What is a "Woman"? w/ Gender Philosopher Tomas Bogardus

Some people are unaware of how to define the term "woman." In this interview, Dr. Tomas Bogardus, a published philosopher in gender studies, reveals the best way to define the term.
Dr. Bogardus' website: sites.google.c...
--------------------------- FREE STUFF ---------------------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CC...
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on KZbin: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchris...
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#Woman #Gender #Apologetics

[@Vic2point0]

Man: adult human male, with "male" being someone whose body developed largely toward the purpose/function of begetting children. Woman: adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body developed largely toward the purpose/function of bearing children. These definitions would include those who, due to aging, defects, etc. cannot actually fulfil their respective reproductive roles/functions.

[@SNUGandSESOR]

Bogardus is an awesome name. Sounds like this guy is about to establish an empire that will last 300 years. And he's also a great interviewee with much knowledge on gender, so that's a plus.

[@aaron_johnson]

Great Vid! Always love Dr. Bogardus. His appearance on this channel when he first addressed some questions regarding gender and the trans conversation was exactly what I needed and has set me on a very productive path in that arena.

[@ceceroxy2227]

Its funny only the developed world has this issue, go to any african, south american, asian country, they dont need to have discussions on what a man and woman is.

[@chrisvalenzuela7911]

Spot on. It's ridiculous that knowing what a man and woman is is this difficult for the modern American (and European, among others). I honestly can't really believe it, but oh well.

[@beewithab6122]

Dying civilization arguing about sex and gender stuff..What else can we expect?

[@breezybhris4223]

@@chrisvalenzuela7911 It is pretty idiotic to claim that gender abolitionist or those who are critical of the role gender plays in society are lacking an understanding around the topic of what is a man and a woman. It's more so that due to creative anti-realism individuals on the left predominately are rejecting this grand meta narrative of gender binaries, but you don't care about an actually nuanced understanding of those you disagree with, you merely wish to pander to this conservative comment section and pretend that some random comment lord on KZbin has a better grasp or understanding of gender than the rest of the developed world.

[@sermon1984]

😅😅 other countries have more than 2 Genders what are you talking about.

[@cirusa12]

