Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Rebutting Rationality Rules Critique of Matt Walsh
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 сер 2024
- In this episode, Trent responds to Stephen Woodford’s (aka Rationality Rules) arguments against Matt Walsh’s definition of a woman as “an adult human female.”
Support this podcast: trenthornpodcast.com
00:00 Intro
00:56 Woodford's Argument
04:26 Social Construct of Gender
06:15 Intersex Conditions
10:55 Appearances vs Reality
16:29 Argument from Attraction
22:02 Genetic Syndromes
28:51 Lives Ruined
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #107 РОДНОЙ ДОМ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3QKzKUlHM/mqdefault.jpg)
I am a biologist, and it seems that the main issue is confusing psychology and biology. The existence of genetic abnormalities is biological and should not be discussed with social ideologies. Some people are born without limbs, but that does not mean amputations should be elective. Gender is the phenotype of the genotype of sex. They are linked. This new definition of gender is rediscovering "personal identity". Of course you can be more masculine or feminine in personality, but there is no objective biology behind that statement.
That's a feature not a bug. The main point of the movie wasn't to provide a comprehensive definition. It was to provide *a* definition to prove to the normies that it's all a load of barnacles. Getting philosophical would've been counterproductive because it would've alienated the normies.
Then what are hermaphrodites?
@subcitizen2012 An organism displaying phenotypes of two sexes. In humans, there are no conditions which result in functioning ovaries and testes concurrently. These are genetic abnormalities and should not be discussed alongside those who do not have a biological condition.
The problem is that "gender" has nothing to do with psychology. Gender is by definition "the classification of WORDS into the categories of masculine, feminine and neuter in accordance with sex."
The reason we're confused is the depraved sexologists co-opted the word "gender" without ever formally defining it and they expect us to comply. I reject the idea that academics can change definitions for political reasons and thus only use the word "gender" to refer to the linguistic categorization of words. It's confusion over nothing
@@subcitizen2012 Birth defective.
I have (mosaic) Turner’s syndrome. I’m a woman. A woman who’s tired of these people using people like me as an excuse to call people like Mulvaney a woman. That’s asinine.
Right?
Intersex conditions are not only incredibly rare, they are a physical and genetic MEDICAL condition that people have to suffer with. It is not the same thing as a man waking up, slapping on a party city wig, and calling himself a woman. If I was intersex i would be so offended and pissed at all of this, and always being used as a reason to push the trans agenda. They are not the same thing, at all!
Agreed. TS sister
@@tinyt79 nice to meet ya!
That's fair. Sometimes people get tired of other people. Some people would no doubt be tired of you gate keeping your medical condition, and using it and your personal experience to dictate legally private medical matters for others. To each thier own. For communities like this have such a condition as yours would often be a bridge too far anyway.
Not at all! Everyone with TS is biologically female. That's not a hard question, and in fact one that Trent has addressed in the past. Everyone is either male or female, even if they have chromosomal abnormalities.
Compelling argument on "identifying as a subscriber" you won me over, I am now subscribed.
So brave
@@michaelrome3527 Stunning and brave
No dude. You can be a fan WITHOUT subscribing. Don't let Trent fool you.
Also, give his wife's channel a try. It's funny.
That part gave me a good chuckle lol
1. 2 sexes: male and female
2. Males and females have greatly differing psych, behavior, and natures.
3. Sure, there are social constructs, built upon these differences, but to say that all of these or most of these are just social constructs falls in the face of very obvious common experience, different studies (modern studies on this topic and fields are often biased and underdeveloped), and experiments where one tries to treat one sex like the other from birth, but they still end up acting like their birth sex. It is simply a radical and crazy conclusion.
4. This concept they purport is very new, whereas it’s not seen in history, and men and women mostly remain the same way throughout history.
5. While sure, there are social constructs on gender, like what colors are considered similar to one sex’s traits, these are built upon real differences that show up between the two sexes. The actual differences that make one, one or the other, are there, and aren’t just entirely made up.
6. Therefore, since a man has the brain of a man, he cannot be trapped in the wr-ng b-dy.
7. He therefore, is trying to be something he is n-t. Which would therefore be a dysp-ia, like BIID. And it’s wrong to affirm these, bc it goes against his very nature, it promotes lies, it doesn’t allow him to function properly according to his nature, it promotes pain and poor mental health, mutilat-n, etc.
Its hard to accept how this man actually puts the word "rationality" into his handle.
Anyone who has to insist and advertise a quality about him/herself is usually missing that quality
Yes I like some of his earlier work but he lost all ''rationality'' on this subject. Everytime people mention intersex they already lost the debate :p
It's because he's an atheist. For some reason atheists love to talk about how "rational" they are because they don't believe in a deity.
8:04 "The fallout of Oedipus' diagnosis is far reaching and deeply unsettling. To just scratch the surface, we'd have to tell Oedipus, who's always seen himself and lived as the son of Polybus and Merope, and who we too have always seen as the son of Polybus and Merope if not for this diagnosis, that he's actually the heir of the monarchy of Thebes. We'd have to tell his subjects in Corinth that they don't have a prince, we'd have to tell his wife that she'd been sleeping with her son, and since at that time we don't recognize "love is love" marriage, we'd have to dissolve their union. Now I propose that this path is not just cruel but in terms of cold utility alone, it's untenable."
Thank you mister Woodford, you have convinced me that consanguinity is a social construct!
Top notch analogy. 👍👍👍
This comment should be pinned
Trent, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite apologists! This topic needs thoughtful critique, and I find you always provide thoughtful and respectful, yet clear and firm retorts. Thank you for your work here!
God is so lucky to have Trent to explain Him to us.
It would be like saying "Humans don't have two legs. Some have just one legs, and some other have three legs because of deformation".
