Destiny Barges Into Confusing Gender Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2024
- Destiny barges into Primecayes panel to debate and try to clarify the confusing topic of whether or not you can choose your gender...
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/...
►DISCORD - discordapp.com...
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
Primecayes
► / primecayes
► / primecayes
► / primecayes
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/destiny
Buy My Merch: dggstore.com/
If you missed it, Destiny is starting a Vtuber career on the second channel ---> ua-cam.com/video/kNtI7rvVCIw/v-deo.html
It's a charity goal.
Bless him
Is his avatar also a girl called Destiny?
Hey editor dude, could you please put PrimeCayes UA-cam link in the description box? We’re trying to grow his UA-cam and it would help a lot. Thanks!
Is Bestiny an official extra channel?
@@JCpwnge CRINGE
Gender is so confusing, for instance, did you know? Destiny is a girls name, yet he is a boy. Curious?
@Xavier Leon Only 9/11 tho
@Xavier Leon TR OOO
He’s non-binary
@@beastmodecowboy209 yup!
did you just assume his gender?
Having a girls name while identifying as a man means a conflict between Destiny's objective and subjective gender, making him trans.
He is non-binary btw
@@williambittner4601 is this a legit thing they're trying? Or is Destiny doing it to prove a point?
Bless jesee lee betason for creating this beautiful meme
@@SweetCake8 he said hes non binary therefore hes nonbinary
@@Twister-V1 ok so you using he/him pronouns still?
Destiny? Thats a non-binary streamers name
TRRUUEE!!!
BEYTAAA!!!
And a stripper in Atlanta's name too
Amazin
@@juuk3103 What do you know about ATL’s scene
We’re officially in the gender arc
this discussion feels like people defining D&D rules for their group where everyone has a rulebook from a different year.
Gender is not like a board game.
@@tmsphere ITS NOT A BOARD GAME ITS A TABLE TOP ROLE PLAYING GAME REEEEEEEEEEE
@@tmsphere yeah, DnD is more complex
@@tmsphere Lol gender is totally a societal game, let's see which side of the debate will win xd
@@tmsphere more like bored game, amirite?
So annoying when people absolutely refuse to interact with a hypothetical.
Sometimes people find hypothetical To be too absurd as to never happen there for nonsensical.
@@heinz57channel39 Yet, much of the time we use hypotheticals at the absurd to test the foundations of people’s thinking.
True Destiny stans LOVE hypotheticals!
@@NoBody-dj1jj The only people who take issue with hypotheticals are right-wingers and those who can't understand abstract art.
@h z What left winger takes issues with hypotheticals?
>Finishing watching latest Destiny video
"what else is on"
>right in my feed
"oh cool"
same
I need to get onto more of these panels
yes
PLEASE.
Please help Destiny update his trans athlete positions
@@johnleoks7642 This. Please talk to him on stream about the trans athletes doc.
What is Destiny's stance on Trans athletes?
When did gender become another word for personality?
They will realize this once every person has their own gender and we start grouping people by phenotype into male and female again for convenience because its too much of a hassle to deal with as many genders as there are humans.
Seriously their view of gender leads the whole concept of having gender as a category for easy social interaction ad absurdum.
People never seem to understand gender and gender identity are two separate things
@@xcccx5 How so? I understand how sex and gender are two different things but how are gender and gender identity two separate things?
@@ddandymann You're right, by gender I meant sex. Personally I feel like the change of the definition lead to a lot of confusion where there didn't have to be any, but that's just me🤷
@@xcccx5 I agree and that's why I don't use it. When talking to normies, the 90% of the population that isn't tuned into online politics, all you get if you start talking about gender vs gender identity are blank expressions. However if you talk about sex vs gender then people start to understand what you're on about.
Destiny really revealed his full power level from the start, showing an insanely more nuanced understanding of the words and the feelings with his first two definitions, and every response from the panel in the first 10 minutes I've seen so far was just brainlet nitpicking.
His argument only proves his point, if you accept his presupposition.
For example, his question: "Why wouldnt gay people just think themselves straight?" How do you know millions of gay people haven't done that, already?
@@falseprophet1024 You'd argue that there'd be people who come out and say so. If we had the capability to rewire our brains on the fly just by thought alone that seems like something that would be a little more news worthy or would be said by at least someone.
@Taylor
So the people who thought themselves straight in an effort to not be gay, are going to publicly announce they were gay? Lol..
The brain is far more adaptable than you think, and you can control it more than you think. Also, if nobody claimed to be able to do this, where did the term 'mind over matter' come from?
It upsets me that Dr K doesn't put in an effort to remain logically consistent.
It upsets me that Dr K doesn't put in an effort to videogame themself.
it upsets me that Dr K doesnt just go away and get pegged by some strong women he know who can beat all this guy asses.
So it sounds like some people are using the word choose in ways that I don't think they would normally. I dont think people choose their feelings. You dont choose to feel happy, sad, hungry, sexually attracted to certain people, etc. People instead make choices (take actions) based off those feelings (you're hungry, you eat), or to try and get a certain feeling (you want to be happy, so you watch a movie you really like). I think gender identity is in the same boat. You dont choose how you feel about your gender, you just feel your gender, and then you make choices (take actions) based on those feelings. It's very strange to me that people are trying to make the claim people choose their gender identity, since again, I don't think people would normally claim they choose any of their feelings.
Edit/Update: Based on the comments I am seeing below, it seems I should clarify some points. I am trying to draw a distinction between feelings (desires and identity) and choices (actions). I don't think most people would say they "choose" to feel hungry at a particular moment in time, or that they "choose" to feel sad when a love dies, or that they "choose" a particular person they are attracted to. I think most people would say they make choices (take action) based on their feelings (but also including external pressures/forces). If a person were feeling sad, but desired to be happy, I don't think most people would claim they could just will themselves to be happy, they would probably take actions (make choices) that they know illicit a feeling of happiness for them. Saying because they desired to be happy, so they choose it sounds to me like it is skipping the part where they take actions to become happy. (Also if you were sad, but desired to be happy, where does the desire to be happy come from?)
So to connect this back to gender identity, however a person decides to express their identity is the choice part, and the feelings that lead them to make these choices is their identity/feelings. I look at identity as a series of feelings that are much less prone to change than the other "emotional" feelings of happy or sad I was using as examples earlier. How a person feels about themselves probably can't be changed on a whim, and is going to reflect their choices and how they feel about those choices over time. I think to claim that feelings/identity is a choice broadens the definition of the word choose in a way that most people don't use, and isn't necessary to convey these points about gender, identity, and expression across (if anything, it only serves to confuse people). (Although to be a bit fair, the definitions of words have and can broaden in usage/definition overtime, and maybe I am just having a hard time processing the attempt to do it to the word choose)
Hopefully this clarification makes more sense, and not less.
