Genders And Human Classification

Drawing the line between gender and sex, and no, the bile has nothing to do with it.
This clip is from The Atheist Experience, Episode 27.42 for October 22, 2023 with Mike and Forrest Valkai!
See the full episode: • Fast Prayers, Fittest ...
Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use your computer to save on long-distance charges: tiny.cc/callthe...
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
► Become a KZbin member: / @theatheistexperience
► Join our discord:
tinyurl.com/Th...
► Chat room rules:
atheist-experie...
► The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting
atheist-experie...
Note: We request pronouns as part of the call screening process on our shows, and we display the pronouns our callers provide. If you see a caller with no pronouns indicated, this is because they chose not to provide us with any, and we respect that decision.
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
► More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
www.atheist-exp...
► DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
www.atheist-com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2023 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.

[@filippa2070]

every trans person i have ever met has been more empathetic and good hearted than any priest i interacted with when i was a christian.

[@xX_gamerboy_Xx]

Sadly I've never met both a Trans person and a Priest before, I'd like to see the view from both sides, it would be an interesting experience... I assume? 🤔❓

[@reefhog]

@@xX_gamerboy_Xx How do you know that you’ve never met a trans person before ?

[@xX_gamerboy_Xx]

@@reefhog good question 🤔

[@filippa2070]

@@xX_gamerboy_Xx maybe you have, a lot of trans people pass very well as the opposite sex so you wouldn’t notice.

[@youraveragerobloxkid]

when you're a priest, you've already cemented yourself as this holy-good man. So priest take advantage of this to do stuff they normally wouldnt

[@amtlpaul]

Unless they believe that God actually has biological sex organs, chromosomes, etc (and what for, then?) God believers who nonetheless assign a gender to the God they believe in can indeed grasp the concept of gender being different from biological sex characteristics, they just refuse to apply that to humans for ideological reasons.

[@damonkenny7818]

God’s masculine Nature is allegorical. Not anthropomorphised. Your weak atheist fantasies are easily crushed.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

@@damonkenny7818 🤣

[@queuecee]

​@@ookekklibarianbornagain6708He certainly likes to make things up. I can't seem to find the part in the Bible where God's gender is allegorical. And these dummies are the ones that insist that gender is derived from biology.

[@reubenmanzo2054]

The Greek, Roman and Norse pantheons had family relations between their gods, so based on that, I would say they do. You can't have a family without biological sex organs.

[@amtlpaul]

A non sequitur from @@CarlHobson-zm2gk

[@shawnnosaurus]

This was such a good discussion, I love it when everyone is civil and respectful.

[@PatrickWDunne]

The funniest argument against trans people is "God created man and woman" even though woman was made from the rib of man.

[@nsf001-3]

So all women are transwomen. I'd love to see a Christian try to argue their way out of that one

[@j.c.5528]

One of my bible college professors held to the "androgynous Adam" theory- that the original Adam contained the fullness of human sexuality, and that the creation of Eve was god splitting that in two.

[@dragonhealer7588]

​@@j.c.5528 Yep! And just as made up as the rest of it😊

[@Vaidelotelis]

So? Being created from the rib of man is still consistent with the claim of both sexes being created. Also, it has nothing to do with the mental illness known as gender dysphoria

[@TheGoofy1932]

That actually sounds a lot like the Greek theory of split aparts(one of either Plato's or Aristotle's, I believe). Where we were these "whole perfect beings" and their jealous Gods split apart people in their rage into men and women who are forever looking for their "missing half". But then again, Christians do like to borrow quite liberally from other religions, cultures and philosophies. 😏

[@Forold]

I love discussions like this. No yelling. No impassable arguments. Everything was civil. Sounded like caller Mike backed down on a couple of points he needed to do more research on (like the FDA) which I respect. Everybody left happily and on a seemingly good note.

[@jenna2431]

I used to tell my children all the time: Minding your own business is a full-time job. I feel prescient to the authoritarian bigotry of today. Too many people minding other folks' business to the neglect of their own.

[@reubenmanzo2054]

There's a line from 'The Shawshank Redemption' that speaks closely to this: "if you want to indulge this fantasy, that's your business, don't make it mine".

[@monicadaniels784]

Good comment, Alfonzo! As for comments about 'delusions,' calling what someone else has to deal with delusion because you haven't personally dealt with it, is the real delusion.

[@irrelevant_noob]

@@monicadaniels784 how did you determine it was "because you haven't personally dealt with it" and not because it fits the definition?

[@monicadaniels784]

@@irrelevant_noob Definitions don't mean a damn thing on one's deathbed when you look back at your life and realize you lived a miserable life for strangers instead of being true to yourself.

[@irrelevant_noob]

@@monicadaniels784 they mean a better chance towards common understanding, that's not nothing. And why do you pile up even further unsupported claims (about how miserable everybody else's lives have been) instead of answering how you know so much?

[@RobertCampsall]

It's always seemed obvious to me, even as a child in elementary school, that there were boys who had more traditionally feminine behaviors/outlooks and girls who had some masculine behaviors/outlooks of varying degrees. This was long before there was much social acceptance of homosexuality, let alone transgendered people (the late 1970's). The only way men had to express anything in that direction was either very secretly or in drag clubs (and still pretty darn secretly). When body dysphoria became a more recognized (not "new", it had been defined to some degree for awhile, but not talked about in common society) fact, the idea that some people's outward sex didn't match the way they felt inside as their true "self" was not a huge leap to make for me, especially as biology supported the idea. When you examine physical characteristics, as well as structure of the brain, there are definite differences where one set of characteristics were more commonly found in women and another set more commonly found in men. But there was ALWAYS a fair amount of overlap. Brain structures that were more commonly found in men would be present in a small fraction of women to a lesser or greater degree, and vice-versa. So I've never understand these people ("bigots" is probably a more accurate, but less productive, term) were so astonished and resistant to the idea of some degree of gender fluidity. Haven't they ever spent any time whatsoever watching other people and how they appear and how they behave? It's like they've lived their lives with their eyes closed - and certainly with their minds closed.

[@Junosensei]

Don't take this as a pushback to your overall point, but specifically, do you have a source for the brain characteristics part (study title and/or author would be helpful, or you can point to the source you heard it from)? I have been reading the scientific literature on gender and trans people for years as a trans person with credentials in scientific journalism, and I'm aware of two general corralative studies on brain matter involving trans people, but I have noticed a lot of misinterpretation of the data in popular media and the public consciousness (the author of one of the studies has even come out to criticize media coverage of it), so I'm always a bit weary about claims in this regard. Nonetheless, it's been a while since I checked. If there is new data and my understanding is outdated, I would like to know more. I can't find anything myself for now, so I'll leave it to you. =)

[@NoName-yi2gi]

​@Junosensei I believe they may be referring to the 2021 article in the Journal of Neuroscience, which explores the differences between the brains of men and women. They had discovered there was very little difference at all aside from size, and iirc it was only with 1% variance. Although, this study was only done with MRIs so the size difference can be attributed to a number of other things and didn't say anything about *perceived* gender. They could also be referring simply to Robert Sapolsky's famous video where he discusses a similar study from the mid 2000s that looked at the brains of people post-mortem and discovered that this same region of the brain has a size variant that actually aligns with one's perceived gender, regardless of gender-affirming care. So someone may have been mtf but societal pressure caused them to never transition, but upon death they had this region of their brain the size of a female's. I don't point to this study often myself, because the difference in size is very small, no more than 1 mm iirc, and I don't think it's as firmly sound as people may hope for. I think there needs to be further research on this before it can be heralded by the trans community and their allies. Anyway, I think it's easier to just say that some people simply *are* trans or experience gender dysphoria, and the best care possible is the gender affirming care we've been doing for decades at this point. There doesn't have to be some nugget of someone's brain to validate this for bigots. Even if these brain studies were more concrete it wouldn't matter to them, anyway. They already clearly hate reading and lack basic empathy. However, I still do encourage further study in this regard as it may still be useful for everyone else. Especially considering there are far more trans people now, so the sample size for such research is larger and may help make these findings more significant.

[@sedie3000]

The Bible isn't creating classifications. It would be like giving credence to your 4yo who had classified you as a poopy head because he heard the term in a Captain Underpants book.

[@j.c.5528]

@@CarlHobson-zm2gk What're you on about?

[@j.c.5528]

@@CarlHobson-zm2gk What, and I cannot emphasize this enough, are you on about? Like, do you think you're communicating effectively right now?

[@j.c.5528]

@@CarlHobson-zm2gk Seek professional help. You are unwell.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

@@j.c.5528 Young Carl is one of the top 3 most sodomy obsessed godling trolls on the AXP comments.

[@nealjroberts4050]

​@@j.c.5528 They have an obsession with male homosexuality. The prevailing hypothesis is that they're in the closet and their social group is intolerant of homosexuality.

[@junodonatus4906]

Unrelated, but it occurs to me that if God lovingly knitted together every baby that means that while a woman is being raped instead of stopping the rape God is lovingly taking part in it by sewing a baby😮

[@jaflenbond7854]

Who is the God and Father of Jesus Christ? ANSWER - The Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that are in and on it. Who are the worshippers of the Creator? ANSWER - All persons on earth who freely and willingly honor and obey Jesus Christ as their loving, kind, and merciful Heavenly Master and King and believe his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" Who are the Followers of Jesus Christ? ANSWER - All persons on earth who freely and willingly honor and obey the Creator as their loving, kind, and merciful God and Heavenly Father. What will the Creator do for Followers of his Christ? ANSWER - The loving, kind, and merciful Creator will honor and reward all followers of Jesus Christ with ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe and peaceful earth without without liars, hypocrites, slanderers, terrorists, deceivers, traitors, perverts, and murderers. What will Jesus Christ do for Worshippers of the Creator? ANSWER - All human beings have no immortal souls and will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals but loving, kind, respectful, and submissive worshippers of the Creator who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Jesus Christ's disciples and followers, and many others will not remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, instead, in the Creator's right and proper time, Jesus Christ will freely, happily, and willingly RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist forever on a safe and peaceful earth as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy his and the Creator's eternal love, kindness, goodness, compassions, generosities, favors, and blessings for eternity under his loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth.

[@queuecee]

@@jaflenbond7854 How about actually providing a response to the comments you are replying to? Literally NO ONE reads the wall-o-text(tm) you spew out.

[@jaflenbond7854]

@@queuecee Atheism, Evolutionism, and all forms of Religious Fanaticism in the world will never make imperfect, suffering, and dying human beings to become Worshippers of the Creator and Followers of Jesus Christ. Who are the worshippers of the Creator? ANSWER - NOT Atheists and Evolutionists but only all persons on earth who freely and willingly honor and obey Jesus Christ as their loving, kind, and merciful Heavenly Master and King and believe his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" Who are the Followers of Jesus Christ? ANSWER - NOT the Jehovah's Witnesses, SDAs, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Born Again Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and fanatic members of all kinds of Religions in the world but only all persons on earth who freely and willingly honor and obey the Creator as their loving, kind, and merciful God and Heavenly Father. What will the Creator do for Followers of his Christ? ANSWER - The loving, kind, and merciful Creator will honor and reward all followers of Jesus Christ with ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe and peaceful earth without without liars, hypocrites, slanderers, terrorists, deceivers, traitors, perverts, and murderers. What will Jesus Christ do for Worshippers of the Creator? ANSWER - All human beings have no immortal souls and will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals but loving, kind, respectful, and submissive worshippers of the Creator who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Jesus Christ's disciples and followers, and many others will not remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, instead, in the Creator's right and proper time, Jesus Christ will freely, happily, and willingly RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist forever on a safe and peaceful earth as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy his and the Creator's eternal love, kindness, goodness, compassions, generosities, favors, and blessings for eternity under his loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth.

[@queuecee]

@@jaflenbond7854 OK, Lassie. I'll follow you to the well where Timmy's fallen into. 🙄🙄

[@jaflenbond7854]

​@@queueceeJust know and understand that the Creator's favor, reward and honor of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death is not for you, not for Atheists and Evolutionists, not for Jehovah's Witnesses, SDAs, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Born Again Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and fanatic members of all kinds of Religions in the world but only for all persons on earth who freely and willingly honor and obey the Creator as their loving, kind, and merciful God and Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as their loving, kind, and merciful Heavenly Master and King Just know and understand that all Atheists, Evolutionists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and fanatic members of all kinds of Religions will never be glorified in their make-believe and fairy tale Heaven nor tortured for eternity in their invented and fictitious Hell but just become worthless and useless dusts on earth forever after their deaths while loving, kind, respectful, and submissive worshippers of the Creator who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Jesus Christ's disciples and followers, and many others will not remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, instead, in the Creator's right and proper time, Jesus Christ will freely, happily, and willingly RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist forever on a safe and peaceful earth as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy his and the Creator's eternal love, kindness, goodness, compassions, generosities, favors, and blessings for eternity under his loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth.