Some humans are hermaphrodites.
It would be like saying, "humans typically have two legs but can have more or less depending on rare birth conditions or life experiences."
Nice try though
@@WaterCat5 But is there a natural type.
Terrible try tbh.
@@Malygosblues Natural does not equal most common. Someone born with one leg is natural. Do you even know what natural means? It feels like you equating natural with intended. Stop smuggling God into things until you can prove he exists. Nature does not intend anything.
therefore humans are multilegged creatures! And i choose to identify with three legs when I only have one. Is the where the argument somehow shoots off to. You'd somehow get from the physical adnormalities of sex which is tied to gender and the conlcusion that somehow gender is meaningless@@WaterCat5
This guy needs to learn the saying "hard cases make bad law". Its absurd to make general rules based on rare anomalies.
So it's legally sound to assume there's no anomalies? Sounds like bad law.
Transgender people are rare, you dolt. No one is making general rules based on them either. What even is this general rule you're talking about?
@@subcitizen2012 that is not what is meant by my statement. I do not nor do courts ignore anomalies. But generally applicable principles should not be taken from anomalous examples. Rarities require a rare case by case response not a reworking of the system.
@@subcitizen2012society should not conform every aspect of civilization to an ideology that deals with niche circumstances. Life isn’t fair. There are male and female. If you have a penis you use the men’s bathroom. If you have a vagina you use the women’s. Unless we have more single person gender neutral bathrooms. Otherwise, use a bush.
@@subcitizen2012How in the world did you get “there are no anomalies” from that comment?
The argument that “there are some really difficult borderlinene cases, therefore the categories do not exist” is so bizarre, it is like arguing that because the difference first and second-degree murder is sometimes murky, therefore there is no such thing as murder
I've heard the toilet and sink analogy: You have a toilet and a sink. But we have many kinds of toilets. Well just because there are many kinds of toilets doesn't mean you should take a crap in the sink.
@@alphahuner1116 Think Matt Walsh made that.
@@a_Catholic_Ant It was from Freedomtoons.
It is hard to find a definite l
Boundary between red and yellow, so colours don't exist.
@@alphahuner1116 Oh right.
It keeps astonishing me how many mental gymnastics are being made. To the point they seriously are far more rigid on how a man or woman is supposed to act. I actually naturally have a lot of masculine characteristics. In the way I think, and some of the things I enjoy. To the point I don’t relate much with the stereotypical female traits.
It DOES NOT make me less female! I am a woman! I’m a mother of 4 and a 5th on the way! I’m a loving wife that adores my husband! And these people are making everyone’s life just worse! Making us parents just in utter shock what they are doing to society for our children.
So true. These activists have stereotyped men and women as much as they possibly can. They think if a man puts on makeup and wears high heels he is now a woman. They try to turn womanhood into a costume
The main argument that I would make is that regardless of whether or not you believe someone is living in delusion that does not make what theyre doing immoral. The simple fact is that we as a society need to really stop caring so much about what other people are doing and just worry about own lives, if you really really dont like referring to people with pronouns that they choose, just dont talk to those people. This applies to the left as well, theres just no reason for something like this to matter as much as it does.
@@nisonatic
No lol thats not how it works lmao. “He started it” is a childs argument
@@WizardofGargalondese Sorry dude, but you make it impossible not to care when you push for sex education to our children and for laws that will consider anything transphobia. Even ignoring them will be criminalized.
We don't buy the whole "we only want to live our lives" no more. We did decades ago and look at where we're now.
@@eucharistenjoyer
Children should be educated about sex. They should be given the tools to know about predatory behavior and safe sex practices to ensure they dont engage in the practice in a bad way (teens will always have sex and always will, theres no way to stop that, its simply a law of society, therefore in order to make sure people dont hurt themselves we should educate them about safe practices”
Also transphobia isnt criminalized and no ignoring them obviously wont be
In Norwegian this sex/gender dichotomy doesn't work so well, we say instead "gender" and "gender-role" (kjønn/kjønnsrolle). The post-modernist people typically first attack language, then reality. One day someone should compile all the words that the post-modernists have abused and twisted - I think a pattern will emerge.
Separating "gender" and "sex" is itself a propagandistic technique, an attempt to validate a flawed idea by changing the definition of words that already have strongly ingrained cultural connotation.
The fact is that while the specific manifestation of gender roles and interests may differ superficially, the underlying reasons are always separated on sexual lines: There was a time when high heels were considered masculine, but NOT for the same reasons that they're now considered feminine.
No woman at any point in history would want to be associated with hairy, brutish strength.
When for a short time the shoulder pads were trending for women, it wasn't because someone changed women's mind about wanting to look manly, to have broad, masculine shoulders. The women donning the shoulder pads were as interested as ever in looking feminine, to being the soft counterpoint to men's ruggedness.
These people act like they've discovered a truth that the rest of humanity couldn't for 6,000 years, then they find scant examples in history that seem to agree with them to add credence to the idea because they know in some derelict part of their mind that's been relegated exclusively to the subconscious that bucking a consistent understanding of biology that has been uncontested for millenia is arrogant at best, and downright insane at worst.
Hermaphrodites.
It's not just ingrained "cultural definition." It's also an ingrained technical definition. Gender is by definition the classification of words into masculine, feminine and nueter in accordance with sex. This is what every dictionary says before John Money coined the term "gender roles." Gender is by definition a linguistic convention tied to sex. It's asinine to treat it as a social science category. That would be like having your own "verb conjugation identity."
You are factually incorrect if you think no woman has ever wanted to be strong.
Like, really? Do you actually believe what you're saying? Just use Google. Google up some female power lifters. Ask them why they lift. Like, why so you make such obvious lies up?
