Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Transgender Identity & Washrooms - Matt Dillahunty vs Dinesh D'Souza
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2024
- Transgender Identity & Washrooms - Matt Dillahunty vs Dinesh D'Souza
#transgender #mattdillahunty #dineshdsouza
Full discussion here: • GENDER, GOD & TRUMP - ...
This clip is from the Livestream of the Matt Dillahunty vs Dinesh D'Souza discussion that occurred in New York City on March 1st 2020.
This event was produced by Pangburn.
No reproduction of this content will be tolerated.
You can further support this effort here: Pang-burn.com/subscription
Official Pangburn Facebook Page: @PangburnInspire
Official Pangburn Twitter: @TeamPangburn
Follow Trav here:
Facebook: @ThePangburn
Twitter: @ThePangburn
Instagram: @thepangburn
Watch Sam Harris & Brian Greene on stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER ua-cam.com/video/5pbHsRz8A7w/v-deo.html
Dinesh D'Souza?? you just completely lost all credibility. It's one thing to invite dumb people who represent a popular view, or dishonest people who make good arguments. This is entertainment, I understand. But D'Souza's entire career (other than the actual crimes he commits) is just lying to dumb people to make them angry. (And not even angry about something fundamental, just angry with whoever leads the Democratic party at the moment.)
You had some landmark events @Pangburn ! what a shame to just throw it all away like this.
This is funny as if you really simple questions about the trans topics on channels mats been involved with you will get censored out extremely quickly!
"Why does it matter" the ultimate sign of a losing argument.
Leaving trans people alone, instead of going out of your way to attack them costs you NOTHING, but bigots cannot stand anyone else giving THEM uncomfortable feelings.
How so? If you were to tell me you’re upset that I prefer chicken over beef and I state, “why does it matter to you?” when you get upset over my choice, how does that negate the argument?
@@JoshHitti The problem isn't your preference for chicken. It's your insistence that "chicken" comes from cows.
@@alexanderwilliamson7431 I’m not insisting anything, I’m asking a valid question. I also have no basis for who asked the question in the video, I’m challenging your belief that posing a simple question is somehow the basis for “losing” an argument.
Why does it matter what I like? Name one specific way a personal preference has an impact on your life.
@@JoshHitti Personal preference is fine. Insisting others indulge in your fantasy is another. The homeless man down the street may believe he is Julius Caesar. I don't. Why does it matter? Well one is reality. The other delusion. Why does it matter can be asked of so many scenarios. Why does it matter if people kill each other on the middle east? Doesn't involve us right?
The argument was lost when Matt tried to reframe the sports model. Even if one were to divide it by weight class, men would dominate such sports. It's a basic fact, Matt lost this one.
Yeah he's advocating, intentionally or unintentionally, for disolving women's sports entirely.
That's the point, though. He knows that men will dominate the new single stream and this way, transgender women will be competing against players as physically capable as them, and not just women and have an unfair advantage.
@@72seventytwo Yeah, but it would be cis males in every event all the time, at least in physical categories. The trans women that compete are ranked so far down the men's list that they are functionally amateurs. So yeah, they can play sports, but it'll be in the YMCA leauges, not as professionals. And women will be shut out of paid athletic programs entirely. There's not enough money to go around to pay all the men who want to play professional soccer as well as trans and cis women. It's why sports is segregated in the first place.
@@72seventytwo so the solution to stay consistent is to abolish women's sports. If Matt took the intellectually honest and defensible position, he would divide it in, 3 categories, male female and trans.
I am used to seeing Matt on the atheist experience and have always admired his sticking to verifiable facts and asking for evidence.. On seeing him here talking about men as being women I was shocked, disappointed and completely baffled. Dinesh firmly and calmly wiped the floor with him. On one hand Matt admits that gender is a social construct, which means that there is no fixed way that men or women have to behave to still remain a man or woman. Then he goes on to say that a man can feel or identify as a woman, and so, would need to change gender. But why bother if gender is so fluid and can be constructed in any way you like? But in any case this does not change a person’s sex which except in very few cases which we are not discussing here, does not change. So a person’s gender should never be the deciding factor for which facilities that person uses, but sex should. If certain facilities are made for women, for their privacy and protection, they are made for women and not men who want to be, or believe themselves to be, women. It seems that these men have actually no concern at all for the well-being of women, only those men who call themselves women. I would love to see this new Matt as a caller on the old Matt’s atheist experience show.
Old Matt: So we now have a caller who is convinced he is a woman. Tell me what evidence do you have for this belief?
Woke Matt caller: Well, I feel just like a woman, and feel like a woman feels.
Old Matt: And how do you know how a woman feels? And how does a woman feel?
Woke Matt caller: Well, for me it’s feeling girly. I love cooking and sometimes knit, and I hate mending cars. I love wearing make-up.
Old Matt: And you think that makes you a woman? Do all women like these things? Why can’t you be a man who does these things? And you do realize that being a man or woman is a sex thing and not a gender choice?
Woke Matt caller: You’re just a bigot. I have chosen to change my gender, so now my sex is changed as well. I am a woman.
Old Matt: What evidence do you have for this?
Woke Matt caller: Well as I said, I feel like a woman, and my friends are very nice to me and call me a woman as well.
Old Matt: Go read any science book and call me back.
Yep. A total hypocrite & fraud.
For someone who is transgender, it is just one of the things you would have to do yourself to understand it. A dog can't explain what being a dog is like, but he dam sure knows it. If you had been born transgender you would have a perfect understanding of it then. Matt is just trying his best to explain something he is not, and that's not easy to do. That's why he said forgive me for the things I get wrong to his trans friends. But what you are doing here has a name too and that is bigotry Something I know Matt can't stand. I would love to hear you call Matt's show and present your little Matt call-in thingie to him and see how well you survive. If nothing else it would be entertaining for sure.
@@jerrylong6238 Matt is a coward. He can only debate when he's in control of the mute button. I have tried to debate him but he's a gutless coward & hypocrite.
Matt is showing the same kind of dumb religious belief which he derides religious people for when they say things like they have a soul or feel the presence of God. Similarly, they have no proof of these things as they are articles of FAITH not scientifically provable facts.
Try proving what you say with confirmed science. The bigotry card doesn't wash otherwise Matt is also a BIGOT for not believing religious people when they have unprovable beliefs.
Fwiw, trans is bs. If you're a man with "gender dysphoria" you're still a man. You haven't changed your sex nor should you be granted special privileges like access to women only spaces & sports.
Sorry, but you made an entire argument on the thing that gender is a social structure, then you deflected on why he should say that gender and sex are different thing, then you made up an argument in which matt will ask the new self to provide evidence for being a woman, when you understand that is a social construct and he also get it, so why are we talking bananas, and by the way i agree that there are asburd thing, especially in sports, and child changing their sex, that is dishuman in the most evident ways, but that has nothing to do on whether people can say that they are woman or not,
To me a woman is an adult female, for others is what you feel, i couldn't care less, nobody is denying biology 😊
@@jerrylong6238The dog example is terrible. The dog knows what it feels like to be a dog, BECAUSE he’s a dog! The dog does not know what it feels like to be a cat despite claiming so, because the dog has never experienced being a cat. Tell me, what is a transgender to? Is it someone who just identifies, feels, or wants to be the opposite sex, or is it someone who claims to be born in the wrong body? If it is the latter, I’d love for you to cite the scientific evidence that suggests this is really the case. How would a biological male know what it “feels like” to be a biological woman?
Matt has backed science so hard for so long… I seriously thought that he cared about truth. A question I think is profound that I heard from Matt was “do you care if what you believe in is true or not?” And now I’ve gotta ask him the same thing. Come on Matt.
You're not properly skeptic. Skepticism supports trans acceptance. Or maybe not humanist?
@@ronhoward121 fuck that mess
@@ronhoward121 Trans acceptance is lying to people. Men are men women are women. Women don’t have cocks
But science supports the transgender position. No one is saying that a transgender person is a cis male or female. It makes distinctions between gender and sex which may be in the United States isn't something that's done often but in many other cultures is extremely common and Forest frequently shows the science that Matt says.
@@thickerconstrictor9037no it doesn’t. Darwinian Biology rejects it.
Join us on discord to talk about ideas. Everyone is welcome. discord.gg/xQyXupPb
I thought bathroom were segregated by sex, not gender... sex and gender were synonymous before but now they have separated it except when they want to win a point.
They are sex segregated. I think it's crazy to ignore why we had to. Some places can be comfortably and safely unisex. Some places can't. We started out having everything unisex and it was a calamity for women and children so we had to sex segregate many areas. It's really just safeguarding. So we just need good systems to safeguard everyone and tbh ignoring risks to one group over the other is irresponsible and will harm everyone in the long run.
Great point, they can't have their cake and eat it to.
How about prisons or sports? Are they segregated by sex too? I thought they were but it seems like a total conflation of sex and gender from transactivists who claim there is a clear divide between the two. They redefine gender (which they swear is the only thing they are positing is malleable since it is a social construct) but tear down every wall separating the differences in biological sex. Men can be pregnant, woman can have penises, etc. There's logical inconsistencies and holes everywhere you step.
Yeah! It's crazy that the gender transformationalists want to just assume that bathrooms are gender based. But hang on! How do they know bathrooms aren't sex-based? I'd like to see someone answer this question. Maybe I'm wrong.
It was always understood to be sex-based as male and female bathrooms. Seems to me they just smuggled in gender! And Matt did it too Omg. So sad to see Matt lose his integrity on this topic.
Same with sports.
It’s like he has no concern about women’s feelings who are shouting all over the internet that they don’t feel comfortable with T in their bathrooms and safe places. It’s a complex issue, but don’t ignore the women who are literally saying they don’t feel safe Matt 🙏🏾
His partner is a "transwoman", a wannabee porn star call Arden Hart.
That's why he's gone from atheist to cult member.
White people used to scream they were uncomfortable using the same bathroom as black people. Grow up and get over it.
But carry on ignoring the women (such as myself) who keep saying we not even close to afraid or concerned about transgender people using the stall next to us.
As a woman I have always had to make peace with the fact that public restrooms are a dangerous and potentially risky area, predators aren't repelled by a mystical barrier that only goes up when they paint a stick figure in a dress on the door.
If a predator want to attack us they aren't going to respect signs they will go in anyway and denying the basic human rights of others to go to the toilet with dignity doesn't make us any safer.
If you all of a sudden want to be concerned about the rape culture your side keeps saying doesn't exist then maybe we can hire security or, and this is crucial, LONGER SENTENCES FOR RAPISTS.
He doesn't care, I love to watch all Women's rights get remove and watch as chaos start with Equal rights.
@@johnwong5317 for one, women's right are equal rights, because we've literally been second class citizens for millennia, secondly the only people causing actual chaos is the easily offended right wing that cant handle fucking rainbows outside of stores and in response shoot and kill an actual mother and destroy a whole family.
You're all a bunch of loser hypocrites and everyone else is starting to see it.
its amazing that i have watched videos of Matt Dillahunty before and everything he says is 100% true and logic.He have debated with a lot of educated people and always was a winner at least in my eyes. And now because he does not want to make his trans friends sad he makes logical mistakes and says things one would not expect of him.
I agree with you! I agree but not necessarily with the reasons you proffered. I think he truly believes that it is the right thing to say in support of trans rights precisely for the reasons he gives, etc. etc. He has lost his deeper commitment to objectivity especially when it comes to social constructivist ideology.
it boggles my mind and confuses me greatly. it's like all his rules change as soon as the subject goes to this. kind of like how jordan peterson with politics and then his rules change when it comes to god.
@@jhibbitt1 I was thinking the same thing
Sounds more like your personal bias to be honest. 😊
@@guycd1 Nobody can be 100% objective, but i am trying to judge the arguments and not the view.