[@chrispysaid]

Man, this dude was very proud of that LotR bit at the beginning

[@MrKit9]

Well to be fair LOTR is a much better book than the Bible.

[@Junosensei]

I think Forrest talked past Mike a bit. I think Mike was mostly asking what _criteria_ we use to determine why we _ought to_ define gender as a social construct _as opposed to_ trying to equivocate it as close as we can to biological sex. For instance, species are often defined by breeding capability, even though the classification isn't perfect, because there is utility to separate most animals based on that point and have a useful model of evolution. And to that, I point to the scienceーparticularly medicine and what it says about how we can improve the quality of life of trans people who experience the distress of gender dysphoria of no volition of their own. As it stands, gender-affirmation is the only known treatment that has consistent, positive results for the patient community at large. Attempts to try and change one's feeling of their gender and align it with their sex have only shown detrimental effect or been largely temporary. Thus, it sounds to me like identifying "gender" as a separate social construct from sex with the purpose of affirming people whose quality of life is improved dramatically by the affirmation of their gender and not their sex is a matter of utility. Empathy and greater social good. Sex is still real, but it only matters in more private settings, and even then, changing several aspects of one's phenotypical sex is a simple matter of hormone treatment, whereas it is currently unknown how to change one's psychological gender voluntarily or with any treatment.

[@SupachargedGaming]

"Greater social good". How many "bad actors" are needed before the affirmation of gender for the "good actors" is no longer a greater social good? At what point does the risk brought from those choosing to identify as the opposite sex for malicious reasons outweigh the value of those identifying for legitimate reasons? How many forced coital experiences [KZbin raged at me for using the R word, I assume] are the feelings of transgender people worth? Is this a horrible thing to ask? Sure. Necessary though. Where's the limit? If it's profitable to do something, people will do it. If there's a trophy to be won, people will cheat. It doesn't much matter that 'most' contestants play fair, that one cheater's going to ruin the game. Additionally, is it more discriminatory to deny the existence of transgender people because gender is a social construct, so if they identify as a woman they are a woman, and not transgender, or to, by definition, consider them separate from 'natural' women or "cisgender" women?

[@Junosensei]

@@SupachargedGaming - What boggles my mind about this particular reply is the assumption that affirming one's change in gender is somehow beneficial to anyone but those who need it in the first place. Like, what malicious reasons are there for someone to change their gender and go through gender-affirming treatment with its many risks? As far as I know, there isn't a single example of someone doing this with malicious intent, and even if there were, it would ultimately cause them harm and would not reflect on the rest of the population of trans people. I don't know your personal views on collective punishment, but I am going to assume that you would not want to be punished for something that someone posturing as you did in your name. You wouldn't deserve that punishment. The same applies here. Dangerous stereotypes about gay men decades ago made their rounds in media and did not come to fruit. Many of these same stereotypes have currently been revived to talk about trans women in particular, all with just as much evidence as there was against gay men. You would think we would have learned our lesson about these stereotypes, but here we are again.

[@nealjroberts4050]

​@@SupachargedGaming Did you have a response?

[@monicadaniels784]

@@Junosensei I have often thought about those who condemn trans people for what some deranged non trans people might do in their name. I would assume that many of these same people would be horrified if someone suggested removing their firearms because of what someone else might do.

[@monicadaniels784]

Utility can be seen in the surveys. Gender care decreases anxiety, depression and self harm. The rate of detransition is very low, and frequently not for the reason that care was not right for them. An honest broker in a conversation about gender care would maybe discuss how to improve the system to reduce mistakes. Unfortunately there is too often a viceral, flat out call to stop all gender care. And how often does such a person admit that throwing hostility or denial at a trans person contributes to harming that person's mental health? Thanks for your comment!

[@zodiac5403]

Ok so for the culinary thing let me give it a try. A tomato can technically be put into whatever the hell you want, it's not going to ricochet off a fruit salad if you put it there, however the entire point of the culinary world is it's based off of TASTE not probability or possibility. More specifically OUR taste. Because we think these things grouped together taste good we stick tomatoes to said group. However just because we don't LIKE it doesn't make it any less of a fruit. It's catered entirely based on whether we THINK it's good or not. You think any other animals going to care if there's tomatoes lumped in with the fruits? No right? Because they don't care nor might they have the same taste as us.(Oh an also does this guy not know English either? Arbitrary means based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Which is not what science is)

[@Nerobyrne]

Reminds me of one trip to a zoo a took. There was this info blurb about how the scientist finally figured out that this species of guinea pig was ACTUALLY related to another species, and not the one they thought before. I just looked at the guinea pig and thought "I don't think it cares lol" However, trans people actually DO care what you call them. Which I find very interesting, it shows that our simple system of classification isn't complex enough to deal with the nuances of the human experience.

[@grabble7605]

@@Nerobyrne Who suggested that it did care though?

[@elmartell5724]

Forrest fidget-rocking is objectivly adorable and no one can prove me wrong. 🤔

[@therealloganyt237]

Idek what that is

[@Kulascus]

​@@therealloganyt237rocking in his chair back and forth

[@andouille9950]

This is not worth proving one way or the other. Of no consequence

[@tarayarizzo6602]

Gosh I love listening to Forest talk about this. The way performance is an addition to the internal concept of our own gender isn’t something I really considered before

[@randolphphillips3104]

He seems to think not agreeing with his belief is "inconsistent".

[@christophercuston]

Most religious (and can include conspiracy theorists) WILL say anything that disagrees with them is: -insane -inconsistent -illogical -and many more negative connotations/traits

[@TheGoofy1932]

That is one of the Hallmarks of the Religious. 😏Usually they're also all about "free speech" too as they ban books they don't like. 🤦‍♀️

[@pizzaman5698]

@@christophercuston kind of like a lot of athiests then.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@christophercuston Funny as religion in itself is incoherent as most callers show that try to convince the hosts of their arguments...

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@pizzaman5698 I don't know what "Athiests" are. At least have the decency to spell it correctly when you're lying about a belief stance.

[@letstrytouserealscienceoka3564]

Honey is classified by the FDA as raw meat is because it requires the same handling, and just so it is understood, what is classified as raw meat is raw honey. Canned or bottled honey is treated the same as any other canned product.

[@queuecee]

There was a comment from @oddoutdoors where he used an oxymoronic argument that this channel supports "fascist leftists". Where he gave the erudite definition of "fascist leftist" as fascists who are leftist, if you can follow that definition. He seems to have deleted the comment in embarrassment after getting schooled on why it was moronic. Or is it just me that can't see it?😅

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

Bugger I missed it, if you could get screenshots of some of the more insane posts for me.

[@queuecee]

@@ookekklibarianbornagain6708 I've saved it when I realized what he did. I missed the last few comments, especially the one where he bragged that this was his house and I can't beat him. But once he realized that he was ABSOLUTELY wrong that Benito F-ing Mussolini was NOT a liberal or a communist.🤣 I might start making videos of some of these idiotic comment threads. So if I do, I'll definitely include this one.

[@nealjroberts4050]

Why am I not surprised 😂

[@jamesmountz2915]

The misspelling of bible as bile in the description made me laugh so hard😂😂😂😂

[@rivertowne6911]

LMAO

[@afroatheist-isnowafroantit6154]

Forrest is so cute, and funny. J. Mike is engaging, and real. 😊

[@joperhop]

I like that when Forrest is still angry as hell, he is still so polite. Dudes great.

[@afroatheist-isnowafroantit6154]

@@joperhop Yes. And, JMike is a Viking.

[@smochygrice465]

Good Sunday Morning 🌞 Everyone ❤❤❤ Peace Love Empathy From Australia 🇦🇺👍🤠

[@queuecee]

Well, THIS video is going to bring all the bigoted boys to the yard.🙄

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

Too bloody right it will and all the gits who failed biology.

[@dandrechesterfield5411]

And pretentious losers who think logic and reason are bigoted concepts.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

I wonder how long it will be till young Carl Hobson turns up🤔

[@queuecee]

​@@dandrechesterfield5411Logic and reason are not bigoted concepts. Bigotry from ignorance as well as willful misunderstanding is not logical or rational.

[@nsf001-3]

Bigoted boys are the best bottoms

[@joshuaherring1711]

I have never heard someone work so hard for such a small point

[@BFDT-4]

The thumper classification of humans as not animals, is that they claim that ONLY humans have souls, from conception to just about the time of death (where that soul flies out fast!). Just a problem of metaphysics being used -- again -- to describe physical things (the material "soul"). Thumpers. ugh.

[@cassandrawilliamson2312]

I thought you were talking about thumper from Bambi for a second lol

[@owenoulton9312]

Thumpers? I'll assume you don't mean Disney rabbits, so I'm going with BuyBull thumpers - am I correct in this?

[@j.c.5528]

​@@cassandrawilliamson2312If you can't say something nice... you may be an Evangelical preacher.

[@MikkoKuusirati]

Which is funny, because the Bible _explicitly_ disagrees with that. Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 (ESV) - "I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?"

[@awesome_by_default]

23:00 I'd add that, often these arbitrary lines are drawn for a utilitarian purpose. A tomato is considered a vegetable in culinary practice because it is more useful than considering it a fruit. I fail to see the utility in considering humans to be different from animals.

[@Vic2point0]

Transgenderism remains a wholly incoherent worldview. One in which people confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms (as you do when you say gender is "cultural"). One in which they insist others are incorrect in using terms like "man" or "woman" while being unable to provide objective, workable definitions for these terms themselves. And one in which they often equate disagreement with hate, which is not only illogical but dangerous. So when you say that gender is spectral, a working definition is needed for the genders people can be regardless. What would be the distinction between someone who is a woman and not quite a woman (but far from being a man), on your worldview? With objective standards to establish your statements on gender as valid, it's hard to pretend that any of this worldview is backed by actual science.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

*One in which people confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms.* This is not a confusion, this is just the heuristic definition of gender. *One in which they insist others are incorrect in using terms like "man" or "woman" while being unable to provide objective, workable definitions for these terms themselves.* The lack of ability to provide objective, substantive, workable definitions for these words is precisely why we argue the usage of those words is incorrect: in order for it to even have the opportunity to be correct, such definitions would have to exist. The point you are failing to understand is the basis of the claims being made. Gender is a made-up construct, entirely akin to the pseudoscientific constructs of racial science, where you talk about "caucasoids" and "mongoloids" despite the lack of a coherent and consistent ontological framework on which the definitions can rest on. The same is true of gender. Gender is as real as the delusions of a people in a cult, but unfortunately, it is not possible to function within society without entertaining the delusion as if it were real to some capacity. Acknowledging transgender identity amounts to acknowledging the above, and therefore, that individuals should get to participate in said societal delusion (which they are forced to do) on their own terms. *And one in which they often equate disagreement with hate, which is not only illogical but dangerous.* Equating disagreement with hate is not always illogical. It depends on the actual contents of the claims being made, and the nature of the disagreement. If I believe wedding dresses should be always sold as white (I do not, but this is just a hypothetical), and you believe they should be always sold in rainbows, then we have a disagreement, but nothing about the contents of the claims, or about the nature of the disagreement, is an expression of hate. On the other hand, if my claim is "we should not commit genocide against Palestinians," and your claim is "we totally should," then your claim is absolutely an expression of hatred toward the Palestinians, and if you value your integrity and intelectual honesty, then you are better off admitting it yourself, even if you think the hatred is somehow ethically justified. Saying this particular claim is an expression of hatred is not illogical at all, nor is it dangerous. *So when you say that gender is spectral, a working definition is needed for the genders people can be regardless.* To whatever extent we are obligated to pretend the society-held delusion of gender is real, it is the case that gender is spectral, necessarily because human populations themselves are spectral, and no two humans have the same neuron connectivity in their brain. However, this does not mean we actually think gender is any more real than any other societal delusion. *...it's hard to pretend that any of this worldview is backed by actual science.* Yes, it is true that the ontology of gender as a social construct has no basis in the real world, much less in science. I totally agree, and in fact, this is the crux of the idea behind transgender identity acceptance. Denying someone their identity and gender-affirming care solely because you are too caught up on a delusion that is backed by nothing is not only a demonstration of willful ignorance, but also a demonstration of lack of empathy.

