefore that the example of saying trans women aren't women and can't be labeled as universally bigoted. There could definitely and what I'm talking about is that transphobia, bigotry is not universally defined by intent and therefore you are not like if. If could you like go more into detail? Could you tell me how if I was like brought up and taught women mean biological female? How is that inherently bigoted? It's inherently bigoted because in my definition of bigotry and what I think is a far more coherent under like understanding of bigotry. All right. The reason you have biases, the reason everybody has biases is because of the culture that you grew up in. And in this case, this bias is not true for those women and that are irreverently causing them harm because that they are trans, because they are trans. And so we have a situation in which a belief that's and beliefs that don't just like sit there and do nothing. We act based on those beliefs. That belief is causing trans women harm because they are trans. And so intentionality, hatred, like prejudice or I should say intentionality is not the core component. It's not the determining factor of transphobia. That woman, those trans people are still experiencing transphobia even if the motivations of the person committing the act were not malicious and in intent. So I don't think that it is coherent to purely define bigotry as intentionally believing something, intentionally thinking less of someone, intentionally knowingly thinking that a group is worse than other groups. I don't think that that is a good or accurate definition of bigotry. So I'm not quite fine here. So like imagine if trans people decided to not call themselves women and decided to call themselves trans people and never adopted the opposite gender label. Okay, so imagine trans people weren't trans. Like just that they only called themselves trans and they never called themselves women. Trans what? Trans means, trans is a prefix. It means nothing without the second part. You can just understand trans to mean transgender. You don't literally need prefixes to not mean things. You can have prefixes mean things Okay, trans is, okay. No, trans is- That doesn't- Trans what? That doesn't matter. You can- Trans is a prefix that exists outside of transgender people, right? Maybe a prefix in that. Trans fatty acids, cis fatty acids. This existed prior to trans people. You can make prefixes nouns any easily. Language is very arbitrary. So- I'm saying you're trying to define trans people as not being trans anymore. No, this is a hypothetical. Okay, let's go with your hypothetical. So say trans people never adopted the opposite gender label or just adopted a different label. I am trans human or something like that. And then now is it somehow bigoted if I am taught that woman means female? Biological female? No, if you define trans- No, you're not transphobic if you change what trans people are. I guess not. I guess you- So transphobia has literally nothing to do with anything going on in society. So if my society- Let's imagine- If black people didn't have a different skin color than white people, would I be like racist? Wait, wait. That's the point- So follow my logic. No, your hypothetical was bad. Follow my reasoning. Let me explain it to you. So if in country A, I'm taught woman means biological female and in country B, someone is a trans person and they experience discrimination because they identify with this label that people disagree with. How am I transphobic? How does this have anything to do with me? Because apparently the core of our disagreement is that bias is the result of growing up in that society, okay? Bias, assumptions, that is the product of growing up in that society. You keep trying to go back to this straw man definition that bias and bigotry is synonymous with evil. And if there are people out there, there are people on the left, but don't make a hasty generalization fallacy and argue that against me, all right? Go find one of them and yell with them, all right? What I'm saying is that bigotry is not- Like intentionality is not inherent in it. And if someone can experience a hateful attack because of their identity, a transphobic attack, a homophobic attack, they can experience that because of their identity that has nothing to do with the intentionality of the person behind them. Like, so for example, how about this? Well, wait, I want you to walk into this. So imagine country A, there's zero trans people in country A. No one has ever been trans in the history of country A. They have no access to any information, never heard of a trans person. Cool. And they define woman as biological female. Country B, different country, they define woman as biological female. Somebody identifies as trans and they get discriminated against. Is it bigoted in country A to define woman as biologically female? So bigotry usually needs to be against somebody. If trans people just didn't exist in this hypothetical country, I guess not. I mean, I can't be bigoted against someone that doesn't exist that I'm not aware of, right? So if a person goes from country A to country B, are they now magically bigoted? Yeah. Hold on. If you didn't know black people existed, could you be racist? No. No? That's the hypothetical there, right? Well, I guess if you didn't know of people other than white people, I guess I should say. All right, so let's ask this. All right, so here's the core of my argument is that bigotry, in this case, home of transphobia is not, again, intentionality is not the important factor there, like the effect of it can exactly be there. All right, so if someone, all right, hold on, I fucked up my analogy. Fuck, this is embarrassing. It was gonna blow your mind, okay? I completely forgot about it. It was gonna blow your mind. It was gonna win me the debate right here and now, right? Okay. Sure, so I'll just go another question and you can try to remember. So if one person from the country A is going with the same analogy, who's never heard of trans people has learned as a kid that women means biological female, they moved to country B, now they're magically transphobic and they have to give up their definition that they've used for years throughout their entire family and everyone in their country has used this definition. And if they don't give that up, you're gonna lay the limb as transphobic because all of these bad people in country B are discriminating against trans people. Is that accurate? Yes, because, but here's the thing, you're acting like you have to say like, you evil piece of shit. Do you think that in this individual example, we're not just gonna treat them like, oh, okay, so you didn't know. All right, so here's how we do things here, all right? That's why I've been trying to be so careful. Bigotry does not have, it can be due to ignorance, not being evil. Well, yeah, so my question is- We wouldn't call that person from the country who has never heard of trans people who grew up with the biological definition of woman. We wouldn't call them evil for holding on to that definition and going into that society and like misgendering a trans person or like, look at this, like, hey, this man, man, man. Like, we wouldn't call them evil. They're ignorant, but their actions are nonetheless bigoted because they are- I've been straw man and you keep, I keep saying evil because it's had it from my previous conversations because you specifically said you don't call them evil and that's my fault for straw man and you. I just try to, that's not the point of the argument. So I don't wanna, I understand that's not what you mean by it. So, but my question is the focus of the argument is, why should that person have to completely change their definition of what they learned in their entire language to fit your culture? Why should they feel obligated to do that? Because we have agreed that as a society, we have come up with a certain set of laws that are gonna help the most people. The harm that continuing to enact that transphobia to continue to have those bigoted beliefs is far greater than the harm caused by having to reexamine your own beliefs. All right, so until it breaks a law, like you don't have to actually change those beliefs, I guess it's just, are you following the laws of the land? And the laws are never set in stone, but I think it would be good if that trans person like, no, like trans people don't exist, like the dialogical definition is this, that person, that this, let's call, let's think of it as like a nice old lady, the sweetest old lady you've ever met in your entire life fakes the most incredible pies from the fictional country ever. That sweet, wonderful old lady who is awesome