We’re currently working on launching on Substack, where we’ll post weekly articles from contributing writers, exclusive interviews, and opportunities for even more community engagement than the comment section here allows for. Substack currently is home to the audio podcast of the show, and I’m also thinking about starting to host regular Zoom calls over there to discuss important issues directly with viewers. If you’re interested, please like this comment, tell me what you think in the replies, and click the link to subscribe over there to stay up to date on everything Dad Saves America! www.dadsavesamerica.com/
sex: gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. ♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️ gender: sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact). Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”. Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition. Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language. If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!) For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms. Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning. Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
My sister thinks she's a Man. So ya, it's just crazy that she even does. And all the medical people in her life are pointing her towards the lie. The confusion is real. And she grew up in a conservative house with conservative Mom and brothers. She's also on the spectrum, and a communist. She's critical to real facts, but will open her brain to any fake Marxist doctrine with out thought. But we do think there is hope. Cause she still has the ability to love her family. Most Marxissts don't.
Heather has lived at the apex of women's liberation, as have I. We have had the ability to choose what we did with our lives at every stage of our lives, with out any sacrifice - capitalise on our academic abilities, while also embracing our womanhood through marriage and motherhood at a time of our own choosing
Time of your choosing due to no more practices like child marriage, forced marriage etc I assume? No one however should kill a baby because the timing is inconvenient. There are also no medical predicaments that require poisoning or dismembering a baby to save the mother. You just have to remove the baby vs actively destroy them. They may or may not survive outside the womb for a variety of reasons but they should be fought for just like a larger human would be. The age of viability (currently what, 22-23 weeks?) is just going to decrease every year due to medical advancements. Children we can't save we should still treat their bodies and remains with dignity vs literally knowingly throw them in the trash. Early miscarriages for instance where the woman did not keep up with tracking & testing in the weeks following sex may not know the remains of their child has passed. But like with many morals, intent matters and so if medication professionals KNOW the remains are a child they should not be allowed to dispose of them in the biohazard just because they are small - that would never be acceptable for a larger human.
I am really happy if you are happy, I just have to say - choice always entails sacrifice. If a woman could have children at 20 but chooses to at 30, 10 years of 'young motherhood' have been sacrificed. I'm not saying she is wrong, or she should be forced to do this or that - but a sacrifice was made.
What a lot of people heathers age did was they had a kid during their education.. Honestly this may be a controversial take, but I think that needs to happen more often, women had kids during their education, pick their degree more carefully etc.. And their real partner as well Kick starts the young male responsibility of saving and protecting, and they will work together to balance school and their child.. Mother had me when she really wasn't supposed to, right before she entered residency..but my dad quit work to raise us.y@@Tartersauce101
Great follow-up comment by Heather on the unexpected consequences of birth control, "...instead of encouraging more men to act like women at their best, it encouraged more women to act like men at their worst and encouraging either sex to act like the other sex at their worst is obviously not good for any of us."
No, this is a stupid quote because the very idea of “their best” is some extra-scientific/non-scientific moralistic mumbo jumbo that is totally out of place. What is “good for any of us” is not to be found in biology, but in a much broader conception for humanity that is totally outside their area of expertise. What constitutes a ‘good life’ is philosophy, not science.
@@dukecity7688 it’s not a scientific claim within their realm of expertise and they provided nothing to back it up. It’s preaching, the opposite of science.
It’s a very good quote and is based on the amalgamation of a holistic view of the data we have on the biology, physics, psychology and behaviour .. it IS scientific because the data they reference is both quantitative and qualitative - works on inferences and hypothesis which is the basis for science. People saying it is not science have never published research let alone read any…?
A healthy person needs no explanation, a maniac does. Normal people put their heads into the universe, the maniac attempts to put the universe into their head (BW). Is this a Babylon Bee skit?
The fact that we have to explain what the biological differences between males and females is painful, that we have to explain that there ARE differences is just stupid.
sex: gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. ♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️ gender: sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact). Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”. Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition. Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language. If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!) For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms. Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning. Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
How in the world have we come to the point where people are quicker to believe a lie than they are to believe the obvious truth which they can see with their own eyes? Why do they even need you or anyone to explain basic biology to them? Something is very, very wrong in America.
I cherish this interview. ❤ It sums up the binary sex argument in the most elegant way, making it culturally relevant. Heather is a mentor to women on what it means to be physically durable, intelligent, assertive, courageous and still quintessentially female. Bret is that floating bit of pollen who turned into a mighty oak - solid, faithful and dependable in his stances and arguments. Both of them offer a continuing public service in bringing the sanity of biological reality into public discourse across a number of critically important topics. In short, each is a national treasure. Thanks for posting. 🙏🏼
I actually think the difference between how men and women use dating apps has more to do with safety than sexual strategy. Men are not taught to be afraid of women. So, there is no felt risk for a man to swipe on every woman that is even remotely interesting to them. They can figure out if they are real match later. Women _are_ taught to be afraid of men. So, there is a strong felt risk, leading to women only swiping on the men that they are sure about.
It's not just what we are taught. It's that men are a real danger to women and not vice versa. This is not a social construct. And I do believe that women are choosier than men. It's the only tenet of evolutionary psych that applies across all cultures.
What's really shocking and annoying is that there is a significant population in the world today for whom this is NEWS. They have been inculcated to believe this information is merely a form of white male supremacy.
For two people, whom I greatly respect, who so often cite Chesterton’s Fence in their work, to so wholly miss the Chesterton’s Wall that they’ve run into here is interesting. All of the benefits and advancements, etc., that they alluded to regarding women’s “emancipation” and ability to enter the workforce is a gigantic synthetic “victory” even on this front. All the benefits women (and society) gained have come at an enormous price - the total breakdown of the family unit, increased infertility, mental health issues we never dealt with before, a new kind of cultural mind virus that is leading us ever faster down a spiral of incoherence, a radical shift in the labour economy (wages especially), questionable shifts in the focus and quality of academia …. BUT - as Bret would say - it’s worse than that. This all sits atop synthetic hormones suppressing female biological processes that we are just beginning to see we need much more research on. And the liberation of women wasn’t a liberation in any real sense because if, tomorrow, synthetic hormones went away, if all artificial birth control went away, so would this “liberation” which means we did not accommodate women in the workplace and we didn’t actually shift societies views of the value of women’s work at all. We did not fundamentally re order anything in society to allow for women to add their ideas, innovations, labour, etc. We forced women to become a version of a male, to mimic males in behaviours and focuses and incentives. Women have had to physically, mentally, and emotionally subvert their very nature in order to be “liberated”. It’s still A Man’s World. Women haven’t actually been liberated much at all and society hasn’t gained enough positives to outweigh the ever growing weight of negatives. I’m struggling to make this clear …. Other than gaining the right to vote and to be legally independent from our male family members …. What have we gained? You can get a job but it will cost you dearly; emotionally, physically, mentally, psychically …. I mean … what? It’s in this topic most especially that I can still see the vestiges of their liberal upbringing and education and I wonder if they will ever fully detangle their intellectual scaffolding from it. They bought into feminism and still can’t quite see how insane the movement was from the start. It was not anything at all about advancing Woman. It was a complete attack on all things feminine and it subverted biological reality completely. It was and remains the total inversion of what it claims to be. Society truly valuing women would accommodate motherhood, would not do untold harm to women’s health, and would not require the sacrificing of the health and stability of the family unit, and it would not result in this profound cultural incoherence we now have.
Well said. It’s never taken into account that doubling the workforce essentially forced women to get jobs by increasing the amount of money families were able to spend, driving costs up to match that double income. To afford a home now a woman MUST work since costs have now factored in two incomes. She MUST put her children into daycare, paying another adult to do a bad job of raising your children, if she has any hope of owning a home or paying for kids college or having a retirement. And on the other side of this scale we have what? Heather gets to work as a biologist? Great, but she is an outlier. My wife is much less enthusiastic about sitting at a laptop answering phone calls for 8 hours a day. Every single woman I know would prefer to go back to the way it was and be a full time mother, but we don’t get 2 hour sit down talks with everyday women.
Hey, get deGrasse on and he can explain to everyone how a male elephant can wake up one morning - "feeling" female - and magically - "trans-from" - INTO a female elephant. Its all rather quite amazing as he explains it. : /
My only problem with this interview was that while articulating very precisely the problems and causes, rolling it back is not an option. That's like saying we know we're heading off a cliff and we know why we're heading off a cliff, but going back and changing directions from the wrong turn we took earlier is not an option and so we're going to go off this cliff. There are no solutions, and certainly no good ones, only tradeoffs. To them, the tradeoffs must be worth the ongoing trainwreck.