[@Vic2point0]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 ME: "One in which people confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms." YOU: "This is not a confusion, this is just the heuristic definition of gender." I understand that those who subscribe to modern gender theory define it that way, but that definition turns out to be unworkable. For example, if someone identified as a woman but rejected all of the roles and norms expected of women by society, what would they be? "The lack of ability to provide objective, substantive, workable definitions for these words is precisely why we argue the usage of those words is incorrect." Which is incoherent, because it's logically impossible for anyone to be incorrect (or correct, for that matter) in using terms with no objective definition. "Gender is a made-up construct" By your definition (or lack thereof), but not on mine, which recognizes that using "gender" and "biological sex" interchangeably is a perfectly coherent approach. "Equating disagreement with hate is not always illogical." Sure it is. A person might indeed do both (disagree and hate), but that never means the disagreement *is* the hate. "On the other hand, if my claim is "we should not commit genocide against Palestinians," and your claim is "we totally should," then your claim is absolutely an expression of hatred" Naturally, that disagreement would be *grounded* in hate, but they still wouldn't be one and the same. But more to the point, if you're willing to accept that many of us who disagree with modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) do not hate trans-identifying people, then obviously that criticism wasn't meant for you specifically. "To whatever extent we are obligated to pretend the society-held delusion of gender is real," If you believe that gender isn't real, you shouldn't talk as if it is. You shouldn't claim that gender is a spectrum if you literally don't think it even exists... "it is the case that gender is spectral, necessarily because human populations themselves are spectral, and no two humans have the same neuron connectivity in their brain." Oh? So gender is defined by neuron activity? If that's the case, then how could there be more than one man or more than one woman anywhere? "Denying someone their identity and gender-affirming care solely because you are too caught up on a delusion that is backed by nothing is not only a demonstration of willful ignorance, but also a demonstration of lack of empathy." Except that gender isn't a delusion on *our* worldview (those who reject your modern conceptualization of gender). It's not made up, any more than biological sex is made up.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@Vic2point0 *I understand that those who subscribe to modern gender theory define it that way, but that definition turns out to be unworkable.* I am aware: I literally admitted it within my own comment. Now I have to start questioning your reading comprehension skills here. This is also why I called it a heuristic definition, and not a formal definition. Notice how there is a difference between those two things. Besides, your definition is just as unworkable, though I know you disagree. *For example, if someone identified as a woman, but rejected all of the roles and norms expected of women by society, what would they be?* They would a gender nonconforming woman. *Which is incoherent, because it's logically impossible for anyone to be incorrect (or correct, for that matter), in using terms with no objective definition.* It is not incoherent, and I explained precisely why in the sentence right after the one you quoted, which, to your convenience, you _happened to_ skip and ignore completely. How fascinating. I will not speculate as to why you skipped it, but I do know there are no redeeming explanations for why, either way. *By your definition (or lack thereof), but not on mine, which recognizes that using "gender" and "biological sex" interchangeably is a perfectly coherent approach.* It is far from a coherent approach, and as gender roles come loaded with gender even in your worldview, it still amounts to a social construct, because gender roles are socially constructed. Your approach is incoherent, for the simple reason that your approach treats gender as being relevant in areas where it is not relevant at all, such as sports, or public bathrooms. I would wager real money that you do not use gender-neutral pronouns for every person you have meet up until and unless you have seen their genitalia up close for yourself and have inspected their chromosomal karyotypes. I would wager real money that when you see a person on the street dressed a particular, you immediately assume their gender, despite having no way of possibly knowing ultimately what it is. There is nothing coherent about it. *Sure it is. A person might indeed do both, but that never means the disagreement is the hate.* Notice how I gave you a counterexample. *Naturally, that disagreement would be grounded in hate, but they still wouldn't be one and the same.* There we go. A distinction without a difference. *But more to the point, if you're willing to accept that many of us who disagree with modern gender theory do not hate trans-identifying people, then obviously that criticism wasn't meant that for you specifically.* Step on the brakes, Jerry. I never said anything along the lines of "many who disagree with modern gender theory do not hate trans-identifying people," nor did I say anything that implies it. Admittedly, it is not far off from what I would say, but this does not change the fact that you accused me of a stance I never stated here. This would be the second time I would question your reading comprehension skills. Or, maybe your reading skills are fine, and your integrity (or possible lack there of) is the problem. You tell me which is it. I would concede that not all who disagree with the social construction theory of gender hate the transgender people, but I would also say wager they are a far smaller minority than you are making it sound. *If you believe that gender isn't real, [then] you shouldn't talk as if it is.* As I explained to you, opting to do otherwise is not possible. This is another segment of my response you conveniently happened to skip over. Hopefully, you can begin to see the cumulative case for why I am suspicious of your approach to this conversation. *You shouldn't claim that gender is a spectrum if you literally don't think it even exists...* Notice how I addressed this later on in my response. Are you one of those people who does not read the comments before reading them, and instead you type things as you read along what I wrote? Because I am, for example, aware that you did see that I addressed this later on, and that you replied to it, and I already thought beforehand about what I was going to say before initiating any typing at all. *So gender is defined by neuron activity.* _To whatever extent we are obligated to pretend the society-held delusion of gender is real,_ neuron activity defines everything about one's mental health and mental states, so to whatever extent we can pretend gender identity can be meaningfully ontologically mapped to anything at all, yes. *If that's the case, then how could there be more than one man or more than one woman everywhere?* How did you somehow manage to miss the point of arguing gender is a spectrum? *Except gender isn't a delusion on our worldview...* Your worldview does not assert gender is a delusion, but the worldview itself is a delusion. I thought you already understood this. What have you been arguing against, if not against this very notion? *It's not made up, any more than biological sex is made up.* Technically, biological sex categorization is made up too (sexual characteristic are not made up, only the categorizations based on them). To see this is the case, we can see that it is entirely arbitrary to use phenotype as the defining feature of biological sex categories, as opposed to chromosal karyotypes. Also, we are aware of the existence of intersex individuals of various types, and it is clear from the available evidence that they lie on a spectrum in their own right. There is no clear line on the spectrum where it is scientifically supported that the male-female line should be drawn at all. In addition to this, the research indicates that one's brain plays a far more important role in sexual reproduction and sexual attraction than previously thought, and so there is increasing evidence that one's gender identity is itself a component of biological sex categorization, regardless of how one is actually conceptualizing gender to begin with: because societal conditioning very much results in an environmental influence in one's physiology. Thus, to whatever extent gender is arbitrary, so is biological sex categorization. It just as arbitrary to, due to religious propaganda, define "gender" as synonymous with "biological sex categorization" (which is disingenuous on its own right due to the inevitable gender norms and gende roles that come packaged with this tactic), as it is to not envision gender as synonymous with biological sex categorization. Even the very fact that we have a word like "intersex", rather than just a distinct name allowing us to treat this part of the spectrum as a full "third sex category" on its own right is very much arbitrary: entirely a matter of semantics. There is no underlying ontology that supports the current language we use for biological sex categorization any more than any other linguistic system, and so, the language that we use is very much a reflection of both the cultural context and the history of biological sex research. This is not so difficult to see, considering that we have been trying to impose binary categories on something that has never been a binary, but instead a spectrum. The extent to which it is a human construction is such that if our understanding of how to categorize biological sex changes one day, the behaviors of the sloth or of the lion will not suddenly change at all when it comes to sexual reproduction. Now, the way in which biological sex categories are made up is fundamentally different from the way gender is made up. As I mentioned, sexual characteristics themselves are scientifically real. The way in which we try to group them together to form categories for humans is what is made-up. Gender has nothing like that for its backbone: there is no scientifically-backed ontology underlyong gender norms, gender roles, and their assignment to biological sex categories, and they clearly are a product of societal conditioning, with virtually no other relevant factor.