What if you feel neutral towards genders (sake of brevity I'll use binary), so being a female or being a male doesn't feel any different, only differences would be the pros and cons which balance out overall. But for the sake of being more socially "normal" so to speak, it is easier to conform to one gender specifically and follow those rules. Hence "choosing" one (more like randomly picking one), since either are fine. Does that make any sense? It's also a hassle when being with other people and them having to wonder which gender you are today (once again, there is no difference for me), so practically speaking, just choose one gender and don't make it so overcomplicated for everyone?
@@hollanderson I'm not sure I entirely follow what you are trying to get at. If someone felt they were non-binary, but made the decision to express themselves as male or female because of societal pressures, I would say the following. The feeling is being non-binary, but the choice is to express themselves as male or female due to other feelings (not wanting to be ostracized from soceity).
The way one person chooses to express their identity does not have to be the same as that person's identity.
@@alslayer18 yea like when destiny responded to the guy who said “your asking why does anyone commit suicide ever”. And Destiny said “Well no because you could commit suicide due to external factors”
The NB person isn’t “choosing” their gender just willy nilly. They are making a choice based on those external factors (societal pressures)
I think the misconception may come from the non-binary part. I don't think not giving a shit about gender is non-binary.
your experience is not universal. stop boxing iin desire like that.
I’m a trans woman, I agree with Destiny’s takes on this 100%. I felt really cringe towards the person who was non-binary and is now trans. I feel like they tried to dominate the conversation and had a very delusional stance on trans people and what words mean. Destiny has been saying exactly what I’ve been telling people. Being a woman is being treated as a woman by society and being trans is being treated as trans by society, so trans women can have both of those experiences generally, but no one can just suddenly self-ID as trans or as a woman and be that. To me, trans means to transition. There aren’t any real examples of actual trans people who don’t transition unless you’re talking about medical issues, expense of transitioning, or conflicting issues with your environment that don’t allow for transition. Words have to reference something, and if they reference nothing, then it’s completely meaningless. Your social experience is what you pass as. Period.
If you don't pass as that which you are, your social experience will be fundamentally different than either being what you pass as or being more associated with identity archetypes or stereotypes. Cis women and trans women don't generally have the same "woman" experience; trans women and nonbinary women generally don't have the same "trans" experience, even though the three may (in some cases) be presentationaly indistinguishable. No two women are going to define what it means to be a woman the same way because of the intersectionalities that influence experience. And no, not every trans person wants to transition, and that's coming from a non-binary trans-femme person on hormones. Miss me with that transmedicalist bullshit.
@@empressfm156 It’s not about lived experience, it’s literally how strangers perceive you and the behaviors from strangers based off that perception.
@@empressfm156 “not every trans person wants to transition”, that makes absolutely 0 sense and I’ve never heard that from anyone who wasn’t already on hormones.
@@yahoohotmail4127 People's behaviors towards you are impacted by more than just your physical appearance. They impacted by a variety of external factors like cultural context and institutional structures and factors native to you outside of appearance and presentation like socialization and intersectional identity.
@@empressfm156 “non binary trans femme on hormones”, what does non binary trans mean if not just trans gender-nonconforming? What are you doing besides identifying as words that don’t reference back to anything except self-ID and expression that’s non-conforming?
Destiny and RGR actually helping change minds on trans people. I like this arc..
@@JCpwnge over what? Their positions haven't changed at all, and times of screaming matches are over.
@@JCpwnge nah, their debates were dwarfed by Destiny being a drama Andy, so nah, fuck Fuentes.
Yeah as a trans person I appreciate their arguments
@@JCpwnge What exactly changes if they debated Fuentes? Nick's fans likely aren't going to change when they're this far down the rabbit hole, Destiny and Vaush's fans already know that Nick is a lunatic, and nothing is accomplished while no actual meaningful, constructive discussion is brought to light because the two of them and Fuentes are way too incompatible with one another to have a civil discussion.
You sound like you just want to see blood-sports, dude, and this is why both of them get typecasted as "debate-bros" who only look to debate people for the attention and monetary gain, when in reality it's not them so much as their fans who obsess over videos of them owning idiots on the far-Right. Nothing gets accomplished by this.
Both parties aren't getting through to one another because ideas like "choice" , "belief" and "want" aren't neatly defined.
you mean aren't :)
@@leajey4279 yup my b
wut
That one guy keeps framing the issue like something is either a choice or immutable... It's driving me nuts.
It basically comes down to the free-will argument: 'you are free to *do* as you want, but you can't choose *what* you want"..
I'm 8 minutes in, and i seriously need someone to just express:
"Your identity is hard to understand internal mess that you constantly feel. And while you don't choose what that mess contains, you can choose how you catagorize and identify that mess"
I'm pretty sure everyone could agree on that.
Not everyone knows what that feeling is or what category they belong to. How does someone identify as man/woman/nonbinary, what am I supposed to feel to know which group I belong too?
I don't know how the other people in that group feel. So hows it possible for me to identify with them.
I can't say I have ever "felt" an identity.
categories are literally forced upon u, try categorizing a cup as a spoon.
@@backwardthoughts1022
But you can do that. For the most part, a cup has the same usage as a spoon. I can use a cup to spoon things into my gullet. Right into my feeeed.
@@MM-ix1rqyou don't "feel" that ur a women, u just are just like you don't feel whiteness or your hair color
I’m a lesbian so I fully understand Destiny and RGR’s arguments that I made the choice to identify myself as gay, but I didn’t choose to be gay. I made the choice to come out, but I was always attracted to the same sex even when I thought of myself as straight. That tension between what I’m feeling and the category I’ve fit myself into is what motivated me to explore my own identity and express that to the world. None of this is controversial at all. People are just so worried about where the argument is headed (aka “people who don’t feel x aren’t valid”) that they aren’t letting themselves listen
@Brittany Du right, but I was still a lesbian when I was in the closet. I was straight to the world, but I still wasn’t straight. In retrospect, I was a lesbian the whole time. That’s the distinction Destiny and RGR are trying to make - there is some internal process that differentiates a lesbian in the closet from a straight woman. If we say self-identity is the only thing that matters, then I was no different from a straight woman until I came out. Because I experienced same-sex attraction even while identifying as straight, there was something that called me to come out that didn’t call to women who continued to identify as straight. I did not choose for that “something” to call out to me. As RGR was arguing, that “something” is what made me gay, not the term I used to describe myself.
Now as a practical matter, I can’t go around saying “person x isn’t straight, they’re just in the closet” or “person y isn’t gay even though they say they are” because I have no way of telling what someone feels internally, so I trust their self-identification until that changes. But this conversation is not about determining another person’s identity. We are talking about how to describe gay and trans experiences and the ways in which they differ from straight and/or cis experiences. Does that make sense?
This seems to be norm for a lot of people. I find it interesting because I was born straight and was never attracted to men, you could almost say I was put off by them, but over the years, from around when I was 18, I fell down the trap rabbit hole. Initially, it didn't change my position but over the past 8 years I have absolutely grown an attraction to men, albeit still feminine looking ones, and like Destiny says, I am bisexual but romantically I would not consider dating a masculine looking man, though I might have sex with them if they are particularly handsome.