*TIMESTAMPS / SUMMARY* (as I understood the conversation): 3:00 Video idea came up because of Ketanji Brown Jackson being asked what a woman is. Bogardus surprised that philosophy of gender issues worked their way up from grassroots to supreme court nominee level. Doesn't blame Ketanji for not coming up with something on the spot- surprisingly hard for most people to come up with definitions for basic terms. 5:50 People might object to the fact that two men are having a conversation about what a woman is. Bogardus says we could do conversation by asking "What is a man" instead of "What is a woman", which would be fine as they're men. The public discourse tends to revolve more around women because crux of the dispute is women's spaces (prisons, competitions, lockers), as opposed to men's. 8:20 Bogardus wants to give map of current gender debate 9:00 Philosophers (even trans-inclusive ones) concede that what woman 'ordinarily' means is the dictionary definition (adult female human). 12:10 Dictionary definitions of female include "the sex which can bear offspring" and "producing gametes (ova) that can develop into an individual" 14:00 We ordinarily say things in biology like "apple trees produce apples" and "the heart pumps blood". At face value, these aren't always true (e.g. due to disease)- to make these statements always true, there must be a "When functioning properly" qualifier, which is implicit in these statements, and also in dictionary definitions of 'female'. 16:50 - Talk of 'functions' and 'teleology' may not be palatable to some naturalists, but most of them are OK with it. A naturalist might say that to describe the heart's function is to describe what it evolved to do. 19:20 - A naturalist is more likely to stomach phrases like "functions" as opposed to statements like "the heart was MEANT to pump blood", which imply goal-directedness. 23:01- Terms like "male"/"female" are different from terms like "heart/kidney". Terms like "female" are naming entities with second order functions: entities (humans) with an ability to have an ability (to bear offspring). This is opposed to terms like "heart" which name entities with first order functions: entities (organs) with an ability (to pump blood). That's why we can refer to human embryos as "male" or "renates" or "chordates" before their sex organs, kidneys and spines are fully developed. 25:37 There is no need to mention chromosomes/genitals/hormones when defining a "man", all you need is to talk about function. Other species (e.g. plants) don't have chromosomes/genitals/hormones in the same way we do, and don't *realise* their sex functions in the same way we do, but we still call them male and female. 30:00 *Q&A starts.* *Q: What did you think of Alex Byrne's paper?* A: Thought it was interesting, Byrne was giving a cumulative case with ~ 6 lines of reasoning, no reasons were meant to be conclusive. One line is that we have terms in animal kingdom which track reproductive capacity e.g. (hen, rooster). Shouldn't we have such terms in adult humans of our species? Dembrof and others grant that Byrne's mainstream definition is right, but it does mean something different in queer/alternative contexts, and the real question is: "Which definition should we proceed with in future?". 37:52- *Q: Do you think you are committed to a) natural kinds, b) hylomorphism or c) the view that concepts are definable?* A: a) I don't think you have to commit to natural kinds, you could say male/female are unnatural kinds, which are a bit like a socially constructed kinds, like the distinction between 'a touchdown' and 'not a touchdown' in football, or the Texan border (Texan is not a natural kind). Though Bogardus thinks male/female are good candidates for natural kinds. b) No I don't think so though I take that view c) You don't need to be able to articulate definitions to understand or use a concept (you can just point, like a child). There may be some concepts that name fundamental properties that have no further definition (meaning that not all concepts are definable). For any non-fundamental property that a concept refers to, there will be neccessary + sufficient conditions for it to obtain. Similarly for the concept, if the concept names a non-fundamental property, there are necessary + sufficient conditions for the concept to apply, even if we can't articulate these conditions. 43:00 *Q: Best objection against your position and response?* A: Dr Rebecca Jordan Young in USA Today objects that there isn't a single biological answer to the definition of a woman/female. There are ~6 different markers for sex (chromosomal sex, hormonal sex), none of which are binary/dichotomous, and none of which align with each other all the time. Bogardus' response is that for each of the 6 definitions, there is a more fundamental definition of sex being assumed. We need to ask what "male" means in phrases like "hormonally male", and why we refer to individuals with high levels of testosterone as "hormonally male". The answer is that we call them "hormonally male" because these testosterone levels are typical of human MALES. But what does "MALE" mean in that sense? That's the basic definition of male, the one Bogardus gave before. A marker of sex is not itself sex (like how gold is distinct from its markers of shininess, yellowness, etc). 50:42- *Q: What about intersex people? Does that 'disprove' the definition of biological sex?* A: Many conditions called 'intersex' are really best described as disorders of sexual development, and it's clear in most cases whether the intersex person is male / female. Bogardus grants that it is hypothetically possible for people to be neither/both male/female on his definition. Although he knows of no genuine human cases where this was true, it's true in other species (snails, hermaphrodites). As such bringing up intersex people is a red herring; gender-critical people like Bogardus already grant that it is possible in principle for gender to exist on a spectrum. 56:29- *Q: Is it possible to genuinely transition from a man to a woman?* A: In dominant contexts, on bogardus' definition of male/female, no, science hasn't advanced to that point. Dembrof and others argue we should stop using dominant definition as it's oppressive etc. Bogardus is trying to investigate the new trans-inclusive concept of woman, which respects everyone's self-identification. He thinks it's not possible- there is no possible trans-inclusive concept of woman (that respects self ID) which picks out some feature(s), in virtue of which, a woman is a woman. There is no feature which you will have i.f.f. you identify as having that feature (e.g. the feature of 'wearing a denim shirt'). 1:04:32 - *Q: Thoughts on people claiming that objecting to pronoun preferences is objecting to their personhood / identity?* A: There's a general principle which says it's good to see people as they seem themselves- it's loving / respectful. EM Hernandes defends this. Bogardus says it's not always good to respect or facilitate the way people see themselves e.g. cases of anorexia, cases where your friend isn't as honest as they think they are. Bogardus says respect may be a strong reason, but not a conclusive reason. In ethics there are always reasons for and against. 1:09:11 *Q: The adult part of 'adult human female' definition is vague. Are either of the other parts vague?* A: Yes, but that's the case for most things outside of maths/logic. A test of a good definition of a term is that it matches our intuitions about the terms in borderline cases. If something is a borderline 'cup' (the term) and is also a borderline 'bowl shaped container for drinking from' (the definition) then our definition of 'cup' is likely good. 1:12:50 - *Q: Anything else Bogardus wants to say?* A: Naturalists often mock teleology- they say there's nothing we're "meant" to do, no order in nature, I'm my body's boss. They feel teleology would encroach on their autonomy. Firstly, you can use function talk instead of "meant to do X" talk. They might STILL object and say there's nothing the body 'evolved' to do. Bogardus' response is that "Shoulds" when referring to proper functions arent moral "shoulds"- a torture device's proper function is to torture, it SHOULD torture when functioning properly, but not in a moral sense. Another tactic is to ask whether there's such a thing as heart disease (a departure from normal function). If there is, that suggests there is such a thing as a natural function. 1:19:20- *Q: What other areas has Bogardus looked into?* A: He did previous CC episode on gender, do Christians and Muslims worship same God, responded to "what if you were born elsewhere" objection to religious belief, has defended a view of what knowledge is.

[@PabloSensei]

bogardus completely dominated vaush in their debate

[@punchbowlhaircut]

Definitely have him back talking about anything!

[@matthieulavagna]

A women is a human being naturally ordered towards gestation.

[@thabanisikhosana1778]

Ordered?

[@nacpictures]

Ordered?

[@Vic2point0]

Had to look this up because I was curious. "Cow" is technically the term for specifically female cattle once they've had at least one calf. "Heifer" is a female cattle that hasn't had a half yet.

[@eddieli9163]

This feels like going to class with Dr. Bogardus :D

[@rootberg]

This was a great interview, thanks to both of you. So much more interesting than the political polemics and soundbite ”arguments” we are presented with so often.

[@mnmmnm925]

23:00, 25:20, 27:08, 30:30*, 38:00, 42:59, 50:38, 56:24, 1:04:30, 1:09:11 (vagueness), 1:12:56

[@Seethi_C]

Amazing! Dr Bogardus was able to articulate this in a way that makes so much sense! I’ve been trying to put my thoughts into words, and he did it better than I ever could.

[@DrSheri.teaches]

Dr. Bogardus is a great guest! I just found you on KZbin, thanks to Trent Horn. I’m going to need to go back and watch some of your older videos. Thank you!