Not even just that, anything feninine and masculine, necessarily derive from the things natural men and natural women desire. It all goes back to what is a woman and man, and if you cannot answer this then it is qll arbitrary. They hate answering wuestions bwcause as we say in polish "only the guilty explain themselves."
It also turns identity into something you own rather than a property like the fact that iron rusts or wood burns.
@@sivad1025 You're not wrong, but just like with words like "racism," the goal is to co-opt the ingrained, even subconscious _connotation_ of the word.
It bypasses logic and appeals to our collective emotional impression of the word, proper definitions be damned.
That's how you get the accusation of, for instance, pedophilia being equally or even more powerful than the actual act itself.
Doesn't _pedophile_ just SOUND horrible?
That's what they are exploiting, somewhat unwittingly if I be allowed to withhold some credit to them and their evil "genius." I like to think selfish, adolescent stupidity can adequately explain their wickedness, in no way diminishing how wicked they are.
Great video Trent! We need a review of the Ben Shapiro vs Alex O’conner debate next! If you dont mind lol would love to hear your opinion
Would love to see this
I love the way people like Rationality Rules use complete anomalies to confuse people. Your argument absolutely refutes his position
It kind of feels like a clash of two entirely different civilisations from different times and places. One is self-centered while, the other one is down to earth.
Syndrom is called a syndrom for a reason. That means that there's a normal state that humans naturally poses.
While Jane's story may be emotionally terrifying, most of Mr. Woodford's arguments on what we'd have to do to him are rather ridiculous. For instance, the idea that we'd take away his service badge. He didn't know he was male at the time. It is totally reasonable to believe that he should get to keep his recognition. As for clothes and suchlike, these too are not inherent to being a man. I can believe that Jane is a man and yet be okay with him occupying a more feminine role in society given his condition.
It’s just emotional manipulation, and guilt tripping. Also he is trying to make rules out of exceptions. 99 % male and female are the only 2 genders. We shouldn’t rewrite and change the definition in its entirety just because there are a few rare exceptions. We should acknowledge those rare exceptions exist and keep the definition.
This.
Making an exception to the rule for Jane just makes sense given the reality. Making an exception for. Dylan Mulvaney obliterates the rule, given the reality. It’s a bad argument to put people like this up to try and say men can supposedly become women and vice versa.
What about the marriage that had been going for like decades? Should they get divorced since thats “disordered”? And at that point, if their marriage is happy and fulfilling wouldnt that prove the whole disordered thing wrong
This kind of thinking is so depressing to me. Like its very obvious from Jane’s point of view that in your world it would have been better for her to never find out about such a thing
It is interesting to me that this always comes around to extremely rare genetic conditions even though thats not the case in the vast majority of situations. It reminds me of people who always shift the abortion discussion to life of mother and r*pe cases even though thats not the majority of abortions.
Agreed. You end up spending half the debate arguing over incredibly rare genetic disorders when probably 99% of trans identified individuals don't even have these disorders. If I was a debater, I'd probably refuse to even discuss them. It's so dumb.
There's also the common thread of "if it looks like a woman, it is / if it doesn't look like a baby, it isn't".
@@volusian95 Oh yeah, I hadn't even thought of that
@@BillyBob-jg1gqI just hit back with "how many legs do humans have" and show the argument is stupid by changing the object(?) from sex to limbs
It's an argument for why it should be legally protected. Further, there's other legal arguments you're omitting. The mother has personhood, the unviable fetus does not. Even the constitution didn't split hairs about this, for the originality out there. In a strict interpretation - aren't strict interpretation a great? - have to be born. So even pro choice compromises on this and cuts it off at viability. The rest of the legal argument is that it's none of your business. Technically, legally speaking, you shouldn't eden have an opinion on it. But here we are, and how far we've come with you being in everyone else's business.
I'm a detransitioner.
I've stopped using "trans woman" or "trans man", it is too confusing, and it is the language of the cult that ruined my life, and many others. And by that standard, Stephen Woodfords gives me the perfect excuse that the trans definitions are harmful and ruin lives, so I will not use that language.
So I call them transitioned. A man who transitioned is still a man, a woman who transitioned is still a woman. I was always a woman, I was just transitioned for a while, and it was the worst decision I made in my life, only topped by the decision to encourage the transition of the man I love, who has lost much more than I have due to this poisonous ideology.
It's a result of people thinking that medicine is anything that you can do with a couple pills. Just because we CAN give a man breasts with estrogen, doesn't mean we should. I know people who have had a tiny bit of estrogen and have chronic pain as a result. I had only one year of testosterone, but my vocal chords were ruined to the point where I would have lost my voice entirely eventually. I had to get an expensive surgery to return to a life without pain. And don't get me started on the genital mutilation that leaves 55% with chronic side effects in the case of transitioned men, and over 70% of chronic side effects for transitioned women.
We think we can cure everything with pills and surgeries nowadays, and have no regard for the reality that we are NOT God, and we should not be messing with this stuff.
On a side note, I very much appreciate this video, it's an excellent rebuke of the well intentioned but ultimately ignorant and harmful opinions that circulate the 'tolerant left'. And it's actually these "rational" and "moderate" takes that convince more people to be ignorantly content with this insanity. People that just want to be "nice" do not understand that being "nice" by encouraging self-destructive habits is actually condemning someone to future misery.
"A man who transitioned is still a man, a woman who transitioned is still a woman"
Could you explain why that is in particular?
@@humesspoon3176 Every cell in his body having the same chromosome before and after transitioning? If I a man does cosmetic surgery to look like a dolphin he'll still be a male human doing dolphin-face.
@@humesspoon3176 because no amount of surgery can change that particular fact.
Some things are changeable with technology and surgery, other aren't.
Sex is one of them.