Now was this a choice I made (as I believe it is) or was I just born this way and simply didn't find out until later in life? Because I am strongly in the choice camp. By no means am I saying that it always IS a choice, I am simply giving account of my experience. I strongly believe that the majority of people do not choose their initial preference, but I do believe that you can add to it depending on how open minded you are and how you condition yourself in reacting to it. But I also think that you are anywhere from 'very unlikely' to 'impossible' to remove your attraction, both the gained one, but particularly your initial one. I don't think anyone could convince me not to be attracted to women, but I also don't think I could stop being attracted to feminine men.
I also wasn't born into being a behave member of modern society, I chose it.
These discussions are usually pretty interesting, then Dr. K walks in...
By the way, not to be disrespectful, but what is that one's gender?
@@jackallenproductions lol I'm in the exact same boat
@@jackallenproductions Also why tf did he steal Dr. Kanoja's title of Dr. K?
@@MrAtbillings she goes by she/her if I remember from the other debate
Yeah tell me about it. Dr. K and also the guy in the bottom row all the way over to the left were pretty annoying.
I think it comes down to how much “pressure” to “not conform” is placed on confused children.
It’s gone beyond helping ones that need help, and gotten to the point that some people want to fine tune the gender identity of kids that haven’t even fully developed one.
Believers in "gender" ideology are fixated with ENFORCING the exact same gender stereotypes (just with sexes swapped) that they claim to be (somehow?) "opposing".
Imagine if conservatives tried to use drugs, to try to enforce those exact same stereotypes onto children, but NOT sex-swapped- How is it not just the same thing, but just slightly WORSE, to use drugs to enforce these pointless stereotypes on OPPOSITE-sex kids (in perfect physical health, Before they're chemically mutililated without consent, to make them conform to these all-important stereotypes... justifed by exactly ZERO empirical evidence of any medical issue, at all...)
And exactly WHO are these "gender non-conforming" children, who are being chemically sterilized (whether partially or fully), and often robbed of ALL adult sexual function, in pursuit of conformity to traditional stereotypes?
Anyone who's been around kids, knows that the "gender non-conforming" ones are MOST LIKELY to end up gay or lesbian, not trans- But gay/lesbian kids ARE still confused and insecure about their identity, and are VERY easily coaxed to buy into the (100% evidence-free) "born in the wrong body" meme, as a way to explain their (perfectly normal and healthy, though very upsetting to experience) adolescent confusion about identity...
...which results in this evidence-free ideology is doing EXACTLY what conservative, rabidly anti-gay Iran has been doing solve thier """homosexual problem'"" since the 70's;. Transforming gender non-conforming, gay males, into (the ILLUSION of) "gender-conforming, hetero women"... (except in Iran, they 1. ONLY do it to males, and 2. they do it in adulthood, when the man CAN, in theory at least, give valid consent... Unlike Western "gender" ideologues, who 1. convert BOTH gay men AND lesbians. And 2. who do it in childhood, when there's NO POSSIBILITY of valid, meaningfull consent... So western "gender" nuts are objectively far MORE anti-gay, and more HARMFUL to gays and lesbians, than the overtly, explicitly anti-gay Iranian gov't...)
And again, this is ALL in pursuit of gender-conformity; An ideological REFUSAL to just accept gender non-conforming people (gay/lesbian or not) AS THEY ARE, to help them ACCEPT their real-life, perfectly healthy body, and to NOT encourage their most self-destructive tendencies (to believe that their demonstrably real, evidence-based sex must somehow be "wrong", in some mystical, undefinable sense, because of their non-conformity to stereotypes), and use that as justification for 100% medically unneccessary chemical/surgical mutililation... ie, The "gender" ideologues KNOWINGLY encourage people into a demographic which has a 42% rate of suiicide...
To me, this fell apart when it got to the race and sex talk. it was like they were purposely being dense with each other, it was irritating.
Who is the person who would randomly interject while not seemingly paying attention, "who on this panel has had to buy a binder for their child" person?
This guy had such weird energy
lol i thought that boomer guy was pretty funny ngl
@@Icedapple46 major yakubian energy
playing the avengers game in the webcam lmao
What an interesting chat. Seems to be messy, but at least people are engaging with it politely and...
_Dr. K has entered the chat_
Nevermind.
@@micahellis5390 Because they're simultaneously dismissive of everyone that doesn't agree with their views while also being lacking in either the knowledge or the ability to convey their beliefs or views in a way that's persuasive.
@@note4note804 why do they even allow her into the panels....
Dooby: laying out an extensive backstory to his genuine moral quandary
Dr. K :”wHaT’s YoUr PoInT dUdE???”
@@Araz907 “you’re creating a fantasy scenario, my dude”
@@fungdark8270 "this hypothetical is dumb because it doesnt follow my utopian wish for universal free post scarcity healthcare so im not going to answer it"
lets be real guys, Dr. K only gets on these panels because shes trans. if she was just cis, especially a cis man. they would never get on these panels because she doesnt actually provide any input whatsoever, nobody would want to actually engage with her
10 kills on the board right now
Just wiped out tomato town
My friend has gone downed
The argument that the debate over trans individuals in sports is moot because it constitutes such a slim percentage of cases seems like a strange point to make. Whats the threshold that makes it matter? Trans people only constitute .6% of the total population but we don't say trans issues aren't important because of that.
Oh 100% A 6’4” trans woman dunking on 5’4” cis women at twice the mass is still just horrible horrible optics for the trans community. People are like “but if they’re on hormones for two years they don’t have male muscle mass.” As if that means anything for someone training as a male athlete years prior to transition. Such a weird argument. It’s like none of these people are self aware.
And less than 0.0001% of people compete in the Olympics. The extreme cases matter when it comes to extreme competitions.
Destiny, That's a woman's name... ...Wait hold on, what's a woman again?
@@andrewraby8008 they pussied out RIP
@@andrewraby8008 They did once they added T onto LGB.
Someone who cant choose to not be a woman 5Head
Destiny’s patience is astounding.
I get the other person was acting in good faith, but they just couldn’t understand where destiny was coming from.
Honestly I liked the GSUgambit dude it just seemed he hadn't thought that much about the issue.
Right in my feeeeed
And DONT forget to turn on notifications
I feel like I could just spend all my free time on watching Destiny Highlights, with the current rate at which you're uploading
They're faster than I can keep up with now. Finally, it's happened.
That's sad
AH! I get what GSUGambit is saying now, his belief is that EVERYTHING is a choice, right? So, much like the example that Steven used about black girls having to straighten their hair, it can be a choice to change your hair and to change your gender identity. It’s just that there are a bunch of things weighing down one side of the scale. Heaviest of all being Black identity/convenience for not straightening hair, and your inner feelings for gender identity.
So it’s stupid basically. You don’t really call that a choice.
Would you consider it an honest choice if someone held a gun to your head unless you cut your tongue out? It’s a choice, right? You CHOSE to cut out your tongue. RIGHT?
Yea, thats what I got to. Ultimately we all can make a choice, I could go murder someone today, but society doesn't like that. Society affects our choices, theoretically we can make as much choices as we want, practically we can;t.
except your identity, and who you are sexually attracted to is not a choice. Its an unconscious process that you have no conscious control over, and you need to have conscious control over something to be able to control it.