[@nickolashessler314]

I think there are two separate issues that are being conflated here, the first being what people take themselves to be referring to while using gendered terms in ordinary circumstances and the second being whether they in fact successfully refer to those things. While it's clear enough that people more often than not take themselves to be referring to biological categories when using gendered terms, it's far less clear to me that they succeed in referring to them in many ordinary cases. After all, given many people's concepts of gender, while it would be synthetically true that females produce ova, it would not be analytically true. This would be especially true of the concepts of gender people have had in the past (notwithstanding that there were plenty of societies that traditionally recognized the validity of non-binary identities and transgender individuals, but I digress). In order for gendered terms to refer to these biological functions in ordinary cases, then, there would have to be causal links between those biological orderings and the various attributes of the intensional content of people's gendered concepts. It's unclear that all of the necessary causal links exist, though. There are attributes of people's gendered concepts that are correlated with being ordered towards the production of certain kinds of gametes with little to no causal link to speak of between them. More pertinently, though, many attributes of people's gendered concepts are socially mediated or are psychological traits which are not purely biologically determined. For these reasons, I think it is more proper to speak of gendered terms as ordinarily referring to resemblance categories rather than as successfully referring to natural kinds. It may be the case that gendered terms can successfully refer to these orderings towards certain biological functions, in whatever sense they can be said to exist, when they are being used more precisely, such as in scientific contexts. If we're talking about what they ordinarily refer to, though, it seems to be more complicated than the "traditional" view lets on.

[@Kamfrenchie]

But man and woman weren't considered gendered terms until very recently, and even then only in the TRA + side. Are you sure there were plenty of society that recognized non binary and trans ? First off, i've yet to see a convincing explanation of what non binary actually means. And neither man nor woman is insufficient, especcially when those two terms aren't defined by the person. Trans people couldn't have been a thing until recently because the surgery didn't exist. Plus, are you sure these societies considered these people as you say ? Because if we take women conditions in the whole world for example, we can see their oppression was on the basis of their sex, not gender. Otherwise you would have seen countless woman claiming to be a third gender to escape their conditions, if such a thing was true

[@HumblyQuestioning]

Theist or atheist, cis or trans, man or woman, I think we can ALL agree that Texas is, in fact, a natural kind.

[@macroeconomia1987]

I am a man, and honestly if a mad scientist ingeneers my body such that I now produce eggs, have a vagina and 2 X chromosomes, I will still consider myself a man....... I'll say that I am a man with a female body, ... I wouldn't say that I am a woman with a male "mind"....... so my point is that atvthe end the mind (how do you feel) seems to be the fundamental thing that makes you a male or female is in our mind.

[@jacoblee5796]

Maybe you're no longer either?

[@japexican007]

A woman: not a man; a man: not a woman

[@lumbratile4174]

What about intersexuals or transgender people though? (I don't know if you mean woman and men in the male female biological sense or in the social gender sense)

[@jkm9332]

@@lumbratile4174 what do you mean by “social gender”?

[@lumbratile4174]

@@jkm9332 gender is used to describe the social manifestation of biological sex (either in accordance or discordance with the habitual manifestations). The words pertain to different areas of study. One has a biological character, the other a social one. If you want to talk about anatomy, you use male and female. If you want to talk about behaviors and social norms and roles, you use man and woman. I hope I explained myself. English is not my first language.

[@jkm9332]

@@lumbratile4174 Thanks for the response. Your English is great. But maybe you can give me some examples of social gender? That will help me better understand what you mean.

[@sydneemikumuren9812]

This was super informative, and I'd love to see more of this sort of discussion!!

[@benjaminschooley3108]

I do have to wonder how important it is to define people this way, it's not clear to me anything meaningful was going to follow had that judge answered that question, I think she knew that, and that's why she elected to respond the way she did.

[@gristly_knuckle]

As a United Statesean representative, she speaks to the culture of the people she represents, a people much more concerned with an eternal personal fable than with scientific reality, which is the way it's always been. And when you're dying, you'd be a female if the female lives.

[@lordsneed9418]

Truly excellent explanation.

[@aaron_johnson]

Cameron, the outro gets cut off at the end, just so you're aware.

[@CapturingChristianity]

That’s been happening lately for some reason.

[@hollylawford-smith]

🎵 all the right [vagueness] in all the right places 😂

[@willwidrick8039]

Question, how far has humanity fallen where asking a simple question as “what is your definition of woman?” Is so conversational. SMH

[@MZONE991]

Not humanity This is only an issue in your dying western civilization Go to any part of the world and you will see that it is not an issue

[@dantedocerto]

Those Undefinable Concepts are called Conceptual Primes because they can't be defined without a reference to themselves.

[@cas343]

*Or that denying the definition uses it.

[@watchman2866]

In the UK it's a question that has been put to our politicians, and they are flummoxed by it just like this judge. The problem becomes if they can't define what a woman is, then how has legislation decided that a transgender person transition between a male and female? Why have people who object to transitioning, suffer in law, been made unemployed. Their hesitation and avoidance reject the transgender person's belief that they could leave one destination and arrive at another. The definition of a woman is a female descendant of Adam and Eve. Biological history decides the definition. It becomes a question of the original model. Evolutionary history is foundationally rooted in transitions. This has been a Darwinian philosophical argument that goes beyond just male and female, it extends to being human. Biology in this sense also decides the question, they just add the human ability to manipulate the process. The problem for me has been to legislate the topic, which has dictated it back to society, overriding all the points made by Thomas.