is still gonna vote the same way as the horrendous transphobe. They are still enacting bigotry, they're still enacting transphobia, they're still enacting harm onto trans people and their votes count the same, all right? So we don't have to- I think just because they define woman that way, they're somehow obligated to politically vote in the same way as anybody who defined- No one is obligated to vote in any direction, that's kind of the whole point of voting, right? So generalizing that because people use this definition, they will therefore vote against trans people would be a hasty generalization. Like- Not a hasty generalization, I'm saying that it's likely. Why would it be likely? Like most of the people who use the definition I'm using are in the left, liberals. Like Peter Bogosian, Sam Harris, Kim Pritchard Dawkins, people who always vote the left by a large margin. And so I know, but a lot of those people, do you think that if, so like the Equality Act is coming up and it would put gender, if I'm not mistaken and I couldn't be mistaken, please correct me in the chat, it would put gender identity among like the protected classes that we don't discriminate against in society, all right? If you believe that trans women are not women and this law would say, well, you can't act on that belief now. You can't call a trans woman a hate even though the grown was almost said so. Do you think that maybe that follows? Like believing that trans women are women, it would cause you to like have to lie to yourself in order to like not break the law now to incorporate that under anti-discrimination laws. No, I'm not, maybe I'm not following. So the reason I would be against that one is because I'm heavy free speech, but I would not be for like, I would definitely think that gender identity should be a protected class as in the other protected class. So I mean, I think that most of the people on the left would agree with that as long as it doesn't infringe on free speech. Yeah. Okay. How about in any, let's put this in the real world, all right? Let's put this functionally, all right. If someone is accidentally, casually, very, very bigoted, which happens all the time because again, bigotry is due to ignorance. Does that mean HR cannot like say, hey, chill out with this. You made this person feel bad. Can your, is your good defense going to be welcome? Well, they didn't mean to, so it doesn't count. No, if you're in a company, if you're in a company, you absolutely have to abide by whatever ridiculous rules the company puts up. But like, if you're in a public space and then no, no. So you don't think it is a good idea to like, hey, this action, like calling, saying that trans women aren't women, the vast, vast, vast majority of trans people think that that's transphobic. You shouldn't, you can't let go. Well, you're saying that you shouldn't advocate for that person to change their definition because of the utility we get out of it, because it would cause less harm in the world, because it would result in good outcomes. I would say because they have a right to use the words, how they define them, I would say it would be equally as wrong for me to try to force them to change their definition as it would for me to try to force a trans person to change their definition. I think that- Okay, but we're both agreeing that definitions are subjective and neither one of them is correct. And one of them has like, one of them has worse outcomes than the other. Peel the consequence. It doesn't make it wrong. So the fact that- Well, no, it's not an appeal to consequence. I'm saying we both agreed that they're subjective. Okay, so how do we decide which one is better? Well, I'm gonna appeal to consequences. If we have two things that are equally arbitrary and one of them will result in harm, I think it's reasonable to say, let's not use that one. Let's use the other ones as they're both arbitrary. Neither one of them are correct. So let's generally, in most scenarios, use the definition that causes less harm. It's not like a consequence fallacy. It's like taking the, what I thought was pretty reasonable. If we agreed, okay, I'm not gonna explain it third time. Well, yeah. So my point is that, no, I don't think you should try to force other people to adopt your definition. Why do you keep saying force? Why do you keep saying force? Well, try to convince. You shouldn't try to convince people who don't already agree with you. By calling them transphobes Damn, dude, y'all, you were learned a lot from the SJW user, right? I'm not even gonna debate, all right? I'm all right. There's no discourse. I am correct. Well, no, I'm happy with discourse is great. Debate is great. Conversation is great. Yelling at people and calling them transphobic and getting the platform not so great. Okay, cool. Don't do that. But how about like, try to convince them that their definition is causing harm and also is not correct. Sure, sure. Debate's great. I love debate. I'm happy with that. So you're walking back like, you can't, you, I would say that you ought to do that because we as a society get more utility out of it. Nobody, nobody. All right. I know that when people say nobody, they mean almost nobody. Nobody says that someone's like studying reproductive biology cannot use the terms male and female, all right? All right, so, but the root of transphobia is the belief that the only the correct, the only definition of gender or sex of woman has to be the specific biological definition of gametes or chromosomes. Because again, secondary sex characteristics are a biological factor too. And one that's often like incorporated into our definition of sex, but they don't like that one because it's way more on a spectrum and it can be changed with like outside factors. Yeah, sure. So I would agree with all of that. Everything you just said there for sure. But I would say that any aspect, even the part of the end the fundamental core of transphobia is the belief that this is the only objective correct definition of woman. Like obviously definitions don't work that way. But what I would disagree with is when you're doing that, if you're using logical fallacies, that's bad. You use good arguments, don't use bad arguments. Cool, so we both agree that you should use good arguments instead of bad arguments that you shouldn't use a ton of fallacies and that you should generally try to be nice to people who you want to convince. Awesome, okay. And we also agreed that neither definition of what a woman is is correct because we don't have correct definitions in the objective sense. And so I believe that it is reasonable to determine which definition that we ought to use based on what is gonna lessen harm, promote wellbeing in society. I know those are fuzzy turns and we can like go into like the, what that actually means. But I think I'm on pretty solid definition of woman that includes trans woman is going to result in a lot less harm. And I have a ton of empirical data to back that up. It's gonna result in a lossless harm in society in general because the adoption of that doesn't really, the adoption of that definition doesn't really cause anyone else harm. I'm happy with that. Like I haven't studied it at all. I'm happy to grant all that. I think that that's all a great, admirable goal. The only thing I think you shouldn't do is use fallacies in your argument like defining anybody as transphobic who disagrees with you. Well, I have not done that. I have defined transphobia as, well, I did it in my definition, but that's what I wanted. Credits you admitted right away that, yes, there are cases where you can say trans women are not women and it's not transphobic. You granted that. Of course, like, yeah, but we're never gonna, but, you know, when we say odd, we generalize. I know you don't like generalization. Well, no, I mean, specifically in my last debate, Bausch said he literally defined anybody who doesn't accept his definition as transphobic and there's zero possible cases. Hold on. I define anybody who doesn't, who thinks that trans women aren't women. I define them as transphobic. I just don't think that they're evil. And they might, and again, I'm an idiot, you can have a different definition than me and I don't think that you're evil. I just think it's a form of bigotry. That's it. Well, that was a good, great conversation. Do I talk with you? I'm ready to go to the Q and A if you are. Sure. Actually, I'm gonna go get a drink of water, but you can start like, give him a question real quick if that's okay. You got it. And want to let you know folks, we are excited to let you know several things. First, don't forget to hit that subscribe button for more juicy debates like