The issue is more fundamental than coercion/duress even. In your scenario, what happens to the tongue in the end is the performative action, how you feel about your tongue is the part that you don't really get to choose and that informs what choice you end up making there, whatever you end up doing. If someone really doesn't like their tongue, then maybe it isn't a big deal, they were planning to cut it out anyway. If they're pretty attached to it, then maybe they bite the bullet. GSUGambit supposes that the final choice gives full information on how attached someone was to their tongue, with the assumption that if they cut it out, that they didn't want it whatsoever. How could they want it when they "chose" to lose it? In fact though, the choice of expression is separate and is not fully informative, even when not made under coercion and/or duress. Especially because the underlying state may change, but that doesn't mean we choose to change it. I don't think the tongue analogy is very good though.
Think of it this way, it's sort of like the weather. You can't change the weather, you experience it, you can make choices about how you are going to handle it, but you certainly don't choose the weather. It certainly isn't "immutable" either though, it changes all the time, it can change you, but you don't really change it. I mean... you can, maybe, over a long time, in ways you probably didn't intend to (e.g. Climate Change), but even making choices to try and push climate one way or another doesn't give you much control over the day to day weather.
"uuuh.. sorry I was counting my factories"
hahah
22 seconds, right in my feed!
@@JCpwnge isn't Fuentes only on D Live? Why the fuck you want to debate a banned meme.
@@JCpwnge imagine not debating someone for years and then spamming this request to debate a duder that is banned literally everywhere.
@@JCpwnge also yeah, real political activism is definitely meme worthy, like helping Democrats to take over Georgia.
I'd like to see another Fuentes debate.
@@JCpwnge I don't think they are banned everywhere besides neo-nazi adjacent website unlike Fuentes.
I don't like the take that finding correlations between certain brain signals and transgenderism is "biological essentialism". It was mentioned offhand but I gotta push back on it. Unless you're gonna argue for mind-body dualism, gender identity and everything else in our consciousness has a biological origin. As in, the signals that make up our consciousness arise from biological processes. They are material, and therefore they are measurable, in principle. It might be extremely difficult to ever do this practically or to decipher every single individual's brain signals and their meaning, but nevertheless, it's possible. That's not "essentialism".
I think it is essentialism. You (and I) are just materialists. Although, you must also recognise the shortcomings of current neuroscience obviously.
@@TheMickydowling Of course I don't expect the current state of neuroscience to be anywhere close to being able to discern the gender identity of a person based on brain measurements, I agree with you there. I just think it should be completely agreeable that, in principle, gender identity could be measured, and that doesn't mean it doesn't matter or anything like that. I guess it's true that it is a form of essentialism, I just want to push back on the negative connotations that are usually meant when somebody says something is biological essentialism.
Wait, I could definitely be wrong here. But wouldn’t a counter point be the fact there is biological origins for why we see colors, but we cannot really explain the experience of a certain color?
@Brittany Du Do you mean a genetic marker? I could understand that, but that isn't what I mean to suggest. To believe that gender identity and every other aspect of consciousness does not have a biological source (ie. a source meaning certain signals and structures in the brain that those parts of your conscious experience arise from) then you must argue for mind-body dualism.
I don't think you need to endorse dualism to think that the feeling of being a trans person doesn't arise from completely biological processes. Lots of alternate metaphysical views like panpsychism reject the premise of physicalism altogether.
Materialism/physicalism dictates that qualia/experience/phenomenal states are not over and above brain processes, meaning that you could say x experience is identical to a certain brain state, but there are issues with it.
For one, even if in principle, you knew everything about someone's brain processes. As in, you could study someone's brain to its fullest extent, you wouldn't know what is like (phenomenologically) to be that person. The best bat neurologist who studied the brain of a bat fully, won't know the qualia or feeling of being a bat (Nagel wrote a good paper on this). It's hard to see how experience is not over and above brain processes if studying all about the brain doesn't give us the same information. In this case, studying all we want about a person's brain (even with sufficiently advanced tech) who says they are trans wont give us information on what they actually feel aka their gender identity. So I don't agree that you could measure qualia.
The argument here is that there is an ontological distinction between brain and experience. Since there is, we cannot use measurable data on the brain to map it with experience.
There is evidence that brain structure and gender identity are related. There's a part of the brain that's generally different in males and females, and it correlates with the gender you recognise as and not simply your sex. The important thing though is it's an imperfect correlation. You can't even tell if someone is male or female, let alone trans or not, from that alone. The correlations, however, are plenty strong enough for us to say there's almost certainly a biological basis for transness.
The nature vs. nurture thing isn't a real dichotomy. It's pretty much always both, and whatever characteristic is being looked at is affected by each to a differing degree.
I wanted to say this at the time, but yes, you are 100% right. I like to call it "bio-psycho-social" in nature, as it combines a number of influences together to form a complex emergent conscious experience.
@@empressfm156 Yeah, I'd agree with that. It's hard at the time at the time especially when someone chimes in straight away with "be careful, that could be trans-medicalist" or whatever they said. The problem right now is that the trans-medicalist stuff has made people sceptical of the science when an unbiased look at it only supports the validity of trans identity.
imagine saying it both correlates yet is emergent in the same sentence
@@backwardthoughts1022 Did anyone? I don't get your point.
@@backwardthoughts1022 This can be the case? lol
We should petition dr. K to change her name. She's making the other dr. K look bad.
Dr. K at home:
Did not expect to see John Snow on this panel.
Littlefinger too
We could do a lot of work by just rejecting gender as this compound concept, and only refer to the underlying components when necessary
I don't think there's a single gender debate/discussion where everyone involved comes out less confused than not
A bunch of lefties tripping over the logical incoherence of their epistemology
Leftist?
How many analogies does Destiny have to use, Jezus. How is this so hard to understand?
Hey man not everyone is up to date with all these terms. Destiny's analogies help a lot tho
for instance I have ADD and his anologies with not being able to just choose to be add helped me understand a lot... I think haha
@@Bolivia2010100 Hello, my dude.
I am not familiar with all the terms either, I just learned what terfs are. But what he was talking about was as clear as crystal.
It's why being a teacher is one of the hardest things in the world.
Inner : EVERYONE ELSE GETS IT TAYLOR, THE FUCK YOU MEAN YOU DONT GET IT"
Outer : 'Well, the train is leaving station A..."
@@Artisn Truuuuuuuuuue, good and great teachers have the patience of a saint.
1:21:38
This is actually just a cringe take to anyone who has a background in math.
Russell's paradox is a criticism to naive set theory, which was thrown out long ago in favour of ZFC, which has yet to be proven inconsistent.
The Axiom of Specification allows you to "filter" for elements from a larger set using arbitrary predicates, so as long as your larger set can be constructed in ZFC, it's fine.
ZFC does provide a formal definition for "numbers".
Also, Destiny's takeaway that "elements in a set might only share the fact that they're in the same set" flies straight in the face of the comments he's made on social constructions before.