[@hollylawford-smith]

i really enjoyed this, especially the discussion of sex as distinguished from sex makers. a very helpful and clarifying discussion!

[@collateraldamage7172]

"What is a woman?" and "What it is to be a woman?" are not the same questions. The latter relates to gender the former relates to biology... This is a very important distinction which should have been made.

[@rubendeleeuw1556]

Loved this interview. Great job.

[@bellasbane]

She should have said, "Well, I know you're a woman" and left it at that.

[@mitral5333]

22:03 This is a rabbit hole that needs further discussion. These arguments are not being had with theists. They are being had with atheists and creative anti-realists.

[@theosib]

Very educational!

[@gristly_knuckle]

I'd say most educators are interested in deceiving their students, if not because they have learned to allow others to make decisions for them, then because they believe that helping fellow humans to really understand things truthfully will make them reproductively successful. So you pay these people, and they give you the pleasure of learning artificial knowledge.

[@rutherford5619]

Someone like myself who doesn't consider myself as religious, but I'm not after religion like these radical atheist online. I feel Nietzsche's, Dostoevsky's and Carl Jung's warnings, you can't let the old Gods die because you'll find yourself between extreme ideology and nihilism.

[@christopher7725]

Which old Gods should we bring back?

[@rutherford5619]

@@christopher7725 the old Gods refer to the old tradition or cultures of western civilization. These woke mother fuckers are trying to eradicate these values with something convenient for them, and if that happens the west is in grave danger.

[@tobiesteenkamp4769]

@@rutherford5619 You must be a hardcore Jordan Peterson fan

[@lumbratile4174]

@@tobiesteenkamp4769 peterson's a Christian tho

[@lumbratile4174]

Why is nihilism bad?

[@TheVeganVicar]

sex: the state of being either male or female. 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 i.e. chromosomes which 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 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, while 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 sperm. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or disordered sex, to be more accurate). That does not negate the undeniable FACT that there are but two sexes. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite. 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” (sex; division; gender).

[@lumbratile4174]

The ethimology is irrelevant. Gender has now a different meaning. A specific meaning in a specific language for a specific area of studies: social sciences. Gender is the social gender, the social manifestation of sex (in either accordance or discordance with habitual manifestations) We aren't talking about biological sex.

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@lumbratile4174 Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤

[@lumbratile4174]

@@TheVeganVicar what do you mean

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@lumbratile4174: gender: the state of being either male or female. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either hermaphrodites or of indeterminate ​gender, but that does not negate the undeniable scientific FACT that there are only two genders. Cf. “sex”. Both terms (gender and ​sex) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning begin birth; kind; race; gender) and “sexus” (sex; division; gender). ​If the reader is wondering 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 in recent times, to serve ​their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, objectively-immoral and evil ideologies.

[@lumbratile4174]

@@TheVeganVicar lol. Simply false. Gender is a term used in social sciences since at least the 20th century. If we don't agree on definitions, we can't have a conversation. Seems that "righties" don't want to engage at all and prefer to strawman.

[@victorlandaverde3063]

What would you read if you wanted to debate or learn more about this topic.

[@woobilicious.]

If you told me 15 years ago that it would be Christians, not atheists holding up rationalism, and philosophy, against some flimsy dogma, I would have thought you'd be joking but here we are.

[@magnesiummike]

At about 56:00, he finally gets to the question of whether trans women are women and trans men are men. His answer is long, but it is basically "No." He gives a very smart-sounding explanation of why he uses the definition that the average person in our society uses. And that's fine! I don't mind how he uses the word. But in every case I've seen, people who say "trans women are not women" are people who do not believe LGBT people should have certain civil rights. I wonder what this guy's political stance is! The political issue of LGBT rights is why Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked about this in the first place.

[@jkm9332]

Which civil rights are you referring to?

[@thstroyur]

The only rights that "LGBT people" should have are _human_ rights - y'know, the ones we're _all_ entitled to - and I challenge anyone who will claim otherwise to give me _one_ instance of a perceived, blatant 'rights infringement' that can't be resolved by appealing to those. The irony with these ideology-driven discourses is that, by committing to special treatment to certain groups of people determined by this or that characteristic, they employ the same kind of discrimination that fundamentally undermines the very foundation for 'rights' which they vindicate.

[@benjaminschooley3108]

But being "trans" isn't about what they factually are, but about how they in fact feel, they feel like they are the opposite sex/ gender. I don't see how this is difficult to understand.

[@diegonicucs6954]

@@benjaminschooley3108 therefore, their feelings are not about being a woman or a man, but something else. feeling like I am is different from being

[@benjaminschooley3108]

@@diegonicucs6954 irrelevant, how the feel is not not a fact.

[@rw3452]

Sorry but I’m half way through and still wondering whether the question will actually be answered. Cosmetic Skeptic recently did a video on academic speak which it think this reminds me of a bad example he used.

[@mjdillaha]

Huh? I’m pretty sure that by the halfway point he defines a woman as an adult female human.

[@rw3452]

@@mjdillaha thanks, I really must have missed it! I thought it was strange to do a video like this without a definition 😇, can you remember where he said it, no worries if not.