No going back? Was it Iran that had women in short shorts, smoking & driving a few decades ago? You CAN go back, just depends how far & what you are willing to do to get there.
In general, this talk was good, but I cringed when he said that birth control was an "advance of civilization", and we shouldn't "go backwards." My friend, I'm no luddite, but technology should serve human wellbeing, not be our master. Progress is being wise enough to use our power responsibly.
15:45 Heather's successful negotiation of work and family was likely due to the use of synthetic sex hormones, namely birth control. Hormonal birth control has become so ingrained in our culture that I think we often underestimate it's power, for good and for ill. While I also appreciate all the gains women have made, does no one else find it troubling that in order for a woman to be "successful" in the 21st century, she likely has to supress a perfectly normal bodily function using pharmaceuticals? Is it truly liberation if such a fundamental aspect of who I am as a female person must be thrwarted medically? Also, if we've already made the case that for the sake of women's bodily autonomy and liberation, she can use synthetic sex hormones to interfere in reproductive processes-- what leg do we have to stand on to tell trans identifying people that they can't also use synthetic sex hormones to liberate themselves?
You bring up great points. Birth control overall is horrible for women's health & so many children because women think it's just a magic pill and still don't track possible progress after sex and stop consuming them as soon as possible once they discover they are pregnant, causing health issues or death to their child.
Interesting comment but it is not quite the same thing. First of all, synthetic hormones are not the only way to prevent conception. Secondly, a biological woman is no less a woman if she, for whatever reason, does not have biological children. While I would not tell any adult what to do, a biological male taking estrogen is still a biological male.
The argument is not that trans-identifying people should not be able to use synthetic sex hormones to "liberate themselves". The argument is that minors -- CHILDREN -- should be ONLY psychologically helped and not medically or surgically helped UNTIL they are adults, whereupon they are free to make whatever decisions they wish as to what to do with their own ADULT bodies. Not seeing the distinction is being willfully obtuse.
There are alot of women in various religious groups who do control their fertility through Natural Family Planning. Yes is it ridiculed by many but I grew up religious and saw that it does indeed work. I knew very religious women with only two or three children, by design. That's all the kids they and their husbands wanted . And if you never take hormonal birth control of any kind its even easier to practice NFP. (Because your cycle won't be interfered with.) I used only NFP as an adult and never got pregnant. I know my cycle and I never got pregnant until I wanted to (which was with my now husband, for both our kids). If you don't want to get pregnant, know when you ovulate. It is not that hard. It takes a little knowledge, attention to your body, discipline (or condoms, about 7 days out of your cycle only) and some charting.
"We took away one of the fundamentals and didn't pay close attention to all the stuff that was connected to it." So true. On so MANY levels. The Law of Unintended Consequences is kicking our asses right now.
I love these two! Been following Bret & Heather for years now. Their voices are so important in this discussion and in helping to distinguish between ideology, out of control social pressures (i.e. cult-like trends), actual biology, and the rapidly disintegrating, adulterated realm of medical ethics. The allegiance to 'first do no harm' has been trampled in this bizarre movement -- sadly propelled by for-profit medicine (and yes, as ghoulish as it sounds, it's true) -- and doctors and other medical professionals have entered 'the darkness' interceding in children reaching their normal, healthy, biological maturity and therefore fully functioning bodies. A 'trans' person can decide once they're a physiological adult -- which will likely accompany more mental and emotional maturity and clarity -- if they want to mess around with their bodies. Humans, in this strange world we're living in, obviously need more time to navigate these complex and increasingly treacherous transitions. ☮💞🌟
Birth control may be adversely affecting mate selection. Among other things it breaks a smell clue that prevents attraction when two immune systems are too similar. Could birth control be behind the explosion in allergies?
Heather hit a good balance. She understood where she was and who she is on the board. She understood that she was playing amongst men and how they play amongst themselves while fortunately not harassed. She knew how to play that game of the predominant crowd in a space and not make or take it personal and they embraced her like a culture. One she was familiar with and respected and it respected her back.
In 1959 and 1960 my mom got "with child" while unmarried, and the father of the child had to marry her and raise the child, according to social norms and the shame of illegitimacy. All my life I heard that's wrong and cruel but... I tell ya, my mother lucked out. Dad stayed to raise his children. We did not have an easy dad. He was frustrated and we were all lost. BUT we were valued more than some kind of freedom and children are to be made important, because they are your legacy. Mom would have found some second-rate guy and we kids would not have been kept safe.
I love them as a couple. Maube they should focus on couple advice, since it's an issue right now, but they are an excellent example of a couple where they both have careers at at high level and they still make it work. They're not trying to go back to the trad wife or women stays at home days.In addition, I had gender disphoria as a child. I grew out of it. I'm just a somewhat androgynous female and as I grew older, I began to like it about myself.
It's fun to ponder that there is a fundamental tension at the root of all sexual biology going back half a billion years, that comes down to classic R-selection vs. K-selection, at the gametic level. That inherent yin-yang tension produces all the magic, yet too many in modernity mistake the feature for a bug.
They are saying EXACTLY what I’ve been saying and have been arguing these very points over and over again. I’m relieved to see that these experts are also making these points and seeing these same issues.
Love Heather, adore Brett, but their take on this issue highlights something that annoys me to no end about academics in general, which is: having correctly identified a problem that is corrosive to the fabric of society, why do they never have the COURAGE to take the next logical step, and make a definitive moral prescription to solve it? In any other context, they will freely accept that there’s no amount of (allegedly) high minded thinking that will untether us from biology, but here, because (I suspect) they can’t overcome their prejudice against those with moral prescriptions, they still MUST equivocate and be mealy mouthed about what to do about it. “Pro intellect, anti-wisdom” seems to be the mantra of academics, and it’s ceaselessly exasperating.
I am inclined towards your view here in that the gap between our culture and our nature can’t keep growing without turning into a chasm that consumes us all. Can we close it? Maybe not. Might that be the only way to avoid a fall? Probably! Will the change happen if we don’t try? Surely not!!!
@@BeforeWarTheBook It's "no one's job" to be kind to the elderly, not shoplift, or stop at red lights either, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I'm not asking for a moral pronouncement because I personally need clarification on the issue. I'm asking for one because if someone gives a convincing argument for why something is bad, but then refuses to make a simple moral ruling on the issue, it calls into question the moral compass of the arguer. Mealy mouthed moral relativism is largely responsible for the mess the world finds itself in. We'd all be better off if more people had the courage to tell the truth when it's plain to see.
@@brendanthegreek They are academics. They simply report on their findings. Moral pronouncements are for preachers. It would seriously impact their credibility in my eyes if they were to meddle in morality.
@@BeforeWarTheBook Limiting moral reasoning solely to the domain of preachers would be as silly as limiting thinking solely to the domain of academics. Hyper-specialization is for insects, not humans. Facts and truth, ought and is-these are two sides of the same coin.
Powerful, unassailable truths, very clearly laid out, great work. I'd add that successful societies mould themselves around these truths. This is were traditional roles come from and are simply a reflection of our basic biology.
Sorry I'm late to the party. It is amazing to listen to this discussion from a human secular world view when I've heard the same argument with the same conclusions from an orthodox Christian view. In the final analysis, is cheapening "sex", especially thanks to birth contol, a good thing? Should we NOT think through the possible complications (and I'm really addressing my fellow XY's, most of us were never truly taught to) before we act on our animal impulse? Is "sewing our wild oats" (and I'm speaking to us XY's) something that betters our experience or dampens it entirely? The entire "debate" on abortion hinges on the need for a "back up plan" when we fail to contemplate our action in the first place. Instead we throw in emotional reactions to forced rape, incest, life threatening conditions as if they are the 99%+ instead of the 1% -.
This is why in our society, the dynamic is the men are the askers and the women are the approvers. If we are honest, this is why people are less inclined to condemn a female teacher for you know what than make teachers. The law doesn't differentiate generally speaking, but sentiment does.
A man has hands (hence manual) a woman is a man with a womb (womb - man). This means that "man" is not a gendered term, hence "mankind" referring to both male and female.
That's a good example of perverting the meaning of language to fit your narative. There are two genders male and female, masculine and feminine, one has XX chromosomes and the other has XY chromosomes. Simple biology. Intersex is a very rare anomaly but is not another sex, for someone in this category, will present as more dominate towards one sex or the other.