Sad to see his decline. He was an inspiration on AE but to see him here argue in such a childlike manner. Virtue signalling, hyperbole, logical fallacies and appeals to emotion. What a colossal fall. Ultimately Matt seems just to have swapped one religion for another.
You've said alot but you haven't proven anything. Matt was totally centered here and was onylt thrown off by dineshes logical failures. He brings up trans people and when he's proven wrong and that his ideas are actually the harmful ones, he backs off. "I don't wanna go downtown that road." Dude you literally brought it up. You're coping and I'm guessing you'll continue to cope with no evidence towards your argument
@@NELLYB 🤦♂️
Thats cause his wife is a transgender (a man who swapped his balls for punaani). So he is emotionally affected.
I agree with Matt on so many points, but i just have no idea how he has landed on these conclusions.
It is really strange how someone that has spent so much time trying to get people to apply logic to the compartmentalized religious parts of the brain can't or won't apply that same logic to this subject. It's like Jordan Peterson on religion, Sam Harris on Trump (not that he's entirely wrong, just over the top) - everyone seems to have this one thing that they can't let go of.
Socially sanctioned coercion, I'm afraid.
@@johnnycastellanetta7183 I couldn't more and feel the same way about those two examples as well.
@@LanceDobson I knew there had to be more of us out there! 👍
We can't just dismiss all these people because we don't agree with them somewhere along the line because that happens to/with anyone! There's a lot we can learn from even someone like Deepak Chopra, since the ridiculous things he says can actually cause rational thought. 😁
@@johnnycastellanetta7183 yeah, kinda interesting to me as someone who is an atheist but also more on the right about gender issues. maybe because mainstream right wingers are usually christian, and it's wild to me how much logic they apply to gender issues but goes out the window whenever christianity is brought up.
I'm a bit disappointed to say the least in Matt. Any male exposing himself in front of women or even young girls should be arrested for indecent exposure. And that's a social construct
Women don't expose themselves to each other in women's bathrooms.
Trans woman wouldn't either.
@@mnguardianfan7128 ok groomer
@@zeenuf00 What an unoriginal and unthinking response
@@mnguardianfan7128Leah Thomas the swimmer gets his penis out in the woman's changing room by all accounts
Pretty sure no one (especially Matt) was defending ANYONE exposing themselves in front of other people. When you go to the bathroom do you habitually expose yourself to people in there? Not even sure how you came to that conclusion.
I am a Matt fan, btw. Staunchly atheist, dont particularly like Dinesh, find him pugnacious at times. That said, wow, Matt did very badly.
Matt doesn’t seem to be particularly fond of Title IX then? Putting all these different sports in “Tier A, B, C or D” will inevitably in most sports result in men composing 95+% of all the Tier A high level championship competition while 95+% of women will be made outright lessers, competing for D2, D3 level hardware and reaping all the benefits, or rather lack thereof that people who compete at those schools get; lack of serious recognition, lack of funding, etc.
“The best thing you can do regardless of belief is affirm somebody’s gender identity” that’s fine. I don’t care at all. Seriously, not one bit. Live your life. The question is not, “What makes society better for just trans people?” It’s, “What makes society better?” Whether you affirm somebody’s gender identity or merely acknowledge it and respect their belief of it without accepting it (my position), you can do these things while also saying, “Hey, maybe people with penises shouldn’t be in locker rooms or bathrooms with little girls,” or, “Hey, maybe it’s a good thing that men and women are given an equal playing field rather than saddling women to second class status in athletics where it is obvious purely due to physiological differences that this would happen, and not everything must necessarily be a pure meritocracy, especially if I am a left winger who probably complains about meritocracy in other instances like on affirmative action (which is apparently a realm where its acceptable to acknowledge that any individual of a given, in this case racial, identity could do anything another individual of a different identity could do, yet at the same time acknowledging that taking these identity groups as a whole you will see that some perform noticeably worse than others in a given field and thus maybe we should do something about it).”
Matt is incredible in discussing religious issues. He as most leftists of his ilk are just straight up incompetent when discussing political issues.
I think Matt did okay. Not perfect but not so bad. His alternative "Tier A, B, C or D" serves to illustrate that segregating sports by sex/gender isn't some law of the universe, it's something we had to decide on and very well could alter if given a reason to. I don't think we should just change to that system cause it would be harder for women to get recognition... but you also can't really act as though having segregated leagues because men are better than women creates some illusion that men and women are on an equal level, and you can't really act as though women's leagues get anywhere near the attention that men's do. Not in any sport that actually gets any attention more than once every 4 years. Does the WNBA get 10% of the views the NBA does? I doubt it... You couldn't just join a women's league you know. I think Ben Shapiro said it best in an interview about that movie they did about a group of men forming a women's basketball team. They wanted to actually do that and make a movie about it but then "it turns out they don't let actual men play in women's sports". Do we have a perfect system for sorting out when it's fair/acceptable to let a trans woman compete with the other women? Probably not, like Matt said we're sorting it out. But there are requirements for having been on estrogen for a certain period of time. Trans women have been competing in the olympics for some time now and it's not as if cis-women don't win anymore you know... last I heard on this topic a cis woman is being accused of being a man and now JK and Elon are getting sued for it. It's just sports, there are things in this life that are actually important and it's very annoying having debates around trans people always landing on this stupid topic.
What I am disapointed in Matt for not clearly pointing out is that there is some really sad data on how trans women are not safe to use the men's room. It was alluded to when Dinesh said we have segregated washrooms to protect women and Matt said trans women are women, but the violent and sexual crime rate against trans women using men's washrooms is really quite bad. Dinesh couldn't answer Matt's request for a form of evidence that letting trans women use women's washrooms endagers cis women. And this whole shpeel about how they (yes some do) have a penis... I'm pretty sure the toilets are all in individual stalls are they not? Do women go around showing eachother their vagina's before taking a piss? Wouldn't that also be uncomfortable? If a sexual predator wants to go into the women's room and "sling his testicles" there's nothing stopping him, and this whole argument just serves to vilify trans people as though they have some malicious intent. Would it be uncomfortable? Why is that? Because it's still something that goes against the normative assumptions we've learned. If we were all born into a world where washrooms weren't segregated we would accept that as totally normal.
Matt found a new religion to believe in. It’s cute to see him make claims more batshit crazy than anything Sye Ten Bruggencate could come up with.
I don't know where you saw that. Maybe you had your transphobic glasses on. Because he made perfect sense to me.
@@jerrylong6238 you are in a cult as well. Calling everyone transphobic is so lame.
@@jerrylong6238 Dilate
Well said. I'm absolutely disappointed with his total abandonment of logic here.
@@jerrylong6238 Transphowhat? You guys are so cute with those made up words!
You see how Matt had to even pre-apologize to his trans friends for any minor inaccuracies he may commit. What a bunch of narcissistic people. Matt views himself as the champion of skepticism, he’s nothing of the kind.
And how many trans people do you know?
@@monicadaniels784 I don’t know any, what would the point be? I’m an Alex O’ Connor style atheist/skeptic. I don’t compromise my values and beliefs to cater to my buddies or my sex partner.
@@oneznzeroz Forgive me, I'm not familiar with Alex O'Connor, but I am familiar with being an atheist. My point is, if you knew some actual trans people, maybe you wouldn't bash them for something someone else said. I don't compromise my values either, but I like to think I have an open mind enough to listen to other opinions. My opinion is not the be all and end all of opinions.
You have a joker PFP
@@JamesHeller12 …and?
After years of arguing for science and verifiable truth on "The Atheist Experience", Dillahunty succumbs to the religion of woke
I saw that coming the moment this whole issue blew up. I knew he'd cave to it.
He sounds like the Religious nuts who call in on The AE.
lost so much respect for Matt after hearing this
It's disappointing seeing him coddle and pussyfoot around the "woke"community. I understand he's trying to be virtuous but this is ridiculous
The moment you start using phrases like “religion of woke,” you’ve lost your validity.
@@infinitesimalphilip1470 How about "cult of gender ideology" to be more precise
I'm really angry there's an issue I side with D'Souza against Dillahunty.
About what, being a transphobic bigot who wants trans people to not be able to leave their homes? That's what happens when you're not allowed to go to the bathroom in public.
That's because the problem is with you and not him. Atheists have an annoying tendency to think that being politically incorrect is always "cool" and therefore necessarily the right thing to believe every time and in all situations
Why? Are you a tribal ideologue that can’t think for yourself?
Jason, I would have said the same, but decided I needed to do some reading and research. Totally agree with Matt now. Try listening to Forrest on Atheist Experience, he's a biologist and I learned a lot from him.
@@Adeybwoy I just watched some Forrest. My first impression - he is WAY too young to be an academic, so I looked into him. Turns out Forrest is NOT a biologist or any kind of scientist. He holds no advanced degree, not even a masters. He is a 'biologist' in the same sense Ken Ham is, i.e. he plays one on UA-cam.
In one, he started out with this 'gendered brain' idea. He flatly asserted there are men's brains and woman's brains and sometimes a man's brain can be in a woman's body and that's the science and we all need to accept it. Well, a brief google search shows the 'gendered brain' hypothesis is very contentious in neurology. There are some supporters, but most peer reviewed articles are sharply critical. It may very well turn out to be true, but at present it is quite far from being the settled science Forrest seems to think it is.
I've been a practicing skeptic for most of my life and Forrest Valkai sets off every alarm bell there is.
Matt has casually redefined “man” and “woman” to mean “masculinity” and “femininity”
The fact we even have to argue whether grown men should be allowed in bathrooms and change rooms with young girls is ridiculous.
Grown men with young girls? That right there immediately goes to show your total lack of understanding about the topic and therefore don’t have a valid opinion.
That’s going to happen regardless of our stance on trans-rights. If people had to use bathrooms based on biological sex, biological men could easily enter the women’s restroom saying they were trans.
Who said this? Where is this being advocated for? You're literally not having the same conversation with us. And you wonder why we call you delusional
@@Lucifer6.6.6-v6ghow ? Look at real world cases of MEN showing their penis to young children in changing rooms at spas and gyms. Multiple pedophiles have been arrested doing exactly that claiming to be a women now . In some cases have gotten away with it and the normal people told to go away if it bothers them .. insanity
@@Lucifer6.6.6-v6g but it does happen
If a man wants to dress up and claim he is a woman, that's up to him. It is not up to trans people whether everyone else accepts that claim. I'm not sure how a guy that spends a lot of time using this same logical arrangement against religion can't see this. At the end of the day, a false claim is a false claim.
That doesn't mean I hate trans people or don't respect their right to live as they see fit.
Because the last atheist that spoke against the trans community nearly lost his channel and all forms of income. On top of being harassed. So Matt being a coward, is simply following the trans dogma.
Who are you referring to?
I think Matt has been indoctrinated into that trans cult. They seem to have taken over the group Matt was affiliated with. I guess that's the problem with building a community around a single disbelief - it leaves the door open for other ideologies when people aren't paying attention!
Secular humanism is more important than atheism.
It does, though. And the science goes against you based on people who have actually studied this subject.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 You say it does, I say it doesn't - how do we go about proving who is correct? Claiming science goes against something without providing any scientific evidence at all is useless.
Wow. This is the first time I have heard Matt D go into an area where he was at a disadvantage.
He's just dumb. Remember, he's just a guy who read a couple of book on religion and informal logic. He spent most of his life debating people on religion and honing his skills. That's why he's so good at religious debates.
As to this gender ideology crap, I don't think he knows shit. He's just pulling retarded arguments out of his ass and I hate to say that he's embarrassing himself. I loved the guy, but after hearing this, I think it's evil what he's suggesting. Imagine putting a top tier female boxer with someone like Mike Tyson in the ring. He maliciously picked 'pool' sport to compare between the two sexes because pool doesn't necessitate any physical strength. Very stupid and exposed argument.