this coming up in the future. Including, you guys, we are absolutely thrilled at the bottom right of your screen this Saturday, Christian scholar Kenny Rhodes and atheist juggernaut of debating. Matt Delhonte will have a friendly discussion on whether or not there is good evidence for God. You don't want to miss it, folks. So, as mentioned, hit that subscribe button and also want to let you know. Our guests are linked in the description. That includes this guy, right up there, Tom. So, not only Tom, but Jengles, both of them are linked in the description. So, we do encourage you, my dear friends, you can check out those links below as we really do appreciate our guests. Same rule as always in the old chat. No hate speech or anything close to it. And also, so in other words, if you're kind of like, well, I was like, is this hate speech? Can I see it? Is this kind of a gray area? Oh, probably not a good idea to say it. Also, want to encourage you to attack the arguments instead of the person. And, looking for questions for Tom, that way, by the time Jengles gets back. We, here we go. J. Edward Britton, thanks so much for your question says. I disagree with Jengles, but I have a question for T-Jump. If somebody's genitals are cut off, are they still their gender? If not, what are they? Well, if gender is a psychological state, whether or not their genitals are cut off would be completely unaffected. If gender was biological, chromosomes, it would still be unaffected. So it wouldn't affect anything, either way for gender or sex. Gotcha. And this one coming in for Jengles, actually for both. Layman says, what is the minimal line for transphobia? At what point does an action become transphobic? That's a really interesting question. So in regards to the on the intention side, I've stated that it's the belief that trans women are not women. Trans people are not who they say they are. Again, there's a huge spectrum, but that is the point for me in which a person's motivations become transphobic. On the, excuse me, on the outcome side, we have to look at, is there harm being done to a trans person on the basis that they are trans? That's where like the started transphobia happens on that side. It can be an itzy, itzy, itzy, tiny little bit of harm, but as long as the reason they're being harmed is because they're trans, that is the started transphobia on the outcome side. And the same is true, tiny little itzy, bitzy amount of like bigotry on the other side of intent. You've got it, Tom? I mean, I would define it pretty much as the same thing as like if you are homing a trans person on the basis that they're trans, that would be transphobia. But I get it would include intentionality. So if, because it's based on the fact that they're trans or hurting them because they're trans, you obviously have to have some kind of an intention that they're trans, that's why I'm hurting them. Gotcha, thank you very much. For your question, this one coming in from Lewis, Cypher says, why are trans women entitled to my epistemic submission? I think that's for you, Tom. I think that might be true. I don't think so, but I'll take it for me. Oh, okay, well, I'll give you, go ahead, Jangle's in. Because they're based and because they're just all, there's sorts of correct, all right? You must be submitted. One, you should try it because it'll be fun, all right? Get that epist... like epistema, meloma, meloma could close submission, pronounce it correctly first, but get that submission, you'll love it, all right? It'll be a great Thursday night for you. Got it, you're right. I missed, for some reason, I missed the word entitled. That makes sense. Okay, Lewis Cypher with another question said, could the nine neglect and freedom of association be considered transphobia? And if so, how the heck cares? I think they meant who the heck cares. Well, if you were intentionally like excluding yourself from trans people because they're trans, I think even, I think TJ would even agree that's transphobic. And as for why you should care, caring about other people is good. I know that it's a feels-based arguments that I can't ground in a whole lot of empiricism, but, you know, I'm a feely boy. I like emotions. You got it. And Turbo, thanks for your question, says, hi jangles. If the most accepted definition of male is synonymous with man, is it transphobic to say trans males are male? Is it acceptable to say trans males are male? Oh, okay, I think I know what they're saying. Like if people view the terms male and man as synonymous, is it acceptable? Like, yeah, like trans men are male if we view them as synonymous. But again, I don't think, I think most people, like recognize the difference between sex and gender. All right, so when we say trans women or women, we're referring to gender and we're, and arguably that gives us a lot more utility than sex because we don't really see the things that a lot of people use to determine sex. We don't see chromosomes or gametes or genitals. We see, we do see secondary sex characteristics, but that one's on the spectrum that could be, you know, influenced a lot more so, a lot easier, a lot more easily by outside factors. So really when we like gender people and how we treat them in society, it's usually based on gender, our understanding of gender, rather than our understanding of sex. Gotcha. And let's see, Corvus Crux says, can we please get moderation in chat? These aren't good faith arguments. It's just bigotry. Have to stand in defense of the moderators. They do a fantastic job. They're always on the lookout for any sort of hate speech or even just harassing the guests. And so I don't know what you're seeing, but I also never got an example. So if you see something that is like against the rules, let me know by tagging me so I can actually see it myself, cause just asserting it that there's bigotry somewhere, like it helps me if you actually like pointed out to me. Hydrax says, the opposite of courage isn't cowardice, it's conformity. Sure, maybe. Gotcha. I got to see it in English, sorry. No worries. This one from some says, for jangles, are other kins valid before defining what a woman is by pointing out exceptions? What about defining what a human is? Fuck it, I don't know. A miserable pile of secrets, that's what a human is. Juicy. Amazing. A weekend's hell yeah. This one, you got it, and this one coming in from, Hyderpx says, appreciate your question. Jangles, what percent of trans people are offended by being mislabeled? I think they mean by the pronouns, but I'm not sure. Okay, I do not have a statistic on hand for that, but I think I'm reasonable in my assumption that it's probably the majority. Gotcha, and this one coming in from, Soldier of Science, do appreciate your question as well, says, the downfall of the left is to cancel people who are ignorant to everything they think that the are non-ignorant, they are non-ignorant about. Okay. Hold on, actually, I agree with this, no. They say all are being ignorant about something they wouldn't want to be canceled by. Okay, that was a lot of word style, but I think I agree with it wholeheartedly. A big problem that we have on the left is hating someone thinking that they're evil or for not already thinking like that, for not already thinking like us. Now, I wouldn't say that's the majority of left, we can't hastily generalize based on like a few, the loudest people on Twitter, but that is something like if you want, if you call yourself an advocate, you do need to like come to an understanding that your job is not to talk to people who already agree with you, all right? Your job is to talk to people who do not agree with you and an understanding of why they don't agree with you, what assumptions that they've made, why they might have the biases that they grew up with, depending on a bunch of different circumstances, that is your most valuable tool as an advocate. So I do, I say it's one of the biggest problems on left, but again, that doesn't mean it has to apply to the entire left, or even a majority of the left. But I think I agree with that person based on sort of what I heard. Juicy, you should have seen Tom's face when you made that concession, the smirk he had. No, thanks for that. Thank you very much. You could say an appreciative smirk. Let's see, Will Stewart says, Jengles, is anyone who disagrees with your opinion on this? Well, I think we got the answer. He said bigoted, and I think if I understand right, Jengles, you'd say, no, it doesn't follow, but I'll let you speak for yourself. No, yeah, I'm gonna, bigoted. I hope I've been very, very clear that bigotry is not intentionality, it's not admission that you're evil. I don't even use it as an accusation