Even if a set is just defined by filtering over a disjunction of predicates, if the set is "interesting", (or analogously, if a social construction is "useful"), there are probably theorems about that set that would apply to all of the elements.
And while I'm on this tangent, "set" and "category" aren't interchangeable when you're talking about formal math.
In fairness, it was 4 in the morning and we're talking to a layman audience, but I'm referring to native set theory here. ZFC's axioms don't allow for its use in defining language, an amorphous social construction, which is what the previous speaker had done implicitly. Yes, ZFC can be used to define numbers, but the entire point is that it's axiomatic; it's simply asserted as true, rather than being proven true or derived from some "natural" source approach as Frege might be characterized as having attempted.
@@empressfm156 I'll happily cut y'all some slack for it being 4am in the morning.
Also, thank you for replying
My memory on this is a bit murky, but don't we still need to confront the Axiom of Choice? Is that no longer controversial? I mean, it's become fairly normalized, but that isn't the same as actually resolving those quibbles. Well, the Banach-Tarski paradox is more of a physical than a mathematical paradox. So, it's probably fine. But don't we all prefer Zorn's Lemma? :P
@@empressfm156 Your claim that we can't use ZFC to define language is actually just wrong. The only problem with naïve set theory is that sets can get too big (Russell's paradox). As soon as you find a universal set existing, like the "set of all living people" or "set of words/phrases in the Oxford English Dictionary or Urban Dictionary" or something else, you can do naïve set theory *within that universe* and it is essentially the same as ZFC (indeed, by design). It is only limited by how well language approximates predicates, which is never a problem because ambiguity can be patched ad-hoc (even if this is occasionally expensive); this is essentially what the supreme court is for in US law, for example.
As for the comment about different objects in the same """"category"""" sharing no other things in common, this is ill-defined (or, at least, extremely computationally expensive); you can find a strictly better (more specific) "thing in common" whenever those two objects don't comprise the whole set. In particular, in the genocide case, say the action of genocide A ticks option 1 and B ticks option 2; well, then A and B both either option 1 or option 2. This is more restrictive than the complete description of an action of genocide AND is has a lower-information description than the previous condition. Indeed, Destiny's initial intuition that you really can't have two objects which are part of the same set but share nothing else in common is essentially true, except when those two things are all there is, like "true and false" in the set {true, false}.
I oof'd pretty good there.
I just want to know, is this whole video just GSUGambit being confused but still having a strong opinion on things?
@@andrewraby8008 That's fair, it's just very difficult to watch.
hes literally the embodiment of he a little confused but he's got the right spirit
Just CHOOOOOOSE! OH MY GOD IM CHOOOOSING!
Wait, you can't have your cake and eat it too?
You mean i cant define my gender as a choice while losing my shit at TERFS who tell me my gender is a choice? cancelled
@@tmsphere You can't have a protected class if you can't define it you can't protect it.
Set theory does not contain contradictions, at least of which we are aware. The problem is with naive set theory. Russell's paradox is relevant to naive set theory. However, modern axiomatic set theory (eg, ZFC) precludes such paradoxes by carefully choosing what axioms sets satisfy.
You are 100% correct here, but those axioms would also preclude the usage of set theory that was being implicitly described because of the amorphous nature of language.
@@empressfm156 For sure. The big picture problem regards certain forms of self-referencing. The axiomatization of set theory fixed this issue for math, as far as we know. Doing something similar with language or logic would be a Herculean task, particularly due to the inherent limits of axiomatic systems.
For minorities, it may be best to not give broad support for wide groups (like say black people), but give support for specific narrow issues (say color discrimination, historical trauma, judicial bias, etc). That way we do not have to try to cleanly define whatever group but we can easily address the issues people may face
1:22:05 This is a clear misunderstanding of mathematical philosophy and a poor critique of set theory.
Modern set theory under the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms resolved Russell's paradox. Currently, there are no known contradictions in the ZF Axioms, and it is regarded as highly unlikely that any contradictions exist. However, the only "issue" with the ZF Axioms is that, assuming no contradictions exist, they produce an incomplete system (by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem), essentially meaning that one cannot prove all true statements under this system using these axioms. This is not the same as saying that set theory is contradictory. Naive set theory is contradictory, but the ZF Axioms were literally created to resolve those contradictions.
Okay, to clarify, apologies in advance for the canned responce: In fairness, it was 4 in the morning and we're talking to a layman audience, but I'm referring to native set theory here. ZFC's axioms don't allow for its use in defining language, an amorphous social construction, which is what the previous speaker had done implicitly. Yes, ZFC can be used to define numbers, but the entire point is that it's axiomatic; it's simply asserted as true, rather than being proven true or derived from some "natural" source approach as Frege might be characterized as having attempted. So yes, ZFC can be used to define numbers, but not through appealing to categorical distinction in the way that native set theory did as applied by Frege, which is how the previous speaker had attempted to use it.
I’m early umm.. Something about the name destiny and straight into my feed
Literally everyone: HAHAHAHA UNDERRATED COMMENT
Feeed* 3 e's minimum mkay
Tbh as a dark skin toned black man I actually would have a problem with empress saying the n word in the room. Regardless of his experiences.
Empress' take is based af. Circumspect, researched, considered, self-reflective...
@@andrewraby8008 thats clearly a dude.
Honestly I'm so impressed definitely gotta go watch some vods or check out the stream now.
i love her, does she have a youtube channel or anything?
Ahh, jeese, y'all are two kind! I don't really upload to my UA-cam much, but you can find me on my twitch of the same name and in the discord.gg/politics discord server!
that argument that only the cream of the crop would be affected, well professional athletes are the cream of the crop so that would make the differences even more pronounced
Definitely could have continued on that more than they did. Sure only a tiny tiny part of trans people would ever be in question for this. And a tiny tiny fraction of either genders are athletes in that manner. And it’s an extremely interesting topic to be honest, where differences actually matter outside of feelings and subjective opinions.
"Being and Nothingness" finally has a practical application after all these years
For real tho
People who have been through such unusual identity crises might not be the best people to redefined how we interpret identity and such elements as gender.
a man could express himself as a female but if he has no dysphoria there's no reason to transition.
gotta love how there are zero women in this convo
Dr K is a trans woman if i'm not mistaken.
If no one can actually understand gender, why are we trying to change how we define ours. The term has always been pragmatic. If hardly anyone can actually understand what's going on, this sounds like it just leads to chaos.
What things in life can we "actually understand"?
Wait just bc something is hard we should abandon trying to make sense of our lives?
@@tmsphere no. I'm talking about things like gender abolition. There are certain concept culturally evolved because it helps humans view the world and function in it. I can't find the video anymore, but Destiny talks about postmodernism, and socially constructed concepts. He pretty much breaks everything down to the point where things turn very nihilist and meaningless. He talks about redefining views and things such as gender and how we should rebuild our view of them to fit something that might be more inclusive. But what if it's actually less functional for almost everyone else, and 95% of people can't even understand these concepts.