[@mjdillaha]

@@rw3452 no he just says it throughout.

[@rw3452]

@@mjdillaha 👀

[@rw3452]

Funny how in 2022 even that statement itself isn’t clear and possibly could still be taken to mean anything.

[@j_moni83]

Correlating the philosophical discussion with the political, of whether or not a human being could either be both male and female or neither, such a thing if it ever existed would be an obvious exception, not the rule. Making public policy based upon extreme exceptions is obviously poor policy, therefore, not helpful in the conversation. So in this context, the intersex argument in support of intersectionality is indeed a red herring.

[@philipatoz]

I'm trying to be open minded and I'm seeing some interesting things, but per the fact that this site is supposed to relate to Christianity, I'm finding it hard to understand the purpose and value within this video. There's a lot of yakking and nuanced opinions, no matter whether from an academic's input, but it seems to me what truly should matter most and that is truly helpful to Believers is what does GOD reference when it comes to gender? Does He see them as a reality? Or fixed or not? Does He reveal so-called "Binary," etc., as a thing? Does He see differing roles for each gender or does it matter? Research the issue all you want - but, for CHRISTIANS, the most important research book for the moral aspect of how Believers should respond to our modern "gender wars" should be the Bible! How does God reveal to us His intended desire for how our gender should and shouldn't play out sexually? You can gain a lot of KZbin site hits with such subject matter, gain a diversity of opinions, yet while simultaneously losing the plot and important value related to the site's stated Christian topical focus.

[@jakestroll6518]

I'm an atheist that just stumbled over this video. I was so excited to find Christians who are actually using their minds and I wish there were more like this. Afterall if you believe a God created you then he created your brain too. I'd even wager that he intended the big brains amongst you to evangelize in a language some of us can resonate with. Wasn't that the whole point of speaking in tongues? To reach the unreached? Consider me the unreached, lol.

[@philipatoz]

@@jakestroll6518, then I think you would get a lot out of and be challenged by the discussion board - as well as find a ton of evidences for faith: discussions.godandscience.org/

[@gretareinarsson7461]

So what is your opinion and understanding? Strictly male / female an nothing in between? What defines male / female?

[@LtDeadeye]

Well according to the scriptures, we know that God created male and female. We also know there are gender specific roles marriage, worship and attire that can be found in scripture. Genesis 5:2 Male and female He created them,a and He blessed them. And in the day they were created, He called them “man.” Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

[@andrewmiller6051]

Spoiler: An adult human female

[@Henry._Jones]

Hear, hear!! I wish I could give your comment a thousand likes!

[@hazemach2361]

An interesting boundary case: a person with XY chromosome who has complete androgen insensitivity syndrome would develop a female body type (skeleton, fat+mass distribution, etc.), and would be considered a woman unless that person's organs were investigated (in particular, testes would be discovered at the end of the vagina). Such a person had the potential to be sperm-producing but not egg-producing, but I think it would be erroneous to consider that person male. I would be curious about Dr. Bogardus's thoughts on this case.

[@grantgooch5834]

A male is any person who is genetically ordered to produce the small gamete. A female is any person who is genetically ordered to produce the large gamete. As far as I'm aware, no Disorder of Sexual Development (DSD) or other genetic abnormalities can cause a person to produce the other gamete. There are, however, some that can prevent you FROM producing gametes at all or gametes that are suitable for reproduction. But for that problem, you WOULD produce the gamete determined by your sex so it's still a good way to define "male" and "female". So even someone with complete androgen insensitivity would be male since they don't produce the large gametes, regardless of what they look like.

[@Seethi_C]

It’s certainly debatable whether that person is male, but it’s absolutely clear that they wouldn’t be a woman. No person with XY has ever become pregnant.

[@Seethi_C]

@j Vij Gotcha, so in that situation, we determine they are female based on ovaries, even though chromosomes appear male?

[@audreyandremington5265]

That person is intersex. I'd say they are male with 2ndary female sex characteristics. But this is a biological question, not a philosophical question.

[@KillmanPit]

Actually interesting vid. I think not enough attention was made to how intuitional the connection between sex and gender is. I think we can all agree that most people who never thought about it will agree to the connection. But then when you apply some socratic method it falls apart real fast. Here are my choice of questions and an answer I usually got. Please go ahead and provide your answers to it and I will happily follow up. 0. How do you define a woman/man 0a. Well, an adult human female/male 1. Nice. How do you in your everyday life distinguish between Males and Females. 1a. Well they have long hair, wear jewelery, wear dresses and skirts... 2. Ok. So If I wear long hair jewelery and a skirt would you think I'm a woman? (I'm a man) 2a. Oh, no no no. Women also have delicate facial features, they have larger breasts, smaller muscles etc. 3. Ok. So if I take Hormones so that my body looks feminine, and have surgery so my face looks feminine, then you would think I'm a woman? 3a. Well. Yes. But I would be wrong. I would have been deceived (one could even be edgy and say trapped) 4. Ok. But how would you recognise that you were wrong? 4a. Well, we wouldn't be able to have children ever! 5. Ok. But you will not have children ever with many many women in your life, and you would recognise them as women and will not feel tricked. 5a. Sure but they do have female hormones... 6. Right. But you would you ever get to know that? 6a. I guess I wouldn't but, I would still be wrong. 7. Ok, but you would treat that person as a woman. Talk to them as if she was a woman, treat them AS IF she was a woman? 7a. Yes. Untill I would get to know that she isn't 8. Ok But FUNCTIONALLY. For every intent and purpose, she would be a woman to you. 8a. Yest but only functionally not actually 9. Ok. What If I told you, that some people define gender as a function. As what you do. Do you agree that according to this definition, a person in our hypothetical IS a woman? 9a. According to that definition. Yes. But it's a wrong definition 10. How do you distinct what is a good definition and what is a bad definition? 10a A good definition is a definition that is useful in your everyday life. 11. Great! We successfully disentangled sex from gender. Because we have a scientific proof that sex is a usefull concept for medicine and biology. We also have scientific proof that gender being distinct from sex is useful concept for transgender people. Treating them according to that definition reduces their suicidality rate by almost a 100 fold. It is therefore extremally usefull to everyday life of transgender people. 11.?