of evil. I think by far the biggest driving force of bigotry is cultural inertia. It's just you grew up with assumptions, that's where those biases come from, and that's why perpetuates bigotry. So yeah, if you don't think trans women are women, I think that you are a bigot, all right? However, if I was talking to you one-on-one and not in a debate, I wouldn't lead with that, okay? I don't think that because you have assumptions that you grew up with that you're evil, and I think that you're worth talking to as a person. That's the difference between if we're debating like this, hopefully we're putting out ideas there, but I'm not gonna lead with that if we're talking one-on-one, okay? But, so waste of time anyway, because if you don't agree with me, you're wrong about everything, and probably ugly. Next up, latex frog, thanks for your question, says question for jangles. If gender is a social construct and simply a self-identifier, would someone who, after suffering brain damage, was left in a permanent vegetative state have a gender? What if they were born that way? What degree of cognition would allow them to not have a gender assigned to them? Super interesting question. Now, I'd probably give a lot of thought about it. It's really similar to like the gender abolition question, like if we abolish gender, would people still have it? I think it's super interesting. I would, my immediate thought is no, because it requires like cognition, it requires awareness. They might be being gendered, but gender is like a gender identity is something that has to come from a cognitive process or like a deep feeling, like deep neurochemical reactions in your brains. And so if they're not consciously aware of it, I don't know, it's super interesting. So I'm not gonna take a super hard stance on it either way, but my immediate gut reaction is no. Juicy and insect facet, thanks for your question, says is the statement, quote, trans women are not biological women, unquote, transphobic. Is it true or false? All right, so trans women are not biological women. In certain contexts, it can be, but this is the big thing, it probably is. Like based on like how it is normally used, it's probably gonna be used in a bigotive way, because a lot of people are, it would have to depend on a lot of context, but you can state things that you think are true that I would might agree with in a certain context, but if I suspect a motivation behind it, I don't know, plus it all depends on like, what does a trans person think? That's gonna be the biggest issue, all right? Cause a lot of trans people hear, okay, look, you're not a biological woman. So, you know, this is my definition of woman as a way to like invalidate their identity. So I don't know, depends on the context, but probably. Gotcha, and Ryan Gordon, another one for Jangle's. Amazing, says, would mockers of Christianity be Christian aphobics or bigots as well, trying to understand the logic and where this rabbit trail leads? Hell yeah, if you like spend a lot of time mocking Christians, I think that's pretty shitty towards Christian people. Now, Christianity has done nothing good for me, all right? I hold no love of Christianity whatsoever, but if you're mocking Christians, if you're, it's kind of shitty. And I don't see job as a smirking. Do you think that you've caught me in some sort of hypocrisy here? No, I think that you've just defined most of the atheist community as Christian phobic and I find that hilarious and I'm not totally opposed to it. Okay, it's kind of shitty. However, like here's something, here's a really good example, all right? I don't think there's a God, I'm hella, hella atheist. However, just because I have that truth, if I would like have that truth to like express it in public, like, it's okay, there is no God, it's just true. And then my Christian coworker like says, all right, that's discrimination against my religion. I'd probably side with him. If you're intentionally putting that out there in a way that you know is going to like invalidate someone's identity, something that they deeply hold, I don't know, I'd probably side with him. So the only issue comes in like, you know, if being gay is harmful, like it hurts your Christian identity, then I'm gonna laugh at you, but still. So like calling their preferred deity a magical sky daddy would be Christian phobic? Yeah, probably, yeah. No, I'm sure with that. Like again, because my definition of bigotry is not in your all, all right? Juicy and this one coming in from Ryan Gordon who asks, how come bigotry apparently only exists for trans, gay and people who aren't white? It looks like you covered that. Namely, you would say, no, there is such a thing as bigotry against Christians or other groups. Insect, well, but let me know, I don't wanna speak for you, I'm just. So typically bigotry comes, a lot of people who have, I've not been made aware of their identities, like identities come from differentiation. So it is possible to be bigoted against white people. Absolutely, what typically happens though is a lot of people will perceive bigotry when really their assumptions are being questioned and they'll perceive that as an attack on their status quo that they're comfortable with. So can it happen? Yeah, is it a concern in our society? No. You got it, Anne. Thank you very much for this question. Coming in from Brandy Beckett. I didn't see a question. Let me know if you had a question you meant to attach in the super chat and then Insect Fassett says, for both Tom and Jengels, ideally what should the social and legal consequences be for saying, quote, trans women aren't women? I would say that there shouldn't be any legal consequences for that statement, but I think you could do like a aggravated speech, like if you're yelling it at somebody's face, like if you're yelling the N word in a public space around a bunch of people, you could be convicted of that, but if you say it like in your home, you can't be convicted of that. So I'd say that the phrase itself would carry no consequences, but if you're berating people, that could have consequences. Where are you saying it? All depends on context. Where are you saying it? I think you should be able to hold shitty, dumb, ignorant, bigoted beliefs in public, in your own house. I think you should be able to do that. I think it's really, really, I think you should be kicked off Twitter real quickly if you violate their hate speech code. I think that's really funny and it should happen more often. If you are at work or in a place of employment or a place of business, if you quietly whisper it to yourself in the bathroom rocking back and forth, I don't think there should be really any consequences, but if you're saying it in front of other people, especially trans people and it's causing them distress, I think there should be a range of steps, HR should step in, ask you not to do that and if it escalates, then maybe they start to fire you. If you're asking me if you say the phrase that you should be thrown in jail, my answer is yes. You got it and thank you very much for your question. This one coming from Minno-Go-Woo says, T-Jump, do you agree that sex and gender are separate concepts? If trans women are not women, then what gender are they? Depends which definitions you're using. They're definitely separate concepts for many people and for many people they're the same concept, so it depends which cultural definitions you're using. When someone is watching a TV show and a man is on screen, let's say an animated TV show and a man is on screen, are they lying when they say that's a man? What, it's a representation of a man. No, but if they say that is a man. Like if they meant it literally, then it would be a lie, but I don't think anyone means it literally. Yeah, so we can still, so that is where the power of gender, right? There was a really, really funny video from someone who will not be named, who was really, really mad that there were these dolls being sold as genderless, and gender and sex are the same thing, and sex is only biological. I just thought that was incredibly funny that this inanimate thing that is not biological, okay, we're gonna sell it, it's not biological, all right? We're gonna sell it, it doesn't have a sex, it doesn't have a gender. I thought it was really, really funny that all of a sudden people are really aware of the difference between sex and gender when it comes to like representation. You got it, and this one from Turbo says, jangles didn't understand trans males are trans women, is it discriminatory to call a male who is trans a male? The discriminatory to call a trans, yeah, so for this person, you kinda gotta update your language because