Given what they say, about the fundamental differences in mating strategies between the sexes, the birth control pill and sexual revolution that followed was really revolutionary indeed. But I'm not sure how well women fares as a whole having all this opportunity? Are they really happier for it? Like, the character Samantha in Sex and the City has always been hyped and loved by women, but she always felt unreal to me - I never met a "Samantha" in real life, that is, a promiscuous woman that at the same time was successful, mentally healthy and Independent.
I'm not sure how happy serial casual sex makes women either, but maybe I'm just projecting. I am prepared to say it's a good thing for them to have the choice. What I am sure is that women over the generations have pursued monogamy to retain a partner, in order to survive economically/socially (and their children too). Even when they suffered bad behaviour at the hands of their partner.
@@vernaxxx8940 Yes I share that analyzis. Being ”picky” is a good way to make sure you get heatlhy offspring and hightens the chance that the father sticks around to share the burden of parenthood. And given how much women naturally are affected from having sex: becoming pregnant with all the risks that comes with, carrying and taking responsibility for children - it would perhaps be strange if their sexual pattern looked just like it does for men.
Birth control and No Fault divorce have created a HUGE problem in society. Frankly, the risk for men is WAY TOO HIGH to get married now days, so many don't.
@@serenesrn3827 And right there is the problem. Men not being fathers and women only in it for the money. Fault divorce would FORCE both man and woman to grow up and make the marriage work. No easy outs just because neither got what they wanted.
That will just increase the fault divorces . Verbal abuse , sexual coercion, financial abuse , emotional abuse other than physical abuse are all reasons women file for divorce. Not doing any childcare and not giving half his income in the marriage are faults too . If divorce is better than the marriage that is when the women file for divorce. Men who want to stay married should make the marriage better than a divorce for the woman.
@@serenesrn3827 Right, because women are NEVER abusive. Seriously, grow up already. Women are not anymore innocent than men. If you had a bad experince I'm truly sorry, but that doesn't make all men bad nor does that automatically make all women blameless! Your experience IS NOT what everyone else expereinces too!
Jryer 95 percent of the family anhilators are men . 90 percent of all global homicides are done by men . Women are nowhere near men in violence . The top cause of maternal mortality in the US is the mother being killed by the very dude / husband that impregnated her .
According to everything that’s being said here, it would follow that if birth control is causing women to act like men at their worst, and that’s the opposite result that we as a society are looking for, then removing birth control from the equation again, would balance the equation Again.
It is sad that we have to say something so patently obvious in a society that tries to negate itself. Thank you, Bret and Heather, for your bravery and commonsense approach.
While Heather imagines some students who identified as opposite sex are "probably living their best life" but the truth is we have a little waves of deaths of post op "sex reassignment" individuals 2021-24: Griffin Sivrin, 24, natal female, died a few months ago of sepsis from botched 'phalloplasty." Yarden Seveira, 24, natal male, died by his own hand in 2021 after regretting and going back to Mount Sinai Hospital where he had his "vaginoplasty" --it caused colon blockage. Liam Johns, natal female and mother of 2 and 4 year old, died of kidney failure after months of dialysis from testosterone poisoning. The "Trans Journalists Association Style Guide" a webpage from this cult, demands we do not report these deaths. WTF?
Honestly, I don’t think I’d ever heard of gametes before, or if I had, it was many moons ago in biology class, but this was interesting for me to learn about, and also helps to explain in part why women tend to overall be more choosy in their sexual partners than men are. I also appreciated how they connected that with how now with many options around birth control and condoms, it has allowed women to have more freedom sexually, but it has also lessened men’s incentives to invest in them and for men and women to take on the toxic traits/behaviors of the other. I’ve been noticing these things for awhile myself and as someone who has found it incredibly difficult since at least my late 20s/early 30s to try to date or just develop relationships and friendships with men first. I know for a lot of women and even some men (including younger generations) that this has also been true for them.
That guy is very intelligent and talks on point. He's very clear about what he says. But that female is so confusing, I don't understand what she is trying to say lol.
Whether or not the old way is desirable is irrelevant when the new way cannot sustain itself, which is to say if it results in below replacement rate it cannot propagate
Makes it even more interesting to find that polen does not live alone. One polen carries microbes and it's them who give information/nutrients to the polen for it to develop.
The issue of fe-male has two major components, biology and culture or nature vs nurture, these two are independent but affecting each other since human start to develop culture when they become bipedal, walking on two legs 4 million years ago!
Both words are from the latin, and have been interchangeable for centuries. The woke movement has implied a difference to suit their agenda. A difference that historically never existed.
I used to teach these principals in public high school in Mass. Used to... I was mocked by my union collegues, Not part of the state curriculum, I was not being "sensitive to our diverse student population". Translation, i was not liberal.
The evolutionary understanding of sex and sex roles is certainly solid. However the interpretation of human behaviour and especially placing moral values on behaviour (which is so diverse and complex) seems a little subjective. for instance implying 'casual sex' isn't good for humanity is just an opinion. I know loads of people who don't want kids or long term sexual partners who are very happy.
there was a study of female sexual preferences in the UK back in the 80's or early 90's.... that found women chose marriage mates, not for looks, but for financial stability to be able to raise their children in basic comforts to maturity... and if they were to have an affair, they chose a more physically masculine and healthier male... that women even had the ability to reject and expel inferior sperm from a donor who wasn't physically masculine vs a male whose sperm would give her the offspring that had a better chance of healthy and strong survival...
Everyone makes this so complicated. Every culture ever has made the distinction between the sexes. We all know the difference. Anyone who claims otherwise is refusing to speak the language. It's the definition of "Cultural Appropriation". The English culture defines both man and woman - end of story. If you claim otherwise then YOU don't belong to any human culture.
You can practically hear the man telling the woman, "I'm looking for a long-term relationship" while she worries whether he's just saying that to get in her pants, and knowing she'd likely get a thrill out of it regardless. And I like the characterization of monogamy as a piece of software technology, that seems exactly the way to think of the role of it and why it becomes so important to civilization. Real investment takes trust, children require real investment, and civilizations require children be raised into civilized adults.
In 1986 I was taking public transit to the school where I taught. A gentleman began sharing his experiences when he was a King five hundred years ago. I entertained his stories and smiled. I questioned him if this was actually possible. His demeanor changed negatively so I didn’t inquire any further. Did who he identified as make it so? Does any make believe, or desire alter reality and truth? If you share such delusions, apologize to "His Majesty" on my behalf.
There seems to be a diffrence when tackling topics, what is generally "true" and what is probable or one focuses on exceptions and treats topics as "not necessary" true. As Long as one does not adress this issue, im not sure what will be achived with either version. One has to Explain the whole picture. If one does not, then people will resort to generalizations for all, or assuming exceptionalism for oneself. Ask yourself, in what world does 1+1=2 have "exceptions", thats fundamentaly a diffrent type of "truth". But everyone thinks of their proffession as "fundamental"
Contraception has had horrific results on the morality of society, mostly women. No contraception has been a negative for society. People have to practice virtue for a good society. They just don't want to do the hard work.
Honestly.. great talk.. and useful.. however what saddens me is that people like these two struggle to say and prove what was true for our fathers and mothers.. this is good but sad.. because it means that civilization is declining and going down.. yesterday I tried to watch a seminar in which the academic explained what is the evidence that a woman is a woman and that it is not enough to say that she is a female because the academic says that he has a female cat but it is not a woman.. I felt disgusted and did not finish the seminar.. and now I salute you for this video and thank you.. from the depths of Asia
Off topic but...just noticed I had not "seen" you all in a while. Checked and noticed that I was not subscribed to DHP. Hmmm. Wonder how that happened. Good to "see" you all again!
Credo Mutwa has a different take on "male and female" which holds more weight than anything in the current realm of "scientism" and "theory" of evolution. Was during an interview with David Icke. A heartfelt intellectually/emotionally honest journey through the playlist on "my page" is recommended...
You have to use their terminology which you're not doing, they will just dismiss your argument saying sex and gender are different categories. They will argue you're talking about sex.
Two experts in evolutionary biology explain to the population what the definition is of a woman and a man. We are living in the wildest satire ever told.
Bible is specific on the male female gender issue which is that woman was made help the man get the human in man to form in the female and I think this is a very good reason and is very simple for anyone to understand. Therefore marriage is the union to bring the unborn out of the man into the woman and develop in her womb
Right? The claim is nothing special or important about being a female or male other than your preference of the "pros" vs "cons" and they claim there are ZERO cons to sterilization & mutilation so its a "no brainer" to them!