[@Vic2point0]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 Okay, so if the definition is unworkable, I've no reason to take the worldview it comes from seriously (and neither do you). And no, it isn't unworkable on my end because I can say that gender = biological sex and it won't cause any problems with the rest of my worldview. ME: "For example, if someone identified as a woman, but rejected all of the roles and norms expected of women by society, what would they be?" YOU: "They would a gender nonconforming woman." What would make them a woman on your worldview? Since you accept that equating gender with gender roles and norms is unworkable, I'm curious what you think determines a person's gender. "It is not incoherent, and I explained precisely why in the sentence right after the one you quoted" All you did there was claim there is a total lack of objective, workable definitions but that's only on *your* worldview, not on mine. And even if it were the case that there just weren't any objective, workable definitions in existence, that would only mean that there's no way to be correct or incorrect about *anything.* It wouldn't make your worldview coherent, it would just mean everything was, lol. "It is far from a coherent approach" What's incoherent about it? Stop hand-waving and tell me what's wrong with continuing to use "gender" and "biological sex" interchangeably? "and as gender roles come loaded with gender even in your worldview," Not sure what you mean by this. I do incidentally approve of gender roles and norms to some extent, but a person can very easily be a woman without adhering to the gender roles/norms expected of women on my worldview. "it still amounts to a social construct, because gender roles are socially constructed." Gender roles and norms are socially constructed, yes, and they're expected of us based on our gender aka biological sex (which is not socially constructed). "Your approach is incoherent, for the simple reason that your approach treats gender as being relevant in areas where it is not relevant at all, such as sports, or public bathrooms." I haven't commented on those topics actually. But I don't think biological sex (aka gender) is solely relevant to matters of reproduction, if that's what you're getting at. "I would wager real money that you do not use gender-neutral pronouns for every person you have meet up until and unless you have seen their genitalia up close for yourself and have inspected their chromosomal karyotypes." Of course not, but that doesn't mean my concept of gender is somehow incoherent. It simply means that I trust various markers to inform me on a person's gender in most cases. Same as I wouldn't do an in-depth investigation into everyone who claims to be a doctor before calling them "Dr." But given a reason to doubt that someone is what they claim to be or try to look like? That's different story. "I would concede that not all who disagree with the social construction theory of gender hate the transgender people, but I would also say wager they are a far smaller minority than you are making it sound." And I see very few signs of actual hate in the vast majority of those of us who disagree with your worldview. Yet we are accused of hate almost all the time. ME: "If you believe that gender isn't real, [then] you shouldn't talk as if it is." YOU: "As I explained to you, opting to do otherwise is not possible." You didn't really *explain* how this is supposedly impossible, just sort of asserted it. ME: "If that's the case, then how could there be more than one man or more than one woman everywhere?" YOU: "How did you somehow manage to miss the point of arguing gender is a spectrum?" Are there men and women, or are there not? Because if "man" is a gender, but gender is determined by neuron activity as you asserted, then that would have to mean literally only one person on Earth is a man since everyone's neuron activity is unique. I'm only pointing out the absurd results in adopting this bizarre reconceptualization of "gender" in the first place. "Technically, biological sex categorization is made up too" I'm not talking about the act of categorizing things but the things themselves. Biological sex itself is not a social construct, and neither is "gender" if you maintain that they're one and the same. It's only when you confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms, etc. that it becomes confusing and incoherent. Also, no, "intersex" people are not literally inter-sex; that's a misnomer and always has been. A few deviations from normal sexual development does not make you some mysterious third gender.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@Vic2point0 *Okay, so if the definition is unworkable, I've no reason to take the worldview it comes from seriously (and neither do you).* I explained what the reason is. Your continual avoidance and refusal to even acknowledge the reason, which as I have already pointed, you conveniently happened to skip over in your previous responses, does not have any bearing on the existence of said reasoning. If you want to be openly intellectually dishonest, then there is nothing I can do to stop you, but you are mistaken if you think you are going to make any progress in changing my mind. At best, what you will accomplish is that, by virtue of readers reading my responses to you, they will just realize you should not be taken seriously. *And no, it isn't unworkable on my end because I can say that gender = biological sex and it won't cause any problems with the rest of my worldview.* You spoke too soon, considering you later encountered my arguments during your reading, some of which you acknowledged. See how inconvenient it is for you to not read what you are replying to before replying to it? *Since you accept that equating gender with gender roles and norms is unworkable, I'm curious what you think determines a person's gender.* After several responses from me, you somehow still have no clue what it is my stance on this is, which is both strange and hilarious. As I have already pointed out to you: the claim that gender exists is a claim born out of a societal delusion. As such, no workable ontology for gender exists. Therefore, the only meaning labels such as the word "woman" have are precisely the meaning the person described by it chooses it to mean. I already explained why this is the most parsimonious framework to work with: in light of the absence of a coherent ontology for gender, and in light of the fact that it is societally enforced that one participate in the construct of gender whether one wants to or not, it is most ethical to permit the individuals participating to do so (a) in their own terms, (b) in a way that permits for gender-affirming care. None of this requires accepting that gender is real. *All you did there was claim there is a total lack of objective, workable definitions, but that's only on **_your_** worldview, not on mine.* As I already pointed out, and which you happened to conveniently skip over, my worldview accounts for the existence of your worldview by indicating that it is in fact a societal delusion, a type of systematic cult-like dogma. Therefore, continuing to respond with "my worldview doesn't assert that" fails to do anything for your case, since in my worldview, what your worldview states is not considered as being taken seriously. Your worldview has precisely the problems my worldview says it has. Saying you do not believe it has those problems does nothing to refute my worldview or defend yours: what it does is tell me your beliefs are false. *What's incoherent about it?* I told you what is incoherent about it. This is why you need to take down your attitude down a notch, read my comments in their entirety before attempting to reply to them, actually processing what I am saying, and _only then_ actually typing up a response. *I do incidentally approve of gender to some extent,...* Which is precisely part of what I was claiming. *Gender roles and norms are socially constructed, yes, and they're expected of us based on our biological sex.* Which is another one of the problems I alluded to in my response. You are only helping prove my point. *I haven't commented on those topics actually.* I know, but since you reject the social construction theory of gender, it makes your views rather predictable. Traditionalists have been around for a very long time, so it would be ridiculous to not be acquainted with the views of tradionalists. *But I don't think biological sex is solely relevant to matters of reproduction, if that's what you're getting at.* That is exactly what I am getting at, and that claim is precisely one of the many claims which are not backed by any evidence, and are instead part of the societal delusion I have been referring to this entire time. *Of course not, but that doesn't mean my concept of gender is somehow incoherent.* Proceeding to prove my point, only to say you did not prove it, does not actually mean you indeed did not prove it. This is equivalent to the thing creationists do where they accept the prediction the theory of biological evolution makes, but still somehow refuse to accept that the theory is accurate. *It simply means that I trust various markers to inform me on a person's gender in most cases.* Yes, I know that _your_ worldview makes the claim that these are markers. This fails, for the very simple reason that the only sense in which they can possible be called markers is to the extent that society itself enforced those correlations systematically as best as it could, and even then, the correlations are still not strong enough to be considered reliable markers of anything. *And I see very few signs of actual hate in the vast majority of those of us who disagree with your worldview.* Should I care about what you are claiming you "see"? I too have the ability to "see", and what I "see" is different what you "see." This leaves one of a few possibilities: (a) You are being insincere (b) You are sincere, but are mistaken about what it is you see (c) You are both sincere and understanding what it is you see, but what it is that you see cannot be concluded to be representative of what is statistically significant as a whole. In all three cases, what you claim to "see" with regards to this is useless information. *You didn't really explain how this is supposedly impossible, just sort of asserted it.* I did explain it, including in the fragments of my responses you so-conveniently happened to skip over, which I have called you out for multiple times already. Doubling down on pretending those fragments were never written only reveals you to be intellectually dishonest, and it does nothing to help your case. Not only does it do nothing to convince me that I need to rethink my worldview, but in fact, it will instead make everyone else think your worldview is indefensible, which is why you have had to resort to this kind of "conversational" approach. *Are there men and women, or are there not?* There are not, but you believe there are, and society as a whole attempts to enforce the ideology that there are, and to whatever extent this false ideology is capable of approaching reality (which is very limited), it follows that gender presents itself as a hypothetical spectrum in it when closest to approximating reality. *Because if "man" is a gender, but gender is determined by neuron activity as you asserted, then that would have to mean literally only one person on Earth is a man since everyone's neuron activity is unique.* Yes, hence "gender is spectral." Again, I said this previously. So I ask you again: how did you somehow manage to miss the point of the argument, when you made the argument yourself? *I'm only pointing out the absurd results in adopting this bizarre reconceptualization of "gender" in the first place.* Nothing you have pointed out constitutes an absurdity at all. Your arguments are all riddled with either: (a) a remarkable ability to misunderstand the claims I am making (b) a remarkable ability to understand the claim I am making, but still missing the point of the claims somehow (c) skipping over crucial aspects of my explanations of the things you insist have remained unexplained on my part. *I'm not talking about the act of categorizing things, but the things themselves.* You are talking about the things being categorized themselves? Well, okay, I never said _humans_ are a social construct, so I have no idea why you are misrepresenting my claim like this. *Biological sex itself is not a social construct,...* Misrepresenting my refutation of your claim, and then repeating the claim, does not at all constitute a defense of the claim at all. *It's only when you confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms, etc. that it becomes confusing and incoherent.* No, because as I have stated before, there is no conflation happening: the gender roles and gender norms are intrinsically intertwined into the very concept of gender itself, even in your own worldview, which you already admitted to previously. They are not something separate from gender, and even when you tried to separate them from gender in your response, you failed. *Also, no, "intersex" people are not literally inter-sex; that's a misnomer and has always been.* This is just a plain baseless assertion. *A few deviations from normal sexual development does not make you some mysterious third gender.* Describing intersex as "few deviations" is as scientifically inaccurate as it can get. Phew!

[@chrisbaker3066]

What I want to know is ; is the Devil's Avocado, a fruit or a vegetable???

[@queuecee]

It's so cute when you get someone who thinks everyone he disgrees with are bots that the AXP developed and YET thinks that anyone cares about his nonsense. And when he replies to his own comments, it's even clearer how delusional he is. He tried calling once and because they had screeners (gasp! On a call-in show!), he will never try to call in again.😂 There was NO way he could have had a coherent discussion with ANY host. So now, he's constantly posting the SAME junk, thinking that anyone cares.😂

[@drsatan3231]

​@369spartan the spamming hateful theist bigot fails to address the content of the comment

[@damonkenny7818]

@@369spartan Their emotional pleas for gender identify, are not scientifically tested.

[@j.c.5528]

​@369spartan Ahahahahahaaaaa. ...oh you're serious. Oh. ...oh no.

[@ragg232]

@@369spartan You... uh.... Posted enough there dude?

[@damonkenny7818]

@@CarlHobson-zm2gk A doctor isn’t a subject matter expert on sodomy. You’ve been doing doctors wrong.

[@SupachargedGaming]

[Purely petty point, sue me] "Currently, the Subaru Corporation makes Subaru brand cars, and its aerospace division makes utility and attack helicopters for the Japanese Self Defense Force, trainers, unmanned aerial vehicles, and the center wings of Boeing 777 and Boeing 787 jets." A Subaru that isn't a car. It's a helicopter.

[@jan-Sopija]

I know we should challenge the argument not the person, but mike here (not jmike) called himself a member of the "astri order" the astri is a neo facist cult

[@wabbajack2]

I found no source for your claim. And he was talking about Gandalf being of the Istari. Bullshit detected.

[@rikorobinson]

JMike and Forrest are both in my top three figures on these channels. I absolutely adore them. But look at JMike! Tell me that face isn't one of absolute dignity. Dude was sitting there listening to the conversation, looking like a Greek god surveying his demesne and I'm absolutely here for it 🤣🤣🤣

[@Jarimir]

Biology was developed through the scientific method. Most concepts of gender and gender roles are determined through societal trends and judgements which we know ARE subjective and DON'T follow the scientific method...

[@chancematters]

People up in these comments trying to say trans people aren’t real or non-binary people aren’t real when y’all have never experienced gender dysphoria

[@MsMiDC]

@@369spartan You know what you're also not required to do? Reduce these people down to what is written in a book, and yet you still do.

[@chancematters]

@@369spartan Sociopathic misuse of pronouns? Bro. And none of those things are happening because of trans people! Especially men participating in or dominating women’s sports, because firstly, trans women are women, and secondly, they don’t even nearly dominate, and recent research actually shows that medical transition makes the playing field completely level!

[@queuecee]

@@chancematters He just runs a script where based on certain key words, he will provide a specific spam. You'll note everything he posts are just the same things over and over.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

@@KentuckyBrad 🤦‍♀

[@nealjroberts4050]

A lot of people don't understand what gender nor biological sex are.

[@Ares_V]

Not only are trans people their gender even if they are closeted. I'm a trans man who does drag. I sometimes wear make-up or "feminine" clothes and stuff. I still agree with Forrest's definition.

[@kacklerot]

"Consider the legal system and it's definition of animals"... What a strawman. Man, I wish scientists made laws at this point. Maybe we'd get better as a society. 😆

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Well, I don't necessarily think scientists themselves should be the ones making the laws, but I do believe we need to put some system in place where the legislative branch of a government is constitutionally required to provide sufficient scientific evidence that the consequences of a given law will minimize harm in society and also not decrease well-being overall, before actually doing any kind of lawmaking decisions about it.

[@kacklerot]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 👍💯

[@SleepyMatt-zzz]

TLDR: "I know there are problems with how we classify things, however I don't want to acknowledge the nuances of gender (despite pretending to agree with Forrest), I want humans to feel superior to animals, and I don't want to change because classifications are arbitrary."

[@rukuha-san8806]

This comment section filled with ateist bigots makes me sad

[@nsf001-3]

Well, being atheist just means someone doesn't believe in a god, it doesn't mean they're a good person unfortunately

[@rukuha-san8806]

@@nsf001-3 I'm aware of that it's just the fact that they all start with "I'm an ateist but... " Like the fact that you don't believe in god doesn't mean that you have to not believe in science ether.

[@chancematters]

⁠@@rukuha-san8806Not to be rude, but genuinely, I find you incomprehensible. “Atheist.” With an H. And the structure of your sentence is… a struggle.

[@PatrickWDunne]

It's easy to blame bigotry, especially anti-LGBT bigotry, on religion but then I remembered that the Christian-hating NSBM scene exists.

[@sparki9085]

I have to wonder where the bigotry comes from. Theists get their bigotry from their books and preachers, but it's harder for me to understand it without that backing

[@benleonheart]

13:05 - Diarrhea Martini 💀 i love it

[@ronitsrivastava377]

My simple solution is to not have different expectations from a man and a woman. A man can have long hair and woman can have short hair. Have same clothes for both men and women? And we call a male man and a female woman. This won't harm sexuality following the previous things since a man can be attracted to a man a woman to both a man and a woman etc.

[@MsMiDC]

This is not about just having long hair or not. Of course a man can have long hair, have you ever seen metalheads? Its about the perception of ones self. There just simply are differences between men and women, nobody can deny that. But if the perception iof yourself does not match with your assigned gender at birth, you should be able to do the things to make you the gender you always were.

[@nealjroberts4050]

There's not only a binary male-female dichotomy to make that work but you're also ignoring that gender dysphoria exists.

[@ronitsrivastava377]

@@MsMiDC The perception comes from the societies responsibilities, right? There isn't a definition saying that this is what it feels to be a woman and this is what it feels to be a man.

[@ronitsrivastava377]

@@nealjroberts4050 I acknowledge gender dysphoria but I would like to know if that exists due to society expectations or even generally.

[@ronitsrivastava377]

@@MsMiDC I generally meant to not expect a different responsibility or have a different rule for a man and a woman.

[@rivertowne6911]

this is off topic but your smile is so infectious and genuine, forrest!

[@bkflex55]

Arbitrarily assigning definitions that do not comport with reality is where we need to draw a line. I could arbitrarily assign tomatoes to the new class of animals called rainbows. That doesn't mean you or anyone should accept that. It doesn't comport to reality and I would need to show how tomatoes, animals and rainbows actually relate to one another.

[@queuecee]

But what if it's assigned based on systematic and a coherent categorization system that actually helps us develop a better understanding of how nature works where we can have a better knowledge of agriculture, medicine, biodiversity, etc? Would that be OK?