[@tann_man]

The speaker granted a conceivable future in which science could possibly transform a human from functionally male to female but we are not there and we are not even close. Growing out your hair, wearing makeup and a dress, injecting exogenous hormones, and leaving an open gash wound where you severed your dicknballs is not that. In casual interactions how we treat male v female isn’t very different so the stakes aren’t high nor is the need for inspection. but when it comes to say marrying someone or assigning legal protections or women only spaces or medical treatment we do need to inspect carefully. Can you share your source on the 100x claim? From what I understand enabling mental illness is a very poor strategy for well being.

[@sydneemikumuren9812]

You're pointing out that a person believing a man is a woman or vice versa isn't a big deal because you can be mistaken based on appearance. Yes people can be mistaken but it doesn't change any underlying facts. I can mistake a counterfeit 100 dollar bill for a real one and treat it the exact same. The reality is still that it's counterfeit money. We can agree gender and sex are not synonymous, but it doesn't mean they are unrelated. If by your definition a woman is just whatever society defines as a woman then the word is pretty much meaningless. But that doesn't make much sense because it woman can mean anything we want it to, then why would anybody need to transition in the first place? The whole idea of transitioning is to change your biology to that of the opposite sex.

[@tann_man]

It’s also worth noting many gender theorists will make the claim gender is purely a social construct. Therefore any man who identifies as woman is in fact a woman and vice versa. Medical procedures to imitate functional maleness or femaleness are unnecessary under their ideology. The most masculine man literally is woman if he so decides in his head. Obviously this is an untenable position. Man devolves into anyone who believes they are man and woman anyone who identifies as woman. A self referential definition. The terms become functionally useless. What was functionally considered man is now either man or woman or neither or both. Interestingly, useless terms are not useless. They can be wielded to confuse and control. These tactics are well described in 1984. Newspeak. It is intended as Orwell puts it “to narrow the range of thought so as to make thought crime literally impossible as there will be no way in which to express it.” And doublethink. Holding two opposite mutually exclusive ideas at once. It severs the link between cause and effect which form the basis for conscious choice and moral action. Relative judgements cannot be made and truth becomes whatever the cultural hegemony tells us is true.

[@KillmanPit]

​@@tann_man First of all. Thank you for the response. So I will first try to steelman your points as best as I understand them: 1. You say that modern gender reassignment care is not capable of changing you to convincingly to the opposite gender. I guess we would just need to agree to disagree here since "convincingly" is very subjective. I guess what I'm saying is if I met Natalie Wynn, Blair White or Taftaj I would never in a million years doubt they are a woman, and doubt even if told they aren't. Also bottom surgegry went a long way. Somewhat working penises and vaginas are a thing now. It's not a hole anymore. I agree that there is still progress to be made there not disagreeing there 2. You say that in everyday interactions the stakes are low enough that you basically can be mistaken and it wouldn't matter. It does matter in special narrow circumstances though. I FULLY agree That's why in our everyday conversations we should just accept what the other person asks us to call them. It doesn't matter anyway and it makes them feel way better. I also agree that special consideration afforded to biological women as well as marriage should be given special consideration with full knowledge of biological sex of individual. And in medical treatment there are sex differences not gender differences so it doesn't apply here as much except that obviously the doctor should be aware that the person is on HRT and not disclosing that should not only be illegal but is also very dumb and I don't think anybody would do it. My sources for the 100x claim: psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-52280-009

[@KillmanPit]