I'm going to start by admitting Im a ninth grade drop out. I'm writing this comment after watching this twice. This should be played for all College Freshman. It should be played for the Ed Schools like Columbia. I'm not swift but i know the ring of truth when i hear it. This isn't even hard to understand.
ok I am trying to see this video with neaunce and understand all the perspectives, outside of the over complication with jargon, this is what I can give. please meet me with the same nuance, as a discussion not an argument. please read in entirety before formulating a response, or dismissing the message. it felt the initial statement is we have a *DUTY* to reproduce as our sexual roles deems it. if this is the statement, as a society we don't have to on a larger scale because we have the privilege of not needing to. as for the plant sexual orientation similarity, segwaying into the psychology of how men inherently want to reproduce and women want to be choosey, has kind of a baseless undertone because sure there are similarities with a societal norm cis straight couple to those of plants, but this doesn't explain anything as to what or why we as humans would/should/don't pertain to this idea or thought process. it's only an observation of similarity, for ex. waves on water is like sound waves in the air. similar, not the same and doesn't explain anything. I think the “choosiness” is much more intricate due to intelligence, and I feel it has a much stronger entanglement with the societal portrayal of gender roles and even as far as inherent attraction to what's considered “cute” or “hot”.(+pheromones and chemical imbalances)it's also strongly likely as part of tradition started by hunter gatherers and it remained that way even after agriculture. I also think the societal’s adamant work on a vast majority of women to be more emotionally intelligent increases this choosiness. (and widens the deficit between partners) Emotional connection, and reciprocal levels of emotional intelligence, when looking for it, is significantly more intimate than surface level sex can be. To connect with someone on fundamental ideas and agree on a long set of values is something to look for in a long term partner. I feel, alongside other things, that's why when men are looking for that, they themselves become more chosy. I do understand and agree about having monogamy as a medium to have more meaningful connection. inherently wanting flings is not going to bring you close to someone who also only wants flings, this is fact. the constant touch up on the analogy is lost on me, it seems much more like a narrative explaining the different relationship and sexual communication styles between these two as individuals, not gender roles as a whole. ok I agree with the body autonomy. I agree that men accomplishing stuff for the worthiness of a partner in the past was more prevalent. to say that the motivation of a civilization as an entirety rests on the possibility of sex/reproduction feels immensely overstepped. before proceeding on that, I feel there is a much larger set of issues as a society impeeding peoples want for motivation.(ex income, cost, tax, platonic connection, lack of [family] support structure)[all being a separate debate with equal amounts of nuance] there are tons of lone wolves and people of the sort that do not care about those things yet still make immense work towards societal needs. not only that, but the larger sense of fulfillment (and dopamine) from completing tasks, or problem solving, helping people, etc. is an inherent part of what makes us so intricate and motivated. with the use of casual sex changing the enjoyment of life, and essentially lessening happiness in the long run, I can agree for some people. sex is very often a high amount of emotions and chemicals pheromones etc rushing through your body. People abuse this pretty easily, just like substances, because it's inherently mind altering. What I'm getting at is sex addicts, or using sex as a coping mechanism. that definitely is unhealthy. transgenderism has been around a long time, but the acceptance has changed vastly. it's in tons of cultures and they've been like that for a long time. yes the inherent binary biological differences between sexs are there and they remain there. lgtbq, young liberals, conservatives, and so on, most people agree with this regardless of standpoint. the only thing thats different is the identity. it can be debilitating to hyperfixate on it, but otherwise its essentially the same as a preference for art or music, mechanics or medical. personal preference and expressions as a means are from what we have available and is generally societally accepted. just like with fashion, or cars, jewelry, etc. people chose different things to express that inherent difference and uniquity of self. aligning with a large series of things both physically and mentally as say boys while being a biological girl, can be a strange discrepancy. They're not interested in being a pick me(doing it for attention) or trying to be different. they just like those things, and think those things similarly as the opposite gender role. enough so that it creates a large difference in identity and actual biology. so they transition. get to be that thing without the added “ooooo woman interested in boy things” and other intricate issues. i do think, especially with the gender affirming drugs and surgeries that can be life altering, that we should uphold that decision with a lot of weight and caution. it's essentially permanent and you need to be sure. I understand the adamant teaching of these insanely complicated topics at a young age can be toxic, just like anything that can be misconstrued or taken incorrectly.(especially around sex, gender expression, and religious/political ideals) I agree we should absolutely, within reason, control how these things are exposed to the younger people, and never push for a change in them as parents, or worry them with such complicated life altering decisions at such a young age. I'm glad we agree with harassment especially female individuals is very much an active issue.
I think comparing people to plants is overall all wrong. Is Bret enthusiastic about cheating on his wife? I personally am not having sex with just anyone that comes along and spreads their legs. So am I an abnormal person for having a certain level of standards and customs for dating or even that I think dating is and should be something that I should do?
He wasn't really saying that. He was just pointing out that females generally do have to be more fussy about their eggs. He did mention the value of having lifelong partners and men are fussy too when looking for a long term mate.
@@daisykat. do u or anybody u know think like that? i've never heard any woman ive meet reference her eggs or refer to sex as mating. i really dislike being compared to animals
@@matthewcowan6337There is no comparison. You ARE an animal. That IS your biological classification. Every aspect of your physical existence, as well as the psychology that is created in your physical brain, is dependent on your biological functionality as an animal. To believe otherwise is to deny the objective reality of what life is, how it developed, and how it functions on the planet Earth.
Why is there a perantisis on "or man" in the title? Is knowing what a man is also not as important as knowing what a woman is? I find the title ostracizing like men are an afterthought in this conversation. If anything we should ask what it means to be a man or what masculinity is since men are facing an identity crisis. Not everything that involves sex has to be centered around trans and women politics. # What Is a Woman (or Man), Explained By Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying - Dad Saves America
We’re currently working on launching on Substack, where we’ll post weekly articles from contributing writers, exclusive interviews, and opportunities for even more community engagement than the comment section here allows for.
Substack currently is home to the audio podcast of the show, and I’m also thinking about starting to host regular Zoom calls over there to discuss important issues directly with viewers. If you’re interested, please like this comment, tell me what you think in the replies, and click the link to subscribe over there to stay up to date on everything Dad Saves America!
www.dadsavesamerica.com/
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
Why are you canceling my comments. Be honest and tell the people that it’s Marxist ideas to use race and gender to make society unstable
We
It's amazing that we need to have these conversations in 2024.
It is truly amazing.
It’s sad.
My sister thinks she's a Man. So ya, it's just crazy that she even does. And all the medical people in her life are pointing her towards the lie. The confusion is real. And she grew up in a conservative house with conservative Mom and brothers. She's also on the spectrum, and a communist. She's critical to real facts, but will open her brain to any fake Marxist doctrine with out thought. But we do think there is hope. Cause she still has the ability to love her family. Most Marxissts don't.
Heather has lived at the apex of women's liberation, as have I. We have had the ability to choose what we did with our lives at every stage of our lives, with out any sacrifice - capitalise on our academic abilities, while also embracing our womanhood through marriage and motherhood at a time of our own choosing
As a 59 year old man this makes sense. I feel deeply driven to take care of my family, as if it were my only purpose.
Time of your choosing due to no more practices like child marriage, forced marriage etc I assume? No one however should kill a baby because the timing is inconvenient. There are also no medical predicaments that require poisoning or dismembering a baby to save the mother. You just have to remove the baby vs actively destroy them. They may or may not survive outside the womb for a variety of reasons but they should be fought for just like a larger human would be. The age of viability (currently what, 22-23 weeks?) is just going to decrease every year due to medical advancements. Children we can't save we should still treat their bodies and remains with dignity vs literally knowingly throw them in the trash. Early miscarriages for instance where the woman did not keep up with tracking & testing in the weeks following sex may not know the remains of their child has passed. But like with many morals, intent matters and so if medication professionals KNOW the remains are a child they should not be allowed to dispose of them in the biohazard just because they are small - that would never be acceptable for a larger human.
I am really happy if you are happy, I just have to say - choice always entails sacrifice. If a woman could have children at 20 but chooses to at 30, 10 years of 'young motherhood' have been sacrificed. I'm not saying she is wrong, or she should be forced to do this or that - but a sacrifice was made.
No doubt! something was definitely missed out on, any way you slice it@@Tartersauce101
What a lot of people heathers age did was they had a kid during their education.. Honestly this may be a controversial take, but I think that needs to happen more often, women had kids during their education, pick their degree more carefully etc.. And their real partner as well Kick starts the young male responsibility of saving and protecting, and they will work together to balance school and their child..