@@jpesmar Okay, and why is that? Why are you basing things off am essentialist viewpoint?
I hope you are doing well.
The worst part about gender being a social construct, is that it's largely a social construct in itself and not actually heavily aligned with society. Statistically, gender aligns with biology and then physical environment long before society. And even in the case of environment and society, those are about roles the person takes on not what the person physically is.
Hermaphrodites.
Why do you make a statistical argument about trans people, lmao. Of course trans experience isn't going to align with the norm, duh.
And no one is saying a trans man is the same as a cis man. Trans people understand their genetics don't change. Why make such a stupid strawman?
Gender being a social construct is actually such a trite example, especially when people try to argue that in an alternate society, women would have been hunting or warring or whatever. That's just someone speaking who has no idea of reality, and has his or her nose buried in a book. Some things are just so ridiculous that only an academic could ever believe it. A castrated man was STILL stronger than me when I was taking testosterone! (I am a detransitioner.)
I’m an avid Protestant and I have nothing but respect for Trent as a Christian apologist.
Upgrade to "evangelical" if you won't go Orthodox/Catholic. "Protestant" is making an identity of a negation, a bad philosophy.
You are what we call a “pre-Catholic”
Catholicism and Estern Orthodox is for people who dont care what the bible say and old testament Jew larpers.@@sidneygray51
@@sidneygray51I dont know if Id agree with that. I for example wouldnt describe myself as an evangelical because I have many differences with them, some that may seem small on the surface but are actually quite important. I'm what ppl would describe as Anglo Catholic, most evangelicals would not agree on things like my views on the Eucharist for example, then of course theres the political connotations that come with the term evangelical, especially in the US.
I certainly reject the papacy and various accretions yet the liturgy, decor, views on the eucharist, style of worship etc is closer to what you would see in the Catholic church than in an evangelical non dom church or baptist church.
I feel like Protestant isnt perfect but does the job.
I recommend his books if you haven't read them yet, they're really great
"What is a subscriber?" had me rolling 🤣
Same😂😂
Well done Trent!! You truly are my favorite Catholic
It’s amazing how much validity people are willing to give to exceptions to the rule, while completely dismissing or deconstructing the rule itself.
Hermaphrodites.
“Don’t judge a book by its cover.” It’s funny how this group both dogmatically accepts this platitude while vehemently rejecting it.
And then they'll say you must accept that this turkey sandwich is a copy of Moby Dick because it's sharpied on the top slice.
I'm old enough to remember abnormal psychology. There is normal human behavior that is widespread and common, and there is abnormal non standard behavior that is rare. Similarly there is a normal physical development of a human, and an abnormal physical development of a human. As another commenter stated, someone born without fingers or limbs is not to be considered of normal human physiology that all of society should change to fit
Excellent video, reminds me of Proverbs 18:17, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.”
God bless you, Trent! Thank you for another excellent video. 🙏🏼✝️🕊️📿
I have Turners Syndrome and I really appreciate this video 😊
Thank you Trent 🙏
CAIS people are women (adult human females), because while their bodies begin down the path of developing as male, they ultimately develop in the other direction. They cannot produce small gametes or impregnate anyone. Their genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, and even hormones develop as your typical female would. This is because it takes both the presence of an active SRY gene and active androgen receptors for someone to develop as male.
But either way, it wouldn't logically follow even if this were an example of a male being a woman, that someone merely believing they're a man or woman is enough to make them so. Intersex conditions are an entirely different category than "I'm x because I identify as x".
Then it wouldn't be befitting for Catholics to be Catholics simply because they believe they are. Can of worms best left untouched. Leave people be.
I was just about to make this point!
Well said. They either confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms (or the inclination to adhere to them) or appeal to circular reasoning.
I appreciated the way you presented the content and applaud (as normal) your ability to remain calm when refuting some very wild and tired arguments.
In terms of supernatural beliefs I am an atheist (at the moment), and I obviously agree with a lot of things Steven has to say. But not on this issue, I am way more on Trent’s side. Very good video from you! Clear, rigorous, factual and logical. Cheers.
Yeah, the sociological side gets a bit confusing. It's better to consult doctors that are up to speed and or specialize in this stuff. At the end of the day the sociological and language side of it is arbitrary. It's a bit like arguing with colorblind people about colors. There are indeed exceptions to the rules, but that's the problem, rule focused people don't like that, whether it's making new rules or acknowledging the exceptions. I'm an atheist as well, but I personally employ the Christian rule of do not judge, no exceptions on that one. Althougb Christians might disagree lol.
@@subcitizen2012exactly, I don’t have a problem with adults suffering from gender dysphoria who want to appear and live like a the opposite sex. They can consult a doctor/expert (as long as it isn’t one of the “experts” from “What is a woman”, like the wicked lady with purple air) and talk things through, even considering or undergoing hormon treatment or sex reassignment surgery. For me, that is just a practical issue of how they can live and improve their lives while suffering from a rare mental condition. If a trans person wants me to use certain pronouns (in case it isn’t some made up shit or “they”) or avoid certain pronouns, I can do that, given that this person respects my opinions and has earned my respect.
But if it comes down to definitions, we got to be honest, precise and if needed even a bit harsh.
Trent Horn is not just logical on this issue alone. If you enjoyed what he had to say here, he has a lot of equally insightful things to say on matters specifically pertaining to theism/Catholicism vs. non-theism.
@@Konxovar0That is true, he is probably my favourite Christian UA-camr, not least because I am from a Catholic background. But I obviously disagree with a lot of things he says and sometimes find that he is not rational and objective enough when it comes to some philosophical issues, because of his strong faith.
@@LomuHabana I don't think he would have faith in Christ if he felt it was irrational. He did convert to Catholicism from Deism, and I don't feel most deists are deists for subjective reasons.
