Stephen Woodford & Colin Wright Unravel Dispute Over Gender (Moderated by Peter Boghossian)

[@drpeterboghossian]

Catch my previous interview with Dr. Colin Wright if you haven't: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hX7Vh6CbjLOmfrs&ab_channel=PeterBoghossian

[@DylanYoung]

If his definition had always been in use, as he claims, then we wouldn't need to change anything and trans "rights" wouldn't be a thing. Not to mention his fallback to bunk "essentialism", the hallmark of someone who's spent way too much time with the fake pomo types.

[@DylanYoung]

Comparing "mammal" with "man" is a category error. For that comparison to be valid, he'd need to find two new sexes that produce different types of reproductively compatible gametes. You went to all that trouble to lay out definitions, and he just ignores them.

[@Htnn]

I really really wish you would have had a larger set that they defined in the beginning of this discussion. I think if you used this set below it would have cleared the whole thing up pretty quickly. I don't believe Stephen would have been able to come up with a comprehensible set of definitions for these words. Male Female Man Woman Boy Girl Masculine Feminine

[@adamguerrero5293]

Speaking of "definition," perhaps you should drop pronouns & use proper nouns, because I have no idea who "he" is and you never make it clear whom you're speaking of. @@DylanYoung

[@adamguerrero5293]

"Comparing 'mammal' with "man" is a category error." No, it isn't. Men are mammals. "For that comparison to be valid, he'd need to find two new sexes that produce different types of reproductively compatible gametes." No, you don't. The two sexes are male & female, and the types of gametes are sperm & egg. Why are you trying to make this harder than it is? It doesn't justify "gender" claims. @@DylanYoung

[@tomcotter4299]

Edge cases make bad policy. Policy is not supposed to be perfect. It’s supposed to be the best compromise available. Pointing out that a policy fails for 0.001% of the population is not a criticism, but in fact a testament to how good the policy is.

[@achickie39]

The dumbest part of this particular argument is you’re going to find FAR more people who don’t check those feminine/masculine boxes genderists like him rely on for their “definition” than there are people who have DSDs who make their sex even a little bit ambiguous. We’re talking less than two hundredths of a percent of human births.

[@Earthad23]

You can’t merge the margins with the average. Both lose all meaning if you do, the Marxist dilemma.

[@tomcotter4299]

@@Earthad23 True. Margins are not the median, by definition, and vice versa. It's like saying the average can't be an outlier. The concepts are mutually exclusive because the definition of both is that each is not the other.

[@tomcotter4299]

@@skypilotace Hyperbole to make a point. :) It really depends on who the policy allegedly fails, and whose estimate of that population we use. In theory, it could be argued that the policy doesn't "fail" anyone (0.0%!) because no one has a right to use any bathroom of their choosing in the first place.

[@Earthad23]

@@tomcotter4299It’s saying up is down, left is right, right is wrong. In plain sight.

[@hayley7090]

Peter, I hope the next time you are with Colin in the same room, you shake him firmly by the hand for his perseverance. He has the patience of a saint.

[@slimal1]

Agreed! I love listening to him

[@mariasinfiltros1478]

Colin has the patience of a saint

[@dianacryder7523]

Peter too.

[@scottscholl3751]

The fact that this conversation HAS to happen for some people to understand the world around them is troubling.

[@YesBruv105]

Yes. Europeans call it 'brain masturbation'.

[@catarinajulio7]

And sad. At this point, this just makes me feel sad and compassionate towards these people who can turn such a simple matter into such a complex one. Really, my 3 old daughter knows this, what a man is, what a woman is!! No wonder the world is imploding, if we can't even agree on what a woman and a man are..