Mother had me when she really wasn't supposed to, right before she entered residency..but my dad quit work to raise us.y@@Tartersauce101
Great follow-up comment by Heather on the unexpected consequences of birth control, "...instead of encouraging more men to act like women at their best, it encouraged more women to act like men at their worst and encouraging either sex to act like the other sex at their worst is obviously not good for any of us."
This is a quote worth memorizing.
No, this is a stupid quote because the very idea of “their best” is some extra-scientific/non-scientific moralistic mumbo jumbo that is totally out of place. What is “good for any of us” is not to be found in biology, but in a much broader conception for humanity that is totally outside their area of expertise. What constitutes a ‘good life’ is philosophy, not science.
@@RC-qf3mp They are right. Both.
@@dukecity7688 it’s not a scientific claim within their realm of expertise and they provided nothing to back it up. It’s preaching, the opposite of science.
It’s a very good quote and is based on the amalgamation of a holistic view of the data we have on the biology, physics, psychology and behaviour .. it IS scientific because the data they reference is both quantitative and qualitative - works on inferences and hypothesis which is the basis for science. People saying it is not science have never published research let alone read any…?
How far have we fallen when this becomes advanced learning
Did anybody watch kindergarten cop?
ez fix , repeal the 19th ....
A healthy person needs no explanation, a maniac does. Normal people put their heads into the universe, the maniac attempts to put the universe into their head (BW). Is this a Babylon Bee skit?
its not, well...maybe in america but everyone else pretty much knows.
Yep. Amazing. Just read the comments section. The Kool Aid has been swallowed.
The fact that we have to explain what the biological differences between males and females is painful, that we have to explain that there ARE differences is just stupid.
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
How in the world have we come to the point where people are quicker to believe a lie than they are to believe the obvious truth which they can see with their own eyes? Why do they even need you or anyone to explain basic biology to them? Something is very, very wrong in America.
It is a reflection of who we have credentialed to give us information. They have abused that privilege and told us distortions and lies.
Radical, intolerant, divisive, political activism.
Yuri Bezmenov.
@@panzer00 that's right. He told us back in the 1980s.
@charlysteenstevens9314 Its crazy how many people know there is a problem but they have no idea where it came from.
Heather's comment on how birth control resulted in female's behaving like men at their worst made me howl with laughter because she nailed it!
I cherish this interview. ❤
It sums up the binary sex argument in the most elegant way, making it culturally relevant.
Heather is a mentor to women on what it means to be physically durable, intelligent, assertive, courageous and still quintessentially female.
Bret is that floating bit of pollen who turned into a mighty oak - solid, faithful and dependable in his stances and arguments.
Both of them offer a continuing public service in bringing the sanity of biological reality into public discourse across a number of critically important topics.
In short, each is a national treasure.
Thanks for posting. 🙏🏼
From the title, I thought this was a Babylon bee piece. Good job filling 20 min of insightful commentary on the topic.
We live in bizarre times where simple statements of fact now feel like clickbait.
@@DadSavesAmericaI’m stealing that line. That’s as succinct as it gets.
I actually think the difference between how men and women use dating apps has more to do with safety than sexual strategy. Men are not taught to be afraid of women. So, there is no felt risk for a man to swipe on every woman that is even remotely interesting to them. They can figure out if they are real match later. Women _are_ taught to be afraid of men. So, there is a strong felt risk, leading to women only swiping on the men that they are sure about.
It's not just what we are taught. It's that men are a real danger to women and not vice versa. This is not a social construct.
And I do believe that women are choosier than men. It's the only tenet of evolutionary psych that applies across all cultures.
The people "teaching" us to be afraid of men are men themselves.
Let’s spend valuable time explaining and defending basic biology 101…
What's really shocking and annoying is that there is a significant population in the world today for whom this is NEWS. They have been inculcated to believe this information is merely a form of white male supremacy.
Have you meet the far left? Everything is a social construct to those people. Nothing is absolute truth, only perceived truth.
Because apparently, lots of people don't understand it.
@@freesk8 I am mad at the psychiatrists! I believe this issue is NOT "I'm the wrong gender", yet a psychological aversion to reality.
@@ernestcote3398 Yep. They have sold out. They make a lot of money via transitions.
For two people, whom I greatly respect, who so often cite Chesterton’s Fence in their work, to so wholly miss the Chesterton’s Wall that they’ve run into here is interesting. All of the benefits and advancements, etc., that they alluded to regarding women’s “emancipation” and ability to enter the workforce is a gigantic synthetic “victory” even on this front. All the benefits women (and society) gained have come at an enormous price - the total breakdown of the family unit, increased infertility, mental health issues we never dealt with before, a new kind of cultural mind virus that is leading us ever faster down a spiral of incoherence, a radical shift in the labour economy (wages especially), questionable shifts in the focus and quality of academia …. BUT - as Bret would say - it’s worse than that. This all sits atop synthetic hormones suppressing female biological processes that we are just beginning to see we need much more research on. And the liberation of women wasn’t a liberation in any real sense because if, tomorrow, synthetic hormones went away, if all artificial birth control went away, so would this “liberation” which means we did not accommodate women in the workplace and we didn’t actually shift societies views of the value of women’s work at all. We did not fundamentally re order anything in society to allow for women to add their ideas, innovations, labour, etc. We forced women to become a version of a male, to mimic males in behaviours and focuses and incentives. Women have had to physically, mentally, and emotionally subvert their very nature in order to be “liberated”. It’s still A Man’s World. Women haven’t actually been liberated much at all and society hasn’t gained enough positives to outweigh the ever growing weight of negatives. I’m struggling to make this clear …. Other than gaining the right to vote and to be legally independent from our male family members …. What have we gained? You can get a job but it will cost you dearly; emotionally, physically, mentally, psychically …. I mean … what? It’s in this topic most especially that I can still see the vestiges of their liberal upbringing and education and I wonder if they will ever fully detangle their intellectual scaffolding from it. They bought into feminism and still can’t quite see how insane the movement was from the start. It was not anything at all about advancing Woman. It was a complete attack on all things feminine and it subverted biological reality completely. It was and remains the total inversion of what it claims to be. Society truly valuing women would accommodate motherhood, would not do untold harm to women’s health, and would not require the sacrificing of the health and stability of the family unit, and it would not result in this profound cultural incoherence we now have.
Well said. It’s never taken into account that doubling the workforce essentially forced women to get jobs by increasing the amount of money families were able to spend, driving costs up to match that double income. To afford a home now a woman MUST work since costs have now factored in two incomes. She MUST put her children into daycare, paying another adult to do a bad job of raising your children, if she has any hope of owning a home or paying for kids college or having a retirement.
And on the other side of this scale we have what? Heather gets to work as a biologist? Great, but she is an outlier. My wife is much less enthusiastic about sitting at a laptop answering phone calls for 8 hours a day. Every single woman I know would prefer to go back to the way it was and be a full time mother, but we don’t get 2 hour sit down talks with everyday women.
@@Fairdemand554 Amen
This makes so much sense.
Heather and Bret are awesome.
Love listening to them.
This is so powerful. Thanks to the three of you.
Hey, get deGrasse on and he can explain to everyone how a male elephant can wake up one morning - "feeling" female - and magically - "trans-from" - INTO a female elephant. Its all rather quite amazing as he explains it. : /
😂😂😂😂😂😂
My only problem with this interview was that while articulating very precisely the problems and causes, rolling it back is not an option. That's like saying we know we're heading off a cliff and we know why we're heading off a cliff, but going back and changing directions from the wrong turn we took earlier is not an option and so we're going to go off this cliff. There are no solutions, and certainly no good ones, only tradeoffs. To them, the tradeoffs must be worth the ongoing trainwreck.
No going back? Was it Iran that had women in short shorts, smoking & driving a few decades ago? You CAN go back, just depends how far & what you are willing to do to get there.
They're on drugs. Both of them.
@@orphanedhanyou Agreed, and that's a good example. That's something I wish was at least discussed in this interview.
Why do you think there is no going back? People do it all the time.
Because they captured their audience's pessimism.
In general, this talk was good, but I cringed when he said that birth control was an "advance of civilization", and we shouldn't "go backwards." My friend, I'm no luddite, but technology should serve human wellbeing, not be our master. Progress is being wise enough to use our power responsibly.
15:45 Heather's successful negotiation of work and family was likely due to the use of synthetic sex hormones, namely birth control.
Hormonal birth control has become so ingrained in our culture that I think we often underestimate it's power, for good and for ill.