[@bkflex55]

@@queuecee I think, perhaps, I wasn't clear. Arbitrarily assigning definitions does not work. It does not equate with reality. The definition of "creeping thing" would not in any way advance knowledge since it does not equate with reality as shown in the animal kingdom.

[@queuecee]

@@bkflex55 Perhaps I wasn't clear. It isn't arbitrary. It's a systematic and coherent categorization system with practical use. You may have a different defintion of understanding or a misunderstanding of how science works.

[@bkflex55]

@@queuecee you are saying the exact same thing as me? Are you disagreeing with me? I really don't understand your point.

[@dyslexicwilf6823]

@@queueceecan you explain how it isn’t arbitrary?

[@OmegaMusicYT]

Some boxes are created using the scientific method, are useful to make predictions and consistent with reality. Other boxes are created to spread political ideas that cannot be proven and those boxes have zero utility outside of that. I pick the first type.

[@nealjroberts4050]

Sounds like a false dichotomy

[@knowme4iam326]

Sex...Gender...2 different things

[@gid519]

Removing human from the animal group would put them in what other group? We could certainly put tomato in a veggie group but setting it aside by its lonesome wouldn't even make sense. So, why do that with humans.

[@nsf001-3]

It's really unfortunate to see Forrest backpedal on the arbitrariness of classifications the moment it's in the context of transpeople, as if admitting that would somehow devalue them or something. Being arbitrary doesn't necessarily mean something is nonsense or random. The whole point is to pick out the arbitrary categories that are productive, and also identify which categories are counterproductive. The long-term downstream effects are what matter. But I think the caller showed that the hosts really don't have a counterargument against theists using "arbitrary" or "subjective" as a justification for their BS

[@queuecee]

I think the "arbitrariness" is a bit complex concept. It's arbitrary in where we draw the lines in some places, but the whole categorization and the rationalization isn't just randomly made, like you said. But Forrest struggled trying to convey that

[@reubenmanzo2054]

@@queuecee Arbitrary (adjective): based on random chance or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. If the classification isn't random, then it's not arbitrary by definition.

[@MikkoKuusirati]

@@reubenmanzo2054 "...or personal whim"! If you want to use a dictionary definition, you can't just _arbitrarily_ ignore part of it. :)

[@reubenmanzo2054]

@@MikkoKuusirati Whim (noun): a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained. Actually, you're right. The classification surrounding trans people is extremely arbitrary.

[@phrozenwun]

If we craft a sufficiently large box then we can place everything that we expect in that box, it also allows things in the box that we did not expect. If we craft a sufficiently small box that contains only what we expect then that box will exclude things that we didn't expect. If you can shape the "box" to perfectly hold and exclude all real entities that we expect then the utility of the box goes away because of our limited conceptual capacity. If you choose to have multiple conflicting shaped boxes at once you discard logic. Theists typically apply one of these criteria that an honest interlocutor won't. Choose wisely how to proceed.

[@HuanLinParkour]

You guys crack me up and keep up the great videos. 😂😂😂👍🔥

[@lozferris1719]

There are no physical markers to indicate whether someone is trans; we are just expected to believe them. What about a child who is claiming to be trans, how would you know whether it's a passing phase? Look how many people have detransitioned and have done irreversable damage to their young bodies. How is this not concerning people?

[@queuecee]

Maybe for a child, they get evaluated by professionals so that it's not just a phase? And how about we limit gender-affirming surgery until they are older?

[@rowbot5555]

Medical professionals already consider this and that's why unless in extreme cases children do not receive surgeries or hormone replacement therapy. The puberty blockers have been used for decades to treat dangerously early puberty in kids already and are safe, puberty blockers are entirely reversible and are there to give the child time to mature and to give up the phase if it is one. You act like medical professionals don't understand medicine

[@lozferris1719]

@@queuecee The professionals don't always get it right though do they? Hence why there are people who have already gone through with life altering surgeries and are now detransitioning and speaking out against the professionals who encouraged them to transition. Also, I totally agree with you. Once people are adults they are free to do what they like with their bodies. I don't think anyone should be cutting off healthy body parts but people have to make their own choices and I respect that. PS. Thank you for your response. All the best

[@queuecee]

@@lozferris1719 no, they don't. A lot of times appendectomy might go wrong and end up with someone dying. A lot of women die during childbirth. There are doctors who might commit malpractice. You know what no one does? They don't call for all medical practice to cease.

[@lozferris1719]

@@queuecee Did I call for all medical practice to cease? If someone is having their appendix removed it is because the appendix is infected and poses a direct risk to the patients life. I am against healthy tissues being removed from children; that is my issue. Also I understand puberty blockers have been used on people in the past but we can't pretend that medications don't come with side effects; I would never advise a healthy person to take medications. Who knows what illnesses are actually caused by long term use of medications.

[@marlonmarquez4798]

But what does it mean to feel like a gender? Except for physiological feelings i guess. And if for example i didn’t act like the cultural image for a specific gender, would that mean i’m any less of that gender? Are we know relegating genders to behaviours?

[@devrarobertson8179]

Be still my enby heart!

[@SecularFelinist]

Q: How does an NB samurai kill people? A: They/Them

[@devrarobertson8179]

@@SecularFelinist I think that's supposed to be a joke, but I'm not getting it.

[@SecularFelinist]

@@devrarobertson8179 😐 They slash them.

[@anotherhuman2414]

@@SecularFelinist Hello AnotherAllegedHuman. I too am AnotherHuman

[@imagomonkei]

Christians: “The Bible says humans aren't animals.” The Bible: “I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but animals. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the animals, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the breath of man goes upward and the breath of the animal goes down into the earth?”

[@jaflenbond7854]

Who is the God and Father of Jesus Christ? ANSWER - The Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that are in and on it. Who are the worshippers of the Creator? ANSWER - All persons on earth who freely and willingly honor and obey Jesus Christ as their loving, kind, and merciful Heavenly Master and King and believe his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" Who are the Followers of Jesus Christ? ANSWER - All persons on earth who freely and willingly honor and obey the Creator as their loving, kind, and merciful God and Heavenly Father. What will the Creator do for Followers of his Christ? ANSWER - The loving, kind, and merciful Creator will honor and reward all followers of Jesus Christ with ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe and peaceful earth without without liars, hypocrites, slanderers, terrorists, deceivers, traitors, perverts, and murderers. What will Jesus Christ do for Worshippers of the Creator? ANSWER - All human beings have no immortal souls and will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals but loving, kind, respectful, and submissive worshippers of the Creator who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Jesus Christ's disciples and followers, and many others will not remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, instead, in the Creator's right and proper time, Jesus Christ will freely, happily, and willingly RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist forever on a safe and peaceful earth as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy his and the Creator's eternal love, kindness, goodness, compassions, generosities, favors, and blessings for eternity under his loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth.

[@JohnSmith-gu6ii]

Is a man's pelvis bone different from a woman's pelvic bone? 🤔

[@nsf001-3]

A _males_ is on averge different from a _females_ but there's huge variance and also sex and gender aren't the same thing so it doesn't matter

[@queuecee]

Do you understand variance? Do you accept evolution? It's based on the distribution of heritable traits. Pelvic shape and size are heritable traits.

[@j.c.5528]

Are my pelvic bones different from Dwayne Johnson's?

[@j.c.5528]

@369spartan That doesn't answer my question at all. Good try though.

[@queuecee]

@@j.c.5528 No. It was not a good try. It was a non-sequitur followed by his usual spam.

[@billmcdonald4335]

Beavers were classified as fish, according the the RCs.

[@ENDtheFED-it4bo]

Common masculinity has never changed. There are just certain traits only men have. Biological sex is reality, gender is abstract.

[@queuecee]

Really? NEVER changed? And which journal did you get that from? "The Journal of Whatever Seems Right to My Limited Education and Intellect"?

[@ENDtheFED-it4bo]

@@queuecee History. Go read up on history. 1000 years ago. 3000 years ago. 6000 years ago. Neanderthal societies even had their masculine and feminine traits and roles. Just because you want reality to be the way you want does not mean it's going to be the way you want. Reality hits really hard bro.

[@JohnGeiger-ge2zh]

​@@queuecee Don't worry bro. You can still wear dresses.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

@@ENDtheFED-it4bo Oh dear me, you might want to look up the following. Native American cultures and two-spirit. Mexico and Muxes. The Sakalava people of Madagascar. India and the Hijras. Samoa and the fa’afafines.

[@TheVajayjaySlayer]

@@ookekklibarianbornagain6708 Soooooo those cultures died out? I wonder why? Hahahaha

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

I do not think Forrest explained the concept of gender as performative as well as he could have, but to be completely fair, it is not at all easy to explain this during a phone call with someone, which is a dynamic back-and-forth, especially when you also have a time limit built into the format. The most successful way I have found to explain the concept is by starting the conversation with a quick thought experiment: imagine you see a person down the street. Suppose the person has no facial hair, make-up, a pink dress, and a purse. Under the assumption that "gender" is defined by genitalia, what do you conclude the gender of this person is? Most gender traditionalists, if not all, would quickly respond by saying this person is a woman, with the insinuation that their genitalia is comprised of a vagina with ovaries and whatnot. However, the very moment one makes this conclusion, they have already contradicted their own ideological assumption about gender. How so? Because there is absolutely no scientific evidence that a person who dresses in the way I described above must necessarily have a vagina and ovaries. Yet one has still concluded they are a woman, which means that one is tacitly admitting there is far more to identifying a person's gender, under the traditionalist worldview, than just the genitalia. Otherwise, no one would actually make any assumptions about anyone's gender, unless they have actually seen the person's genitalia before. Clearly, in the traditionalist worldview, the identifier for gender is not solely the alleged genitalia, but the actual way this person is dressed, the way they look superficially, and how they are carrying themselves out in public. Now, at this stage, one may object and say "statistically, a correlation does exist between this type of outfit aesthetics and a person's genitalia, so it is unfair to pretend that the traditionalist worldview of gender is necessarily reliant on variables other than the genitalia." This objection fails for two reasons. One reason is that the correlation is not so sufficiently strong as to warrant the association being argued for. The other reason, which I would argue is more fundamental, is that these correlations are very much specific to a given culture: the period in history, the ethnicity of the population, and the location, are all decisive variables when it comes to determining the reasons behind why an apparent correlation between a person's genitalia and a particular way of behaving, looking, and dressing exist. These correlations are created by society itself, and are enforced systematically: the way the medical system has traditionally worked, primary level education, government forms, they all enforce those standards in a way that causes the correlations to exist. The point is: those correlations exist purely for social reasons, not scientific ones. There is no underlying ontology supporting a framework that having a particular set of genitalia has any relationship to one's interpersonal behaviors, expression, and communication, beyond just what society has enforced to exist. _This_ is what we mean when we say "gender is a social construct." Here is a different way to put it: the idea of gender existing in the way we say it does is basically a delusion: a dogmatically held idea at a societal level for which no actual evidence exists, but it is nonetheless an inevitable idea society resists against changing. Gender is about as real as the racial science categories of "caucasoid," "negroid," "mongoloid," etc., which is to say: not at all real. *However,* society insists that it is real, and because every human being is assigned a gender at birth, and because every human being is raised by their caretakers to behave in some particular way in relation to the gender they were assigned at birth, participating in this delusion of gender is inevitable and necessary: you are forced to do it, even if you do not want to. This is where the notion of "gender is performative" becomes relevant: being forced to participate in the societal gender construct against your own will is akin to waking up in a filming studio, finding out it is physically impossible to leave the filming studio (unless your life ends), and also finding out that you are going to be coerced into participating in the filming until you die. On top of that, you are also being told that you have to play a specific role in this movie, because this is just how you were born to be. You would find yourself in a situation where you would rather just choose which role you want to play yourself, especially as there is absolutely no evidence that you were born to play a particular role. The concept of gender societally is similar: an individual is going to have participate in the construct one way or another, but it would only be ethical and healthy for them to be the ones determining how exactly it is that they will be participating in this societally enforced delusion, given that they understand their own internal sense of self and their relationship with reality better than the societal authorities enforcing the delusion. This is precisely the reasoning behind the idea of affirming a person's gender identity, regardless of whether they are transgender or not, and is the main reason why the only demonstrably ethical approach here is to support gender-affirming care. Notice how this is all simply a consequence of the fact that society decided to just make up these unscientific correlations between a person's genitalia and their social behaviors, for no other reason than to have additional control over humans. Gender being performative in this kind of way is what makes gender fundamentally different from ethnicity or biological species. Biological species are arbitrary, only to the extent that while there are obviously differences between distinct populations of organisms, there is no known rigorous, unique, robust way of using those differences for a scheme of classifying those populations in a satisfying way. This does not mean the differences between the populations do not exist, though. With gender in particular, though, not only is there no coherent classification scheme at all, there is not even any well-defined set of characteristics on which one could hope to base a hypothetical scheme on. Gender is not real in the same way the concept of differences between populations of organisms is, but we pretend it is real, because societally, we have to. This is also why gender must be different from biological sex categories: sexual characteristics of an organism are definitely real things.