​@@sydneemikumuren9812 Thanks for response! Let me disentangle and steelman your points as best as I can: 1. You think my point is that looking as opposite gender makes you that gender ontologically or actually. And you compare it to counterfeit money. Even perfect counterfeit money isn't truly, actually, ontologically real money. Because money (and by analogy gender). Take their true meaning from something outside of their pure appearance and function. I have two answers to this. First of all I think your analogy is invalid. There is real actual measurable harm in treating counterfeit money functionally the same as actual money. Whereas there is not only no harm but actual benefit in treating transgender people as opposite to their sex. I think you sort of missed my point. You thought I'm arguing that transgender people (counterfeit money) are actually opposite sex (actual money). When I'm not. I'm arguing that there is no functional difference between them (when there is between actual and countefeit money) from the perspective of everyday human to human interaction (I agree that special exceptions must be made is extraordinary situations). Second of all this is sort of begging the question. I'm trying to establish that gender and sex are not exactly the same, and you answer that by claiming ok maybe I can treat them as if their sex is opposite to their gender but their sex is still the opposite! 2. You think I'm saying there is no correlation between sex and gender. Not true. I'm just saying the correlation is not 100%. And as modern sophisticated society we can make provisions for those people who by genetical, societal, environmental or otherwise unintended happenstance fell outside of our everyday mold. 3. Your argument there seems to be: Since gender is a social construct, it means it's meaningless. Strongly disagree. Money is social construct, borders are social construct, taxes are social constructs. Many many things are social constructs and many of them can have lethal consequences for disobeying. And yet they can change over time. It doesn't make them meaningless. for example there was a law in XIXth century that horse stealing was punished by death. It was undeniably a social construct. there isn't anywhere in cosmos written that horse stealing should be punishable by death. And it's not now. It doesn't mean it was meaningless. It was extremely meaningful and powerful when it was present 4. If "being a woman" can mean whatever we want then why do transgender people need a transition? Great question! Because of point 3. Because social constructs can be very, sometimes lethally powerful. And social constructs are generally not contained within individuals. They are by definition social. So if you are a biological woman. And entire society expects you to look and behave like a woman. But you know deep inside that you should look and behave as a man, there is a dysonanse there. We call it gender dysphoria. The difference between the internal brain gender of a person and social expectation put upon them. By transitioning, they alleviate that tension by making people adjust their expectation to the internal brain gender of a person. I hope this clarified.

[@cactoidjim1477]

Is there really no legal definition of "woman"?

[@gristly_knuckle]

If you think about designing a test to determine whether an organism is a man or a woman, you could put an item on the test that says, "Do you think of yourself as a man or a woman?" And you could have the answer to that question veto the validity of any further items. That's what United Statesean culture will do. And the only people who will disagree are parasites and enemies.

[@MrGustavier]

Is it me or did the thumbnail feature a woman ?

[@ajay-hm4hg]

Is there any way to access his articles that isn't behind a paywall?

[@thstroyur]

PhilPapers?

[@Kalypso24]

Libgen

[@tbogardus1]

There's a link to my website in the description, and my website has links to all my papers, with no paywalls (that I know of...).

[@lumbratile4174]

Depressing to see so many people who can't even get the difference between sex and gender. You won't ever be able to participate in this debate if you don't.

[@diegonicucs6954]

Depressing is to see people believe that the difference is such that you can have the combinations you want.

[@sneakysnake2330]

People say there’s a difference between sex and Gender. The only difference I’ve been able to gather is that gender is made up whereas sex is something concrete and qualifiable

[@andrewmiller6051]

Sex and gender have always been synonyms until a few years ago

[@lumbratile4174]

@@diegonicucs6954 why not tho? Sex is sex. But who says sex alone necessarily determines gender? It has never been like this in every culture. There have always been some "deviance", as we say in social sciences.

[@lumbratile4174]

@@sneakysnake2330 I mean, you are partially correct. By definition, gender is habits. So it can vary between cultures. Someone call it construct.

[@boliusabol822]

35min in, oh boy, what has he said exactly?! Basically up until this point he was saying something taking a long time over it.. then the host in a very polite way said he's busy and they don't have all day so they go to questions.. yet this thing goes on till 1hr 30min.. So is it just 1hr of answering questions from people. Maybe you and him should have discussed more the format and timescale instead of trying to figure it out at the beginning and winging it. I think the guy had something in mind of what he wanted to say but it got diverted by distracting questions from the host that took him off his point. He was going to explain how to nagivate conversations.. now all of a sudden 30min in they went to questions though he had barely got started. So the bulk of this video is maybe questions? so silly. Very badly done. Good guest though, potentially very interesting.. I saw a bit of his debate with vaush.. very well organised thinker

[@andrewmoon1917]

That interviewee is definitely a man.

[@Karitz964]

I was curious about AI's. When or if they ever appear, would it be inaccurate to refer to them as he or she? Obviously they cannot be male or female, but should we call them any particular pronouns despite the innaccuracy

[@idongesitx1873]

@mineben256 artificial intelligence

[@Karitz964]

@@idongesitx1873 Yes. If artificial intelligence were to surface, hypothetically, I'm just wandering if they should be free to choose their gender pronouns.

[@idongesitx1873]

@@Karitz964 they have no choice. All decisions are coded. Even if randomized, ai choices still needs an external input. So pronouns would be for human entertainment.

[@Karitz964]

@@idongesitx1873 Probably true.

[@correctchristian4255]

What a stupid statement from someone that may decide our future.

[@correctchristian4255]

@mineben256 Brown.

[@reallydoe2552]

Sex: man or woman sexual organs/gender:what we tell that sex they should do (naturally do?)

[@reallydoe2552]

(Note to self)If it's natural why not say it's out sex and for the man made things related call it gender

[@bendecidospr]

I only wish this person was at least a woman, so that critics wouldn’t use that as an excuse to ignore the arguments.

[@Seethi_C]

Big brain move: by their logic, he could just claim to be a woman!

[@yahuchanon37]

XY can never become a XX, not the other way around either…

[@questionasker8791]

Can someone who was biologically assigned female at birth, but who has a brain structure much alike most men ever have a brain structure alike most women?

[@questionasker8791]

@mineben256 Is their brain female?