People don't understand everything about math and physics, and we should look into it and study it. But the primary high level concepts are still understood by society to the point where people can participate in the market.
At the beginning they don't understand the core of Destiny's argument. You don't chose your gender, you chose do you express it.
and Destiny doesn't understand the core of Gambit's argument. Just because majority of the people cannot choose their gender, does not mean that people who can choose their gender do not exist.
@@Mike23443 “choosing gender” is a political larp and disgusting.
@@yahoohotmail4127 that's an ignorant and close minded generalization. I obviously think that people who "pretend" to be a different gender for sinister reasons are scumbags, but the pretend part is the key operating word. Just because you made a choice doesn't mean you are somehow a lesser human being, or you're free to be dismissed by everyone else. It's literally how we used to treat these issues 30 years ago.
@@Mike23443 The idea that you can “choose” to be a gender is absolutely ludicrous and I want no part of it. Don’t woke scold me and gaslight me.
@@yahoohotmail4127 ok boomer.
It appears in most of these conversations that there is a disconnect between the two "sides" on the term "gender identity". Destiny appears to be using it to refer to a persons internal state of being, while those opposed are using it to refer to nouns like man, women, etc. Destiny should clarify that a persons gender identity (i.e. man, women,etc) would actually be a part of the term gender expression that was earlier used as those categories are wholly contingent on how other people see you. An example of this would be a cis man identifying as agender. Lets suppose that this persons remains identical after changing their identifier. What actually happens in this scenario is that the person finds a better identifier for their identity, but their identity doesn't actually change. Where as it feels the other people in the panel are misidentifying the terms we use for our gender identity and conflating that to be the whole of what someones identity is.
True, but also false, gender identity, (being how other people see you), relies on perceived sex not on gender expression. When I’m treated in society as a woman, people are perceiving my sex as female, they aren’t treating me as the “gender expression”, “woman”.
A cis man identifying as agender, is kind of a paradox.
It drives me fucking crazy when Dr K says "dude"
It is the most condescending shit I have ever heard
It drives me fucking crazy when Dr K says anything
It is the most condescending shit I have ever heard
Looks like Jon Snow in the middle there is still operating off of his Season 8 dialogue.
Destiny? Wait, is that a girl’s name?
destiny is a vtuber's name
Only beta males call themselves destiny. Beeeeyta.
Where's the timestamps
omg i fucking love that this awesome conversation is happening. keep it up destiny and everybody else on the panel!
This topic is so much more simple than people make it out to be. All the confusion is because people are going full religious apologists and attempting to force conclusions that aren’t justified.
For example... we don’t choose our preferences, we do choose how to identify with them. Didn't take 1000 words to parse that out.
I logged off of my math proofs class and walk straight into a gender based set theory discussion. I think God exists and he's punishing me.
in fact I DID forget to subrscribe! Nonetheless this showed up... right in my feeeed...
If someone can self-ID as a 5000 year-old Diety, then Rachel Dolezal should be given a massive apology. Atleast black women *exist*.
I'm mixed race, and I read Dolezal's story and I feel like she got a bad deal in the media. The truth is that she grew up with black adopted siblings, had trauma in her family that made her closers to those siblings than her biological parents, had black partners & gave birth to mixed black children & lived as a black woman. I'm in no way defending people who black-fish on social media, but Dolezal really walked the walk & believed it
"ALL BLACK EVERYTHING"
16 white people
That's the name of the previous invite-only panel before the walk on. Thursdays at 8PM on PrimeCayes, GSU and I are frequent guests.
@@empressfm156 I was mostly joking, I'm a fan ♥. Good stream.
@@ZeranZeran The irony is worth noting haha
omg im only 25 mins in and holy shit listening to a convo that doesn't devolve into a ad hum about above relevant dumb shit is refreshing kudos on destiny and the panel for having a civil talk about a crazy hard topic and not have anyone fip there shit about it
Need timestamps
Not a single person on this panel except for Destiny should ever get to open their mouth on the trans-athletes topic ever again. Holy shit what a train wreck. "I know women that could kick your ass" were legitimate points that people tried to make. Fucking end me.
The problem with the dudes stance on just let those bigots be bigots, is if it is infact true, that it is a choice to be trans, then those TERFs are actually making a good argument. If being Trans is a choice, why wouldn't you just choose to identify as someone who is CIS?
Why would you expose yourself to all of that heartache, discrimination, mental health issues, and suicide rate if you could just choose to not be that.
The point Destiny was trying to make, is if you think being trans is a choice, then it is a logical conclusion that those people should just choose to not be trans. This is obviously not true, as the process's that are in charge of our sexual orientation, and gender identity is an unconscious process. By definition this means that we do not have control over it.
I dont think anyone is arguing that people who genuinely identify as trans dont have certain kinds of feelings. I think the point is whether or not the _interpretation_ of those feelings, and the claims made as a consequence, are reasonable or justifiable.
Btw, there are provocateurs who identify as trans for attention and to stir controversy or debate for sure. Eddie Izzard is a famous example of someone who now identifies as gender fluid, but until very recently used the term 'transvestite'. According to the interviews where ive seen him talk on this subject, he has no gender dysphoria, but simply likes performatively expressing his femininity through female gendered clothes and make up. Some transvestites/cross-dressers, like Eddie, are now calling themselves transgender, and gender fluid. I sometimes get the impression that people are using a 15 year old understanding of the term 'transgender'. That term has now become a massive umbrella for all kind of different experiences and conditions manifesting for all kinds of different reasons. The only thing we can say for sure about someone currently identifying as 'transgender' is that, for at least _some_ of the time, they dont like identifying with the gender prescription of their birth sex. And that's it.
That’s one long ass intro
I started to get pretty confused by the guy because I started wondering about other situations people kill themselves over, but then he unconfused me when he said this all started because he believes all behaviors are choices rather than deterministic.
Then I was like, "oh yeah, I believe 99% of behavior is deterministic, I dont actually agree with this guy at all". I just thought it was kinda funny that he started to shake my beliefs a bit but then solidly cemented me back in place with that statement.
I think that the best thing said about that but was that committing suicide doesn’t validate a persons beliefs
I think you're also missing the point here. The discussion isn't about if behavior is deterministic, but if there is something that we experience but cannot change separate from our choices but that my inform them. An analogy might be the weather. You experience the weather and you can take choices to handle it different ways, but you don't really choose the weather. Maybe you can change it, over a long period of time and maybe not the way you wanted to (e.g. climate change), but generally speaking you have no easy way to impact the weather. The choices you make are certainly informed by it though, do you put on a raincoat or not? You may choose not to even though you know it is raining. So our choices are not necessarily informative for what the weather is like. So someone has some sort of underlying gender identity, it may change over time, but they do not change it (usually, certainly not quickly), and they can make choices about how they choose to show or not show it, but those choices don't necessarily tell the world what their underlying gender is.
@@zvxcvxcz yea I don’t think this is the case , gender isn’t like a coat you decide to wear depending on the weather . Unless of course gender is just how you express yourself to the world based on your preferences .