you're incomprehensible now, so maybe that'll help you in the future, but if you're saying that if you call a trans woman a male and it makes them feel shitty, and you're doing it because it makes them feel shitty, I think you're being kind of an asshole, yeah. But again, hey, if we were at a place where people weren't just like conflating sex and gender in order to like delegitimize like the identity of trans people, we might have these conversations, but the reason we can't is because of the trans folks. So talk to the trans folks before you talk to the woke SJWs, okay? This one coming in from Dylan James says, jangles your definition of man slash woman and ours are just two separate worldviews. Both should be respected. Are you a gender supremacist? Gender supremacist, yes, I'm a gender supremacist, okay? I think my gender is the best one, but you don't know what my gender is because I haven't told you. Amazing! Next up, Will Stewart, thanks for your question. She says, teach them, since you disagree with jangles, are you an ugly bigot? Yep. Juicy, and you've got other standard questions. Hang tight just a moment, folks. Thank you very much for your question. Hate, love, nothing, appreciate it says, is it not misogynistic to rob women of their identity? Also, if I claim to be God and you do not believe me, are you then hateful or bigoted for saying that I'm not God? Okay, how do you rob women of their identity? Hey, woman means something that includes other people now. It includes you, you're still a woman. You're a woman before, you're a woman after. I think it's really, really funny that they try to use that argument to say that they're being discriminated against, this victimhood complex, that when other people are included, it's somehow an attack against you. This is why it's important to really, really dive into the complexities of bigotry because being introduced to a group that makes you a bit uncomfortable, it's not bigotry. The white people who are really, really upset that black people were being introduced in their schools, their concerns weren't valid and it's good to make fun of them and call them racist. It's good to invalidate their feelings. But no, you're a woman if you are a woman, okay? If you are, he says woman, you're a woman and including trans women, the definition doesn't rob you of your identity. You still get to keep it, okay? And as far as the God thing, yeah, forget about that. You got it and let's see. I just, sorry if I blew out people's headphones. F Papuli, thank you for your question said, jangles, is it possible to acknowledge difference without being quote unquote bigoted? Yeah, trans people do it. Do you think trans people think that they're the same as cis women or cis people? Do you think trans people think that they're the same as cis people? Kind of the whole, like the differentiations while they have a different word. It's why they have a different category. Juicy. Yeah, so. Barnvon G, thanks for your question said, can you please tell jangles that biology is just quote unquote biology? It's science, oh wait a minute, I've misheard that. So can you please tell jangles that biology is not just quote unquote biology, it's science. Trans women are women in a male body, but psychologically, they are women. I did not know that biology was science. Okay, now I gotta go home and think about some things. Juicy, F Papuli strikes with another, says, do you think trans women performing womanhood in a stereotypical way, e.g. long hair, makeup, large breasts is harmful to biological women who don't conform to those expectations? Not in and of itself, no. So this is like the notion of like performativity that I think there are some like trans scholars who say that when you perform your gender, this is not a universally agreed upon thing even among trans people, all right? So not inherently. You might wanna have a big Bobo's and long hair and wear dresses because it reflects, it makes you feel the most comfortable. That's where you feel the most like expressive. However, you can still like perpetuate harmful stereotypes in a way. So no, I don't think that the act of doing that is harming cis women and whatsoever. The goal, like so when we talk about like anti woke types talk about like we're attacking femininity. No, we're attacking the expectation and of like gender roles, right? So you can still be the prettiest lady or the most masculine dude. In fact, I encourage you to be the most masculine dude that you wanna be. And then, yeah, what we're trying to get rid of is the expectation, the removal of morality from conforming to those things, including within your own gender identity. You got it in. Insect facet says for both in general, if two people disagree whether a statement is bigoted, what is the accepted and unbiased procedure for deciding who is right? Use the most common dictionary definition of the word and see if it fits. There is done, there is no, you're not gonna have any sort of like unbiased like claim towards morality or towards like a declaration of harm or declaration of bias, right? There's no, like how can we have an unbiased examination of what constitutes bias when it comes to like non-empirical statements or non-empirical like physical statements, you can't. All right, I think it's better in general to default to the person who is more in line with the identity being discussed with the majority of their opinions. Not always, but I think it's better to default to that unless convinced otherwise. You got it. And with that, wanna say thanks to everybody for your questions. Thanks to T-Jump and Djangles who are linked in the description folks. That includes if you're listening via the Modern Day Debate podcast. Folks, we are pumped. If you didn't know, if you've been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears, Modern Day Debate is available on your favorite podcast right now. And so we're gonna get this debate up within 12 hours is the goal. We wanna start getting our debates up within 12 hours of the actual stream so you can listen to them all on the go. And our guests are going to be linked there as well. So with that, Tom, Djangles, it's been a true pleasure to have you. Yeah, thanks for having me on again. Thanks guys, thanks Djangles as always. Pleasure. Juicy and folks, I will be back in just a moment giving you a quick update on upcoming debates such as this one, this coming Saturday with Matt Dillahunty and Christian Apologist Kenny Rhodes and whether or not there is good evidence for God. You don't wanna miss it, folks. It's going to be tremendous. So we'll be right back in just a moment with that as well as other upcoming debates. Thanks everybody and stick around. See you guys later. Amazing stuff. Amazing. So really excited to be with you folks tonight. Very exciting updates about the channel. Folks, we are thrilled about all sorts of stuff that we are excited to let you know about. So we have a number of debates already booked for next week. You could say like a sneak peek in terms of what those are in particular. I'm gonna say hello to you all in the chat in just a moment as I do love to get to say hi to you. And so I see you there. Chug Blackman as well as Mr. Anderson and Devin Emelton, Perry 343 and C.D. and Smith 6 and Manuel, Manuel. Glad to see you here. But what I'm going to do is let you know about these upcoming debates. One, in about a week we're going to have a debate on whether or not it's better to leave behind ideas that impact the world or a baby. That should be a juicy one. And also though next week it's possibly going to be the case that we may host a debate on a biogenesis which would be a fun one. And then me too is going to be the topic next Wednesday. So like hashtag me too tag team debate. It's going to be a big one. So that is coming up on next Wednesday. Cider and Port is in the chat mentioning it. Thanks Cider and Port for being here. Good to see you again. As well as Green, glad you were here. And Randy Beckett, thanks for coming by. As well as Topazole and Landsplays, lol. Thanks for dropping in. Steve Coat, good to see you and flip flat. Good to have you here. We're glad you're here as well as Bellis Breckenridge. We're glad you're here. Hannah Anderson, thanks for your support. Do appreciate you as a mod for all of you, that all that you do, pinning that dank chat to the very top I am. And so saying thanks to everyone that came to listen and participate. Yes indeed. Thank you so much for your questions folks that adds value to the show. Always fun to listen to as well as just hanging out here folks. We like that it's an eclectic mix of people from different walks of life. I have seen people so far to the political