I play pool everyday. I don't even consider it a physical sport, because it's not. I'm not gonna fool myself and pretend like I worked out on that day.
If I want to do sport, I gotta hit the gym.
The science is on his side: ua-cam.com/video/5Zro0neuVeY/v-deo.htmlsi=XJuqTveMpdO50SHf
Thats a nice way of saying he doesnt make an ounce of sense on this topic but sure...
@@sambal777 I agree. This exposed him and all his logic is now in question.
@@HistoritorJimaldus Yes, Rationality Rules is another atheist who has gone down the postmodern gender rabbit hole.
Can't believe how big this topic has become. Although interesting to watch debates, it's extremely polarized and somewhat dangerous to even utter an opinion in either direction.
It's just dangerous in one direction, since there're only trans people who are being murdered
@Voicecolors mostly in non western countries...
Ps the science is all based on john monies study which is weak.
'Dangerous' ... Well one side must get find your ignorance offensive and feel you could definitely grow as a person, is that dangerous? Certainly not in the same sense that the far right nazi anti LGBTQ Christians will actually threaten and use violence. So no, not exactly the same both ways is it?
People are moving away from religious debates because it’s been beaten to death, trans is now the thing to debate over.
you often hear the mantra that trans women are women but you never hear it as much when it comes to trans men are men… they don’t even discuss how any of this affects us or how we are being erased
no one cares about a women trying to be a man because men are not threatened by this in ANY way. its only when men want to be women that a threat is potentially there
Men have been being "erased" for decades. Nobody gives a fuck about men as a demographic.
The TERFs only care to be offended by trans women.
Trans men are women. You're not erased....I just must say the truth as much as I can.
In fairness, us MtFs get a LOT more shit than you guys. Like, tons. We're either all predators or ugly misshapen creatures. You guys need support but we face quite a bit more antagonism.
I cant believe i have to side with dinesh lol but i got to on this one
wow, he was wrong on every point. simply promoting bigotry because he thinks Jesus hates trans people.
Yeah it's incredible that here Dinesh is the one who is asking simple questions that Matt is not interested in answering. I'm not interested in where Dinesh goes with his arguments, but Matt could at least try to have a real answer.
I was thoroughly unsatisfied with Matt on this one. I thought I was going to hear something revelatory and I would learn something. But he was just doing ideological talking points that are assertions without demonstrating anything. "A trans woman is a woman", cue applause.
"research shows that transitioning leads to best outcomes for trans people". Yeah, if they can pass. And we're sure that the cause of that depression has nothing to do with people being bullied or rejected for not fitting their assigned-at-birth gender construct? Has expanding acceptance for non gender conforming individuals had any effect on psychological health of those who don't transition?
A non-masculine man is STILL a man. A man can have the most effeminate behaviors, it does not change his gender. We know this because men vary from the hardest toughest to the softest and meekest. So I'm not sure what Matt's point was in bringing that up. Was he trying to say that a non-masculine man can become not a man merely by behavior?
Perhaps given the chance he would complete his explanations, will need to watch the full video or some other talk of his.
American bathrooms are so stupid and so is the debate. If any company or Institution really cared about trans feelings the obvious solution is to make all stalls self-contained units with full privacy. Toilet, sink and full lockable doors. I'm all for it. Put your money where your mouth is.
The part about the push to improve the psychological comfort of trans without giving any consideration in the conversation that just MAYBE there will be a cost to non-trans women's perception of their safety in the presence of a man-looking person. Did anyone do any research on the psychological effects on women? If I'm to assume good faith rather than ideology, then that would mean there is data to suggest that 99.99% of women will adapt with no psychological harm to them.
For crying out loud, why are there even public bathrooms where you meet people when washing your hands in the first place? It's disgusting. Individual bathrooms are the answer. You're welcome.
@PandaHuAkbar agree with some of your points. but I think we can look at a place like Thailand, who has run this experiment. and see that accepting trans women has no affect on society at large. it is very likely, that the campaign against trans women is just bigotry. very much like all the bigotries humanity has had to confront and reject. in some sense this could be the last dominio.
Don't apologize ! Don't be made to feel you have to apologize for your own thoughts and instincts ! Let them guide you . Don't fall for dogma either .
Yeah, At least he's brave enough to debate about gender ideology , not like the gender professor who decided running away against Michael Knowles for debate in university 😂😂😂
Ridiculous argument from Matt. In contact or power sports, women would be at serious risk of injury
They already are from other women
@@SophiaAphrodite you will have to explain that one. If you are suggesting that other women are equal to men then you are wrong. Bone density and lung capacity don't change, even after taking hormone blockers.
what about people transitioning from woman to man. Where can they compete?
@@patman142 bone density does change. Bone density changes in everyone over the years, regardless of outside factors.
@JamesMMcCann they can set up their own competition, it was their decision to transition. It's called consequences
Jesus Christ... Matt dillahunty has always been somewhat of a hero to me when it came to atheism... Back in the day he was one of the most rational and logical debaters I'd ever seen, but he's way off base here...
I didn't see any parts that were off base. besides Desousa mostly lying.
@rsmonge that's becuase you are wrapped up in your ideology. Unfortunately reality won't hit until it does. Then you'll be in really deep dodo
Same
@@rsmonge
His entire position is utterly incoherent. “Trans women are women.” Ok, what is a woman? Can you define what a woman is without using the word woman?
@@TheBenevolentDictatorship a woman could be a variety of things, depending on how you define it. not every definition is easy, but i mostly agree with Matt here.
A biological female (woman) is one with 2 X chromosomes, which are working normally. No problem with that.
but culturally, gender is a social construct, in which a woman: wears dresses, has long hair, wears makeup, raises the children, is more gentle, emotional, etc.
if somebody feels that the female gender fits their personality, then go ahead and do it. it has no effect on me, whatsoever. this is supposed to be a free country, so long as you don't harm me. but conservatives don't really believe that do they.
the funny thing is that if these bigots weren't so insistent that these gender roles be followed rigorously, less people would feel the need to transition. and let's not kid ourselves, these same people were the type who burned Beatles records because of their "long" hair. yeah, that's u. same mentality, only in 2023.
I respect Matt's views on religion and philosophy but he's absolutely going with his emotions here and pandering to his trans friends. So desperate not to offend them that he says bathrooms are just for peeing and pooping and we shouldn't make a fuss about it. Nah Matt, nahh. I totally agree with Dinesh here.
He is conflicted because he is in a relationship with a dude who says he's a woman.
All his arguments are just so ridiculous it's like his love for this dude has eroded his objectivity & critical thinking skills.
Ohhh... That explains it. It's sad really. He's one of the rational voices that strengthened my atheism
@@nyoreachoja2068 Yeah, name is Arden Hart - a porn star wannabee. Does a trans call in show, search "the line transatlantic".
An insecure & often obnoxious person.
Matt is a salient example of where the way of atheism goes-subjective opinions about anything, relativism in values and playful cynicism with word meanings-nothing is sacred.
Why do people put a room with a toilet on such a high pedestal? Just get in do your business and get out. Done. Any conversation beyond "you okay in there, sounds pretty rough" is unnecessary
Matt believes he is so much more intelligent than he actually is.
What particular point do you think he got wrong
What I hear you saying is I am so dammed jealous of that dam Matt I could just scream. But I know it wouldn't help any.
@@jerrylong6238 lol yea I'm so jealous of that fat belly and bald head of his.
Your point applies to Dinesh about 500x more than it applies to Matt. Dinesh is a felon who has committed fraud and adultery and many other “sins” he focuses on in other people yet he has convinced himself that he is far more righteous and important than he is and that his views about all matters should apply to all human beings. That is arrogance.
I concur
It's very interesting to see a man like Matt coming up with arguments non-scientifically and non-skeptic. It looks like he's just there because Dinesh is a religious person, and he must be against anything religious people believe/support.
Ah, because religious people can totally be objective and not use the very science they claim to support and then selectively apply it to support their "God"
@@ToHoldNothingWhat are you blabbering on about?
@@jameswitt108 Sarcasm escape you? I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of religious people trying to selectively use science while claiming it can't answer some questions, but totally proves their "God"
@@ToHoldNothing TLDR
@@jameswitt108 Alright, smartass, how about 10 words? Religion accusing science of biased thinking is pot meeting kettle"
After listening to Dillahunty talk about science & facts for so long its odd to hear him basically talk about how he "feels" and disregard "the science". Strange times...
Science can be applied to feelings and what is going on in people's heads. It may have bigger error bars than measuring G but it can still be science.
What is unscientific about investigating and following evidence supporting the idea that people fall into more than 2 groups about how they see their gender and that in some people the group they fall into and aspects of their brains appears to be different from their sex?
This is what you would expect from something as messy as biology and evolution. Natural variation is the basis for how we got here.
Bro forgot about the social sciences
@daveansell1970 "Science" can be applied to anything, but is the evidence clear and argument strong for these "feelings"? Far from it and that's the problem with Dillahunty here. He seems to have chosen his feelings over the concrete evidence in science/biology. There is no strong argument (really none at all) for his feelings here and he knows it, you know it.
@@frankiefc3 cope
@@frankiefc3 no, he is just answering a different question to the one you are answering. Though even the physical biology is nowhere near simple. You can be XY but apparently female, you can be XXY and various other collections of sex chromosomes, genitalia which isn't obvious if it is male or female, (intersex babies have had a gender assigned which is simplest to a achieve surgically, and then later have been sure they are the other sex), and many other weird artifacts of biology.
But Matt was talking about gender which is the group you are treated as and feel you should behave as. Given the huge messyness of biology, expecting this to be simple would just be dishonest without huge evidence. Given that there is a group of people who apparently feel very uncomfortable in their socially assigned gender, it is very plausible that there is something biological going on. And there is a fair amount of evidence that there is (not clearcut which is unsurprising), that various forms of LGBT people have different brain scans, and definitely that women who are exposed to more testosterone in the womb think in a more stereotypically male way.
Given that definite understanding of this that doesn't involve talking to people about their feelings may take a while, I would say that believing them is the rational default response, especially as it is by no means an extraordinary claim.
Maybe it would make everyone less uncomfortable if there was a third gender we could assign people to like in Thailand, but the right wing seems to be as resistant to this as trans people.
Matt Walsh should debate Matt Dillahunty.
Walsh is a complete moron lol, him being on stage with Dillahunty would be a joke.
Why would Matt debate some dim witted self proclaimed fascist? The man runs on cruelty.
Oh god please no. Two nut jobs.
He’d get trounced by Matt.
Matt Dillahunty would tear Walsh a much larger buthole for sure. Walsh would never see him coming just the aftermath, the big ole hole left behind.
If you are stranded alone on an island, what is your gender? As it is a social construct.
Depends what gender you want 'Wilson' to be, I guess.
That's a great question. I would re-formulate it though, because if you are stranded now, you have a certain cultural background to base your gender on. Let's say you are born or abandoned as a child in the wild. What's your gender? Considering that the society you live in is comprised of only 1 individual, for the survival of your society (yourself) you cannot divide your social group into categories and assign each category a role based on their natural features. You are forced to cover all roles and duties required. Moreover, if you don't encounter the opposite sex, you wouldn't even have a concept for another sex or gender, you would simply consider yourself as yourself. I think in that case your society would be a gender-less society, or a mono-gender society, but the characteristics of your gender identity would simply be based on your personal characteristics, there isn't a group to compare yourself with and find similarities and differences. And also, you wouldn't be very culturally advanced, you'd probably have better things to do than thinking about gender theory.