[@justanotherhuman42_]

mainstream atheists have joined a cult. (identitarian politics)

[@MattTheStatsMan]

​@@catarinajulio7 To claim that a 3 yo. knows anything approaching Colin's definition in this debate is ludicrous. In reality, your three year old (I also have kids) is using *Stephen's definition* because they associate womanhood with things like a feminine appearance. Does my child claim to know who is a man and who is a woman? Yes. But it would be insane for me to think he knows anything about gonads at his age. He doesn't use Colin's definition at all.

[@Liberaven]

@@catarinajulio7in fairness, all language and concepts are this complicated when you actually drill down to it. We just tend to not bother with most things. The reason people do so with gender is because it is socially contentious for a myriad of reasons.

[@fromchomleystreet]

Stephen in conversation with Helen Joyce would be excellent. Nobody distills the gender critical argument with more clarity than Joyce.

[@positivelysimful1283]

When a male is allowed into my bathroom, locker room, or on my sports team, I'm not worried that his dress may be prettier than mine; I'm worried that his biological advantages are a threat to me. We should be dividing things like women's/men's spaces & sports based on biology as we always have previously, because no matter how the identity or the stereotypes change, the biology doesn't. If you abolish gender, we're still left with the biological differences that concern most women. Just because a law would be hard to enforce doesn't mean it isn't important to have it and enforce it to the best of our ability. ALSO: I say this repeatedly and it gets ignored. Trans women say they identify with us (women). Many biological women don't identify with trans women, however. Why do trans women's feelings get put up on a pedestal but biological women's' feelings get brushed aside?

[@robdielemans9189]

The bathroom "discussion" can be easily settled by stating: we should separate humans who possess a sexual organ of a penetrative nature from those who don't.

[@cockoffgewgle4993]

That's a very sexist and misandrist view, to generalise men as dangerous simply because they're men. It's okay that men built the bathroom though, right? It's okay that men installed the toilets and plumbing though, right? It's okay that men probably paid for the bathroom though, right? You're happy exploiting men's biological advantages for your benefit, but you also want men to protect you from the potential negative aspects of them as well? The best of both worlds, eh? Women want all the benefits and none of the responsibilities or consequences. "We should be dividing things like women's/men's spaces and sports based on biology? Why just those things? Why just the things that BENEFIT women? Do women's biological advantages get mitigated in any way? Does women's reproductive power? Does women's sexual power? Equality means men and women get treated equally, as individuals, and no sex discrimination is allowed either way. Segregating sport to benefit women is not equality, it's discrimination. Men and women should complete with each other and men should be allowed to dominate, as they're capable of doing. Why should men have to subsidise women's sport? The entitlement is amazing. When men ask for sexed spaces they're told they're not allowed and they're chauvinists and misogynists. Welcome to equality.

[@hmsealey3243]

Because men's feelings and opinions are always put above a woman's. Nothing has changed. If a man says he is a man and a woman says he isn't, guess whose opinion is going to be taken seriously and whose isn't?

[@cockoffgewgle4993]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Men are completely against this trans nonsense, which is FEMINISM. Women are the ones in favour of it. And nobody cares about transformer women in men's spaces because it's assumed women are allowed into men's spaces. As usual, it's always about protecting the precious women from the dangerous, evil men.@@hmsealey3243

[@CircuitRider-nr3id]

The law should protect Freedom of Conscience for all individuals. This means necessarily protecting females in the right to their own sovereignty of mind & body. Hence, sex segregated bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, & prisons.

[@achickie39]

If gender and sex are so different, why can’t genderists get their own words? What is the word for adult human female if we can’t have woman? Why do we deserve less specific language than farm animals? He says he doesn’t think people should be forced into gender roles but also it’s perfectly fine to redefine each sex AS those gender roles. And he wonders why he gets such a bad reaction from people who’ve actually thought this through past our own navels.