While I also appreciate all the gains women have made, does no one else find it troubling that in order for a woman to be "successful" in the 21st century, she likely has to supress a perfectly normal bodily function using pharmaceuticals?
Is it truly liberation if such a fundamental aspect of who I am as a female person must be thrwarted medically?
Also, if we've already made the case that for the sake of women's bodily autonomy and liberation, she can use synthetic sex hormones to interfere in reproductive processes-- what leg do we have to stand on to tell trans identifying people that they can't also use synthetic sex hormones to liberate themselves?
You bring up great points. Birth control overall is horrible for women's health & so many children because women think it's just a magic pill and still don't track possible progress after sex and stop consuming them as soon as possible once they discover they are pregnant, causing health issues or death to their child.
Interesting comment but it is not quite the same thing. First of all, synthetic hormones are not the only way to prevent conception. Secondly, a biological woman is no less a woman if she, for whatever reason, does not have biological children. While I would not tell any adult what to do, a biological male taking estrogen is still a biological male.
The argument is not that trans-identifying people should not be able to use synthetic sex hormones to "liberate themselves". The argument is that minors -- CHILDREN -- should be ONLY psychologically helped and not medically or surgically helped UNTIL they are adults, whereupon they are free to make whatever decisions they wish as to what to do with their own ADULT bodies. Not seeing the distinction is being willfully obtuse.
@@libbyadler9360exactly.
There are alot of women in various religious groups who do control their fertility through Natural Family Planning. Yes is it ridiculed by many but I grew up religious and saw that it does indeed work. I knew very religious women with only two or three children, by design. That's all the kids they and their husbands wanted . And if you never take hormonal birth control of any kind its even easier to practice NFP. (Because your cycle won't be interfered with.) I used only NFP as an adult and never got pregnant. I know my cycle and I never got pregnant until I wanted to (which was with my now husband, for both our kids). If you don't want to get pregnant, know when you ovulate. It is not that hard. It takes a little knowledge, attention to your body, discipline (or condoms, about 7 days out of your cycle only) and some charting.
Heather for woman of the year!! 😄 Thanks to you both for a great discussion.
I appreciate you all and the clarity you bring on tough issues we are all facing.
Thanks, Pamela!!
Heather: It's as fundamental as two plus two equals four
Terrence Howard: You should say it's as fundamental as one times one equals two
"We took away one of the fundamentals and didn't pay close attention to all the stuff that was connected to it."
So true. On so MANY levels. The Law of Unintended Consequences is kicking our asses right now.
Heather is a truly inspiring woman
I love these two! Been following Bret & Heather for years now. Their voices are so important in this discussion and in helping to distinguish between ideology, out of control social pressures (i.e. cult-like trends), actual biology, and the rapidly disintegrating, adulterated realm of medical ethics. The allegiance to 'first do no harm' has been trampled in this bizarre movement -- sadly propelled by for-profit medicine (and yes, as ghoulish as it sounds, it's true) -- and doctors and other medical professionals have entered 'the darkness' interceding in children reaching their normal, healthy, biological maturity and therefore fully functioning bodies. A 'trans' person can decide once they're a physiological adult -- which will likely accompany more mental and emotional maturity and clarity -- if they want to mess around with their bodies. Humans, in this strange world we're living in, obviously need more time to navigate these complex and increasingly treacherous transitions. ☮💞🌟
Birth control may be adversely affecting mate selection. Among other things it breaks a smell clue that prevents attraction when two immune systems are too similar.
Could birth control be behind the explosion in allergies?
Heather hit a good balance. She understood where she was and who she is on the board. She understood that she was playing amongst men and how they play amongst themselves while fortunately not harassed. She knew how to play that game of the predominant crowd in a space and not make or take it personal and they embraced her like a culture. One she was familiar with and respected and it respected her back.
In 1959 and 1960 my mom got "with child" while unmarried, and the father of the child had to marry her and raise the child, according to social norms and the shame of illegitimacy. All my life I heard that's wrong and cruel but... I tell ya, my mother lucked out. Dad stayed to raise his children. We did not have an easy dad. He was frustrated and we were all lost. BUT we were valued more than some kind of freedom and children are to be made important, because they are your legacy. Mom would have found some second-rate guy and we kids would not have been kept safe.
I love them as a couple. Maube they should focus on couple advice, since it's an issue right now, but they are an excellent example of a couple where they both have careers at at high level and they still make it work. They're not trying to go back to the trad wife or women stays at home days.In addition, I had gender disphoria as a child. I grew out of it. I'm just a somewhat androgynous female and as I grew older, I began to like it about myself.
This video should be shared across all schools. Its so simple yet so hard for people to understand basic biology.
In todays world this would be censored as hate speech😕
It's fun to ponder that there is a fundamental tension at the root of all sexual biology going back half a billion years, that comes down to classic R-selection vs. K-selection, at the gametic level.
That inherent yin-yang tension produces all the magic, yet too many in modernity mistake the feature for a bug.
Thank you for this DSA. Our country needs more of this right now 🇺🇲
Thank you brother. More to come!!!
I wish I had a marriage like these two
this video needs to spread long and hard against the current "Wack a do's "rhetoric that is infecting our youth
They are saying EXACTLY what I’ve been saying and have been arguing these very points over and over again. I’m relieved to see that these experts are also making these points and seeing these same issues.
Love Heather, adore Brett, but their take on this issue highlights something that annoys me to no end about academics in general, which is: having correctly identified a problem that is corrosive to the fabric of society, why do they never have the COURAGE to take the next logical step, and make a definitive moral prescription to solve it? In any other context, they will freely accept that there’s no amount of (allegedly) high minded thinking that will untether us from biology, but here, because (I suspect) they can’t overcome their prejudice against those with moral prescriptions, they still MUST equivocate and be mealy mouthed about what to do about it. “Pro intellect, anti-wisdom” seems to be the mantra of academics, and it’s ceaselessly exasperating.
I am inclined towards your view here in that the gap between our culture and our nature can’t keep growing without turning into a chasm that consumes us all. Can we close it? Maybe not. Might that be the only way to avoid a fall? Probably! Will the change happen if we don’t try? Surely not!!!
Because that's not their job. It's no one's job to make moral pronouncements. We are adults, take in the information and make your own decisions.
@@BeforeWarTheBook It's "no one's job" to be kind to the elderly, not shoplift, or stop at red lights either, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I'm not asking for a moral pronouncement because I personally need clarification on the issue. I'm asking for one because if someone gives a convincing argument for why something is bad, but then refuses to make a simple moral ruling on the issue, it calls into question the moral compass of the arguer. Mealy mouthed moral relativism is largely responsible for the mess the world finds itself in. We'd all be better off if more people had the courage to tell the truth when it's plain to see.
@@brendanthegreek They are academics. They simply report on their findings. Moral pronouncements are for preachers. It would seriously impact their credibility in my eyes if they were to meddle in morality.
@@BeforeWarTheBook Limiting moral reasoning solely to the domain of preachers would be as silly as limiting thinking solely to the domain of academics. Hyper-specialization is for insects, not humans. Facts and truth, ought and is-these are two sides of the same coin.
Bret and Heather are awesome. I really enjoy dark horse. I know bret more and he’s probably the smartest person I’ve ever listened to.
Really like this double interview format. Brings alot more weight and clarity to the table.
Powerful, unassailable truths, very clearly laid out, great work. I'd add that successful societies mould themselves around these truths. This is were traditional roles come from and are simply a reflection of our basic biology.
Sorry I'm late to the party. It is amazing to listen to this discussion from a human secular world view when I've heard the same argument with the same conclusions from an orthodox Christian view. In the final analysis, is cheapening "sex", especially thanks to birth contol, a good thing? Should we NOT think through the possible complications (and I'm really addressing my fellow XY's, most of us were never truly taught to) before we act on our animal impulse? Is "sewing our wild oats" (and I'm speaking to us XY's) something that betters our experience or dampens it entirely? The entire "debate" on abortion hinges on the need for a "back up plan" when we fail to contemplate our action in the first place. Instead we throw in emotional reactions to forced rape, incest, life threatening conditions as if they are the 99%+ instead of the 1% -.
This is why in our society, the dynamic is the men are the askers and the women are the approvers. If we are honest, this is why people are less inclined to condemn a female teacher for you know what than make teachers. The law doesn't differentiate generally speaking, but sentiment does.
A man has hands (hence manual) a woman is a man with a womb (womb - man).
This means that "man" is not a gendered term, hence "mankind" referring to both male and female.