Sounds like this guy is conflating how someone outwardly identifies towards the public versus how they genuinely feel on the inside. For example one could genuinely feel inside gay for several years and never outwardly Express for identify as gay oh, not so sure why that guy has such a hard time understanding what Destiny is saying.
sexual expression is completely separate from what sex you are.
@@inframaticThat's the point.
With the smoking example, the counter would be that the person should just stop desiring cigarettes. The desire for the cigarettes is something out of their control, engaging with smoking is in their control. Which lines up with destinys argument that gender identity(desire to smoke) is harder to change than expression(choosing to smoke).
every debate with this dr k guy just screams spineless. He just throws things out with 0 evidence, reasoning, anything. wtf
around the 58 minute mark, I started actually outwardly making noises of frustration...
Why is Dr K always such an insufferable person?
@@cheesecakeburgler
Terminally online people..
The guy fighting for fluid gender identity keeps explaining gender expression. It's infuriating.
I really like Professwahr, just a shame that they stated they think Destiny is a POS. Understandable, but a shame. would love to see a discussion
I was probs a little harsh, my entire life has been white people telling me what my experience is or how it ought be, so I was a bit butt hurt, and it was 5 in the morning. It's also easy to punch up sometimes, I don't think he's a bad person or anything, he's come by Politics server a few times and this debate definitely changed my mind on him a little bit.
*Premise 1:* Environmental factors play a role in shaping one’s gender identity.
*Premise 2:* A person can choose to alter their environment, including its aspects which influence their gender identity.
*Premise 3:* A person can do so with awareness of the first two premises and intent to indirectly alter their gender identity.
*Conclusion:* A person can choose to alter their gender identity.
*edit: premise 2 was meant as “A person can choose to alter some aspects of their environment...”, not “all aspects of...”. Also, the conclusion doesn’t say anything about the extent to which a person can alter their gender identity other than that it is nonzero.
Moreover, I think internal psychological factors play a major role in the shaping of one’s gender identity, not just their external environment. People give self-talk to reinforce or reject their felt gender identity, e.g. a female-assigned-at-birth person giving self-talk to reinforce their largely unchosen masculine identity.
So while we might not be able to choose our gender identity “on a whim” (which seems essential to the concept of gender identity, if well defined*) we can still make choices that intentionally change our gender identity over time.
At any given moment, you could ask yourself “Is my gender identity a choice?” and recognize “It has been influenced by internal and external factors, some of which are influenced by choices I made”. The extent to which your gender identity is a choice depends on how much you have intentionally influenced it; the condition of some state of affairs (gender identity, in this case) being chosen is not binary. Returning to a previous example, a female-AAB person who innately feels masculine and actively reinforces this identity via self-talk could be said to have chosen a more strongly masculine identity, but their gender identity is mostly unchosen on the whole. On the other hand, I see no reason why a person couldn’t have one innate gender identity and radically change it over time by choice. I suspect this line of argument applies similarly to sexual orientation.
*I don’t have a great definition, but the way I am understanding gender identity can be put in this way: a person’s sense of gender when isolated from any internal motivations or external pressures, but NOT necessarily unaffected/unconditioned by previous internal motivations and external pressures. In other words, it is independent from current pressures but is influenced by previous pressures and is subject to change over time according to current pressures. If the distinction between X being isolated from but not unaffected by Y is unclear, consider X to be a person and Y to be the person’s social anxiety. If you were to suddenly “cure” their social anxiety, they would still be a different person compared to if they had never had social anxiety from the start. For instance, being socially awkward might be a part of that person which doesn’t necessarily suddenly disappear if you remove the social anxiety, so it would exist in that person when “isolated” from their social anxiety.
PS: I wrote this about 10 minutes into the video after seeing a lot of talking past each other, so I don’t yet know how much it overlaps with what is established in the next hour, but I thought I’d share anyways. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Your Premise 2 is just wrong, no?. The "environment" that plays a role in shaping your gender identity includes your prenatal environment, which you obviously cannot control or alter. It includes the environment you grow up in (house, neighborhood, school), which as a dependent child, you barely (maybe it's negligible) control. It also includes society at large, which you also cannot control.
@@SHADOWxSN1PER to refute premise 2, you would need to assert that ALL environmental factors which shape one’s gender identity cannot be deliberately altered (or “controlled” to some extent). You have instead stated that there exist some environmental factors that cannot be deliberately altered, which I agree with, but this doesn’t contradict premise 2, which only says that there exist environmental factors which can be controlled to an extent.
If I claim that some birds are flightless, it doesn’t contradict my claim to assert there are birds which can fly. You would need to argue that all birds can fly.
@@AnEnemyAnemone1 Considering the influence of prenatal androgen exposure in the womb to the formation of sexuality and identity development and sexual maturity even into adulthood, I'd think this would refute Premise 2.
@@AnEnemyAnemone1 Your premise 2 just states that "a person can choose to alter their environment..", you don't specify that you only mean certain environments or even to what extent. The 2nd part says "including its aspects which influence gender identity.", which is once again, non-specified. It's way too general to hold its merit, I think it needs to be more specific; because a HUGE aspect (probably 50%, possibly more) that also influences gender identity is what you're exposed to in the womb, which is something you definitely cannot alter.
"If I claim that some birds are flightless.." That's just the problem. You didn't say *some* environments, you didn't say *some* aspects which influence gender identity, your language was very loose and general.
Also, the environments I listed can't be so easily casted aside as just *some environments*, they may be some, but they are extremely signifcant in the formation of any person's behaviors or identities. The environments I listed are HUGE factors into shaping one's gender identity as well. They are not only uncontrollable, they are also not easily altered (perhaps some aspects are not abled to be altered at all) This makes it hard for me to follow you to your conclusion that people can choose to alter their gender identity.
@@SHADOWxSN1PER sorry, I thought the implied “some” quantifier was obvious enough, but I realize I should have just been explicit.
I know this is two years old, but I fucking hate when people pretend to understand philosophy of math and logic.
All the stuff that guy at the end said about set theory was half-true at best.
Set theory is bad at definitions, but mostly because it’s only really good at representing “extensional” definitions of terms. For example, the category of “Superman” and the category “Clark Kent” could refer to the same set of objects, but these categories don’t have the same properties despite referencing all the same objects. For example, Lois Lane doesn’t believe Clark Kent is Superman; but that doesn’t mean you can substitute my use of “Superman” here to get a sentence with the same truth value - I’m sure Lois Lane believes that Clark Kent is Clark Kent, that or Clark really needs to reconsider her as a love interest.
Second, set theory does a fine job at representing numbers *if a model of set theory is assumed to exist/set theory is assumed to be consistent. You can show that all the usual logical properties of numbers are codifiable in set theory. The most I can give is this retard is saying that you can’t decide everything about the natural numbers using set theory. That’s true, but only because NO formal system that codifies the natural numbers can decide everything about the natural numbers (this applies to intuitionistic logic too for anyone curious - you just need negation to be a “contrary-forming operator” as logicians would call it, which is essentially just assuming contradictions don’t exist. Paraconsistent logics are a whackier story). To act like set theory is more insufficient than other systems needs at least some clarification, because that just sounds flat-out false to me on its surface.