[@jayterra2060]

“Does a chicken cry? Does a chicken commit suici**e?” 😂 -What Is A Woman

[@eahere]

Because their entire argument is that the words man and woman are actively being used to point to gender, not sex. I think Stephen illustrated this well. Words meanings come from their current usage, and I think there’s a compelling case for the words man and woman currently pointing to gender and not sex

[@jayterra2060]

@@eahere not everyone agrees with how the words are being used. If they did this conversation wouldn’t need to happen. Language is SHARED organically, not compelled. I for one won’t sit around and let people butcher our language and erode our biology -a language therapist

[@jayterra2060]

@@RaveyDavey 🫠

[@tamashumi7961]

Genderists do that because language subversion is modus operandi of woke ideology to spread and take over control.

[@StormBringer5]

It’s disingenuous for Steven to ask “How do we police sex-based women’s restrooms?” when this system has been place and largely functional for all the 20th century. It was only with the advent of gender ideology that suddenly this fear mongering of “genital checks” arose. Colin is correct that social pressure worked just fine for decades in keeping men out of women’s spaces.

[@yardengali]

Disingenuous is the word for the guy on a whole

[@John-nv5zy]

There are very few men, aka "trans women", who actually look like women. It's obvious even when they try to dress up like a woman.

[@SteveKarpali]

Well said

[@kbizzel6846]

Man, I had to watch this over several sessions as the word salad from Woodford was so exhausting. I need regular breaks!

[@morpheusxnyc]

Same here. I couldn’t stomach the amount of sophistry, cherry picking, reductio ad absurdums, false syllogisms and other sundry logical fallacies Woodford was Gish galloping in one go. Had to break up watching this into at least four different sessions.

[@GeorgePrice-wf5lx]

"You don't win friends with salad" - H. Simpson

[@fuckamericanidiot]

@@GeorgePrice-wf5lx Were (in italics) the Simpsons writers that smart to mean it that way? Probably xd

[@Htnn]

I really wish Peter would have had a larger set that they defined in the beginning of this discussion. I think if he used this set below it would have cleared the whole thing up pretty quickly. I don't believe Stephen would have been able to come up with a comprehensible set of definitions for these words. Male Female Man Woman Boy Girl Masculine Feminine

[@alexshaw4182]

It was pretty obvious what he was saying, be thankful he's not a fan of JP.

[@DDeCicco]

Colin is consistently polite and charitable in the way that he debates with others. The discussion greatly benefits from that kind of approach.

[@ransakreject5221]

Yeah but it allows the dbag other dude to obfuscate and no one calls him what he is. A dbag

[@Elrog3]

He really wasn't in the initial video response though. He was uncharitable and levied the accusation that Stephen was being racist. I'm glad he wasn't like that here. I was originally hoping to see Peter and Stephen 1 on 1 after seeing that video.

[@gilly5094]

Colin’s argument is consistently better than Stephen’s and Stephen oozes smug self-satisfaction and an over-estimation of his own intellect.

[@VesnaVK]

​@@Elrog3 I think that's what we were all expecting. Stephen himself seemed to be taken aback. Why did Peter even need to be in the UK for a Woodford-Wright conversation to take place? Might as well have each person at home. Why have two people who live on different continents sitting side by side and staring up at the third person on a monitor? How did this become a conversation between Stephen and Colin, with Peter just directing traffic? None of this makes any sense. This was initiated by one of these guys making a short video directed at the other saying, Hey! You said you wanted to talk to me personally, but when I tried to reach you, I didn't get an answer. So here they are, together, finally -- but NOT hashing it out? It's nuts.

[@Elrog3]

@@VesnaVK Yep. It was completely unexpected. It looked like even Stephen got surprised by it.

[@jesserichards729]

What a sleezy maneuver Woodford pulled. Peter spent the first 20 minutes of this dialogue trying to get everyone's definitions on paper, affirmed and reaffirmed. And the first time the social ramifications of Woodford's definition becomes apparent, he runs away from it, saying it's not his definition, it's society's definition. Colin shouldn't have conceded to him that 2 rational people can disagree on this, because as evidenced by Woodford, clearly they can't.