Great response Trent!! Thank you!!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🚨 *Introduction to the debate on the definition of "woman"*
- Steven Woodford's nuanced stance on transgender issues.
- Woodford's criticism of Matt Walsh's definition of a woman as an adult human female.
- Assertion that definitions can only be judged on their utility.
02:08 🎨 *Distinction between sex and gender*
- Agreement on the distinction between sex and gender.
- Acknowledgment of social construct influence on behaviors and expectations.
- Emphasis on reserving "male" and "female" for sex and "man" and "woman" for gender.
05:32 🏰 *Analogy of social constructs: Castles vs. Womanhood*
- Explanation of social constructs using the example of castles.
- Gender as a social construct tied to observable characteristics.
- Categorization of proposed genders into male, female, both, or neither.
06:54 🤖 *Intersex conditions challenging binary definitions*
- Introduction of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) as an intersex condition.
- Argument that AIS challenges the strict link between chromosomes and gender.
- Example of a woman living with AIS and societal implications of redefining her gender.
09:15 💔 *Critique of Woodford's argument on AIS*
- Rejection of the argument that revealing AIS diagnosis is cruel or absurd.
- Criticism of discriminatory policies contributing to difficulties.
- Counterargument using hypothetical scenarios involving age and marriage.
11:32 🤯 *Proposal of a dual definition for sex and gender*
- Woodford's suggestion to distinguish sex (gamete type, chromosomes) from gender (observable characteristics).
- Definition of woman as any adult human with correlating and observable female sexual characteristics.
- Acknowledgment that this definition doesn't address all transgender cases.
15:54 🔀 *Balancing harm reduction and societal goals*
- Evaluation of harms associated with maintaining traditional definitions.
- Assertion that diluting the definition of woman can lead to greater harm.
- Emphasis on societal structures protecting women's opportunities, privacy, and safety.
17:43 🌈 *Critique of the "heterosexual men don't exist" argument*
- Rejection of the argument that heterosexual men cease to exist with a dual definition.
- Critique of equating attraction to secondary sexual characteristics with disordered desires.
- Comparison with desires unrelated to objective biological factors like age and ethnicity.
19:44 🧠 *Examination of disordered desires*
- Identification of the error in treating Womanhood as a social construct based on appearances.
- Comparison with disordered desires related to artificial models andsynthetic features.
- Critique of Woodford and others' treatment of Womanhood as a caricature.
22:12 🧬 *Disorders affecting sex chromosomes*
- Description of disorders affecting sex chromosomes (e.g., Klinefelter, Turner syndromes).
- Emphasis on recognizing these disorders as stunted developments within their respective sexes.
- Refutation of the argument that these disorders justify a departure from biological sex.
24:30 🧬 *Biological Sex Differentiation*
- Explains cases like De Chappelle syndrome and Persistent Malarian Duct Syndrome.
- Highlights the distinction between biological males with extra female parts and females with developmental disorders.
- Argues that such rare cases don't disprove the general ability to determine male or female through objective indicators.
26:43 🚫 *Disputed Cases and Categorization*
- Challenges the idea that disputed cases invalidate the entire categorization system.
- Draws analogy with boundary cases in determining consciousness.
- Advocates for maintaining a biological basis for sex while recognizing exceptional cases.
29:00 🌐 *Gender Identity vs. Biological Sex*
- Proposes a separation between biological sex (objective) and gender identity (social construct).
- Advocates for recognizing some males as women and some females as men.
- Argues that parenthood is defined by raising, not necessarily giving birth, using a personal example.
30:10 🤷♀️ *Challenges to Objective Standards*
- Criticizes the lack of an objective standard in defining womanhood beyond subjective claims.
- Expresses concern about the potential trivialization of the term "woman" by a subjective definition.
- Highlights the difficulties arising from collapsing the definition into a self-claimed identity.
31:48 ⚖️ *Utilitarian Perspective on Classification*
- Argues that, from a utilitarian standpoint, traditional views of sex classification outweigh newer perspectives.
- Raises concerns about societal challenges, including impacts on athletes, teachers, and the experiences of women in shared spaces.
- Advocates for a dialogue on gender-related issues.
Wow. This was extremely well done. And absolutely deserving of subscribing to the channel.
The correct response to "would rather have sex with..." ought to be "are either of them the mother of my children?"
Yes! Or at least, could they be??
Not all women can bear children. Careful now.
@@subcitizen2012He is just saying that he would only sleep with a woman he is actually married to.
The point is that instead of thinking of definitions in terms of boundaries, it's more informative to think in terms of ideals@@subcitizen2012
Thank you, Trent. Thank you for clearly and coherently breaking down Woodford's argument and addressing the real failures, inconsistencies and false conclusions it leads to.
And addressing those points with the correct counter points. If not for you, I know I would have had a frustrating and possibly unsuccessful time addressing and resolving them for myself and others I may discuss this with.
I feel like many people don't realize the significant corrosive effect an unsound argument such as his. and the false & harmful conclusions or positions it props up, can have on people's perspective and decision making. At individual and societal levels.
Thank you so much for this good work that you do. I am genuinely looking forward to starting my new job soon so I can support you and the good work you do financially.
Christmas came early today, new Trent horn video🥳 Also happy advent. A discussion/debate on this issue or another with Rationality Rules would be pretty nice.
I appreciate that Rationality Rules at least attempted to make a coherent argument, it was not convincing in the slightest.
It relies HEAVILY on the idea that the exception DISPROVES the rule (which is the opposite of what we generally hold).
I've argued with people like this before. They are usually very much "science is always correct and infallible" types of people.
Ask them what the states of matter are and specifically the characteristics of liquids freezing.
They will, correctly, note that liquids contract when they freeze.