Yes, my German born mother explained this to me more than 50 years ago.
This is amazing
That's a good example of perverting the meaning of language to fit your narative. There are two genders male and female, masculine and feminine, one has XX chromosomes and the other has XY chromosomes. Simple biology. Intersex is a very rare anomaly but is not another sex, for someone in this category, will present as more dominate towards one sex or the other.
Given what they say, about the fundamental differences in mating strategies between the sexes, the birth control pill and sexual revolution that followed was really revolutionary indeed.
But I'm not sure how well women fares as a whole having all this opportunity? Are they really happier for it? Like, the character Samantha in Sex and the City has always been hyped and loved by women, but she always felt unreal to me - I never met a "Samantha" in real life, that is, a promiscuous woman that at the same time was successful, mentally healthy and Independent.
I'm not sure how happy serial casual sex makes women either, but maybe I'm just projecting. I am prepared to say it's a good thing for them to have the choice. What I am sure is that women over the generations have pursued monogamy to retain a partner, in order to survive economically/socially (and their children too). Even when they suffered bad behaviour at the hands of their partner.
@@vernaxxx8940 Yes I share that analyzis. Being ”picky” is a good way to make sure you get heatlhy offspring and hightens the chance that the father sticks around to share the burden of parenthood. And given how much women naturally are affected from having sex: becoming pregnant with all the risks that comes with, carrying and taking responsibility for children - it would perhaps be strange if their sexual pattern looked just like it does for men.
Heather is so genuine - anyone would be lucky to work with her.
Birth control and No Fault divorce have created a HUGE problem in society. Frankly, the risk for men is WAY TOO HIGH to get married now days, so many don't.
Men not doing childcare and not giving his money in the marriage is why women divorce and make him do the same.
@@serenesrn3827 And right there is the problem. Men not being fathers and women only in it for the money. Fault divorce would FORCE both man and woman to grow up and make the marriage work. No easy outs just because neither got what they wanted.
That will just increase the fault divorces . Verbal abuse , sexual coercion, financial abuse , emotional abuse other than physical abuse are all reasons women file for divorce. Not doing any childcare and not giving half his income in the marriage are faults too . If divorce is better than the marriage that is when the women file for divorce. Men who want to stay married should make the marriage better than a divorce for the woman.
@@serenesrn3827 Right, because women are NEVER abusive. Seriously, grow up already. Women are not anymore innocent than men. If you had a bad experince I'm truly sorry, but that doesn't make all men bad nor does that automatically make all women blameless! Your experience IS NOT what everyone else expereinces too!
Jryer 95 percent of the family anhilators are men . 90 percent of all global homicides are done by men . Women are nowhere near men in violence . The top cause of maternal mortality in the US is the mother being killed by the very dude / husband that impregnated her .
According to everything that’s being said here, it would follow that if birth control is causing women to act like men at their worst, and that’s the opposite result that we as a society are looking for, then removing birth control from the equation again, would balance the equation Again.
Not all women though. Read Dr Sarah Hill's book "This is Your Brain on Birth Control "
It is sad that we have to say something so patently obvious in a society that tries to negate itself. Thank you, Bret and Heather, for your bravery and commonsense approach.
"you decided what you wanted and there was no bar {sic} to getting them"
This is only true for the middle classes and above
"Bastardization of logic." Great term and right on point.
While Heather imagines some students who identified as opposite sex are "probably living their best life" but the truth is we have a little waves of deaths of post op "sex reassignment" individuals 2021-24: Griffin Sivrin, 24, natal female, died a few months ago of sepsis from botched 'phalloplasty." Yarden Seveira, 24, natal male, died by his own hand in 2021 after regretting and going back to Mount Sinai Hospital where he had his "vaginoplasty" --it caused colon blockage. Liam Johns, natal female and mother of 2 and 4 year old, died of kidney failure after months of dialysis from testosterone poisoning. The "Trans Journalists Association Style Guide" a webpage from this cult, demands we do not report these deaths. WTF?
Honestly, I don’t think I’d ever heard of gametes before, or if I had, it was many moons ago in biology class, but this was interesting for me to learn about, and also helps to explain in part why women tend to overall be more choosy in their sexual partners than men are. I also appreciated how they connected that with how now with many options around birth control and condoms, it has allowed women to have more freedom sexually, but it has also lessened men’s incentives to invest in them and for men and women to take on the toxic traits/behaviors of the other. I’ve been noticing these things for awhile myself and as someone who has found it incredibly difficult since at least my late 20s/early 30s to try to date or just develop relationships and friendships with men first. I know for a lot of women and even some men (including younger generations) that this has also been true for them.
That guy is very intelligent and talks on point. He's very clear about what he says.
But that female is so confusing, I don't understand what she is trying to say lol.
Whether or not the old way is desirable is irrelevant when the new way cannot sustain itself, which is to say if it results in below replacement rate it cannot propagate
It’s so, unbelievably, sad that this conversation is needed for adults with an IQ above 50…
But she’s wrong. Sex is not binary. She should know there are people born with male chromosome and female anatomy - and vice verse.
Makes it even more interesting to find that polen does not live alone. One polen carries microbes and it's them who give information/nutrients to the polen for it to develop.
The issue of fe-male has two major components, biology and culture or nature vs nurture, these two are independent but affecting each other since human start to develop culture when they become bipedal, walking on two legs 4 million years ago!
I remember from elementary school learning about how some trees are created.
Gender is a grammatical construct.
Sex is a biological classification.
Both words are from the latin, and have been interchangeable for centuries. The woke movement has implied a difference to suit their agenda. A difference that historically never existed.
@@normsky5504 I don't speak Latin.
I used to teach these principals in public high school in Mass. Used to... I was mocked by my union collegues, Not part of the state curriculum, I was not being "sensitive to our diverse student population". Translation, i was not liberal.
The evolutionary understanding of sex and sex roles is certainly solid. However the interpretation of human behaviour and especially placing moral values on behaviour (which is so diverse and complex) seems a little subjective. for instance implying 'casual sex' isn't good for humanity is just an opinion. I know loads of people who don't want kids or long term sexual partners who are very happy.
agreed
Individual hapiness has nothing to do with the wellbeing of a race, human or not. It's irrelevant in the best scenario. 😅
there was a study of female sexual preferences in the UK back in the 80's or early 90's.... that found women chose marriage mates, not for looks, but for financial stability to be able to raise their children in basic comforts to maturity... and if they were to have an affair, they chose a more physically masculine and healthier male... that women even had the ability to reject and expel inferior sperm from a donor who wasn't physically masculine vs a male whose sperm would give her the offspring that had a better chance of healthy and strong survival...
Everyone makes this so complicated. Every culture ever has made the distinction between the sexes. We all know the difference. Anyone who claims otherwise is refusing to speak the language. It's the definition of "Cultural Appropriation". The English culture defines both man and woman - end of story. If you claim otherwise then YOU don't belong to any human culture.
Much love for Heather and Bret.
You can practically hear the man telling the woman, "I'm looking for a long-term relationship" while she worries whether he's just saying that to get in her pants, and knowing she'd likely get a thrill out of it regardless. And I like the characterization of monogamy as a piece of software technology, that seems exactly the way to think of the role of it and why it becomes so important to civilization. Real investment takes trust, children require real investment, and civilizations require children be raised into civilized adults.
Such a clear, valuable presentation.
In 1986 I was taking public transit to the school where I taught. A gentleman began sharing his experiences when he was a King five hundred years ago. I entertained his stories and smiled. I questioned him if this was actually possible. His demeanor changed negatively so I didn’t inquire any further.
Did who he identified as make it so? Does any make believe, or desire alter reality and truth? If you share such delusions, apologize to "His Majesty" on my behalf.
There seems to be a diffrence when tackling topics, what is generally "true" and what is probable or one focuses on exceptions and treats topics as "not necessary" true.
As Long as one does not adress this issue, im not sure what will be achived with either version. One has to Explain the whole picture. If one does not, then people will resort to generalizations for all, or assuming exceptionalism for oneself.
Ask yourself, in what world does 1+1=2 have "exceptions", thats fundamentaly a diffrent type of "truth". But everyone thinks of their proffession as "fundamental"
Contraception has had horrific results on the morality of society, mostly women.
No contraception has been a negative for society. People have to practice virtue for a good society. They just don't want to do the hard work.
Man, this was good!