[@menoyuno8430]

Yep I agree it was an obvious attempt to run from his own definition.

[@timothyratcliffe9060]

Agreed, from there it meant Woodford could essentially argue any point as not bound to the original definition of ‘his’

[@kyle88740]

Was that about the 23min mark?

[@Nezzy750]

When he asked to not be called delusional after definitions were confirmed, I would have told him to his face that he is delusional and I am still willing to debate him.

[@ransakreject5221]

Yeah he’s a rat. Just wants to confuse the issue

[@frankfurter343]

If you can't dazzle em with brilliance then baffle em with bullshit

[@user-pn8ke3kf5f]

Or just refuse to have the conversation like Peter did...

[@WhiteGhostofSparta]

@@user-pn8ke3kf5fThat’s not what Peter is there for. He’s the moderator.

[@user-pn8ke3kf5f]

@@WhiteGhostofSparta What do you mean "is there for"? Nobody is running this dictating what Peter has to do. He can do whatever he wants to. The guest (who Peter has called a coward, has called deranged/delusional, etc) requested multiple times that he would like to dialogue with Peter and get his views and the other guest voiced no objections to that. Peter continually talks about how supposedly nobody will ever talk to him and he wants so badly to talk to people who he disagrees with. Seems like it was all just projection. It's actually PB who is the coward and afraid to be involved in the conversation and defend his own views.

[@sebastiansirvas1530]

​@user-pn8ke3kf5f He is dictating what he himself has to do, and he did not want to compromise his role as a moderator at that moment. If anything, Stephen wanted PB to adopt another role, but he does not get to dictate that.

[@-Monad-]

​@@user-pn8ke3kf5f I'm 100% sure Peter has no issue having that conversation, but it was important to him that RR be forced to specifically define his terms in front of a biologist so he can't pull the "sex in nature isn't binary, you're denying science!" shtick. Which was a good idea, frankly.

[@ruthhorowitz7625]

I'm learning a lot from Colin.

[@radubradu]

I'm learning even more from Stephen: how not to be a coward and a fool, like he is

[@ruthhorowitz7625]

​@@radubraduhe isn't a fool. Misguided is the term I would use.

[@jambec144]

Good. Spread the word.

[@heikki1623]

We did not used to need a philosopher to figure out if a man should be in a women's locker room.

[@SuzieQ-vt9zp]

Hear hear 👏 👏

[@cockoffgewgle4993]

We did not used to need a feminist to figure out if a woman should be in the military.

[@JohnMichaelBurns]

Teenage boys of today have such a huge advantage over teenage boys of the past. "What are you doing in the girls locker room?" "In order to get to the bottom of this, we will need to consult with a philosopher".

[@patrick9445]

Exactly! Not hard to understand!

[@brocKain]

It's not that simple, there's nuance to it. The misconception of physical sex as society has perpetuated it doesn't exist. It's not as simple as two rooms for two separate groups of people because those groups of people don't actually exist.

[@TheCraigrobson]

Stephen: “my definition of gender has the most utility” Also Stephen: “i want to abolish my definition”

[@slacktoryrecords4193]

Just so incoherent. How can he not see this? Colin’s definition destroys his. It is SO much more utilitarian.

[@wonderplaceholder]

Slavery has a definition and we also abolished slavery

[@TheCraigrobson]

We didnt abolish the *concept* of slavery, we abolished the act

[@wonderplaceholder]

@@TheCraigrobson neither the concept of gender can be abolished, only real world implications

[@TheCraigrobson]

Take that up with stephen then

[@bronnyargentum5108]

Peter, thank you for ruthlessly not participating in this conversation. As a teacher, this is a strategy I have used in my classroom. Sitting out and helping people clarify their points is SUPER important and needs to be modeled more. The online tools Kialo and Parlay allow for the same real-time written clarification you do here. I think more of these conversations are necessary and I would love to see platforms/structures like this used more across public debates on contentious issues. I think it would be better than what we see on twitter and Substack-which does not have the branching or clarification opportunities. Is this something you would ever entertain hosting? It would support real critical inquiry rather than shouting in the online space.