@@divxxx You wasted your time giving a thoughtful explanation to someone that doesn't want to actually understand and just asked a rhethorical just to stir the shit.
If you never knew any other humans and had lived on a completely solitary basis you wouldn't have a gender. If you grow up in a society and were subsequently ship wrecked your gender would continue to be whatever you identify as on the island. Presumably whatever you identified as before.
@@divxxxExcellent thoughtful answer. I think some human babies have grown up thinking they are wolves etc. and some other animals have grown up thinking they are a different species. It's so obvious that gender/species identification is a social construct.
Wow!!!! Finally found something I disagree with in Matt's case and I agree with Dnesh. Never thought I'd see the day. Great debate though. Thank you.
Yeah it's a really weird role reversal here with Matt arguing for the existence of a gender god and Dinesh crushing his claims with reality and logic. It feels wrong.
I agree with you folks.
I just saw another video from GM Skeptic, and apparently we've all been funneled by Rationality Rules into the alt right. Huh. Here I am really trying to hear a good argument. I am still compassionate towards transgender of course and their right to access support to help them get to better life outcomes. But I'm not convinced that better outcomes for trans is necessarily tied to the transformation of the rest of society to the degree that is being proposed. Some social attitudes should change of course. I have a problem with the degree. We're being asked to accept EVERY single idea in the package and our morality is being called into question when we raise critical objections. We are being asked to turn off all our skepticism and simply parrot (or at least ignore) a set of seemingly weakly grounded ideas because it is the moral thing to do, and if we fail to be convinced, it's not the weakness of the argument, it's our moral failure. Our objections can only stem from our bigotry. It's just fascinating to see atheists I respect say this now.
@@DadeMurphie Not really. The Left has their religion just as much as the right. Except the Left worships two deities: gov't and "Science."
I'm an atheist, by the way. REAL science can only ever tell us what is, and never what ought. That's what the Left doesn't get.
Totally agree. And it's funny because I think Matt claimed (I'll have to re-watch that part because I might be misrepresenting him) "repugnant" about not being able to "be who you are". Strange, because what if someone is attracted sexually to minors? Are we all repugnant now? And for anyone who thinks that I'm being hyperbolic here, I would ask them to consider that this is exactly how I and many other women feel when a dude just walks into the bathroom or smashes all the women in a sport -- extremity gone horribly wrong. The other thing I noticed was how Matt mockingly dismisses Dinesh's point about men in women's sport it as something that irrelevant and meaningless to the conversation. If he had the same level of empathy he had towards trans people, he’d probably empathize with the girls/women who dedicated their lives to try and be the best they could be. Riley Gaines sacrificing everything to swim every day to get millisecs faster. Days when her breasts were developing, days during her first period and not knowing if this would lead to embarrassment - all the sacrifices to just work hard and be the best for years - only to have some dude enter the contest, walk away with the prize and have everyone cheer. And this isn’t just about Riley but every other female athlete who just got smashed by some dude. And Matt laughs right past that as if that’s a stupid point to make.
Matt is wrong on alot of things , he never admits when he is wrong. He is a grade A Narrasisstist. My problem with Matt is he claims to want debates or discussion and is open-minded but the moment he is challenged he name calls and puts down his guests. He is a big baby who throws a tantrum.
Used to have a lot of respect for Matt. I see he's fallen to the woke mob. What a shame.
How is it that matt can't see he is using the same logical fallacies for gender that he screams at theists for using? ... he is the epitome of "mind so open, his brain fell out"
I’m deeply disappointed.
What didn’t you understand about his argument?
@@jonathan4189 I understood it quite well
.. problem is the fallacies he relies on
@@jacibea …which are what exactly?
@@jonathan4189 mostly special pleading and appeal to emotion
How can Matt be so on-point when it comes to religion, but be absolutely wrong when it comes to gender???!!!
It’s astonishing isn’t it? He actually claims in this video that validating the feelings of transgender people is more important than the truth.
Notice how he responds to the interesting question from Dinesh about sports. He basically says it doesn’t matter because he doesn’t care about sports. He’s a genuine non-thinker.
because he's pandering to the woke mob. His sense of duty to the ''truth'' gets switched off whenever he's not talking about religion.
@@blue24563 I don't understand this obsession with forcing people to think like you. Isn't america always bragging about freedom? convenient that just for the gender topic, freedom doesn't matter that much. People like this uncle tom of dsouza are interested in preaching the truth and interested in science just for the gender argument.
Gotta love how he has to apologize in advance to the group for everything he "might get wrong".
His statement that trans women ARE women is blatantly untrue, otherwise why use the term 'trans ?
If I say "short women are women" does that mean short women are no longer women? No, obviously not. There are many different type of women, and all of them are women despite any differences
Flying lions are lions! Don't you know?! There are many different types of lions and all of them are lions despite any differences (even the flying ones).
@@Ingwaz_Seishu What is a woman?
@@piggypooo There are indeed many types of Lions. All the many types of Lions are either male or female.
@@Ingwaz_Seishu I'm trying to work out which side of the argument you are on. Short women are indeed women, tall women are women, fat and thin women are women, fertile women, infertile women are indeed women, they all have one thing in common and that is they are NOT men
So Much respect for Matt, but on this one... Let's say that Im not convince that a gender outside of sex exists 😂. What is the evidence?
Matt for once has abandon logic for emotion. First time I see him using falacies : appeal to emotion.... Must be that he is defending nonsens.
I have the same thoughts. We are told repeatedly that gender and sex are separate things. OK then, so what exactly is gender? Can you even define the term without referencing sex? If not, then they're not really separate are they? To the contrary, they appear to be very closely linked, so much so that we are told that surgery and hormones are necessary when one's sex and gender do not match. "Match?" So sex and gender are actually matched things? Presumably male matches to man and female matches to woman. Can it be the other way? So then I'm back to: what is gender? How many are there and how do we know this?
Abandoned logic for emotion. Like Dinesh always does if he's not abandoning logic for straight up lying, deflecting or to perpetuate some bit of disinformation???
@@gunkulator1heyo, trans person here (male to female).
I will try my best to explain but I would also recommend just searching scientific paper libraries online, sex and gender have been studied for decades and have been described in countless papers.
Anyways, sex is biological in the sense that it is defined by a set of factors such as chromosomes, hormones, etc. It’s what you usually think as sex, male and female.
Gender is your innate sense of your sex. If you woke up in the opposite sex’s body, you would probably wanna switch back pretty soon after, you would get dysphoric about the body you have now, and with not being perceived as you once was. You would want to be your OG sex again.
That’s how I feel, without the whole body switching analogy. I was born male, but have an “innate sense of sex” of female. Okay, that still sounds like garble, what does this actually mean?
Well, I wish to have a female body, I wish to have breast, and have the proper genitalia, etc. When I see girls, I’m jealous I don’t look like that. I’m sad that I will never be able to bare children, as I want to.
Then there’s the societal part of it, which is I wish to be seen that way by others, and also I want to be able to be feminine and be treated in that manner.
When it comes to how I want my body to be, and how I want to be seen and treated, I feel the same as a woman. My brain, has this innate identity of being a woman.
This causes gender dysphoria, it would be good to look up the definition of that (the scientific one).
Does that all make sense? I can clarify if need be.
@@gingy3778 Thanks for sharing your insights. But it still doesnt answer my question. I dont know what you mean by "innate sens of sex", even for you its confusing. You wish to have female attributes.. then whats wrong with accepting being a feminine man? I wish I could fly like a bird but you would probably think i'm delusional if I try transitioning into an eagle.
If all you want is to be feminine, you can be a feminine man. If you want things impossible to have then you are delusional. You are basing the definition of woman either on stereotypes or biology, and both are based on sex. You could try just accepting yourself as you are. If suddenly i was in a female's body i would just accept i'm a woman.. thats it. I can be a woman and still have my unique thoughts and ways.
So objectively, how can I know there are genders outside of sex and you are not just being delusional or mentally ill ? I'm open to your arguments.
Because "being a man", "becoming a man" is something that involves a cultural development. As a matter of fact, different cultures have different ideas of what a man is, and a man from culture X can be considered as woman-like for culture Y. This is because gender is liked to roles in societies, and not every social group is structured the same way. Being a man is not simply being an adult male, because your social group expects things from you as a man, and if you don't provide these things you can be considered "not a man". I understand this is probably a war on words, I don't disagree with the definition of man as "adult male human", it's just that the word "man" has so many other usages and meanings that it cannot be reduced to that. That's why, to clarify, people tend to distinguish between "male" and "man" for referring to different aspects of a person's identity. Male is the mere biological fact of being born with XY chromosomes, testicles and a penis, man is the fact that you recognise yourself as a member of your social group with the role that is generally assigned to males.
It is madness how so many high profile atheists are choosing to die on this hill.
What does this topic have to do with being atheist exactly?
Such as?
@@buckiesmalls It goes to the very essence of atheism. Strip away all the nonsense of the argument; all the social construct baloney; the identity noise; the nonbinary blather, and what you are left is the assertion of a mind/body dichotomy. That the mind exists separate from, and can sometimes be alien to, the body.
In essence, Matt is arguing for the existence of a gendered soul that sometimes, somehow, nests in the wrong body.
Atheism is the rejection of mystical explanations. It is a materialist philosophy. It affirms there can be no mind without body because the mind is an emanation from the body. Your identity, your personality, your memory, your everything are products of the biological functions of your brain and body.
The proper atheistic position is this: you cannot be in the wrong body because there is no other way you can be. Different body - different person.
@@jasonlongton1876 "The proper atheistic position is this: you cannot be in the wrong body because there is no other way you can be. Different body - different person"
Exactly. If I say "I feel like a two spirit person", what evidence can I give to prove that claim? How do I know what a two spirit person feels like? To make the claim "I feel like a different gender" you'd have to experience what different genders feel like to make the distinction. It'd be like if I said "I don't feel like a human. I feel like an alien". How the fuck would I know what the subjective experience of an alien is?
Notice how Dinesh didn't interrupt Matt during his monologue. If you are speaking the truth you have no reason to keep "filling the blanks" every second.
women are not bigots to want to stay safe.
Nothing to stop a man crossdressing and walking into a woman's bathroom any day. Why is there no epidemic of abuse and where is outrage??
Sex-segregated bathrooms came about in the last century when women joined the workforce. The worry was that biological men where physically more powerful and dominant over women and that women needed a separate bathroom for safety. It was all about biology. Segregating by self-concept instead of biology defeats the whole purpose. Keep them the way they are, add a unisex bathroom, or get rid of sex-segregated bathrooms altogether.
From the few writings on the history of bathroom separation, I've quickly glanced over, it appears this is not exactly the cause
Privacy is the reason. Half the stalls have cracks on the sides
I think using a third single room bathroom for people in wheelchairs to double up as a trans - unisex room would be the only practical solution. Therefore women (real ones) can still have the sanctity of their own space without having some 6' 4" guy walk in with a wig and a 5'o clock shadow.
The notion that men are inherently dangerous and predatory, and women need and deserve the unique privilege of their own space, is discriminatory and sexist. And validating a poisonous notion which does great harm to men.
You can't pick and choose equality. Which is what feminists and women generally do.
The whole debate is laughable to me. Communal bathrooms are repugnant, whatever the sex split. I don't understand why individual bathrooms aren't the norm. Which they tend to have in hospitals and GPs here in the UK, likely because they prevent the spread of infection significantly.
@@georgewagner7787If you want privacy, go use your own bathroom at home.
Love Matt. Hes helped me with deconstructing. But, I find that he has left one cult for another. Sad.
It's almost like most atheists are complete leftards first, 'atheists' a distant second.
What did you deconstruct?
@@piggypooo Believing in the bible and god/s for the last 36 years of my almost 40 year existence.