Honestly.. great talk.. and useful.. however what saddens me is that people like these two struggle to say and prove what was true for our fathers and mothers.. this is good but sad.. because it means that civilization is declining and going down.. yesterday I tried to watch a seminar in which the academic explained what is the evidence that a woman is a woman and that it is not enough to say that she is a female because the academic says that he has a female cat but it is not a woman.. I felt disgusted and did not finish the seminar.. and now I salute you for this video and thank you.. from the depths of Asia
Off topic but...just noticed I had not "seen" you all in a while. Checked and noticed that I was not subscribed to DHP. Hmmm. Wonder how that happened. Good to "see" you all again!
The eugenics of our time.
Great video, just subscribed. Can you do a video on the "mother blaming" trend please?
Credo Mutwa has a different take on "male and female" which holds more weight than anything in the current realm of "scientism" and "theory" of evolution. Was during an interview with David Icke.
A heartfelt intellectually/emotionally honest journey through the playlist on "my page" is recommended...
I have an issue with the idea that casual sex leads to a hollow existence. That's a judgement, not a scientific conclusion.
Well done!
seeing competent educated adults having to discuss this issue is disheartening and the fruit of peak psy-op
You have to use their terminology which you're not doing, they will just dismiss your argument saying sex and gender are different categories. They will argue you're talking about sex.
Two experts in evolutionary biology explain to the population what the definition is of a woman and a man. We are living in the wildest satire ever told.
Sex is in your body; gender is in your mind.
Bible is specific on the male female gender issue which is that woman was made help the man get the human in man to form in the female and I think this is a very good reason and is very simple for anyone to understand. Therefore marriage is the union to bring the unborn out of the man into the woman and develop in her womb
If someone told me I could skip puberty and menstruation, I, too, would have absolutely become trans.
Right? The claim is nothing special or important about being a female or male other than your preference of the "pros" vs "cons" and they claim there are ZERO cons to sterilization & mutilation so its a "no brainer" to them!
I'm going to start by admitting Im a ninth grade drop out. I'm writing this comment after watching this twice. This should be played for all College Freshman. It should be played for the Ed Schools like Columbia. I'm not swift but i know the ring of truth when i hear it. This isn't even hard to understand.
Love this
It’s become a kind of “Fashion”
Marvelous! Well said. Thanks!
ok I am trying to see this video with neaunce and understand all the perspectives, outside of the over complication with jargon, this is what I can give. please meet me with the same nuance, as a discussion not an argument. please read in entirety before formulating a response, or dismissing the message.
it felt the initial statement is we have a *DUTY* to reproduce as our sexual roles deems it. if this is the statement, as a society we don't have to on a larger scale because we have the privilege of not needing to. as for the plant sexual orientation similarity, segwaying into the psychology of how men inherently want to reproduce and women want to be choosey, has kind of a baseless undertone because sure there are similarities with a societal norm cis straight couple to those of plants, but this doesn't explain anything as to what or why we as humans would/should/don't pertain to this idea or thought process. it's only an observation of similarity, for ex. waves on water is like sound waves in the air. similar, not the same and doesn't explain anything. I think the “choosiness” is much more intricate due to intelligence, and I feel it has a much stronger entanglement with the societal portrayal of gender roles and even as far as inherent attraction to what's considered “cute” or “hot”.(+pheromones and chemical imbalances)it's also strongly likely as part of tradition started by hunter gatherers and it remained that way even after agriculture. I also think the societal’s adamant work on a vast majority of women to be more emotionally intelligent increases this choosiness. (and widens the deficit between partners) Emotional connection, and reciprocal levels of emotional intelligence, when looking for it, is significantly more intimate than surface level sex can be. To connect with someone on fundamental ideas and agree on a long set of values is something to look for in a long term partner. I feel, alongside other things, that's why when men are looking for that, they themselves become more chosy.
I do understand and agree about having monogamy as a medium to have more meaningful connection. inherently wanting flings is not going to bring you close to someone who also only wants flings, this is fact.
the constant touch up on the analogy is lost on me, it seems much more like a narrative explaining the different relationship and sexual communication styles between these two as individuals, not gender roles as a whole.
ok I agree with the body autonomy.
I agree that men accomplishing stuff for the worthiness of a partner in the past was more prevalent. to say that the motivation of a civilization as an entirety rests on the possibility of sex/reproduction feels immensely overstepped. before proceeding on that, I feel there is a much larger set of issues as a society impeeding peoples want for motivation.(ex income, cost, tax, platonic connection, lack of [family] support structure)[all being a separate debate with equal amounts of nuance] there are tons of lone wolves and people of the sort that do not care about those things yet still make immense work towards societal needs. not only that, but the larger sense of fulfillment (and dopamine) from completing tasks, or problem solving, helping people, etc. is an inherent part of what makes us so intricate and motivated.
with the use of casual sex changing the enjoyment of life, and essentially lessening happiness in the long run, I can agree for some people. sex is very often a high amount of emotions and chemicals pheromones etc rushing through your body. People abuse this pretty easily, just like substances, because it's inherently mind altering. What I'm getting at is sex addicts, or using sex as a coping mechanism. that definitely is unhealthy.
transgenderism has been around a long time, but the acceptance has changed vastly. it's in tons of cultures and they've been like that for a long time. yes the inherent binary biological differences between sexs are there and they remain there. lgtbq, young liberals, conservatives, and so on, most people agree with this regardless of standpoint. the only thing thats different is the identity. it can be debilitating to hyperfixate on it, but otherwise its essentially the same as a preference for art or music, mechanics or medical. personal preference and expressions as a means are from what we have available and is generally societally accepted. just like with fashion, or cars, jewelry, etc. people chose different things to express that inherent difference and uniquity of self. aligning with a large series of things both physically and mentally as say boys while being a biological girl, can be a strange discrepancy. They're not interested in being a pick me(doing it for attention) or trying to be different. they just like those things, and think those things similarly as the opposite gender role. enough so that it creates a large difference in identity and actual biology. so they transition. get to be that thing without the added “ooooo woman interested in boy things” and other intricate issues. i do think, especially with the gender affirming drugs and surgeries that can be life altering, that we should uphold that decision with a lot of weight and caution. it's essentially permanent and you need to be sure.
I understand the adamant teaching of these insanely complicated topics at a young age can be toxic, just like anything that can be misconstrued or taken incorrectly.(especially around sex, gender expression, and religious/political ideals) I agree we should absolutely, within reason, control how these things are exposed to the younger people, and never push for a change in them as parents, or worry them with such complicated life altering decisions at such a young age.
I'm glad we agree with harassment especially female individuals is very much an active issue.
you are actually the most intelligent commenter on this video
VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!!
I think comparing people to plants is overall all wrong. Is Bret enthusiastic about cheating on his wife? I personally am not having sex with just anyone that comes along and spreads their legs. So am I an abnormal person for having a certain level of standards and customs for dating or even that I think dating is and should be something that I should do?
He wasn't really saying that. He was just pointing out that females generally do have to be more fussy about their eggs. He did mention the value of having lifelong partners and men are fussy too when looking for a long term mate.
@@daisykat. do u or anybody u know think like that? i've never heard any woman ive meet reference her eggs or refer to sex as mating. i really dislike being compared to animals
@@matthewcowan6337There is no comparison. You ARE an animal. That IS your biological classification. Every aspect of your physical existence, as well as the psychology that is created in your physical brain, is dependent on your biological functionality as an animal. To believe otherwise is to deny the objective reality of what life is, how it developed, and how it functions on the planet Earth.
The software idea goes both ways... with the advent of birth control women are less selective about who they have sex with for an evening.
Pretty mind blowing that this is serious thing to discuss about😶
Sexual dimorphism has conferred tremendous benefits on countless species, including humans. I believe Charles Aznavour said, "Viva la difference!"
Blasphemers! How dare they bring logic into Woke's house‽😂
It's such a relief to hear some common sense amongst the sea of insanyty we live in...
Comes down to chromosomes.
Mic drop
Me with a single mom: 👁️ 👄 👁️
And a gender: 👁️👁️👄👄👁️👁️
News flash, everyone is practically agender. You aren’t so special.
The closest we will ever get to Sheldon and Amy in real life.
She really doesn’t want to hear what he’s saying. Read Humanae Vitae and it will become quite clear as to why it was written.
Why is there a perantisis on "or man" in the title? Is knowing what a man is also not as important as knowing what a woman is? I find the title ostracizing like men are an afterthought in this conversation. If anything we should ask what it means to be a man or what masculinity is since men are facing an identity crisis. Not everything that involves sex has to be centered around trans and women politics. # What Is a Woman (or Man), Explained By Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying - Dad Saves America
I love this couple.