[@wolfofthewest8019]

If gender is distinct from sex and socially constructed, then people do not have genders. Societies have genders (masculine and feminine). People have sexes. In other words, if sex is distinct from gender, then man and woman are sexes, not genders. Whether you are a man depends on your biology, whether you are masculine depends on how you conform to gender stereotypes associated with men.

[@Earthad23]

"Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; gender manifests on all planes." Hermes Trismegistus

[@sub-harmonik]

Yes I think that's stephen's position and I think mine as well. Except that 'man' or 'woman' can refer to the sex or the gender depending on the context. And also what you call 'conforming to gender stereotypes' can include biological aspects using hormones and surgery, like a trans man growing a beard and getting 'top surgery'.

[@excalibro8365]

@@Earthad23 That is an absurd, pointless and bullshit quote, if he even said it at all which I don't think he did. What the hell are masculine and feminine principles? Is an umbrella masculine of feminine? What about crystal meth? A chair? A piece of asphalt? The freaking black hole?

[@wolfofthewest8019]

@@sub-harmonik No, if you're going to distinguish gender from sex, then "man" and "woman" can only be sexes. Calling "man" and "woman" genders would make no sense, as gender is necessarily things *associated with* the sexes. A thing cannot be associated with itself, because it is itself. Failing to maintain this clear distinction inevitably leads to equivocation fallacies, which in turn become the basis of the vast majority of people's understanding of "gender." I find it a little absurd to categorize secondary sex characteristics as "stereotypes." A stereotype is a socially constructed conception of an another thing (which itself may be socially constructed) based on observation of that thing and generalization from that thing, with a connotation of hasty, unfair, or mean-spirited generalization. Secondary sex characteristics are phenotypical manifestations of sex. That they are not universally present is not a result of generalization, but mutation and the imprecise nature of RNA multiplication. I think it's more than a little disingenuous to suggest that broad shoulders are a "masculine stereotype" simply because not all men have broad shoulders, when its clear that broad shoulders are a male phenotypical trait. While it is certainly true that modern Frankensteins can alter the human body in all manner of freakish contortions, carving flesh into a simulucra of the secondary sex characteristics of the other sex, and that this may be, in some sense, "conforming to gender stereotypes," it still does not change the truth that conforming to gender stereotypes does not make you a man or a woman. A white man who puts on black face and engages in stereotypically black speech and behavior does not become a black man. Even if he undergoes melanin enrichment to darken his skin and gets facial surgery to appear more African in origin, he remains a white man doing blackface. Yet, when the same man puts on womanface, you expect me to believe that he's a woman. Because why? Because I can be fooled? I'm not God, omniscience isn't one of my powers. I can be fooled. A woman does not need to fool me to make me believe she is a woman. A black person does not have to fool me to make me believe they are black. That's what's relevant.

[@willcampbell8829]

'Except that 'man' or 'woman' can refer to the sex or the gender depending on the context' Can you provide examples to illustrate this. I would associate 'man'/'woman' with sex and 'masculine'/'feminine' with gender.

[@ZagrosŞêxbizin]

This is one of those instances when even the British accent isn't enough to make you sound smart...

[@deadgolfer6345]

Well done.

[@realMaverickBuckley]

I'm English, he has a South West Midlands, English accent. And an English accent NEVER means intellect! I was just about to post a similar comment to yours.😅

[@Mayordomo32]

@@realMaverickBuckleya bit of pedantry never hurt anyone

[@Nezzy750]

He just sounds like a rude pretentious ass whenever he speaks haha. I see why people dislike him. Hard not to lol.

[@rosemaryalles6043]

Ha, yes. thank you.