@@watchandjewelryloft4713 ohh gotcha!
He has not helped you, he has bought you into his own ideology and this is where it leads. Him dating a trans man and arguing the side he argues here. There is no stability in this man, morally. That is seen and verifiable by his actions and this debate.
Dillahunty is a fine example of how you can succeed in America without any qualification. He's an incredible grifter. A Luftmensch. And in his own bubble he has convinced himself some sort of philosopher king.
the reason he has succeed is because he has arguments rather than you who just throw insults at anyone you disagree with
@@fiveminuterule No, the reason he "has succeed" is from his grifting. He depends on no real practical skill or experience that contributes to society. He has his own tribe of atheists and that's all.
@@matt-30- Looked up "grifting" on MWD. It says "to obtain [money] [in a not morally right or conventional way]".
As far as I know, Matt hosted ACA shows for around 17 years and did some public debates. He participates in a few youtube channels. These seem to be sources of income. That's not "grifting".
Not sure about not contributing to society either - at least according to the youtube comments, the ACA shows helped people deconvert from (fundamentalist) christianity and gave them an anchor when they were not religious in highly religious areas. Seems like a contribution to me.
Tribe of atheists sounds kinda right, theres bound to be a lot of people who know him from the old videos who kind of flock to him.
Ladies and gents: Matt Dillahunty has just re-entered the world of religious ideology. Backed by nothing more than the very faith he espouses as “the excuse someone gives when they don’t have an actual reason”. We have truly entered a new era of the cult of personality
It's not exactly a cult of personality. It's a cult of neomarxist crticial theory dogma. We know where all of it comes from, let's not beat around the bush.
Huh? Examples?
@@darrene.vonbraun4421 Examples? What? Watch the video.
OMG. I used to watch Matt and Traci argue against religious claims and now I find that Matt is now part of the Woke religion.....and I'm on D'Souza's side? lol
@@darrene.vonbraun4421 Matt claims, "Trans-women ARE women". This is objectively NOT true.
It is amazing how this nonsense takes up so much time nowadays...
First world problems..
I'm not in the west, this topic is non sensicle and irrelevant to the rest of the world. The rest of the world laughs at the west for this because you can't tell that that not all change is progression.
Standards
It's a fad, as proven by studies in England where there was a %4000 increase in inquiry's about gender change in the British Health system since this whole Trans thing has gained publicity.
Hopefully it'll pass like the tattoo boom has, with, like those with tattoos, some people having permanent reminders of their folly.
@@SaintKimbo I hope it passes without irreparably damaging lives of children... I scares me to think what can happen to children who have parents who believe in this bs ...
@@SaintKimbo Search up “left-handedness over time.” I’m sure people in the 1920s-1940s thought that was a fad as well, but it isn’t. People were just finally allowed to actually use their left hand to write.
Watching Dillahunty try to make an argument here reminds me of my teenagers struggling to argue against common sense family rules.
Matt is right!
@@Riky_Jones Exactly
@@monicadaniels784 they don’t get it
@@Riky_Jones It's worse than that, they enjoy not getting it!
@@monicadaniels784 you got that right Monica
Dillahunty is now on auto mode .. spouting the platitudes of textbook Wokeism. To a tee 👍
The thing is if you listen closely, he's not really wrong on anything. The saying goes reality always ends up swaying to the left.
@@jackeagleeye3453hese people are intellectually lazy. They don't want explanations because they already made their mind up prior to watching the video.
@@jackeagleeye3453 well I hope it doesn't sway towards Stalinism or Maoism!
A trans woman is not a woman - there's something he's wrong about , and that's a pretty big error.
@@jackeagleeye3453 Dilly was painfully wrong on every single factual claim.
@@mattcavanaugh6082
Ironically, you’re statement here is factually wrong.
You would FAIL if challenged to identify one incorrect thing he said here. And if you challenge him, he’d drag you.
First time ever, and i`ve heard à LOT of matt, that he really sounds stupid but in a smart mans suite. I dont know why he is mixed up about this and not well read on the subject. His facts are wrong and i think he should read more about suicide rates etc.
But its not unrealistic to think that he is defending his trans friends. He could have a LOT to loose i guess , in social life if he is objective.
Nope. He has the basic facts pretty much nailed on this. It's just a completely bigoted and sexist issue anyway. It's only people assuming that males are more dangerous than females, and males who behave like women are even more dangerous. A sign on a door indicating no one born with a penis is allowed, never has and never will keep people more safe.
Even if billions of trans individuals commit suicide, that affords no reason to abandon reason and objectivity and commitment to a scientific understanding of the world and reality. In other words, the rate at which trans individuals commit suicide and self-harm (for whatever reason) is irrelevant to determining whether or not a trans woman is a woman or a man. This does not contradict our positions with respect to supporting and advancing trans rights and their freedom of choice and life styles, etc.
@@fraiopatll633 Stop you are rejecting science period.
Woman or Man in what contect Sex or Gender.
If you think they are the same then you not Matt have rejected objectivity and reason.
Just because you feelings want them to be the same. Science and clearly established a difference.
Notice how you only focused on suicide rates. But COMPLETELY ignored MURDER RaTES?????
That shows alot about what you listend to.
I see a lot of people in the comments disagreeing with Matt, but they can't explain how he is wrong. I'm wondering if many of these people are simply pre-disposed to disagreeing with transgender folks.
@@jackeagleeye3453 Haven't I explained why he is wrong?
But there is another face to the coin. Has Matt explained why he is right? If so, then why is it that a lot of people you see in the comments are not convinced? How difficult could that be for Matt? Aren't we all open-minded and quite reasonable? Or, is it that Matt is pre-disposed to agreeing with transgender folks? Is Matt pre-disposed to disagreeing with the rest of us? Are you pre-disposed to disagreeing with the rest of us? Is that a nice thing to do?
Matt is so full of himself. I heard a debate where he said "You don't get to debate me anymore!" a non conceited person would say I am not debating you anymore. As if it is an honor to be in his presences while he spews his nonsense. Anyone can debate religion it is easy but politics he completely crumbles.
You ignored context. He said that because the other persons argument was not a debate.
@@SophiaAphrodite I don't see how that makes it any less smug, conceited, and full of himself .
Weird that when he was talking about how no one is harmed when a trans person uses a bathroom that he didn't mention the kid who raped girls in two separate schools as a "trans". In that situation, a biological woman was harmed by a biological man claiming to be woman. Also, if accepting trans people as what they want to be accepted as helps then why is the suicide rate pretty much the same pre and post surgery? Its almost as if a surgery can't fix a mental issue.
None of it does, I would guess the bullying is mostly the cause.
@@BismarkUtah you mean no one that wants to pretend it never happens has never heard of, even though it was on most major news networks. We also know that a lot women dont report when they are assaulted or feel uncomfortable so just wondering how you know the overwhelming majority of cases women dont feel uncomfortable? Any stats, surveys, or anything at all that points to that conclusion because we see more and more stories of women speaking up saying they dont like it.
@@BismarkUtah You used a lot of words to say hardly anything useful. @henryskalitz9094 makes a valid point. It happened and needs to be talked about. In a debate where the topic about trans in women's bathrooms specifically comes up, its completely valid to bring up a trans kid who assaulted women twice in two different schools. As for your point about the norm, I'm not sure the data specifically points to depression and suicide in trans SPECIFICALLY ONLY BECAUSE they don't get to use their bathroom of choice. Can you point me to the "overwhelming majority of cases" where not getting to use the bathroom of their choice was the only reason?
"Gender is entirely a social construct".
"Your gender is a fundamental part of individual identity".
The pro trans advocates do like to contradict themselves. Telling us that something which is supposedly a societal construct is also something in being within the individual.
Why can't a social construct be a fundamental part of individual identity? You're not making sense. I'm an American. It's fundamental to who I am and how I interact with the world, but there's no objective universal concept of America.
@@ronhoward121 As I said, the narrative claim is that gender is ENTIRELY a social construct. If something is ENTIRELY that then it logically cannot also be partly something else.
^You couldn't be ENTIRELY American but also partly something else.
@@ronhoward121 And your analogy is false. You are NOT somehow American in being despite how you may feel. There is nothing that necessarily marks you out as that rather than something else in that regard. Our nationality is not a fundamental part of our being.
@@digglyda Now I'm confused. My criticism was that "it is ENTIRELY a social construct" but that doesn't mean if can't also be a fundamental part of individual identity. Your second analogy sounds more like you're objecting to someone saying they were "entirely a woman". Me being entirely American is not analogous to the concept of gender being entirely something else. But if your biggest complaint is some weird semantics about what the word entirely means, I think you're wasting a lot of time.
The appropriate analogy would be for you show that if "American is entirely a social construct" then it can't be partly something else.
@@digglyda What is fundamental to my identity is personal to me, isn't it? I suppose you're probably an absolutist, and think there's some objective best way to identify?
How did Matt get so captured. He actually said, "Trans women are women" with no sense of irony. All respect lost.
He's banging a troon called Arden Hart that's how.
After he recited his well-learned speech he instantly starts interrupting. Classic.
That's typical of him. Civility goes only one way
The only way to accept Matt's argument is to first commit to the cult beliefs he attempts to defend.
What particular point do you think he got wrong
And what cult would that be, the cult of objective logic? Because he was defending logic the way I saw it. Are you wearing your god glasses today?
@@jerrylong6238 The cult of “they”
@@truesoundboy1 everything he literally is arguing with reality which by definition is insanity
@@jerrylong6238 objective logic oh fuck no you mean no logic 🤣😂
14:23
Matt:
I don't care who is peeing next to me.
Okay
What if some men peeing next to ur mom wife or daughter.
Is it okay Matt.
By Matt's logic, the best way to treat a bulimic person is to say "yes, you are indeed obese, I'll help you lose weight." Terrible argument.
It reminds me of the advice for treating Dementia. They encourage you to go along with the person's delusions/false memories/odd questions etc, so as to not upset them or stress them out. But in the case of people with gender dysphoria the whole world is expected to go along with their delusions.
Except that "helping someone indulge in their eating disorder" is NOT the scientific best practice for treating eating disorders, whereas gender confirmation IS the scientific best practice for people who choose a different gender expression.
@@ronhoward121 No, the best treatment is to not let them be indoctrinated with gender ideology to begin with.
@@ronhoward121You we’re there before me. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly agree that gender reaffirming surgery is the best option to treat the unhappiness and health of a person suffering from gender dysphoria.
@@SamNL Correction: Gender affirming care. Not every trans person needs or wants any particular surgery, or needs or wants any particular medical intervention.
Damn. Matt has lost it. What a shame.
Troll bot. Make an example like a thoughtful human.
This IS the example. Smfh.@@pjaworek6793
@@pjaworek6793lmao. Tell me how hes wrong. Matt use to be about pure facts and now he. Saying "i dont see the point in why we have a women and mens restroom when wr can have one 😂😂😂". Idk man. Maybe its to stop rape and domestic violence? 😂😂😂
19:08 "If I was dressed as a woman, you wouldn't even know [if I was a woman]!" Oh, I think we would, Matt...
Matt is the most religious man I have ever seen. Also loosing to DinDin is a big L.
I never thought I'd see the day when I would watch a debate between Matt Dillahunty and Dinesh D'Souza and come away resoundingly on the side of Denesh !
Sadly, Matt just goes from bad to worse in this.
When he said if he were dressed as a woman you would't know........fuck me, that is so uncharacteristically dishonest it's not funny.
I'll bet if someone offered Matt a million dollars if he could correctly identify the sex of a parade of trans and cis men and women, using the natural instinct that served him so well up until five minutes ago, he would correctly sort ALL of them out without breaking a sweat !
Alas, he seems to have ditched one form of madness years ago only to buy heavily into another in recent times.