[@questionasker8791]

@mineben256 And would they demonstrate behaviour more typically associated with women?

[@questionasker8791]

@mineben256 And would they identify as female?

[@questionasker8791]

@mineben256 Do you understand you are oversimplifying and misunderstanding information related to sex and gender?

[@Martin-lc1sk]

Judge Jackson dodged the question because it is not appropriate to her role, as she rightly said she takes arguments from both sides The question was designed to highlight that she isn't a biblical bigot like her questioner and make her look unprepared. The republicans want bible bashers on the SC so their viewpoint can be enforced, the bible can be enforced, whereas its much healthier to have a broad spectrum of belief or non belief. Is judge brown a decent person, she seems so, is she qualified, yes. She doesn't deserve to be on the SC because she is a black woman and not blindly religeous. 🙄 That's ridiculous, she will be great

[@LtDeadeye]

Aren’t women a legally protected class? This question and her failure to answer, for me, betrays her worldview.

[@jacoblee5796]

So there is an argument for what a woman is!? Is there arguments for other words in the English language? Do definitions just not matter any more?

[@thenero9493]

44:27

[@thenero9493]

51:02

[@rw3452]

If there is an actual answer please let me know the timecode as I’m just hearing a load chatter.

[@mjdillaha]

He says throughout that a woman is an adult female human.

[@rw3452]

@@mjdillaha thanks again!

[@yahuchanon37]

Gender and sex is the same, and a woman is a biology term as oppose to being a man. Bogardus is in the science of bogus.

[@Ffkslawlnkn]

You obviously don't know what the word gender means. Simply google it.

[@yahuchanon37]

@@Ffkslawlnkn If you think its more than two, then you dont know what it means..obviously

[@Ffkslawlnkn]

@@yahuchanon37 gender doesn't meam the same as sex. That's just not what it means. Claiming that sex and gender with the same thing is like arguing that dog and bear mean the same thing. It's just not how those words are used - at least in this context.

[@yahuchanon37]

@@Ffkslawlnkn we can make up words for anything, even whole languages. That doesn`t not make those words a reality or a description of it. LBGT+ is just descriptions of men and women, their lusts and choices. I can follow an argument for only one gender - mankind.

[@Ffkslawlnkn]

@@yahuchanon37 obviously, every word is 'made up', and the definition of a word cannot be wrong. The definition of gender is neither sex, nor mankind. The definition of a word can only be such that it does not apply to any existing thing. But if the thing that gender denotes didn't exist, gender still wouldn't mean sex, because that's simply not how the word is defined.

[@11northtexas]

Scarey times.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

When I want a scientific definition I always go to the people who say my god did magic to convert DIRT into ADAM and the performed surgery on Adam to extract a rib and changed the chromosome of the rib and created EVE. LOL

[@jacoblee5796]

Yeah, i agree with this to a point. But woman is part of the English language and as such the word has a definition and meaning. How is she possibly going to rule on a gun case? I mean does she know what a gun is or what a gun does? She's not a mechanical engineer.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

@@jacoblee5796 The gun is actually a real good Constitutional question. IF someone makes a plastic contraption on their home 3D Printer that fires a bullet does it qualify as being a "gun" ?

[@jacoblee5796]

@@sanjeevgig8918 Of course it’s a gun. My point being it was pathetic that she couldn’t answer such a dumb and easy question.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

@@jacoblee5796 You are not a lawyer, are you ?? LOL Are you the kind of person who thinks "Who is Black" is a dumb and easy question. LOL

[@jacoblee5796]

@@sanjeevgig8918 I think “who is black” is an incredibly dumb question that doesn’t matter at all. What is a woman is a relevant question. Especially in this overly progressive woke BS era we find our selves in.

[@benjaminschooley3108]

And here it is, all that stuff about being published, and being a "philosopher", just mere pretense at sounding objective when presenting what's ultimately going to be some Christian (not even religious) perspective on this topic. Atheism has nothing to do with it. There are atheists that agree with your "woman" perspective. The judge herself noted her Christianity as being very important to her. And this notion of "functional" is utterly ridiculous. In fact most of the time functional positions disagree with your theological perspectives, you just think that they seem to align here. Is the appendix functioning the way that it's supposed to? Does the sun revolve around the earth? Is the Earth the center of the universe? Did all of humanity come from just one man and one woman? This line of "functional" reasoning is pure nonsense.

[@jkm9332]

The channel is called “Capturing Christianity,” so a connection between the topic and the Christian perspective, and indirectly a non-Christian (atheist) perspective, will be expected.

[@lumbratile4174]

@@jkm9332 to me if you want to talk about a certain topic you invite an expert of that specific area of study. And possibly the least biased one.

[@WisdomThumbs]

Translation: "He didn't agree with the stance that I wanted him to, so I reject his entire argument, his credentials, and anything to do with him. He's akin to a flat earther." Not exactly a rebuttal or a worthy polemic. In regards to "functional..." The appendix is used by the body to flush and reset the gut biome after gut contamination and similar problems.

[@jkm9332]

@@lumbratile4174 ​ Yes, I agree.

[@streetsdisciple0014]

Exactly, smuggling on words like “function” is even worse. It’s committing the IS to an Ought fallacy.

[@CrusaderGeneral]

Word salad

[@whatsinaname691]

Not really…