[@Paradox-dy3ve]

Credit to Stephen for having the courage to engage with people who disagree with him! I was really disappointed by his commentary on this topic and am glad that he's been willing to be challenged like this.

[@radubradu]

Too bad he spew the same bs he did in his ridiculous videos

[@Paradox-dy3ve]

​@@radubraduat least he's doing it in person and being confronted with new ideas 😅 it's a step in the right direction

[@tophelbert]

That was painful

[@jamesgattuso9778]

I agree. I applaud his being willing to engage.

[@SilverSixpence888]

@@jamesgattuso9778 Yes, it's very brave to publicly engage in a topic when you are so very wrong about it.

[@dreamwalkertunes]

2 hours to say “I want to change the definitions of words so that they’re useful towards my ideological narratives”.

[@groundrunner752]

As opposed to "We must keep the definitions of words I like the same as they've always been, because I don't like the new definitions. Oh also biology this biology that."

[@Qq-xs1fz]

So those two hours were not enough for you to understand even the most basic thing...

[@dreamwalkertunes]

@@groundrunner752 as opposed to we use words because they mean things and people who don’t think conceptually but instead think linguistically assume that by changing the language you can change the concepts. Also known as word thinking. Pretty low tier stuff.

[@gumbilicious1]

I have to admit that much of my resistance comes from the fact that my whole life 'gender' and 'sex' meant that same thing. i just always figured 'sex' wasn't used in order to conform to a more conservative culture where 'sex' could infer with 'sexual intercourse' (i must admit i'd giggle seeing 'sex' on paperwork as a kid). under the 'gender' box, you put male or female (or m/f for shorthand) and it was considered ignorant to use 'man' or 'woman' in that box. but this idea that retroactively 'gender' and 'sex' means two different things gets a reaction from me similar to "don't piss on me and tell me it's raining". it seems like a poor choice to use a word that already has meaning and to deride people for not adopting the 'new' meaning. it strikes me as trying create a forced legitimacy by using a word that was already established and it feels very much like gaslighting to me.

[@dreamwalkertunes]

@@gumbilicious1 The only world in which those things don’t mean the same thing, is in the world where not conforming to sex-based stereotypes means you’re a different gender. Which is itself bigoted and regressive.

[@liberality]

Stephen has started with a circular definition: A man is someone who does masculinity, and masculinity is what men do.

[@johnoneofmany]

It didn't get much better than that throughout the debate but you have to see that even _he_ knows his position is untenable. He has painted himself into a social media corner and now has to argue a position he knows has no ground to stand on.

[@flavioespanol8868]

Jesus, the cognitive capacity of this audience is very low. He defined masculinity to be with respect to male.

[@liberality]

@@johnoneofmany Yes indeed. Transhumanism is the ultimate form of consumerism: you can be whoever you want to be, as long as someone pays, whether that is the individual's family, a health insurance company or government. Biological facts are inconvenient, and so we have to pretend that gender, sex and sexuality are independent variables in order to satisfy all possible combinations that the consumer demands. People who experience gender distress have been used as a proof of concept for this body modification industry, enabling ethical guidelines to be relaxed.

[@liberality]

@@flavioespanol8868 I suggest you pay more attention to what he actually said.

[@KevinUchihaOG]

i think he would redefine it like "masculanity is what typical males do"

[@fnln-oo6nf]

Stephen: "bathroom shouldn't be split by sex because police cannot check you genitals and enforce the rule" (this is a logistical problem of implementing the split bathroom rule) His solution: Let's change the bathroom split rule to be based on gender, so you can say to the police "Its ok, I can be here, I identify as a woman." Basically, let's fix a problem by saying there is no problem.