It is a contagion that is spreading at an alarming rate and one in which woke plays a major part.
I believe Matt spoke disparagingly several years ago about the tendency for Muslims to "Go out of their way to be offended" but sadly, he seems to be doing the same thing when people express different opinions regarding transgenderism.It's hair-trigger woke of the first order !
Right at the very heart of it, is something that sounds incredibly like a law of non-contradiction violation and special pleading !
Matt is in a relationship with a "transwoman". A wannabee porn star called Arden Hart. Probably goes some way to explaining his Damascene conversion from being an atheist to be totally captured by this new religion.
Matt Dillahunty's heart is in a good place. I stand in the same camp with respect to protecting the rights of all people both transgender as well as non-transgender. However, we ought to stay committed to seeing the world objectively. When I look at an apple and feel that it is an orange to me, and consequently I declare that the apple is an orange, I then am plain wrong in claiming that the apple is an orange. It is irrelevant that I may feel suicidal if people do not agree with my calling the apple an orange. It is irrelevant that others may murder me or persecute me. Still an apple OBJECTIVELY is what it is and what it is not. This is not a social construct. There is a difference between an apple and an orange, regardless of whether this difference exists in any human society or elsewhere.
Now replace apple with biological sex. A man is a man regardless of how he feels himself to be. The definition of a woman is that a woman is ACTUALLY a woman in the biological sense. Now, when a man feels himself to be a woman, he lacks the condition of actually being a woman. Now, let's say that we all agree to assign the moniker of "woman" to any transgender woman. I will go along with this. However, imagine that now all biological women agree to call themselves by a new moniker (e.g., non-transgender women or X) that has the meaning that RIGHTLY excludes transgender women on the basis that the latter are not biologically female. In this situation, what will the transgender women demand now? Will they still insist to be called by the moniker X? If yes, then that would be coercive and unacceptable. If not, then let's keep the word "woman" for biological females, as it already is. Let's create a new word for transgender women. How about "wotran" for singular, and "wotrans" for plural?
If transgender women were women, then why use the prefix "trans"? Because they are NOT women! They, instead, are transwomen. I do NOT care about how they feel if their feelings illegitimately trump our common sense of reality. There is also the danger that any man can claim to be a transwoman and the society will have no right to doubt their claim. And once their claim is accepted, then they will have access to women's safe spaces, which are specifically designed to keep men out.
Matt Dillahunty's intentions come from a warm place. Never forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Hello, in the spirt of Dillahunty I'd like to RESPECTFULLY disagree, but also point out my reasons why.
You write:
"It is irrelevant that I may feel suicidal if people do not agree with my calling the apple an orange. It is irrelevant that others may murder me or persecute me. Still an apple OBJECTIVELY is what it is and what it is not. This is not a social construct. There is a difference between an apple and an orange, regardless of whether this difference exists in any human society or elsewhere.
Now replace apple with biological sex."
- What you have here is an example of what in logic is called a "false equivalence" (I'm not accusing you of doing that on purpose but just pointing out the logic). You correctly point out that apples are not oranges. But fruit and gender are NOT equitant. Fruit is an inanimate object. Gender, on the other hand IS a social construct. I think you should go back and listen carefully to what Matt was saying. Gender is not the same thing as Biology. Matt was not denying biological fact. Biological fact, though, is not psychology and it's not society. There is nothing biological about social roles. Clothing, for example is not determined by biology. We tend to were the clothing we feel most comfortable in and/or the clothing that fits in the social context we find ourselves in. There is nothing in biology that compels someone to wear a suit or a dress for a wedding, or to wear a bikini or swimming trunks at a beach. These are social conventions. Gender is expressed in and through social conventions. Biology does not determine how we express our gender. It is, rather, a dynamic between our psychology (self perception) and society (social expectations and roles, recognition, social environment, etc.). Another way to put that is that biology is matter but gender is meaning. Gender is the symbolic value and meaning we attribute to our embodiment. Without society (language, relationships, conventions of different sorts) we wouldn't have the ability to derive meaning from our embodiment. In fact, we wouldn't even have a sense of self (!) because we wouldn't have language which is necessary for thinking and communicating.
It's not that the facts, as you state them and as Matt acknowledged, of biology go away. It's rather that biology (bodies and clomazones) are a separate category from gender (psychology and society). Performing a role, wearing a particular style of clothing, presenting one's self to others, are social/psychological choices indicative of a particular time and place. Think, for example, if you were told that you had to wear the clothing of a gender you did not identify with? You probably would not feel like yourself. You'd probably rather wear the clothing and present the style of the gender you identify with. That is what Matt was referring to regarding the difference between sex and gender. I, for example, am a man. I'm a man not merely because of my biology but because of how I relate to myself and others. If I was told I had to wear women's clothing I would probably feel uncomfortable. Not that there's anything wrong with wearing the cloths of other genders, but the point is rather that gender is an expression of the self to others.
I get what you mean when you write "If transgender women were women, then why use the prefix 'trans'? Because they are NOT women! They, instead, are transwomen. I do NOT care about how they feel if their feelings illegitimately trump our common sense of reality." However, that does not trump our common sense of reality. Rather, our COMMON sense of reality is common precisely because it is a social convention that we take part in. Our common reality includes biology (bodies) but also things that are less fixed (and even bodies are not necessarily fixed since our bodies are always changing as we age) - such as language, which itself is a social commons - relationships, expression, and our sense of self. Social reality is a different substance then biological reality. Biology is what a body does and how a body functions. Gender is our social identities and styles. It's a social fact as oppose to a biological fact. Just because it's not determined by biology doesn't make it any less real, just like the words I write are not "organic" or "biological" but rather a social convention based in the code of English used in order to communicate. "Reality" includes multiple layers which are conventionally material but also symbolic and social. Think, as another example of clock time. Clock time does not exist as a material entity but that does not mean it is not objective. It is a social convention that humans are able to organize around because we are able to interpret symbols and recognize patterns. Gender is like the symbolic layer of our embodiment.
Anyway, I'll just end it at that.
Best.
@@Tom-rt6df "False equivalence"? Hmm! I can't help but feel that your characterization of my comments about apples and oranges and all that as a false equivalence is itself a false equivalence. The question is not whether or not something is a false equivalence, but to what degree is it not relatable/relevant and to what degree is it relatable/relevant.
You wrote a lot and although I agree with some of the things you said, I find most of what you said irrelevant to what I had said. I did not at all discuss matters having to do with social constructivism and such, as important as they may be (and not necessarily that they are valid).
My arch concern is the public discovery and universal recognition of reality for what it is and not for what we wish it to be.
Although each one of us is constantly influenced by social forces, each one of us experiences everything in his/her biological body and biological brain. We are all biological every moment of our existence. That is the substrate upon which societies are built. Our biology gives us a narrowly limited set of expressions by which we conduct our individual and social lives. For example, the sort of clothing we wear fits us 'just right'. What do I mean by 'just right'? Well, the sleeves of the blouses we wear are not fifty five miles long. Yes, they would have been fifty five miles long if we were giants the size of mount Everest. This is perhaps a silly example to show the determinative role biology plays on societies. But, for now, it serves the purpose of showing that biology is the substrate upon which societies (human or non-human) are built. Our psychological lives are squarely and almost exclusively dependent on our brains and bodies. In fact, many mental illnesses that used to be diagnosed as purely psychological are now categorized as physiological whose locus is found to be in the brain. What I am trying to say is that it is eminently important to find out to what extent our beliefs, mores, and even possibly what is considered as knowledge, are the byproducts of our particular societies and therefore they should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. But NOT ---- repeat: NOT ---- everything is a social construct in the NON-TRIVIAL sense of the notion of "social construct". To see my point, imagine if I claimed that everything is a biological expression of all the we believe and do and live, and that BIOLOGICAL EXPRESSIONISM" rules supreme and trumps social constructivism. What would that accomplish? Nothing!
So, how do we understand reality for what it is and not for what we wish it to be?
When you see a biological male with danglers between his thighs, what do you call it?
What it is IS regardless of the fact of you, I or anyone else existing to tell what it is.
The Moon exists not because I happen to say so. When I am dead, and before I was conceived in my mother's womb, Moon existed just the same!
So, how do we understand reality for what it is and not for what we wish it to be?
@@fraiopatll633
"I can't help but feel that your characterization of my comments about apples and oranges and all that as a false equivalence is itself a false equivalence. The question is not whether or not something is a false equivalence, but to what degree is it not relatable/relevant and to what degree is it relatable/relevant."
- Fraio, I called it a false equivalence because you wrote that "an apple OBJECTIVELY is what it is and what it is not. This is not a social construct. There is a difference between an apple and an orange, regardless of whether this difference exists in any human society or elsewhere. Now replace apple with biological sex."
That analogy does not work (and is a false dichotomy) for a few reasons which I pointed out (and which you did not address): 1) Gender is NOT the same thing as Biological Sex. Biological Sex is bodies, Gender is social roles and identities. Plus 2) A "social construct" can also be OBJECTIVE. I gave the examples of clock time and language. Clock time is OBJECTIVELY what it is but it is but also not "real" in the material sense. It's real as a social construct. There is no such thing in the material world as June 2, 2023. That is a social fiction, but it's ALSO not subjective. It really exists objectively as a SOCIAL FACT, just like gender.
"You wrote a lot and although I agree with some of the things you said, I find most of what you said irrelevant to what I had said. I did not at all discuss matters having to do with social constructivism and such, as important as they may be (and not necessarily that they are valid)."
- It's valid because biological sex is not the same thing as gender but you are writing as if they are the same thing. Matt, and basically everyone, agrees that biological sex is a material category of the body. It's just not the same thing as gender.
"My arch concern is the public discovery and universal recognition of reality for what it is and not for what we wish it to be. Although each one of us is constantly influenced by social forces, each one of us experiences everything in his/her biological body and biological brain. We are all biological every moment of our existence. "That is the substrate upon which societies are built."
- I disagree. Society is the substrate upon which all meaning is built. We have bodies and also, at the same time, are SOCIAL and historical at every moment of our existence. The mere fact of biology does not determine our social existence. Like I wrote before, we would have no idea what ANYTHING at all means - biology, psychology, writing, thinking, words, etc. - without society and social facts like language - which are not biology. It's not just that we are "influenced by social forces" - WE ARE SOCIAL. We are the social force. Our "Selves" only exists because we are social. In other words, we would not have thinking and consciousness without society because we would not have symbolic understanding of what anything means and therefore no way of communicating or understanding anything at all, including ourselves. Our "brains" in the abstract do not spontaneously generate meaning. We have meaning because we are able to mediate our experience (like having a brain) through society via language. REALITY is not an either/or between biology and society, or between being "individual" and being "societal". These are simultaneous layers of reality.
Think of this analogy with a computer (yes human beings are far more complex than computers but this is just in order to demonstrate a point): biological sex is like hardware and gender is like software. Without hardware there is no computer, but if the computer has no software then it can't function. Some people have Male hardware (reproductive organs, chromosomes) but feminine software (psycho-social identity, and MIND/Consciousness) and vice-versa. Our minds are not just the brain. Our minds are our ability to use the brain to interact and intensionally create a world. Which is another example: World and Earth are not the same thing, in the same way that biology and gender are not the same thing. Without the earth we would not exist. But the fact that we exist and have to exist on a planet does not in itself determine the world. The world is a product of human activity in time, also known as society (our connection to history, meaning, infrastructure, ect.) . Gender is both a product and a producer of society. It is the embodied consciousness that attributes meaning to realities such as biology.
"Our biology gives us a narrowly limited set of expressions by which we conduct our individual and social lives. For example, the sort of clothing we wear fits us 'just right'. What do I mean by 'just right'? Well, the sleeves of the blouses we wear are not fifty five miles long."