right or political left. You wouldn't even believe it. I see them in chat all the time and I see people in the middle in chat all the time. I see people from all walks of life and that's why we like it folks. We wanna let you know no matter what walk of life you're from, no matter whether you be gay, straight, black, white, Christian, atheist, Republican, Democrat, you name it folks. We are glad you're here. We really do hope you feel welcome. We appreciate you hanging out with us and we are excited about the future. Folks, I am thrilled. You guys, I am honestly, I'm thinking about how we're gonna do, I wanna do, I'm trying to think about, I don't wanna build too much expectation cause you might be expecting something huge and I'm like, can I put something together huge? Cause right now it's like really busy for me. I've been like moving and then I'm preparing for a comprehensive exam and I'm trying to put a paper through. So long story short, my life like it's been so crazy but I'm trying to plan something for our big celebration. You could say celebratory thank you. Thank you to you folks as we celebrate 50,000 subs, probably by the end of the month I would guess, really exciting stuff. I am pumped about that and I'm like, how are we gonna celebrate that? This might be, we're gonna try, maybe for the first time we're gonna try the Twitter, I'm sorry, the Twitch hot tub category. I have gotta find a hot tub. They're not just everywhere. So I've gotta find one. That could be a juicy one. But yes, we are pumped about that and so you guys, I am pumped. I really am. And Hannah Anderson, good to see you, those stripper liquor, good to see ya. Nolan Barger, is it Barger or Barger or Barger? Thanks for coming by. And then Nolan, Nolan, I am hoping to get Team Skeptic. I'm gonna ask him right now because I'm like, oh, I've just kept forgetting. So I'm gonna ask him right now. Let me know, is there anybody, other stuff that I've gotta ask people for debates? Let's see. Oh, you guys, we might have one next week that seriously will trigger you so much and so bad. We might host a debate on whether or not kink at Pride events does more harm than good. It's going to be controversial, folks. We are open to virtually any topic, any topic that YouTube won't kick us off for. That's the trick. So we don't want to saw off the branch that we are sitting on in terms of YouTube being like, oh, you guys are going too far with this. We're gonna kick you off the platform. But we are going to push the envelope a little bit. We're gonna go where we're allowed to go and we're gonna see and fill that out. And if YouTube gives us our first strike, isn't that amazing? We have not yet gotten our first strike. That's crazy. So another thing to celebrate by the end of the month. So I'm saying, hey team, what up, Bro-ski? That's how I talk and all my messages to people. I have a question regarding whether you would be up for a debate on whether on a JFK assassin conspiracy. JFK assassin conspiracy. I don't know who else. Yeah, let me see what team says. Amazing. I think he's probably gonna be for probably into it, but you know, I can't tell the future. JG, good to see you. Thanks for coming by. And the chat's moving fast. So let me just try to catch up here. Is this, am I really this far behind? Holy smokes, this is moving really fast. But yes, Bar and Von G, thanks for coming by as well as Tanner Formosa, thanks for dropping in. Says James is getting a little, James, this is getting a little heated here. Are you doing into the chat? I don't know what you're talking about. But Green, thanks for coming by as well. And Mark Harrison, good to see you. Amaretto Kitten, thanks for dropping in as well as the zombie outbreak. Thanks for dropping in. Bob Frostmourne, we are happy you are with us. For real, Bob. Dirty Cats on the Counter, says thanks everybody. Thank you, Dirty Cats on the Counter. We are glad you're with us. And LICCasino.com, bonus $300 plus 250 free spins. Wow, that's quite the advertisement within a name. That's pretty clever. I never thought about that. That YouTube, if you go on YouTube, you can always just, you could actually put the advertisement in your actual name of your profile. Very clever. LICCasino.com, I've got to give you, I've got to promote you here, you know. I'm not actually sponsored by them. But because it's so clever, I can't help but say, hey, we all better go gamble at LICCasino.com. But Lance, plays all the while. Good to see you as Hannah Anderson, thanks for coming by and just all of your support tonight as always. Third finger from the right, amazing. Thanks for coming by. Boris Kuduko, glad you're here. Angel A, glad to see you as well as Slang and Jabu. And Bellis Breckenridge, thanks for dropping in. Thanks for your kind words. Thanks for having us, James, you're amazing. Thank you, that seriously is encouraging. And Mark Reed, good to see you again. And then, just some internet chick, amazing, says tonight was a super good one. And I couldn't agree more. Believe me, nobody agrees more than me. And Herve Schmerve, thanks for coming by as well as. Ross Thatcher, folks, welcome to the show. It's Tuesday, and on, was it Saturday? We had Ross Thatcher on in a good old Flat Earth debate. It's one of our guilty pleasures, folks. As well as big foot debates, we like those too. Let's see, this is a toughie there. But Josh Howard, good to see you. Says I saw a guy at the gym today who looked a lot like James. Amazing, I was at the gym today. You're not in Fort Collins, are you? Nero, thanks for coming by as well as Sidani, the theist, pumped you're here. And Let's Farm, thanks for dropping in. And, oh, I saw you here earlier too. But Devin, pumped you're here. Stripper Liquor, good to see you. Is there anybody new in the chat? Is there anybody where it's your first time here tonight? Let me know. James, I see you, good to see you. Pancake of Destiny, glad you made it as well. And, Jen, 8208, thanks for coming by. We are glad you're with us, as well as CiceroNapsis, 50K party, amazing. That would be fun. I've got to think of something clever. Nolan Burger, my pleasure, thank you. Rumpley Depew, thanks for dropping in. And, CD says, can we write Donator and subs names on rubber duckies for the hot tub streams? Oh, that's funny, I like that. Folks, I forgot to mention, oh, I forgot. If you ever want to send a Venmo, if you are like, dude, I don't like Super Chats in the sense that YouTube takes over, sometimes they take over 33% of the Super Chat. They say at 70, I've done the math on my own stats in the back, and they actually take more. I've noticed it's like, at least a third. I think it's a little over a third that I've noticed they sometimes take. If you don't like that, if you're like, geez, YouTube I think has enough, here's what you could do. If you want to send your Super Chat in via Venmo, you can. We now have a modern-day-debate Venmo account, and the tag is modern-day-debate. So if you just send it to, you know, the call sign, and then modern-day-debate with no spaces, that's our little call on Venmo, and so if that is something you'd ever be interested in, let me know, and I can remind you what it is. And then, World View Detective, glad to see you here with us, as well as European man, thanks for dropping in, and Mark, Mark Jones, thanks for coming by. Cider and Port says, is Vosh doing the kink pride debate? No, Vosh turned it down, no joke. And then, so yeah, we'll talk about all of your guys' favorite stuff, like Furries and all that, and you know, it'll be interesting, but let's see. Oh, okay, I'm almost caught up with the chat. Oh, Cytonav, thanks for letting me know. Perpetually annoyed, if you say something in the chat, I will make you a mod, and Tom Fulri Show, thanks for coming by, as well as Amaretto, and amazing. Heat Shield also uses the word broski, I like it, I like your style. Ray Callagher says, tilt your mic, James, the mic elements are on the side, not the end. Yeah, I would, the only thing is it's hard to get it to be tweaked right and not too far away. So like right now, it's too far away, that's the only way I can get it to where it's like roughly, like or I'm speaking into the side of it. So I usually just do this and it works well enough. But, Toto Kaka, thank you for dropping in, as well as Pancake of Destiny says, Team Skeptic will make you demonetized, he loves the F word too much, he does. But, Insect Fastness says, what about a debate on lizard men, reptiloids, whatever they're called, the aliens in human suits? Well, maybe, I don't know, I mean, I'll think about it. Bo Smith says, James, you need to go buy a pink bikini for your tub event. And you're into that kink