This is where you remind them that water makes up the supermajority of the extant liquids on Earth. But is only 1 species of many species of water.
While water is an exception, and there is more water than any other liquid in total numbers, we STILL state as scientific fact that liquids contract when frozen.
You have to ask why they affirm that an exception that has a species membership that far exceeds the membership of every other species combined is an exception that DOES NOT DISPROVE the rule, but a person with the exceedingly rare state of having some form of gonadal dysgenesis DOES DISPROVE the rule regarding sex?
I've never had anyone give me a reason to hold those disjunct positions.
There's nothing coherent about Rat Drools. He rants about YEC but advocates biological pseudoscience.
Yeah I dont like the argument either. The exception is a rule unto itself. But if the rule thats under question is just the role of language being assigned to things, then it really does matter. Especially when you get into the biology of it, which makes the sociological stuff arbitrary. But thats the point. It really ends up being pretty arbitrary, both the rule and the exceptions. So it's really weird that people feel the need to police this stuff as morality, or worse, legally. It's plain to see that these people exist, whatever form they have, or wherever form their language to define it takes. I do t know how true it is, supposedly it's all the plastic in the water and food chain that's causing some of the prominence of it today. Just something natural being augmented by something else affecting the nature. Either way, I don't see problem with call g them whatever they are or calling then whatever they want to be called. If someone is David on their birth certificate, I'm jot going to have much of an issue of they want to be called Dave, especially if that's what they want to be called, which you never know, they might have a problem with me telling them they are David and inkt David and they can't just arbitrarily change the language rules because they want to be the exception. See how meaningless all this is? At the end of the day we can just respect people for where they are in their journeys. And for Catholics a d Christians in general, I'd say the challenge they have the most is in accepting themselves as also being sinners with all the people they feel they're the exception to.
Using a term like "gender" to argue against the sex binary sounds extremely similar to when creationists try to use "kinds" to disprove speciation/evolution described through taxonomic hierarchies. They are both words with intentionally vague definitions that may sound concrete to the casual listener but fall apart with some scrutiny. Regardless of your opinion on either topic, you should not use logical fallacies to argue something you believe to be true.
Google hermaphrodites.
Yeah, it's as stupid as saying that everything came from nothing making it happen.
Not everything is reducible to clean categories. Even biology's taxonomy isn't that clean. Why not just accept that gender is a complex category that resists easy definition?
Oh, here's an idea. People use definitions of marriage to argue against homosexual marriage. Why use marriage when it's a sloppy definition? Clearly homosexual marriage must be right then since the opposition used a poor definition. I am so smart.
@@WaterCat5- It's not that gender categories resist easy definition, it's that trans affirmation seems to divert into two dead-ends:
A. Trade biological essentialism for an ostensible sociological essentialism which is even more susceptible to the critiques gender theorists make against realists, i.e. consistent reference to individuals who exhibit behaviors or traits outside the definitional margins.
B. Render "woman" as a nothing-word that lacks any content, such that being a woman is just assuming a the sound-image "woman."
If you cannot categorize things, then you do not have language, and terms need to have definite meaning to be understood. Describing animals by their genetics, which includes their sexes, is more accurate than appearance alone, which can be accurate if it reflects the genetics as intended, but this is not always the case. "Gender" like "kinds" run into a similar problem whereby they rely too much on personal interpretation of resultant appearances rather than genetic causes to be meaningful for debate. Marriage exists so that when new life is fertilized, there is an obligation for both parties (i.e., a binary because cells divide in half) who helped form that life to care for the resultant children. I agree that many people do not understand this, but why argue from a position of other people's ignorance? If we spend all our time making ad hominem attacks or only arguing against low hanging fruit (like trying to explain that the necessary mechanism that brought about the extent universe is a categorically different area of study than the contingencies that brought about the diversification of life that has already begun to exist), then we may miss when we make poor or fallacious arguments. It is very easy for us to prefer feeling right for the sake of our own pride rather than being right for the sake of truth.
I've never understood how the argument from intersex people is supposed to help the case for transgenerism. Even *if* you concede that there do exist some people who are technically male that should be treated as female by society for all intents and purposes (intersex examples), it still doesn't follow that *all* people should just willy-nilly be able to claim that they are the opposite sex and demand that society treat them as such. Modern transgenderism doesn't have any sort of biological cause that you can point to, the way that intersex people do. Intersex people may have a "pass" to be treated by society as the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean that just anyone should be able to demand the same when they do NOT have a biological issue going on with their chromosomes and outward presentation of their body. If you argue the case for intersex people, you've only argued the case for intersex people. It has nothing to do with transgender people.
Subscribed! Great arguments!
That’s very helpful, Trent. Thanks for helping us navigate this issue. It can be very tricky and it’s not always easy to think on the spot about this stuff. Your responses were very clear.
It's better to stick with the latest medical science, on both counts for both sides, but it's a valid topic for discussion. Its usually best to include transgender and + individuals in it though. Otherwise you just end up speaking for them. Speaking for others is the real root of the issue. Personally I don't entertain discussions with people that speak for Catholics and also advocate for Catholics not being allowed to exist. It's a private, legally protected matter. Not sure if Catholics are born catholic, for example, but I support their right to choose, whatever that light incline them towards it.
Great video! Thanks!
Hey guys, please pray for my cousin, Jacob. He's very sick.
This is a great video!
I LOVE how every video you creatively ask people to subscribe! Am I detecting Laura Horn wit in that part of the script? 🤣👏👏❤
My identity as a subscriber and the reality of me being a subscriber are aligned. No subscriber dysphoria here.