I am actually a little bit triggered by what happened in the last few minutes here. Set Theory as we practice it for the almost the last 100 years is not inconsistent, in fact both Philosophy and Mathematics went to great pains to remedy Russels Paradox, which gave us Zermelo Frankel Set Theory (literally the fundament of all Mathematics and formal Logic). If you have taken a class in Logic and you don't know that, you have not paid much attention. Both the Logic and Math community has been and still is very open about the flaw of Naiv Set Theory, it is about the first things you will hear about it. But it is also very open about it being fixed. And ZF Set Theory is not even the only way from that problem. Russel himself had very good ideas on how to fix it. So the claim that Set Theory is inconsistent is out right bad faith in my mind. This is not to say Set Theory is easy, it really isn't despite the surface level impression, but don't think Mathematician to be sloppy about something so fundamental.
Okay, to clarify, apologies in advance for the canned response: In fairness, it was 4 in the morning and we're talking to a layman audience, but I'm referring to native set theory here. ZFC's axioms don't allow for its use in defining language, an amorphous social construction, which is what the previous speaker had done implicitly. Yes, ZFC can be used to define numbers, but the entire point is that it's axiomatic; it's simply asserted as true, rather than being proven true or derived from some "natural" source approach as Frege might be characterized as having attempted. So yes, ZFC can be used to define numbers, but not through appealing to categorical distinction in the way that native set theory did as applied by Frege, which is how the previous speaker had attempted to use it.
This gambit guy is insufferable omg
God, the math take at 1:21:40 was so terrible I almost choked on my beer when I heard it.
Okay, to clarify, apologies in advance for the canned responce: In fairness, it was 4 in the morning and we're talking to a layman audience, but I'm referring to native set theory here. ZFC's axioms don't allow for its use in defining language, an amorphous social construction, which is what the previous speaker had done implicitly. Yes, ZFC can be used to define numbers, but the entire point is that it's axiomatic; it's simply asserted as true, rather than being proven true or derived from some "natural" source approach as Frege might be characterized as having attempted. So yes, ZFC can be used to define numbers, but not through appealing to categorical distinction in the way that native set theory did as applied by Frege, which is how the previous speaker had attempted to use it.
@@empressfm156 Fair enough. The way you put it in the debate really sounded to me at the time like you didn't know what you were talking about. But that probably isn't the case, forgive the harshness of the original comment, that was probably caused by the beer.
@@wiener_process Nothing to worry about haha, hope it was a good beer!
"You don't CHOOSE your gender!!!"
This is demonstrably false- EVERY SINGLE detrans person did exactly that; They consciously CHOSE to stop demanding wrong-sex pronouns (and may or may not CHOOSE to change wardrobe, haircut, name etc), and voila, this CHOICE instantly resulted in them "changing gender'.
Hell, even by "gender" ideology's OWN RULES you 100% "choose your gender"- What does "gender' ideology say is the thing which defines your "gender"? It is SELF-ID; ie, simply speaking the magical "gender"-changing spell of "i identify as [x]", instantly, automatically MAKES [X] your "gender".
Unless Destiny wants to claim that we INVOLUNTARILY blurt out random sentences, it's pretty obvious that implicit in self-ID, is the fact that you CHOOSE if and when to transition/not transition, you CHOOSE whether to ID as the opposite to your real-world sex, vs "gender-fluid", vs "agender", vs whatever OTHER super-duper-real "genders" you can CHOOSE from. And you also CHOOSE if/when to opt-out of (sex-independent) "gender" entirely, and return to evidence-based truth...
Or, is Destiny claiming that "gender-neutral", "agender", "gender-fluid" etc each correspond to some yet-to-be -discovered PHYSICAL, ANATOMICALLY-REAL "gender-neutral"/"agender"/"gender-fluid" structure/trait/whatever in your brain?!? Or... in you SOUL?!? Some other organ, maybe?
Some secret gland that releases "gender-neutral"-ness into your bloodstream, perhaps? Or a specific pattern of bumps on your skull, which FORCE you to identify as "pizza-gender"?
dang they had john snow come on the panel? that's hype
Destiny keeps using the words female and male to describe gender, even though these are biological descriptors. By the way, even though you should indeed differenciate sex and gender, the most common understandings of man and woman are respectively "adult male human" and "adult female human", these words follow the same pattern as donkey and jenny which have for respective definitions "adult male african ass" and "adult female african ass" (it's the same for all species). So we should definitely find words which actually refer to gender, it would be less confusing and prevent most conflicts (as most people who disagree think we are refering to sex when we are refering to gender, and it's our fault, honestly).
But the thing is that “man” and “woman” don’t just have biological expectations, they have a host of social ones. I’d rather we get rid of the social expectations for men and women and just let people act how they want. Men want long hair and to wear dresses? A little Greek, but fine. Women want to never shave and work in an autoshop all day and get covered in grease and sweat? Kinda unsanitary, but okay. We shouldn’t be barring people from activities or behaviors that have no biological precedent (obviously some do, and should be treated accordingly).
@@anubis7457 I'm european, so I'm not used to how americans relate to the words "man" and "woman", but people here don't really question whether you are a man or a woman on the base of your behavior or appearance as long as you tell them your sex, there are expectations for each label but they don't define them.
Editor? That’s the name of someone who should put chat on screen!
what stream or channel was this on ?
Being trans (or gay) _can be_ a choice for some people in certain situations, but is not necessarily always a choice in every situation
can you give an example of a situation where being trans or gay is a choice?
@@derrickscott6795 Given the current social climate, I'm sure most people who have the opportunity/ability to choose would choose not to be trans or gay. You can look to religious communities for people open about this choice. You can also easily search for articles/tweets of people saying they chose to be gay or trans
@@Fakery This doesnt make sense to me though. Like for being gay specifically, you cant just "choose" to desire men. It's just something that inate within you and you act accordingly.
@@Fakery When's the last time you chose a desire???
@@Fakery they choose not to express themselves, or act on being gay/trans, not that they choose not to be trans.
I didn't know iDubbz was transgender
also why this idubbbz keep holding his two finger up?
Guys, maybe our modern understanding of gender is just... completely nonsensical?
I feel like gender and identity, like most studies, is getting to the point where the further you understand it the less sense it makes.
@@themysticfedora that's ridiculous, breaking things down is par for the course in understanding them, you only confuse yourself and find no meaning when you don't build these things back up again.
can someone explain to me how we know trans people are not experiencing a chemical or biological imbalance? how is this good faith with people saying there is no biological physical difference between sexes cant wait to see this play out.
i love how wholesome and respectful this is. right on
Amazin
Dxstiy? Thats a nonbinary name
every 5 seconds " im not saying this is my stance but" lol so scared to speak
That empress chica is pretty sharp.
Oh jesus, too sweet >~
the most first world problems video ever
first world comment
A first world problem isn’t a bad thing. If anything, isn’t it good to talk about certain issues ahead of time?