- Blouses, and all clothing, are made by people for people. If someone with a 7 foot, 300 pound frame wanted to wear a blouse (regardless of their gender) then that blouse can be tailored because clothing doesn't exist in nature and we don't just exist as mere bodies in "nature" but as intentional historical creatures who create our selves with our minds and actions with others. Otherwise we'd all be naked living off the land like other animals and not in architectural creations in cities with roads and infrastructure, typing on computers. Biology does not determine that (it's always there but it's not the thing that creates Society. It's a condition of possibility for creating but not itself the act of creating). Biology is always there insofar as we are embodied but the body in and of itself does not create meaning.
"NOT ---- everything is a social construct in the NON-TRIVIAL sense of the notion of 'social construct'. To see my point, imagine if I claimed that everything is a biological expression of all the we believe and do and live, and that BIOLOGICAL EXPRESSIONISM" rules supreme and trumps social constructivism. What would that accomplish?"
Again, it's not an either/or. The biological and the social are simultaneous layers of our reality. Simultaneous. "Social construction" doesn't mean "just make it up" - it means we are bound by our ontology (our mode of being) to create meaning in a world of actions and meaning with others. Language is a social construct. The measurement of time by clocks is a social construct. Gender roles are social constructs. Etc.
ALL of this though is diverging from the original point which is that in the United States right now there is an attack on transgender people who are just trying to exist. Their existence is itself another confirmation that biology does not determine gender. That is true for all people.
"So, how do we understand reality for what it is and not for what we wish it to be?"
- "Reality" includes a world of our making (civilization, art, politics, music, fucking, playing living - these things are not predetermined). Some people, though, are more passive and reactive and maybe can't comprehend that human beings actively produce the world they live in.
"When you see a biological male with danglers between his thighs, what do you call it?"
- What a strange thing to ask? People don't put their hands down the pants of the people they meet to check their genitals (I mean unless they're looking to be arrested). Like I wrote above, we're not like other animals living naked in caves. Maybe you'd prefer that (I don't think you do and hope not) but I happen to like modernity (I like participating in discourse such as this for example on Modern machines like the computer). No one is saying that biological males don't have dicks. Rather, there are biological males who are transgender, in which case they live socially as women. Some of them get bottom surgery though most don't. Those "danglers" between the thighs of biological males do not determine ones gender but rather is a fact of a biological embodiment. I think we agree on that, though, so some of this is just taking past each other.
Either biological reality trumps socially constructed reality, or not. If not, then there is no limit to what may be 'constructed'.
That's no way to run a universe.
@@Tom-rt6df You're simply wrong to state that gender is separate to biological sex.
In all cultures in the World males and females have evolved according to the roles and activities which is highly specific to them .
Males, being bigger and stronger and faster - are physically equipped to hunt in remote and harsh locations for long periods of the year , whilst the family nest was occupied by the resident females , and they would look after young children, gather fruit , berries etc , and be very socialized to such an environment. AND THEY EVOLVED THUS !
For tens of thousands of years - ingrained in our very DNA to this day .
Use your common sense, this is so evident - the general differences btw males and females ..
Social construct was as it necessarily was.. and become bred into humankind. Our early early ancestors went through the fires to forge us , as we will for future generations.
You can't just wipe the slate clean here. Truth and reality will "intervene".
Listening to Matt on this subject is like listening to Sye Ten's evil mirrored twin.
What you believe in your head doesn't account for objective reality.
It's "When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.."
But this new argument suggests that you take the lemon seeds, genetically modify them to grow a cow, then eat that cow
Harsh, but probably true... 😉
Wow Matt is going by feelings people feel there is a God so it must be true there is a God this is the first of Matt's video's I've seen that i think he is wrong
Yes. People feel there is a God, therefore there are people who feel there is a God. People feel they are a gender, therefore there are people who feel they are a gender. So I'm not sure you think he is wrong. I think you just want him to be wrong.
@roxydejaneiro5640 He is an atheist, so he is wrong about one or the other his argument could be used for truth of a God if feelings are facts
@@roxydejaneiro5640just because they feel something doesn’t mean they are that gender
Matt: I care about the truth. I consider myself a skeptic. You should always ask questions and when people tell you to accept God on faith then that's a warning flag. You always need to be ready to justify it. People claim they've experienced God and I'm happy to accept they had an experience, but that's different from objective reality.
Random person: Yeah, that's excellent points. I agree. This is partially why I'm a skeptic in some of the claims about what it means to be trans.
Matt: WHAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!! :@ :@ :@ :@ :@
Matt lost his mind as soon as he kissed Arden.
Can’t believe I’m siding with Souza over dillahunty... he’s let go of his intelectual integrity in the hopes of making his trans friends no cancel his new show. What a shame.
I know I looked up to him for years.
@@DStrange865 I don’t mind his positioning on gender identity, but I do mind him knowingly lying saying that “the data suggest that this makes the suicide rate better”... which just isn’t true. He knows this too. I can’t respect that, and I definitely cannot respect his position if he’s willing to lie to stand by it. No different than a religious demagogue.
He's simply trying to keep his troon bf Arden Hart happy.
@@wadtony123 lol, I just looked up who Arden is. I gotta say, it sucks to see someone you looked up to become so cringe. That’s 2 of the 4 horsemen that lost themselves to pander to someone’s ideology.
The number of people who buy into the “gender is a social construct” trope is mind boggling.
It's NOT a social construct? What is it then?
@@citizenghosttown It's an observable reality of one's biology.
@@billtruttschel That's biological sex. Gender is different. But even if we stick to biology, we know that sexual identity doesn't always align with biological sex.
@@citizenghosttown That's the lie they've sold you in order to get around having to acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. GD IS a mental illness and both gender and sex are determined biologically.
@@citizenghosttown how are social constructs formed and how are they changed ?
Matt Dillahunty are you getting paid to say this.
0:06 Psychology is a field of science. 🤦♂️
Respect Matt but he should stick to religious arguments. Its a shame that a guy who prides himself on facts and science has this view
I am a hall of fame basketball player. I identify as that and I live as if I am. I impose on everyone that I am. If you don’t affirm that then I’ll unalive myself. I await the induction. Doesn’t matter if I’m short and out of shape.
No one cares what you identify with...
😂. Exactly
The world has been a pretty strange place for the last five or so years but Matt going along with this crazy Woke trans ideology stuff is the most surprising thing so far. Cant put into words my level of disappointment.
I think the biggest problem here is people not understanding what social constructs are and how to separate the social constructs in our world from the brute facts.
Everybody is claiming what you are saying. So the question is ... do you know what a social construct is? The next question is, what is the purpose of a social construct?
@@thomasprogli3372 in simplest terms, a social construct is something that is true or real solely because people agree that it is.
Some examples of social constructs are government, laws, money, language, units of measurement.
@@Mark73 So far we are in agreement. What is your oppinion on the stability of social constructs. Is it enough that all agree to a specific social construct and it will work?
@@Mark73 if that were the case then everything upon which we agree is real is a social construct, including facts, because there is no external validation which is perceived as such without being agreed that it is perceived as such, even if it hypotheticaly is real separate from our perception.
@@user-vt4hd8hb4v Not everything. The existence of a mountain is not a social construct, nor is its height. But notice that we can only describe its height by using social constructs in the form of agreed upon units of measurement like meters or feet.
4:47 Dinesh pronounces accoutrements "a-cooter-mint lmfao
Not the way I heard him pronounce it.
How's your Hindi and Konkani?
...btw, the French pronunciation is something like 'ah-coo-tra-mahn'. It is a 'loanword' from the French language, and we what were learnt to talk posh use the French pronunciation.
@@PrenticeBoy1688 lol touche...Monoglot making fun of someone's second language pronunciation...
@@PrenticeBoy1688 I am pretty good with French pronunciation but I only parle un peu and the peu I parle is probably only barely understandable
We don't have gender specific washrooms in airplanes. Make all public or restaurant washrooms single person rooms & don't specify gender.
That’s because they are for one person only. You can’t have large venues with restrooms for only one person - you’d be queuing up for hours 😂😂😂😂
Are you dumb?😂
Nobody is gonna pay to redesign single use bathrooms... and not phesable
@@morbidmanmusic Step one: take existing bathroom and put inside lock on outer door.
Step two: Remove signage signifying which gender the bathroom is for.
Done.
Nope. Men's and women's restrooms. Follow the rules.
@@cnault3244 step three: go piss in the woods if men's and women's bathrooms bother you, weirdo.
Dinesh is clearly correct here.
For those citing science as the basis for claims about the legitimacy of these sensitive issues, please note that these ideas (identity politics) are relatively new to the mainstream and are being performed in a context where people with dissenting theories (that don't fit the narrative) are often times promptly defenestrated from society. I am all about science and I am all about treating people with respect, but I am worried that this particular domain is compromised. You can find cases where simply reporting data that slightly insinuates something counter to the narrative is met with careers being ruined. The science cannot be settled on this subject until dissenting ideas can be met with genuine, good faith responses; not firings, excommunication, and witch burnings.
Even those ideas that seem phobic.
But SOME ideas we can KNOW are "phobic". We know a lot of people are "phobic" and we know they have the money and social capital to circulate lies and mistruths aimed at slandering traditionally marginalized groups, knowing they can muster a lot of support particularly because said groups (or identities) are marginalized. When those lies and mistruths are discovered, we have to find a way to ostracize them.
Because you're wrong, you see. The science isn't settled when all points of view are upheld equally. The science is settled when the science is settled. Because science isn't an opinion.
Otherwise we would have to constantly debate for the rest of eternity whether climate change is real, whether black people are inferior to white people, whether women can lead just like men ecc...
Is there a specific case where reporting data counter to the narrative "is met with careers being ruined"? Not doubting you, but genuinely interested in knowing more about this.
Dissenting theories not being part of the mainstream narrative have always been a problem in science. Hello Galileo??? But you don't have any dissenting theories on this topic based in science, do you? Otherwise you would just point to that instead of writing that diatribe.
@@brendanwilliams1338 Off the top of my head: Rosie Kay was a choreographer who lost her business after coming up against the gender ideology mob, she told her story in a Triggernometry episode. Kathleen Stock was a professor in the UK who was forced to resign after speaking out on trans issues. I think she got on Triggernometry too, in any case her story is easy to find online. Try searching "gender clinic whistleblower" too.
@@aaxen7255 Thanks. I was aware of those issues, but they revolve around the expression of ideas more generally. It's a problem; don't get me wrong. But I was asking if there had been cases where scientists were "met with careers being ruined" for reporting data specifically. Maybe your last example is an instance of this? I don't know. But that's what I was asking about. The reason I was asking was because the original commenter questioned the integrity and reliability of the data on this issue. And although I value compassion for transgender people, especially those subjected to harassment and violence, and the free expression of ideas, which is an issue about the vitriolic and constricted nature of political discourse, especially on this issue, I also care, above all, about the truth and integrity of evidence-gathering, so I really want to know whether the science is reliable (because I really want to get the right answer). Does that make sense? That's what I was asking.
I used to really look up to Matt and Sam Harris. If someone would have told me 15 years ago that I could lose so much respect for two individuals, I would have laughed in your face.
Just like you want to laugh at yourself now when we tell you social justice is inevitable and that you're on the wrong side right now.
I’ll try to illustrate the problem as I see it symbolically.
As to what constitutes being a man or a woman and how such can be ascertained we seem to have…as far as I can tell…the following cluster of properties put forward in these discussions.