stuff, huh, Bo? And Sajonav, let's see, says, Heechield and Invisible Ninja on Brian Stevens are ready for the wrench. Oh, okay, let me, remind me, if you guys can remind me, I'm looking for you in chat. Was it Heechield, Invisible Ninja on Brian Stevens? Okay, I'm modding up Heechield right now. And then folks, I forgot, I completely forgot. If you are subscribed via Twitch, amazing. And oh, Twitch chat, I'm so sorry, I've been so behind on saying hello. Sienna, 2002, good to see you, as well as Ozzie and Tepatzel, and Brooks Barrow and She Wonders, plus Chaxel, we are glad you were here. And, let's see here. Ryan, let's see, hold on, I'm gonna remember what I was gonna say. Sorry guys, I got the worst night of sleep last night ever, like no joke, it was terrible. And then, Will says, I'm not sure how seriously I can take someone who uses a shock mount on a handheld mic, just saying. What's a shock mount? And Sadani the Theist says, you do such great work, James, God bless. Thank you for your kind words, seriously. We're excited about the future folks, and we really do have some cool stuff coming up. And, European Vanses reach out to Jason Cohn regarding anti-witism. I'm open to it, but I gotta be honest, I've got like a list of 50,000 people that people have asked me to reach out to. And so, I gotta tell you that, like it's totally cool if you reach out to them, and let me know if they were willing to come on, but I honestly, I get so many, I get so many, I get a lot of emails of people like asking to come on and asking me to arrange a debate for them, and I also get so many like in the live chat, for some reason especially, I always get people saying, hey, you should ask this person. I'm like, I'm sorry, I've honestly, I've got like, not even one list, I've got like several large lists that I have to go through with people who people have said that I've gotta reach out to them. But, I appreciate your suggestions seriously. And then, let's see. Brian Stevens, good to see you as well, Cider & Portses, have you ever been recognized in public? No, not other than one of our own events. That doesn't count. So like, when we did that debate, when we did that debate tour in Dallas, some of the people who watch Modernity Debate came to the live show, and so that doesn't count. But I was pumped they came and it was fun. Josh Howard says, not in Fort Collins. Oh, that's where I live. Obscured, thanks for coming by, as well as, amazing. Thanks for your, thanks for your super chat, questioning the answers, says, hey brother, another episode, always a pleasure. Thank you, my friend. But yeah, I'm pumped you guys. We do have a, we are growing in terms of the podcast. It's exciting to see the podcast grow. That's really cool. So hey, if it's useful to you folks, check it out. Let me show you right now. You might be wondering, oh, I had a puke burp. Two seconds, amazing. I can hardly wait to go to sleep at a decent time tonight. And maybe sleep through the night. As media, Alabama, thanks for coming in. We're glad you were here. Brian Stevens, good to see you. And Will Stewart, twin brother of Brian Stevens. And Fox Populate said, how do you do it all? You do a great job. For future reference, my name is pronounced Fox and I'm a lady. Thanks for the great, great debate tonight. Thank you, Fox. That seriously means a lot. I appreciate that, seriously. And TK Englander, thanks for coming by. But yeah, seriously, Fox. That's super encouraging. I do really appreciate it. And I'm excited, though. And thank you for your super chat. Andrew Roos says, James, I just missed it. No, I shall rewind. Hope you're doing well, man. But those juicy burps are the worst. You're right about that, brother. Thanks so much, Andrew, for your support. Appreciate it. And yeah, man, that was like one big, I haven't had one of those burps in a long time. Yo, thanks for coming by as well. And Andrew Roos, by the way, I see it says there's an A. Are you in Australia? Let me know, I'm curious. I always get excited when we have people from like far away that are watching. Like, that's encouraging. That's exciting for me. So we always get pumped up. Like, even if it's as far away as Europe, which isn't too far, boom. But people from Australia, all over the place, I think I told you guys sometimes I look at the stats for the podcast and I'm like, wow, it's crazy. Some of the countries I haven't heard of. But yeah, we are trying to get into the habit now where I'm gonna try to have tonight's debate up by tomorrow at noon. Can you give me till noon? So this debate will be up extra quick. And so we're excited about that. JG said, where should we send debate topic ideas? I have honestly, I've got probably more than enough. I've honestly got like pages of, like, I appreciate it. You can mention it in chat and maybe I'll go with it, but I gotta be honest that there are like a billion others that people have mentioned and I'm not trying to be mean or anything like, I'm totally open to you mentioning it, but I gotta let you know that it's like, I've got like so many topics and people that people have recommended, but it might not be like super quick that we host it, though I appreciate it. So I hope that didn't seem like I was closing the door on you, JG, sorry. I just didn't want you to get your hopes up in terms of like how soon it might be. It depends on the topic too. But Pancake of Destiny says, do bathstream in a Mankini when you get 50,000 subs together with T-Jump, of course. That is the grossest thing I've ever heard. And perpetually annoyed, I have just added you as a moderator instead of pinning your chat, sorry. Like I said, a little sleep deprived. And Mark Reed, thanks for your support. Dude, appreciate that says hit that like button to see more great debates, mates. And it's true, we got 303 people. Folks, we can get to 200. We can totally get to 200 because we're at 183 likes. Folks, let's do it. Let's get to 200, we'd be crazy not to. Now you might be like, well, we've got 300 watching though, James, we should get 300 likes. We could, but I mean, the only reason, the only thing I can think of is if we have 300 people watching and they're not all clicking like, it's probably, they must be in the bathroom. And they're, so they're not at their computer and that's why they're not liking, okay? So we can make it to 200 though. Ron Nakedness says, James, can I hire you as my academic advisor? That's funny, you can't hire me, but I can. Like if you ever wanted advice on like, trying to like, let's say you could say, have a single course fulfill two fulfillments. Like you could say double dipping, like I probably like, I actually, I've been in school so long that I could probably, I might be able to like find some tricks, but yeah, I'm an old man. I always go to the rec center and I'm like the oldest person there. So I lift on campus and I will actually, lately I've been seeing people closer to my age, but it's funny that all the other universities I attended, there would be other older people, whether they'd be students or like instructors or professors that were in the weight room. And at this school, I don't know if I should say my school. You guys probably, you guys figure it out anyway. At this university, I never see hardly ever people my age. It's almost, it's always undergrads. I got nothing against the undergrads. Don't get me wrong, but let's see. TK Englander says, even if it's not transphobic to say trans women are not women, it's at least disrespectful. If that's who you wanna be for you. I don't like really understand if that's directed toward me. We're a neutral channel. So we don't actually, like when we host a topic, it's not like modern day debate has like a default, yes or no position on the topic. We host topics without putting out any videos that take our own stance. And so I don't know if you're trying to shame me or somebody or people in the audience in general, but by the way, I don't know if that's gonna work for you. But anyway, let's see. Amazing says Bellis. And I, you know what? It's funny though. Let's see. There's hardly ever any people my age. And so I am like the king of the castle. I love the rec center because sometimes I feel like I am like an old, wisened sage walking around there. But I'm just teasing. Perpetually annoyed, says you forgot to mod me too. Darn it, you're right. No, no, no, I did. It says, if I click you in, it says, remove moderator as an option. So that means you're supposed to be. I'll remove you as a moderator because you're right. I didn't see the wrench. Now I'm gonna try to add you as a moderator. It should work now. European man said, he said he's open to it. I honestly already forgot his name. I'm sorry, man. If