I'm a subscriber that doesn't subscribe tinkostbof the content presented. So not really a subscriber. I just get notifications sometimes and don't often watch. So I am both a watcher and not a watcher, a subscriber and not a subscriber. I'm atheist as well, so I'm not even really supposed to be here or allowed to be here, since this channel doesn't allow for transitioning in or out something or for words to have more than one meaning. Good times.
To use his own argument “what is the utility” of distinguishing “gender” and “sex”? His example is a fringe case (which the exception proves the rule) thus his argument to reframe societal expectations around the existence of fringe cases, not the overwhelming governing rule. Either way, since gender is fully dependent on sex, this means nothing to the vast overwhelming majority of human beings. Thus if anything what he proposed will only serve to confuse and muddy what it means to be a man or woman in modern society, and the relationship between the two. Which is the exact problem we have been facing and seeing exacerbated over recent generations.
(Not to mention that “gender” in this context comes from a one John Money, and well, I think nullifies his own theory through his own “experiments”)
If you need clarity, then just call them trans. Problem with your inability to accept exceptions is resolved.
The utility of distinguishing “gender” and “sex” is that it separate the cultural expectations and expressions of “man” and “woman” from biological sex. This also women to free themselves from the culture presupposition of what a man and woman is expected to do.
@@blugaledoh2669 All cultures have these expectations, even our own which has convinced ourselves that we do not. This does nothing but deliberately confuse people and obfuscate the truth from them. A healthy society understands the fundamental nature of men and women and sets its standards thusly. What you call “feeing them from expectations” is merely enslaving to them to their own confusiom
@@skierbinky what if those standard are superficial and harmful?
@@blugaledoh2669Then id ask what is your standard to make such judgments. Truth is both harsh and real, yet freeing and loving. Ive yet to meet a member of the alphabet clan who seemed at peace with themselves and who genuinely loved their fellow man. They are confused and tormented. Their worldview is entirely self centered and requires the rest of the world to accept them for who they claim to be, rather than become what is healthy for not only themselves but society at large. Id also point out that if you oppose this “standard” then you are castigated and political force is used to punish you.
But to bring it back to John Money, his experiments were certainly built on “superficial” theories and were thus “harmful” to the twins he abused. If you’re unfamiliar with his work, then I suggest looking into, however it is not for the faint of heart. Nevertheless, the current version of this line of thinking derives directly from him and these experiments. “You will know the tree by its fruits”
Trent, been watching your debates for years, but I’m new to the channel (been going through your backlog over the weekend)
Anyway, have you ever thought about doing an interview with Shamus from Freedomtoons? Both y’all are devout Catholic and I think a conversation about faith and entertainment would be fantastic.
Their argument will also fall flat since their definition if "Man" and "Women" are defined by merely appearances, then it stands that society's identification of what a person is based upon appearences alone is more correct than that persons opinion on whether they present as a man or woman.
Just like how if I try to look like a pirate for Halloween, but my friends say I look more like a rumdrinking homeless person, then their judgement on my appearance is equally if not more valid than my own judgement of my appearance.
You came very close to validating the argument there. But I agree, it's often best to stick with the medical biology, to which there are exceptions. Like hermaphrodites.
Have you ever collaborated with Dr Tomas Bogardus, Dr Abigail Favale, and D.C Shindler? I think you guys would enjoy discussing this issue as a group
That would be amazing!
Thank you Trent. You bring sanity to the insanity going on.
There doesn't need to be a definition of something the brain instinctively knows. 100 thousand years ago we knew what a woman was which is how we mated, we didn't need an explanation. And this counts for all of the animal kingdom.
Dogs instinctively hump males, human legs, stuffed animals, and fire hydrants.
So I guess those are female?
Proud cis subscriber here, Trent! I identify as a subscriber, and I have identified as one since ~30K subscribers, when I hit that button!
I thought I had subscribed, but actually hadn't! I just did the subscription-affirmation procedure. Now I just need to figure out my schmender.
Just to clarify long hair is not a seco dary sexual characteristic. That one is socially constructed. I could be wrong and hair longer than...a foot and a half is a secondary characteristic but by and larg what is considered long hair is just a choice. Not on the same level as wide hips, fun fat bags, and the like.
Hey Trent weird you didn't catch up on the nominalist objection of RR. The idea of castle of course exists, castles have essence. The realist position is a strong point against RR imo, a very good example also on why nominalism leads to materialism, atheism and in the end in such follies like the one presented here
Steven flip flops on his argument by saying being attracted to a trans person makes you gay. Basically admitted your point in saying a trans person is actually their original sex.
Yeah the irony is his view of trans hood means homosexuality doesn’t exist.. it doesn’t prove straight men don’t exist
Which isn't always the case. Also, you just validated homosexuality. Careful now.
Dude, it doesn't matter. People are attracted to whomever. Must we always label stuff?
And yes, a trans person is their original sex, at least genetically. Duh. virtually no one is actually saying otherwise. This also ignores the fact that transgender people have a myriad of presentations. Some get bottom surgery. Others don't. A trans man could have a vagina or a constructed penis or whatever else. Hell, they might have been born with a penis anyway. Biology is complicated.
@@WaterCat5So does this apply to old people such as this new movement that pretend to be babies but are in fact adults? Should they be taken to kindergarten or is that the only place where biology is "clear"? If so, why?
@@computationaltheist7267 Oh please, we already treat people who act different ages as if they are different ages in many ways. Why do we have caretakers for intellectually disabled people? It's because they are functionally children. Why do we have caretakers for people with dementia? It's because they are like children, at least insofar as they lack the ability to take care of themselves.
However, we only treat them as children in the relevant ways. We don't put an elderly person in kindergarten just because their brain has that level of functionality.
Regarding your subject you referred to, the people who want to be treated as babies are often doing it as a sexual thing, which is demonstrably provable. It is recognized as a paraphilia, and you can perform tests to confirm it.