1. Identity, or inner sense, In these specific cases I think this can be distilled down to (desire).
2. Physical presentation (fashion).
3. Action or behavior (performance).
4. Biological makeup (sex).
So let’s try the following…
Desire identity =x
Presentation=y
Action=z
Biology=n
Currently, the discourse surrounding the trans discussion seems to assert that what makes someone a man/woman is some combination of x y and z but not n. As man/woman are described as distinctly different from male/female. Man/woman being categories of gender (made up of components xyz) whereas male/female are categories of sex that is described in terms of biology (n). The move here is to posit a categorical difference between the concepts of gender and sex so that it then becomes valid to have a case where a male can be referred to as a “woman” without committing category error. This is taken as a sort of axiom but never to my knowledge justified or explained.
More specifically, of x y and z, only x is sufficient on its own to establish one’s gender. So fundamentally what it is to establish that one is a man/woman is simply to establish the existence of x. Of all possible properties x,y,z and n….x is the only essential property to the category of man/woman while y,z and n are accidental properties…or so the gender identitarian assertion goes.
Interestingly x can only be articulated in terms of yzn. As in identity in question or “identify as” can only be articulated in terms of the particulars of an identified object or the particular things that make up the identity in question. The particulars of an object one desires to embody. These take the form of yzn. Without particulars of an object of identification there is no ability to articulate an object thus there is nothing to identify “as”.
X(yzn)
Y is articulated in terms of zn. To present is to present as some material thing, it is itself an action(verb) in relation to an object(noun). One’s presentation is an ongoing action that is only articulable in terms of behavior and adornment of the physical body. How one looks(n) and behaves(z).
Y(zn)
Z is only described in terms of n. Action, potential action, bahavior, movement, these are all functions of the material body. What is the action of the body? The behavior of the body? The movement of the body? Function of the body? Etc.
Z(n)
N is described with reference to material reality. The biological body is made of matter, described in terms of function and form of that matter, the behavior of that matter and subsystems of that matter.
N(matter)
So
X(yzn)
Y(zn)
Z(n)
N(matter)
The only necessary and common component of any of these descriptions is n. Biology. Material reality. Rather than x, as asserted by gender identitarians.
This is my position, what constitutes a man or a woman can be described fundamentally as a function of n as every other component is ultimately only articulatable in terms of n. To posit any one of the other variables as THE necessary variable is to still tacitly make reference to n.
So not only is (n)the essential property to the category of man/woman. The property without which the category itself cannot be articulated/does not obtain…but the assertion that gender and sex are separate categories dissolves as the particulars that one needs to describe gender (X y and z) themselves necessarily contain a description of (n). The category of gender requires a description of the category of sex that it claims to be separate from.
So what are hermaphrodites or people born with chromosomal abnormalities?
@@donsachse There is almost always a dominant sex in these cases and that is what ia put on the infant's birth certificate. Also, chromosomal abnormalities alone are not considered intersex cases by virtually all clinicians. In the less than 0.02% of live births that have true intersex abnormalities (i.e. chromosmal sex does not match phenotypic sex) the infant is assigned a sex at birth, typically a decision made by the parents.
Dude this is baller
You realize the losing side in a debate when thatside keeps cutting off the other.
That has nothing to do with wining or losing.
I’m emotionally harmed by men coming into my female only spaces!!
But are you Matt Dillahunty's friend, who he is worried about?
So were the white women in the 60's when a black woman came. Not justified.
No you're not.
@@isabellalarkin8859 What right have you to impose limits on what does or does not inflict emotional harm on another person?
@@friendly-nemesis4754 I have every right to call out liars, nice strawman though. Here let me try, are you saying liars should be respected and that legislation should be passed based on their perpetual lies?
Matt has a problem allowing anyone else to speak.
Dillahunty has spent his life, claiming that thiests are deluded, yet he spends his entire time reinforcing the deluded. What hypocrisy. He's an intellectual coward. What happened to his old catchphrase. I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible? Not judging by his actions he doesnt. I used to respect this guy. I'm embarrassed to admit that now.
Answer: a TW wannabee porn star called Arden Hart, his partner.
Where do you draw the line between biology and psychology? It will not be the same for a single person. Life is complex... So why do people keep thinking they have it figured out?
Yup. Pretty much everything that happens psychologically is rooted in biology.
@@citizenghosttowna component rooted in biology sure, but environment is the larger factor normally, statistics on outcomes of people who experience child abuse or even just having a single parent show this.
I hear Personality here, not gender. A Tom Boy is a personality, not another gender.
You're wrong Mat. Trans women are men not women.
And why's that? Any evidence or arguments from well accredited philosophers? Or are you just stating your opinion without researching the issue first?
Dillahunty is so open minded his brain has fallen out
He's literally insane now 😅. He's sold off so badly .
What are you so afraid of.
Funny! I wish he could see it himself!😄😆
And you didn't have one to start with in order to make this comment.
You literally just cried and couldn't address anything SPECIFIC he said.
It's just embarrassing
The International Trans Headquarters building collapsed today. Engineers say the building failed because too many of the nuts identified as bolts.
I knew that Matt, deep down, was a religious man.
If being a woman is a matter of gender, not sex, why do we call prejudice against women SEXISM?
Imagine setting up an absolute meritocracy for sports, where women would practically never win against their male counterparts. How demoralizing would that be for women, who currently can be professional athletes and actually experience the struggle and joy of winning against an evenly matched opponent...
Sports are rarely evenly matched and never fair.
see people say this but like the whole concept of sports in general is mainly where people born with exceptional genetic factors are at an advantage so like, if you take the sex you're born with as a factor analogous with other genetic factors, then separating sports by gender is useless, at least theoretically. in todays society, there is a good reason for this but its because of the social constructs that have been in society for so long up to this point
If I could pose a question to Matt at an event like this, it would be the following:
On what basis does one deny the existence of a rational, immortal soul joined to the human body (hylomorphism), but affirm a gender identity or 'essence' that may or may not match the biological sex of the body?
How does a materialist/naturalist like Matt deny the first but concede the second?
What does the concept of gender identity possess that the soul doesn't?
It's a good question, but I would imagine Matt knows the answer: There's no evidence that a "soul" exists. On the other hand, there's demonstrable evidence that sexual/gender identity exists and does not aways correspond to biological sex.
@@citizenghosttownWhere's the evidence that shows gender identity exists please?
@@wadtony123 Where? Exactly where you would expect to find it. In peer reviewed publications in multiple scientific and medical disciplines: genetics, endocrinology, neurobiology, pediatrics, psychiatry, psychology etc.
@@citizenghosttown "Gender identity" theory is exactly that, a theory. Dreamt up by a pedophile called John Money.
Gender identity is as provable as a soul - which fraudster Matt dismisses. However, he professes to believes GI cos it enables him to bang a troon.
1:35 Matt debunks his side here. Being weak, wearing dresses, having a high pitch doesn't literally make you less of a man. Its sexist to say that you're something else because you dont identify with the stereotype of people with the same genitals.
His definition of gender is indistinguishable from personality.
Exactly. I’m a gay atheist (though fairly right wing) and I thought our whole point for the last, I don’t know, fucking forever was that someone can be a man and still wear stereotypically feminine clothing and have stereotypically feminine interests, because those STEREOTYPES are manufactured social constructs, but at our core we are still valid men, and the same being true with women.
And not only is he abandoning this point that people in his and our camp on gay rights for the last however long until seemingly 4 seconds ago, but now there’s literally no way to assess gender in his eyes other than by accepting it when somebody says it. Now for him the ideal is not women in masculine clothing sharing a restroom with women in feminine clothing, it’s women in masculine or feminine clothing possibly sharing a restroom with a creepy man in masculine clothing whose only identifying feature as a woman is his completely unverifiable claim that he identifies as that gender.
Now Im not saying the solution to all this is trans erasure. Its a complicated problem. Theres probably no good answer. But suppose Matt’s right and trans women would be picked on when using make restrooms. I’m sorry, but it’s just so obviously less bad for a biological male adult to deal with biological male adults in an abuse scenario in a male restroom than for an abuse scenario to involve a biological male and a biological female, possibly a child, in a female restroom.
So happy to see Matt not running away from another debate here.
Matt really committed ideological suicide on this one 😅
Its unfortunate as Matt is usually right on point when it comes to the facts of reality and the natural world, and criticizes those that twist themselves into pretzels to defend their beliefs... and here he is turning into a pretzel.
Being on the correct side of history often has a cost
@@brianmcgee127 He was right on in this one too,.your transphobia got in your way.
@@jonathan4189 But Matt will win in the long run when trans becomes legal like gay did. I'm 75 years old and lived back when people pulled gays or blacks with a rope behind their pick-up trucks. Trans will survive it's just a matter of time.
@@jerrylong6238 yeah. I’m just trying to reduce the body count that gets us there.
Strange that hyper logical Matt doesn't realise the circularity of the claim trans women are women.
Matt Dillahunty was serious cognitive dissonance!! I have lost total respect for him. Wake up Matt.
His porn star wannabee transwoman partner has messed up his mind.
Matt argued that the evidence against the proposition is in the depression and suicide rates. That is plain insufficient because one has to demonstrate that the depression is due to denial of the bathroom of choice. It could be due to other factors that have yet to be ruled out.
In any case, it is not about harm because in that case one might as well have unisex bathrooms.
What really irks me is how you can tell by the cadence in his voice (for example at 3:42 onward) that he's really fishing for applause.
He's not motivated by truth, he's motivated by esteem. He says whatever gets him applause from the masses. That's not someone who has integrity.
So instead of listening to WHAT people say, you listen to HOW people say stuff. That explains your willfull ignorance.
@@WhooshWh0sh 70-93% of communication is non-verbal. If you only listen to the what, and not the how, you're missing way more than I am.
@@cherkovision and all that alleged percentage is meta-garbage when it comes to what point a person makes. It is alright to be vary of the non-verbal info, but it is stupid to invalidate stuff said because you don't like HOW it is said. Which is what you just did.
@@WhooshWh0shBut my point wasn't that his "fishing for applause" invalidated his argument (although it could be considered an Appeal to Popularity fallacy). My point was just that it irked me.
If I wanted to actually address the "points" that he made...
1) He claims that gender is merely a social construct. And because it's a social construct, it's ultimately arbitrary and isn't rooted in reality. He gives the classic example that boys used to wear pink and girls used to wear blue. And yet he proceeds to talk about how gender falls into all sorts of different categories, while apologizing to his trans friends for "the things I'm about to get slightly wrong". But if gender is merely a social construct, then who's to say that it falls into all sorts of different categories? How can he be "wrong" about something that's just a social construct? Why are the opinions of his trans friends any more grounded in reality than the opinions of anyone else?
2) He doesn't actually give any reasons for why any of this stuff is true. He only says "what science has to say is that being supportive, encouraging, and allowing [people with gender dysphoria] to transition is the single best path to them surviving." So basically he's saying "it doesn't matter whether trans-women are actually women. What matters is that we SAY that they're actually women so that they don't commit suicide." He's literally saying that truth is less important than feelings. And that sets a very dangerous precedence.
3) He seems to be of the opinion that the safety of transwomen is of utmost importance. But at 12:44 when he says "when a transwoman walks into a woman's bathroom, you know who's in danger? The trans-woman!" he shoots his own argument in the foot.
Ultimately, his entire argument is "trans people feel depressed when people don't treat them how they want to be treated...therefore it should be illegal to not treat them how they want to be treated." I shouldn't have to explain how that sets a dangerous precedence.
Dillahunty’s suggestions are all terrible for natural women. They would never be able to compete at the highest level of any sport, and they’d be subject to being in an extremely vulnerable situation simply to go potty.
"vulnerable situation"? Either you can lock the door are not. It has nothing to do with whether there are men or women wanting to open the door. Do you really think a man has to pretend to be a woman to walk into a public restroom and victimize people? Do you really think "no penises allowed" is what's keeping people safe in a public restroom?