you can tell me what his name was, the chat's moving, but let's see here. I gotta run in a second, but let's see here. Blast, thanks for coming by as well as Sinfinity, we're glad you're here. And Brooke Chavis, who said, I sent you an email with my info for the perks. That's right, I've gotta get the perks out. My goal is I've gotta do it before Saturday before the big event. So that way people get them in the surrounding time. So thanks for that, Brooke. I totally appreciate that. And I will catch up on my emails and I seriously, I totally appreciate your support, Brooke. And letting you know that. Thanks for going the extra mile. And then Invisible Ninjas, as I passed the 36th chamber with Saicho now, can I get the wrench? Yeah, I thought I added you. But now I actually added you. Raw nakedness says, put a join button on your channel. I've been meaning to do that, but it's been so exhausting and I've gotta make new graphics and stuff and I'm honestly, for real, it's almost like Twitch where you have to make like the emotes. Topazol street cred for making those on Twitch. I didn't even make those, but I'm super thankful. Chris Gammon says, James, are you even 30, bro? Bless your heart, Chris. That's funny. Invisible Ninjas says I passed the 30th. Oh, okay, gotcha. But yeah, I've gotta run in just a second, but TK Englander says, not trying to shame anyone. It was not directed to you. Thank you for letting me know that. And Steve Coates says, James, you and T-Jump are always a good show. That's funny. It's always a fun time here at Modern Day Debate. We really do appreciate everybody being here. And then Heechield says, that's a really good point. I guess I didn't notice. Are you considering a channel membership option or is there a reason it isn't there? I'm open to, if Modern Day Debate had a channel membership option, I don't know, what do you guys think? Should we? I don't know. I'm open. True Rex says, thanks for the entertainment. Thank you, True Rex, for your support. Appreciate that. Let me know. Heechield said, I'm sure people would help make stuff for that. Yeah, maybe. I mean, and then Topazul says, if you want stuff for a join button on YouTube, let me know. Topazul, I would be super thankful, because I'm honestly just running on fumes most of the time. So seriously, if you're up for it, I would be super grateful. Don't feel obligated, I never am entitled or I never feel entitled or anything like that. So I seriously, I really do appreciate your help. And don't feel obligated. Fox Populi says, hope you get a good night's sleep in. You definitely deserve it. Recently found the channel and have been addicted. Listen to the podcast all day at work. Thanks again, talk to you later. Thanks Fox, that's super encouraging. Seriously, that makes me feel really happy. And then Amanda says, as always, thank you for your time. Thank you for that. And then, what is it? Raw and Nakedness, well, let's see. Well, here's the tricky thing. Should we expect that members would be neutral though? Cause I don't know if people are gonna wanna be a member if they're expected to be like neutral in chat. And Raw and Nakedness, I know you're not gonna be neutral. So, oh, and then Insect Fast said, what about merch? You guys should sell merch. We do, if you scroll down, it should show like our merch where it's got t-shirts and a hoodie and a mug and a tote bag and a girl's shirt for Raw Nakedness. And so yeah, but yeah, long story short. I don't know, what do you guys think? Should people who are members, it should be the case that they should have to be neutral? It's tricky, I don't know. Cause people might be like, what if they come to the channel and they're like, oh, I notice all the members are of this position. You know, I just, I'm like, I gotta think about it. Let me think about it. But, thanks Toto Kaka for your feedback as well. But thanks everybody for all your love and support. Seriously, I love you guys. Thanks for making this fun. Chris Gavin says, gotta run looking forward to Saturday. Woohoo, amen to that. I am pumped you guys. It's gonna be so fun. So thank you Chris for all of your support. Seriously, I owe you. Like, let me know how I can make your day better. Seriously, appreciate you man. And Insect Fasset says, oh, I had no idea that was a merch link. Oh, it is. Whoa, yeah. And then, but yeah, thank you guys for your support seriously. And then Heat Shield, let's see. Yeah, Heat Shield, we'll talk about it. I'll try to get thoughts from people. We got a schedule, what is it called? We're gonna have a Patreon meeting in the next week or two. So, I'll like, I'll get some feedback from there and get some feedback from like Bob and the moderators and get some feedback from Chatmore and stuff like that. And so, thanks everybody. We got 209 likes. We made it. Past 200. Maverick Hemwit, we're glad you're here. Thanks for dropping in. And then, 30 dislikes. And sometimes people are like, oh James, you got dislikes there, like 30 of them. We have 30 people from Australia who have hit the like button. That's why you were seeing 30 dislikes. That's all it is folks. And so, thanks for all your support though. Seriously, we love you guys. And excited about the future. Thank you guys. I always hate, I always wanna stay. I really do, for real. I'm just like, I'm enjoying myself quite well. Thank you very much. I don't wanna leave yet. But thank you guys, seriously. And keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable everybody. And we will be back tomorrow night. We are supposed to have a debate. It's still being confirmed, but it's gonna be excellent. And then, CD put, make sure to put moderated debate on your auto host on Twitch. What does that mean? I don't know what that means. For real. I'm gonna write it down as something that I'm supposed to do. And then, right now, I'm gonna go on Twitter and see how many people are angry about tonight's debate. Cause I get a lot of satisfaction from that. So, sorry. But I do. Wait, let me read them right now already together. It's fun. Let's see. Well, they're not really criticizing. They're just criticizing the debaters. But the funny thing is almost always when people dis a debate that we host, they'll always be in the chat. For real. It's a really good predictor of them actually showing up and watching the debate even though they trash it. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's like, there's such a thing as rage watching. Maybe that's it. I don't know. Like, I don't understand it. I know there's such a thing as hate watching. I mean, why do you think people show up or Tom jump? No, I'm kidding. That was a joke. So, we're actually, we get along. So, you've seen pictures of Tom and I traveling and stuff like that, but I've heard of hate watching. I haven't, but I think rage watching is a thing too. I don't know. There's a lot of human psychology into it that I don't, frankly, fully understand yet. The internet is a strange place. It does weird things to people, I think. But, perpetually annoyed. So, some people just impulsively dislike if they disagree with one of the speakers. That could be it. That makes sense. Brian Steven says, night everybody. Thank you, Brian. And perpetually annoyed says, good night as well. Thank you. And then, I promise, this is like, I'm gonna go for real in a second. CD says, you can make a list of Twitch streamers and Twitch auto hosts the channels when you are offline. Oh, okay. List of Twitch streamers. That's super interesting. I gotta learn about that. But yeah, I am pumped, you guys. So, thank you. Heat shield, thanks for that feedback on the tech solutions topic. And then, insect facets says, I'm a bundle of directionless rage if that helps. Thanks for letting me know that. I had a feeling. No, I'm teasing you. Thanks for coming by as well. Swars, brooder, thanks for dropping in. We're excited you're here as well. And so, with that, thanks everybody though. Seriously, love you guys. Thanks for all your support. I gotta go get some sleep, I'm pooped. So, stoked to see you next time, which is probably gonna be tomorrow. Keep an eye out. I've still gotta confirm whether or not Kent Holvend can come on tomorrow. So, oh, it's gonna be juicy if it happens. I think it'll probably happen. So, keep an eye out for that one. Thanks everybody. I have to use my mouse two seconds. All right, bye. Thank you guys. Interesting. Amazing. What does that mean? Amazing stuff. It's a mess. I absolutely appreciate it. Can you imagine? There's no proof for that. You're on the air, sir. Do you love black people? Why? Back in a moment. The hate people, the hate people. Amazing stuff. Unless the government in your life, the better off you are.