However, trans people are not doing it for the same reasons. This is also provable. Just accept you don't know anything about either of them and read a book of you want to.
So no, people who get a boner from wearing diapers should not be put in a kindergarten class. Duh. Like, you actually think you said something smart?
I thought of the same point about wax fruit looking like real fruit and then Trent gave that exact example. Great video!
The way you convince me to subscribe is just funny
Did you subscribe? 🤔😜 -Vanessa
Great video Trent. Can I put in a request (I'm gonna guess you were going to do it anyways) for you to review Ben Shapiro and Alex O'Connor's discussion?
Either way, Trent, you are awesome 👏
Trent what do you think about not even discussing these rare genetic disorders when debating trans idealogy? It seems so silly to me. A genetic disorder is not the same thing as a trans identitfied individual, and spending half of the time debating over rare genetic conditions without actually getting to the meat and bones of the topic seems... pointless?
"schmender" is more real than you think. Age is on objective fact that correlates with developmental milestones. "Legal adult" is a social construct that is determined by law and culture.
The analogy between age and gender breaks down when you consider that age-based laws are often framed to protect vulnerable children from exploitation, so preventing children from marrying is not a form of discrimination akin to keeping men or women out of certain jobs.
Great Video Trent, as always.
Have you ever seen the old SiFi "Predestination" w/ Ethan Hawk?
Interesting ending with multiple time paradoxes.
Would you care to debate what a subscriber truly is?😅
I'm an atheist, which means my subscriber status is likely in question. Not a real subscriber.
There’s a reason they call characters in anime and manga that have appearances different from their gender/sex a “trap”
What do they call people that call them traps? Trapphobes?
16:38 Another Argument for Attraction would be example of an Mirage...
If you are thirsty because you walked through a dessert and you see a mirage you would naturally run towards it.. not because you are attracted to the perception of it or you are attracted to sand land . you actually are attracted towards water , that's why whenever you see a perception of water you run towards it , even if it's not actually a water
If you perceive gender as a societal construct you're saying that someone's personality/character is a better judge of their gender than their body, which is very flawed as now you count tomboys as men for example.
Exactly 😂
Well reasoned.
'Schmender' always makes me giggle.
Rationality Duels ‘til the last argument’s spent.
Rationality Rules Drools. The victor: The Counsel of Trent!
If Jane has a vagina, even if it’s incomplete, and has a majority of natural female sex characteristics, I would say that that’s a valid reason to continue letting Jane continue living as she always had
Trent I agree with your overall points but I think there is some confusion over the example you discuss about a disorder of sexual development. First, I agree that we can’t make broader conclusions from DSDs.
But my understanding is that someone with (CAIS) complete androgen insensitivity syndrome who has XY chromosomes but no sensitivity to male hormones, does not - upon discovering this diagnosis as an adult or teenager - start “living as a man” to conform with their chromosomes.
Trent, can you make a video about divine hiddenness? Gavin just made a great video about it in response to Alex O'Connor, I was thinking you could also respond with a more catholic approach in complement to Gavin. Thank you!
Well said, and true
16:29 to 19:45 - RR's argument and an excellent rebuttal.
The fact that this fundamental reality has now turned into an academic dispute is so tragic that I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this point. 1984 is in full swing and we must reject these postmodernist types.
20:07 I love that he pulled up the Andrew Tate clip to talk about disordered men😂
I like some of his earlier work but he lost all ''rationality'' on this subject. Everytime people mention intersex they already lost the debate :p
Dylan Mulvaney gives me uncanny valley vibes
Was literally gonna subscribe. Not now. Hassled enough today already.
If gender is a "social construct," then anyone who's questioning their gender should ask society what their gender is.
If I were to become a patron what kind of content would be provided?
Yeah Woodford purposely ignored biology and correcting mistakes. Its the only way his stance made any sense.
Exploiting a birth defect to fit a narrative
the fact the we need this rebuttal on the subject of 'what is a woman?' doesn't even surprise anymore.
Please make a rebuttal to Gavin’s recent video on Private Judgement/choosing which denomination. I’m a Protestant studying church history and I was super confused by the train of thought he uses.
The moment you start trying to use genetic abnormalities as an excuse for your beliefs, it’s the moment you were admitted you’re not trying to have a evidence-based argument.
Hi! Gavin put up an interesting argument today that Catholics and Orthodox disagree on doctrine the same way Protestants do. I tried to reply politely but truthfully - if you have a chance to review and correct as needed, much appreciated!
What if we just handled outliers on a case-by-case basis, and left the rules in place for the overwhelming majority of cases?
Are you still going to dialogue with Allie Stuckey soon?
Andrew Wilson from the crucible made a perfect analogy with the attraction argument. He says that the mind can play tricks on you such as the trend of people being into hentai(anime porn). These people are getting sexual gratification from a piece of paper; something that doesn’t exist in reality. It’s just a magic trick it doesn’t say anything about objective reality
This video was so intelligent I now identify as a subscriber. Total demolition.
“She looks white, but she is actually Indian.”
Oh, hello there Elizabeth Warren! 😂
"Judge a book by its cover." Rationality Rules
Rationality rules really jumped the shark on this one. I remember when he was trying to figure it out. He got tons of backlash and since then hasndrifted more toward the gender ideology side. Clear and simple audience capture.
Apparently just because he can find exceptions, that it disproves the rule
It’s hard to tell if those stories about intersex individuals are true, because, as far as I understand it, Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome does repress the male phenotype, but it doesn’t cause a female phenotype instead. Just because you don’t respond to testosterone doesn’t mean you will start producing estrogen at the level of a healthy woman. So while you wouldn’t look like a normal man, I find it hard to believe that you’d actually look like a convincing woman.