[@dandrechesterfield5411]

As an atheist I find it odd that the atheist community prides itself on logic and reason but when it comes to the trans issue they throw all that out. Most peoples issue with this is related to the denigration of language. To say a woman or man is whatever each person wants it to be is literally the same type of argument theists make for a god. Remember to them God is a personal God, they basically make the rules up as they go. And that's exactly what we as atheists fight against. That anti intellectual social construct stuff is ridiculous. There is no way anyone could know what it feels like to be a man or a woman. They're not feelings. They're objective facts based on bio-LOGICAL markers.

[@lorencalfe6446]

no its just that the entire body is biological and transwomen on hrt develop many of the anatomy (all anatomy is biological) of the gender they identify with.

[@jonclark8252]

@dandrechesterfield5411 "...when it comes to the trans issue [atheists] throw [logic] out. How so?

[@queuecee]

I think atheists generally trust the science and medicine more than theists. Tell me where they've thrown out logic and reason as opposed to you just being ignorant.

[@ericwilliams1659]

I have read your other comments. You are the one not following logic, and claiming you're an atheist doesn't mean you are immune from logical fallacies.

[@queuecee]

​@@ericwilliams1659It's funny when some of these posts start with, "I'm an atheist, but..." Reminds me of people starting, "I'm not a racist, but..."😂

[@Andre-sq9nm]

How can people say they support science, evidence and logical thinking but believe that sex is a social construct or that men can get pregnant ? It truly blows my mind.

[@googleplussucks8475]

Sex ≠ gender. Gender is a social construct, and he explained why.

[@SevenPr1me]

Conflating sex and gender, typical

[@73split]

@@googleplussucks8475sex does indeed = gender. It’s not that hard to understand. Biology is biology, no amount of transgender ideology can change that fact. So cut the BS.

[@skepticusmaximus184]

Why don't you rename this show THE GENDER EXPERIENCE. I can then unsubscribe, as gender ideology has nothing to do with my lack of belief in any supernatural deity. SERIOUSLY! I'm absolutely not transphobic. It's just not a particularly strong issue Im engaged with. I don't like climate change deniers either. But I'd also get annoyed if ever other video on TAE was pushing back on climate change denial. I subbed TAE many years ago, because I'm interested issues related to atheism and why people affirm any god beliefs. I know I'm welcome to unsubscribe, but I'm still interested in atheists content. I'm just getting compassion fatigue with the trans and gender ideology issues. You already have a dedicated trans show on this network. It'd be wonderful if you kept TAE for atheist relevant content. Thanks 👍

[@queuecee]

You DO know that you are not required to watch EVERY video or even ALL the content of the videos. Right? You ARE welcome to skip over parts that do not interest you. And you don't HAVE to engage on ALL topics. BTW, this is a call-in show, so the callers will call in with the topics that they want to discuss. If a theist calls in and says that their bigotry is supported by their fictional god, then that's the topic of the discussion.

[@skepticusmaximus184]

@@queuecee Yes. Two very good points. I do tend to skip the videos concerned with political ideology I'm just disinterested in. I just worry that I may miss some morsels of good content, more directly relevant to atheism and secular values. Yes I do realise that the caller can initiate some bigoted subject matter that is clearly predicted on their religious dogma. Point taken there. It just seems so increasingly more prevalent that the ACA and other shows are overtly showcasing certain issues. It used to be gay rights 10 or 15 years ago, and likewise I sympathize with those to, but at some point it becomes a competition of victimhood and overly political rhetoric to weaponise gay rights or trans rights. It badly detracts from the pragmatic and epistemological discourse about theology, psychology and historicity of religious beliefs. There's also the consideration that giving a homophobic, transphobic or racist bigot the time of day, is granting them too much virtue or worthiness as an interlocutor. It's not the first time an TAE host has reached the point of dropping the call because the caller was not even worthy of our attention. I'd only ask they'd reach that point with racists, homophobes and transphobes much sooner and stop playing into their hands. I do care about these issues. I just expect atheist content on TAE. It's becoming a showcase of gender ideology that neither entirely agree with, nor find particularly relevant. I do think a lot of it is being spurned on and instigated by ACA and it's hosts personal political ideologies and not necessarily incidental to callers religious bigotry although that's another lead in. Problem is, once one party starts, the other often feels a need to become defensive. But with atheism alone, we have no obligation to justify our lack of conviction; our disbelief. Being dragged into other (especially political) beliefs and claims, shifts the burden of reason and evidence. Good hosts should not be drawn into a defensive positions if at all possible. These tangential issue can be honey traps for theists to capture a platform for their bigoted rhetoric.

[@queuecee]

​@@skepticusmaximus184I don't think that the show gets enough theist callers for them to pick and choose. Depending on the hosts, they get almost none and have to actually talk to atheists. I called in a couple of weeks ago and I barely waited 5 minutes before being put on. And that show had to take 3 atheist callers. But worse is when they are forced to talk to some of the "regulars" like Jon from Canada or Amanuel. There's a dearth of quality theists willing to try to have a good-faith discussion. For example, there are SO many theist trolls on here who proclaim to everyone to have "destroyed" all the atheists or have "bitched-slapped" someone with their "arguments" but have NO courage to call in. In reality, based on what they post here, I doubt they could articulate ANY coherent argument, so their cowardice might be for the better.🤷‍♂️

[@j.c.5528]

Suggestion: if the clip title indicates it's about gender, don't click on it.

[@skepticusmaximus184]

@@j.c.5528 Yes. As I've pointed out, I acknowledge that it's an option. I've actually opted not to watch this video, But I'm also concerned that I'd miss good content that's relevant to atheism and secular values. Do you read a thread before commenting?

[@steveyuhas9278]

I did enjoy the call and it was thought provoking. However, I think this is a bit of a shortsighted argument in many ways. Firstly, definitions are how we use words. It doesn't define what they actually mean. And for those to mean anything, they have to be useful and meaningful and have metrics that make a definition applicable to the subject you're applying it to. So saying people aren't animals is about as useful as saying "my friend Jim isn't a human because he's names Jim and all ppl named Jim aren't human. It's my definition, therefore it's true." While it's true that you can do that, and you may be able to come up with some crazy hypothetical where it's useful, you already have bought into the definition of what a name is, what a human is and how Jim fits into that extant framework. What you're missing is any real metric to differentiate humans from people named Jim. You can't just have that one single metric. Likewise with humans not being animals, you have already accepted the defining characteristics of humans and animals. So you need some kind of set of metrics that makes humans not animals if you are discussing it within that framework. If you just "feel" that they aren't or the book even just says they aren't, that is meaningless and useless to differentiate between the two. The core reason being, you've already accepted definitions of human and animal and biology, etc etc etc. You would need to introduce all new definitions for all those things to make it meaningful. Otherwise, definitions and language itself would become useless because there is no way to point to the actual characteristics of a subject and match it with a definition. You would need a whole new set of all of the definitions that are impacted. It's just a pedantic thing Christians do to feel special. You can't go around saying you accept science and then say you have a new special definition without redefining everything else. We ARE humans and we ARE animals. It's a fact, given you accept the definitions of those two things. There's no getting around it by just proclaiming it, you would become incoherent. It's basically a really really bad argument once you dig like one layer deep. His argument is more attacking the idea of language in general, it's just not useful.

[@normkeller2405]

So tired of the gender conversations on atheist shows. What has it to do with god and theology? If someone describes a god, demonstrates that it exists, that still doesn't mean that anyone should give a shit about how it wants us to treat others. If it doesn't like some gender thing, let it respond. Otherwise I don't give a shit. If some god-thing takes action against people on the basis of gender, or anything, I will still have to employ my own reason, empathy, and morality to decide whether to support the action or to stand against it. From everything I can derive from the Abrahamic god-thing storybooks, I would work to destroy such a god. Can we just drop the gender arguments from theological claims until such time as they demonstrate some evidence?

[@nsf001-3]

Psychotic theologies create all sorts of problems for lots of groups of people, so religion's effects on the world around us are as on-topic as can be. You not wanting to hear about it is irrelevant

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

Sadly I doubt that will ever happen, theists will use their religion to justify their bigotry.

[@rukuha-san8806]

If religious people didn't forced their "god created Adam and Eve" we wouldn't have this conversation to begin with.

[@marcusreading3783]

Considering that a lot of Theists use their religion as a reason for bigotry against LGBT+ people, it sadly is relevent to the discussion.

[@jasoncarman7801]

I see your point. I would say I am tired of it, too. However, theists vote to curb the liberties of people they (deliberately) misunderstand for bad reasons. So, this topic has to stand until that changes.

[@andrewsgaming8230]

I really just don’t understand how what the caller is saying is relevant whatsoever to any of these claims

[@phrozenwun]

A (not very well considered) idea of free will. I choose to consider free will such that I (my sense of self awareness) exists in concert with a typical set of actions that can occur with or without my awareness. When I consider such actions I become aware of a participatory change in the typical expectations based on an somewhat arbitrary criteria. For example, I hold my breath because I am in a smoky environment or I am about to go under water or I previously planned on holding my breath the next time I see a squirrel. Contrarily, absent my awareness the participatory actions predominantly follow expected norms. I don't think of free will as intentional abrogation of some quasi-deterministic universal state vector, of which I am an inextricable part. "I" can't even fully comprehend a functionally viable portion of such a state vector upon which my will could be meaningfully imposed.

[@naysneedle5707]

Mike was right and it seemed to me like Forrest was trying really hard to not acknowledge the point. Not everyone's personal definition of ape has to match the currently accepted scientific definition.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

I mean, your point is essentially "not everyone has to adhere to truthful beliefs," which is not only false, but silly. Of course, we cannot force others into having truthful beliefs, nor should we, but no one is claiming we should, other than the Christians.

[@naysneedle5707]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 Look, cladistics is true to the extent that it's accurate, but it's not the WHOLE truth. It's also true that humans have used the term animal in a non-scientific sense to mean non-human animals since the word was invented, as Forrest himself acknowledged. There are scientific definitions and there are social categories, and just as the social gender categories do not conform to scientific definitions, nor do the social categories of 'person', 'animal' and 'ape'. If I was to start referring to people around me as animals or apes in social situations I expect that many would reject my social categorisation of them, even if they accept that humans are apes in the scientific sense. You could say, many people don't identify as apes :)

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@naysneedle5707 *It's also true that humans have used the term animal in a non-scientific sense to mean non-human animals since the word was invented,...* Yes, it is true that humans have used a word with incorrect information as the basis for the usage of the word. I fail to see how this justifies such a usage of the word after having corrected the misunderstanding. *There are scientific definitions and there are social categories, and just as the social gender categories do not conform to scientific definitions, nor do the social categories of 'person,' 'animal' and 'ape.'* 'Animal' and 'ape' are not social categories. The fact that you decided to say something is a social category does not imply it is indeed one. *If I was to start referring to people around me as animals or apes in social situation I expect that many would reject my social categorisation of them, even if they accept that humans are apes in the scientific sense.* i.e., you expect them to be stupid. Well, so do I, but once again, this proves nothing. *You could say many people don't identify as apes :)* Yes, I could, and I would accompany that with a statement that they are wrong.

[@knowme4iam326]

My big female buds need dcup bras tho😂

[@Jarimir]

Outside of Biology and/or the scientific method you could classify humans as any arbitrary thing you want, but callerMike fails to understand why that makes any of those classifications virtually meaningless and certainly less useful than the scientific method. ThInk about the VAST ammount of research performed on animals that SPECIFICALLY increased our knowledge of human physiology. If humans are. not. Animals full stop. Then how is it learning about animals has helped us understand humans like it has? Then, show what usefulness, what utility is there coming from the camp that refuses to accept that humans are animals? What insights and innovations have been made in understanding human existance and what improvements/problems have been solved by that "new" understanding?

[@airiquelmeleroy]

Determinism does not disprove free will. It's just a roundabout way to say that choice depends on *you*

[@airiquelmeleroy]

@AnonYmous-yj9ib Sure. Free will = *You* have a choice, and decide what you are going to do Determinism = What you are going to do, depends entirely on your physical components, that is to say, *you*

[@SevenPr1me]

​@@airiquelmeleroythose two are diametrically opposed, are you blind?

[@airiquelmeleroy]

@@SevenPr1me According to determinism, your actions depend in everything that makes you up. That is to say, "you" According to free will, your actions depend on your choices. Choices which come from you, and only you. They are the same. (Unless the claim is that free will is a super natural phenomenom, which exists outside of your material existence or something...)

[@SevenPr1me]

@@airiquelmeleroy they're not the same, and here is why; determinism means your actions are already determined by predispositions you dont have control over. Meaning you don't have free will because your choices have already been determined (duh) Free will is the opposite. You can make any choice regardless of who and what you are. You choices are NOT determined

[@airiquelmeleroy]

@@SevenPr1me So under your idea of free will, your choices don't depend on who or what you are? They depend on something else, that is unrelated to you? That doesn't sound like "you" made the choice anyways! So even in that scenario, that person didn't have free will, because the reason for his choices were outside of his control.

[@AlfonzoCam]

No, we're not going to make a whole different section and name it Biblical for humans. We like your god wanted to name the animals named ourselves, we named ourselves homo sapiens. Just liked we named a lion panthera leo. We check every box of an ape. No tail, larger brain and larger skull, prehensile thumb, hair not fur. We are great apes homo meaning man and homo sapiens meaning wise man. Do we have a throat sac for voices, do we have long arms like a siamang, do our hair cover every inch of our skin but the face to the point the skin isn't visible no then were definitely not an lesser ape. we check the boxs with ape and even can determine which sub division we are we're not going to hand select one thing and named it Biblical because your book said he made us that isnt how this works.

[@Beacon80]

It's a little weird hearing Forrest say, almost word for word, my standard challenge for gender critical people to define "man" or "woman"

[@charleskesling4477]

Forrest needs to run for president love yah thanks guys for your support of trans communitie

[@MacLaw3084]

Why would a god make it look like we are apes and that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life? Making us all understandably confused; what a cruel thing to do. It would have made more sense to have the human body run on magic or something.

[@t30dore59]

XX XY 👍

[@Vic2point0]

Or else male and female, even when the chromosomes are abnormal.

[@Ares_V]

I do like Gandalf more than the god in the Bible and tbh he contradicts himself less than the god of the bible (on top of that seems to be more moral) I'll _allow_ apologetics if they are in favor of Gandalf and not the god in the Bible.

[@miknwv]

If only jmike would put his pinky finger up to the edge of his mouth…. lol. Dr. Evil and his cat

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

You can redefine human so that there is no longer anything like the arbitrary definition "human", you cannot define it in a way that removes all the ways they are part of the Great Ape group. And the bible is not a classification system as it was not come up with in a systematic way. It's not hard to understand.

[@ghostwolf9499]

So not the point but all fruits are vegetables and that is why the name doesnt change because you toss in a tomato.

[@memecity9849]

So essentially we can have male women and female men

[@MsMiDC]

We can absolutely. But we can also have women and men, defined not by their genitalia or chromosomes.

[@memecity9849]

@MsMiDC so there's male men, male women, female women and female men?

[@MsMiDC]

@@memecity9849 Gender is a spectrum. Intersex people exist. Gender isnt so black and white as you write it out to be.

[@MrKit9]

That's the best you can do? Back to 4th grade for you.

[@knowme4iam326]

Sex = Male or Feamle or intersex...Gender = Man or Woman...gilrly man, manly girl...I grow Marijuana...I have male plants, female plants, and hermaphrodites...None of my plants plants are manly or womanly or sister/bros...Hope this helps...

[@MsMiDC]

I mean the analogy about maryjane is spot on mate lol. I wouldnt completely agree on your definition on gender though, you can be a girly man sure, but you can also be a woman if you were born male at birth. It is the perception of ones self and from other humans that maoes gender what it is.

[@knowme4iam326]

@MsMiDC it's not my definition of gender....It's the definition of gender. SEX is biology...Male Female intersex....Gender is manly job, that a Shelia is doing...or clothing choices...

[@nealjroberts4050]

​@@knowme4iam326 Gender isn't sex

[@knowme4iam326]

@nealjroberts4050 that's exactly what I am saying...Sex= male female and intersex...Gender is a social construct leading to men's roles and women's roles...Boy clothes girl clothes...I as a boy wearing a dress, am not female...but I look damn womanly....Duh...

[@knowme4iam326]

@@nealjroberts4050 I don't think you read my posts.

[@Ramen.Butterbeard]

Hey Jeepers Creepers, Hi by defiy.

[@jpeezy117]

Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t buy into believing you can change your gender on any given day. I do believe people can feel like they are the opposite gender in their head. However, feeling like your the opposite gender doesn’t provide you with the experience that that gender has historically had. People who feel like they are a different gender wouldn’t have that feeling but for the historical roles associated with that specific gender. I also think it is up to individual discretion and comfort level whether to honor such things in their daily lives.

[@corvusmonedula]

As a cis woman I don't know how it feels like to be a woman in the 19th century or any other time. I have only my own experience, just like trans woman. But I know how sexism feels like and not only me, but trans woman too. As soon as society sees them as woman they get treated like woman

[@nealjroberts4050]

I think it's great that you're affirming that gender is socially based.

[@jpeezy117]

@@corvusmonedula Gender roles are assigned as society evolves, however, they’re based on genitalia. It doesn’t matter if you don’t fit into a gender role from 100 years ago, you’re still the same sex which fit into that role, so you probably are contributing to the evolution of the current feminine role of this time.

[@jpeezy117]

@@nealjroberts4050 Gender roles are stereotypical norms assigned based on someone’s genitalia. I agree that people can feel they fit into a certain gender role and they may even be that in his or her head. However, the puzzle isn’t complete unless the sex/genitals match. What’s interesting is that transgenders wouldn’t know who to transition into if the stereotypical norms weren’t established. However, the trans movement is trying to dismantle the stereotypical roles that basically created what they feel they are in their head, so interesting.

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@jpeezy117 Actually gender is a social category based on social expectations of sexuality and biological sex. No-one is checking genitals when they meet people. But they do lean into their assumptions sometimes. But you are right by pointing out there are social stereotypes associated with gender. That's why so many trans are affirmed by transitioning to match. Are you aware your "accusation" of stereotype dismantling is one of the points of both feminism and gay rights? And of anti racists? I can hardly fault trans rights for doing the same.

[@bentrafford6592]

Gender is binary. Man or woman. Something science and religion can both agree on.

[@Vendetta_s]

Gender is not binary , nor is sex really

[@nealjroberts4050]

Nope science disagrees. Heck not all religions agree either.

[@robertvirnig638]

I think that when approaching either scientific or legal issues surrounding biological sex and gender the terms male and female or man and women be set aside. This is because sex and gender are two totally different variables and using the same words for both is confusing and both trans and anti-trans groups conflate one with another either intentionally or not. While not perfect I suggest using XX and XY for biological sex and femininity and masculinity for gender. XX and XY are mostly binary, you cannot be halfway XY. This ignores the existence of intersex individuals, but until we are actually talking about intersex people their exceptional case can be set aside. Femininity and masculinity are on a spectrum and someone can be more one than another in different situations, but in practice, most people identify more with one than another. Just because XX and XY are binary doesn't mean that one cannot have subcategories. You can have an XY subcategory that includes individuals who are on hormones or have never gone through puberty or those who have completely transitioned surgically. Using such a system there is no confusion as to what people are talking about. I don't think there is any inherent bias to the suggested system, at least that was my goal.

[@robertvirnig638]

@@369spartan It is because of people like you that I suggested such a system in the first place. You don't have to accept the scientific basis of gender as a separate trait to acknowledge that people identify with different genders and that in our glorious free nation, people should have the right to do so.

[@queuecee]

We are NOT using the same words. Man/woman are different words than male/female. People who think gender and biological sex are the same are the ones that conflate it on purpose. And those same people will keep doing that no matter what other set of terms you propose.

[@robertvirnig638]

@@369spartan I'm not here to defend trans people, I was just putting forward a better way to communicate. I am using the word gender as in common usage in 2023. It is irrelevant what the etymology of the word is. My personal opinions surrounding the trans debate would probably infuriate both sides and would take an entire essay to lay out and explain my reasons. I think both sides come off sounding silly or petty. We have had trans people since the beginning of time and suddenly it's blown up into such an issue now with both sides being unreasonable.

[@robertvirnig638]

@@queuecee Man and woman as words in common usage are not as clear as you are implying. Most people use them interchangeably with male and female when referring to sex and gender. The definition of a woman is "a female person" hence all the confusion. Trans people commonly conflate sex and gender themselves denying the sex half of their dual nature.

[@robertvirnig638]

@@369spartan When did I ever deny sexual dimorphism? Still has nothing to do with gender, which by common usage of the term has to do with behavioral and psychological traits. You want to deny gender as a valid concept when the very existence of trans people demonstrates that there are such people. Why does it bother you so much to acknowledge that trans people exist and that they are entitled to be well-treated? I'm not arguing that people with penises should be in girls' locker rooms or that 6'1" recently transitioned persons should compete against women in sports, I think trans activists are overreaching in these cases but it is petty not to treat them fairly in social and work situations or use pronouns that match the gender they are obviously identifying as. Not that I think anyone should feel required to ask about pronouns, politely use the one that appears to apply based on the appearance they present, if you are wrong they can always correct you and thereafter it would be polite to address them as they wish. I just argue for a pragmatic approach to the issue.

[@Deadman1000]

I notice theists don't understand the trans community but they both use an emotionally based worldview. You FEEL like god exists, you need to prove it

[@Andre-sq9nm]

Follow science, until it is unconvienient for the woke agenda. 😂😂😂🤯🤯

[@SevenPr1me]

What's the woke agenda exactly? Give us the details

[@Numokai]

I have watched the atheist experience for years. Now that I'm gearing this guy's stance on gender, I don't want to listen anymore.

[@nealjroberts4050]

How unexpectedly loud and declarative!

[@aavocadont]

You won't be missed.

[@MrKit9]

When you feel harmed by the Truth it's your problem.

[@nsf001-3]

Wasn't this already uploaded as a clip?

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

Nope.

[@benjamincostello3932]

It is similar to other clips because this is a concept that is difficult for a lot of people to grasp.

[@nsf001-3]

@@benjamincostello3932 I think it's because I watched it live and then the full stream upload afterward so I've already seen this part multiple times

[@benjamincostello3932]

@@nsf001-3 that also makes sense. I can't watch live anymore because when they get calls from people like Otari i get viscerally angry.

[@nealjroberts4050]

​@@benjamincostello3932 It seems to be a concept some _don't want_ to grasp

[@SupachargedGaming]

"If you are saying these boxes are arbitrary and not real, then what's to stop people as identifying as all kinds of things? Why can't I have my own boxes for other people?" Translation (How I understood the point he was making) "Why are you so keen on throwing the baby out with the bathwater? If I miss in a game of darts, I don't take down the dartboard. I try and get closer to the bullseye on my next shot." "So you're saying trans people aren't valid? That's where you started..." (He started by asking whether humans were apes, and your views on the boxes you consider arbitrary) "Ohhoho what a wonderful steelman argument Forrest!" -Hairy Asmongold Are you a religious sleeper agent sent to destroy the atheist experience from within? Give them ammunition to fire against you when you claim rationality?

[@Bane_of_the_Moonsea]

Forrest, when you refer to gender and say things like: “a woman does this and acts this way”, then claim it’s going to change in x amount of years, you’re referring to gender roles, not gender. What gender you want to express at any given time may change, but definitionally, there are only two genders. Much is made of others cultures with multiple “genders”. Having Thai family, we know very well the katoeys. They are not another gender. They are men, but we respect that they chose to live life as women. We know they aren’t women and so do they, but respect their wishes and they appreciate it. It’s definitional, an identification, and has nothing to do with traditional roles.

[@nealjroberts4050]

So as there are more than two sexes you affirm gender isn't biological sex?

[@Bane_of_the_Moonsea]

@@nealjroberts4050 There are only two sexes. Humans are gonochoric. Genetic defects in one or the other don’t constitute a new sex. Gender is a descriptive language construct referring to specific form of the sexes - adult human female or male.

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@Bane_of_the_Moonsea Nope Biological sex is a bimodal distribution of characteristics associated with particular gamete production which doesn't separate 50/50 into 2 neat exclusive categories. Gender is a socially constructed label based upon social expectations of sexuality and biological sex. Please do research beyond just learning new words.

[@Bane_of_the_Moonsea]

@@nealjroberts4050 In glad we agree that gender is a language construct that describes the two, and only two possible sexes. Thanks for the reply. 👍

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@Bane_of_the_Moonsea Yeah, that sort of semantics isn't going to work. Biology strongly disagrees with you on the "only two possible" sexes claim.

[@daimend211]

Question: at 13:24 he talks about defining woman and men on a purely physical basis. Couldn't they just say, one got a female reproduction system and the other one a male one? I don't know how to counter this. Not trying to be against trans people, I just don't know how to argue about it yet

[@zodiac5403]

Well what about someone whose xx or xy but was born without a reproductive system ( eg: vaginal agenesis, aphallia)? Are they just completely genderless? or intersex people who could have parts of both? See how it still falls apart.

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

And in addition to Zodiac above, how would you categorise someone who is XX with a completely normal looking male reproductive system?

[@daimend211]

@@zodiac5403 ah yes. I forgot. Good point thank you

[@daimend211]

@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 I didn't know that was possible

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

@@daimend211 it's called "XX male syndrome" or "de la Chapelle syndrome". It's typically caused when the SRY gene, normally found in the Y chromosome, is swapped to an X during meiosis. The opposite also exists: XY females (typically having Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome).

[@StevenMRSenior]

That got real boring real quick.

[@joseyglesias3743]

His inconsistency is what makes brother Forrest human. 😊 the reason why his my favorite heathen. Where is the cience in many genders theary? XY and XX chromosomes. ❤❤ saying this. I do agree if there is a way someone prefers to be called in that day. There is no problem with that. But come on do not force people to guess your pronouns. We are not mind readers. We are also human. ❤❤ people just need to chill out and love eachother. By the way brother forest great video. Thanks 😊

[@zodiac5403]

What about XO? or XXX and XXY? are just going to completely ignore them? There's the science if that's what you're asking.

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

And the person with XY chromosomes who have birth to her children? Where does she fit?

[@MsMiDC]

Boiling down people to their chromosomes, is not the way to go. They're so much more than what their genetic code tells about them. There is so much diversity in humans, why should we treat transgender humans as their chromosomes or genitalia? Gender is more than what youve been assigned at birth, it is not as black and white as you may think.

[@rodshop5897]

"Where is the cience in many genders theary? XY and XX chromosomes." Sounds like your understanding of the science is 20 years out of date.

[@joseyglesias3743]

My replies keep getting blocked. Show me a man can get pregnant with out any help of science to transitioning. Thank you. I am sure this will get blocked as well.

[@pizzaman5698]

How about non female women for trans women. As a classification.

[@queuecee]

How about just women?

[@pizzaman5698]

​@@369spartanI agree with you 100%. my comment was meant to be taken as sarcasm.

[@queuecee]

@@pizzaman5698 It's hard to convey sarcasm on this topic in this type of forum. You could write the most asinine comment to make fun of some of the dumb things that people say on this topic and someone will sincerely write something even worse.

[@nealjroberts4050]

Depends how fuzzy you want "female" to be.

[@ebnomarabdullh4866]

I am only trying to lest here. How can tramspeiple realize they are trans after having a spouse and a child (Chris from Mr beast for example) and I taught gender is te most insetectiuel thing ever, how can someone discover their gender and sexuality?

[@ericwilliams1659]

Social pressure. Family pressure. Brainwashing. Indoctrination. Culture expectations. One of the first openly gay men I ever met had a wife and children. He said he got married and had kids because he felt the pressure to "fit in."

[@ericwilliams1659]

Also, they didn't just "wake up and realize they are trans."

[@nsf001-3]

Same way you discovered your gender and sexuality, it just might've taken others longer. Plus people all the time one day realize stuff about themselves, it's not specific to transpeople or gender

[@queuecee]

​@@ericwilliams1659That is just a canard that people use to say that people just change their genders on a whim. It so trivializes the struggles that trans people live through and live with. Such a lack of empathy.😢

[@russellward4624]

Because society puts pressure on everyone to conform and people can feel it's easier to live a lie than who they are. That's why Mr Brady had a family and later come out as gay. He was always gay. You're not only gay when you have sex or in a relationship. Trans is the same. Trans wasn't something discussed in sex education until very recently so many people didn't know it was even a possibility to live the life they always felt was true.

[@andouille9950]

I would not waste one iota of my time on these infidels..

[@queuecee]

It's kind of extreme to call them infidels just because they are willfully ignorant of the difference between gender and biological sex. But it's up to the hosts on who they deal with. If you don't like listening to callers like these, you should just skip these videos.

[@yarnybart5911]

I thought someone's chromosomes allow us to determine gender, not how someone feels.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

The consensus among Biologists, Anthropologists and Psychologists is that. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people.

[@yarnybart5911]

@@ookekklibarianbornagain6708Thanks. Does that also apply to sex?

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

@@yarnybart5911 There are “six really common biological sexes” based on X and Y chromosomes.

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

​@@yarnybart5911 simple way to remember the difference: gender is what's in your head, whereas sex is what's in your pants. Sure, they are highly correlated, most adult males (sex) are men (gender), and vice versa, but it's not 100%. Further, there are XX people who have fully functioning male "junk", and people who are XY who have given birth.

[@yarnybart5911]

@ookekklibarianbornagain6708 I've only ever seen M, F or 'rather not say' on forms. What are the 6 that should be listed?

[@NO1KILLEDYA]

Most animals have two ginder male and female. Thats all we are animals.

[@queuecee]

Really? ALL animals have two genders? Have you ever taken a bio course? [Edit: OP initially had "All animal" but once people made him realize how ignorant that is, he edited it to "Most animals". But he left in "ginder". Maybe he's an Aussie?]

[@queuecee]

Do you use gender to refer to all the animals that you see? A boy dog and a girl dog. A boy paramecium and a girl paramecium. A boy sea horse and a girl sea horse? Isn't it better to refer to the biological sex?

[@The_DirtyBubble]

Male and female are sexes, not genders. Non-human animals have no concept of gender

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

NO1KILLEDYA, you really need some remedial lessons in biology.

[@hihi123hiful]

ALL ANIMALS HAVE FOUR LEGS THATS WHY HUMANS HAVE FOUR LEGS. GENDER IDEOLOGUES ARE TELLING YOU ANIMALS CAN HAVE OTHER LEGS THAN FOUR.

[@vvevv88]

I only recently returned to this account and was shocked to see I was still subscribed to this channel. I think now is as good a time as any to rectify that.

[@queuecee]

They've also changed the rules on KZbin. You no longer have to announce that you are unsubscribing. And no, the people that run the channel won't come and beg you to stay, especially if that requires that they stop supporting marginalized people. I'm sure there are a bunch of alpha-male channels you can subscribe to where they will denigrate trans and gay people.

[@vvevv88]

@@queuecee I'm queer and trans, you dipshit. THIS is exactly why I want nothing to do with you creeps.

[@PatrickWDunne]

This isn't an airport. No need to announce your departure.

[@MsMiDC]

This is like saying that youll never come back to a restaurant while being a huge asshole. No one *wants* you here dude, we are glad that you're going.

[@lozferris1719]

Why is there so much bullying within the comments of this channel? Everyone turns on each other at the drop of a hat!

[@tryme3969]

Have you ever done something that felt like it could have been a sin?

[@tryme3969]

@@sideboob6851 You don't know what a sin is? Are you a baby or are you retarded?

[@j.c.5528]

Yes. Then I stopped believing in any god, and that feeling went away.

[@queuecee]

Do you mean posting continual, disingenuous nonsense questions for no purpose than to troll and avoid having an honest discussion? I know someone who does that ALL the time. 😂

[@tryme3969]

@@j.c.5528 A god could be a person or a thing.

[@j.c.5528]

@@tryme3969 Could be? Sure. I believe no such person or thing exists, though.

[@paradigmbuster]

The word animal comes from the latin, anima - a spirit. The question isnt whether people are animals should be whether people are beasts. If its impossible to transform a spirit of a beast into a spirit of a human by edititing the bodies genes, then even eternity could not transform an ape into a human.

[@queuecee]

No one is claiming that genes control your fictional "spirit". So you can stop with the nonsense.

[@fredbohm4728]

Latin anima means “breath” or “soul,” and animalis, the adjective that comes from it, means “having breath or soul.”

[@B0Z0606]

Spirits aren't a thing, no matter where the word animal comes from. This is an etymological fallacy

[@adirmugrabi]

a man is a human who posses the y chromosome, a woman is a human which does not. perfect binary, will never change(until the w chromosome starts interacting, not any time soon) yes, some men have a birth defect, which causes them to resist the testosterone in the womb, making them develop as a female, including the sex organs. they are still men, they just don't know it, and as a society we should treat them as women, since it is only discovered late in life, and they lived their whole life as one. there are other similar types of defect, which are worth considering. but someone who just claims to be one, or non at all, or some other weird BS, deserves no respect nor consideration!

[@queuecee]

So you only know of one exception to your supposed "perfect" binary rule? Does your perfect God have only one defect? And when you meet a man, do you do your chromosome check? Or do you do a proxy check of grabbing their crotch? Or do you, like most of us, respect the social presentation from the person? Including them telling you that they are non-binary?

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

There are “six really common biological sexes” based on X and Y chromosomes. So your fictional "perfect binary" claim is bollocks.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

@@queuecee I'm off to bed, catch you later cobber.

[@queuecee]

@@ookekklibarianbornagain6708 See you around tomorrow. 😉

[@j.c.5528]

"It will never change! Except the times I immediately admit that it can and does change."

[@ozpowermo]

O lord... the Atheists have gender pronouns! FML, this movement is done!

[@MsMiDC]

hey sucker, you have gender pronouns too.

[@matiassu5604]

@@MsMiDC ozpowermo identifies as /

[@treuter]

There are two genders. Man and woman. If you are trans then you are the gender that you transitioned to. Of course you will never be completely transitioned unless there is a way to put functioneing ovaries in a man or functioning testicles on a woman. The definition of each is simple. A man is a male human and a woman is a female human. You are one or the other. You can't be more than one. There is a transition period I suppose but once you decide that should be it. The whole going back and forth depending how you feel that day is BS. I believe that until the transition is complete people need to stay in the bathroom or locker room they're originally supposed to be in. I dont want a grown man in a lockerroom at the gym getting naked with my teenage daughter in the same room becauee he says he is trans.

[@Vendetta_s]

You’re using bigoted propaganda. Trans women are not men, gender and sex are COMPLETELY different. A trans woman looks like any other women after a while on hormones, facial leg hair removal, maybe some surgery and voice training, like what? It wouldn’t be safe for them to be in the men’s locker room and they not doing anything?? Sounding like the same old boring bathroom argument. Also intersex people exist

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

The consensus among Biologists, Anthropologists and Psychologists is that. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. Treuter please cite the verifiable/repeatable scientific evidence that supports your claim.

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

Where you getting the idea that takes people are "going back and forth depending on how [they] feel on the day? Further, "trans" is that is happening in your head, not in your pants. "Transitioning" does nothing to change that - it simple helps bring the body into congruence with what the mind feels (since the opposite isn't possible at this time). Many trans people never "physically" transition, only "socially" (appearance, name, behaviour, social circle acceptance, etc.). Others opt for limited intervention - and if made available early enough, subsequent surgical procedures are rare because the outcome is something that the person is often happy with.

[@dawkins5824]

Supply evidence and reason for the existence of gender.

[@ookekklibarianbornagain6708]

🤦‍♀

[@B0Z0606]

Dorkins is still waiting for his biology book to come in the mail I guess..

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

As soon as you provide the video of Jesus's resurrection.

[@nealjroberts4050]

🤦

[@amtlpaul]

Daft again, I see