[@georgemioch8981]

I laughed like crazy when he started wondering about “checking people’s genitals”😂😂😂 if we indeed needed to check someone’s genitals in order to know who is male who is female, dating would seem very different… 😂😂😂 I understand that there have always been excellent cross-dressers who used women’s bathroom and nobody noticed and that there has occasionally been a butch or menopausal woman who left everyone wondering if she is in right bathroom. But they are not the problem. The problems is when we let perverted men use women’s bathrooms, so suddenly there is a middle aged dude wearing a dress in women’s bathroom scaring little girls, or a trans activist determined to show everyone that his rights are more important than anyone’s and when they do all sorts of attention seeking behaviors including taking pictures in the women’s bathroom, or a guy who enjoys making women uncomfortable who is shaving in women’s bathroom. And the scariest scenario when someone who is looking for vulnerable women or girls uses the right to use women’s bathroom to abuse or harm or else women. For that reason good men should stay away from women’s spaces so bad men have no excuse to enter. And of course, after bathrooms they go for changing rooms, rape and trauma centers, prisons and other places where women are vulnerable. Then sports, scholarships, women of the year….

[@daheikkinen]

How about we just put penis detectors on the bathroom doors? Then when the sirens go off the Gender Police ride in on their Segways and arrest the perps.

[@sub-harmonik]

I disagree with stephen's 'ideal' but in terms of practicality it should be based on if you look like a man or woman, not what genitals you were born with or what chromosomes you have.

[@fnln-oo6nf]

@@sub-harmonik It should be based on your underlying biology. But this biology is pragmatically tested through looks. Those are just usual and easy to work with symptoms. Key difference is, if you "trick" a person with your looks that you are of different sex, you should be considered in violation of the rule, and faking symptoms. Basically, it is about source, not the symptoms

[@excalibro8365]

@@sub-harmonik 99.9999% of the time you can tell what's in between someone's leg just looking at them. Also it's 100% the responsibility of the person to be honest and decent to just enter the bathroom designated for what's in between his/her legs.

[@Kyle-qf5zc]

The castle example works great if people were constantly confusing castles with mobile homes.

[@cemtural8556]

When Stephen said "I'll ask them what their pronoun is..." the debate was over. If your definition of gender is contingent on someone's arbitrary self identification; then you don't have a definition and Colin has rightfully pointed it out.

[@Celestina0]

What if the word refers to a group of people with a certain self-identification? Surely their self-identification is relevant in that case, and a definition of that word would have to reflect that fact.

[@cemtural8556]

@@Celestina0 If the definition of X is (or includes) 'someone who identifies as X', you still have no definition.

[@Celestina0]

@@cemtural8556 but you were talking about pronouns, so in this example it would be 'X is someone who uses Y pronouns' which is perfectly valid no?

[@radubradu]

@@Celestina0 service TRA came to make idiotic points and pretend it's a gotcha

[@aperson_1852]

He also says he doesn't think self-id is valid. Again, he contradicts himself.

[@Rainbow_with_slowfeet]

Why are we pretending nobody knew how to choose the appropriate bathroom and the only way to ever know would have been by examining genitals at the door. Rare exceptions to prove or disprove the rule are ridiculous.

[@siggyincr7447]

You can save yourself 2 hours of Stephen avoiding making his point. It seems to boil down to the following: The terms "man" and "woman" are social constructs that Stephen thinks are primarily informed by cultural attitudes and Colin thinks are anchored by their basis in biology. Stephen would seemingly like to eliminate gendered terms altogether because of complications in rare edge cases. Colin would like society to be clear that being a man or a woman is primarily determined by biology and that allowing people who are non-typical to lead their lives/express themselves how ever they like doesn't change what they are, nor imbue them with the identity that they claim to have in terms of how society treats them.

[@alaryanmobile1476]

If RR gave the defintion "Someone who lives up to ..." but didn't specify that it is his defintion for a man/woman, would you know what the hell he was talking about? Also note that you can replace social construct with stereotype and it would still hold.

[@alaryanmobile1476]

The same defintion could apply to boy/girls, babies, policemen, ballet dancers, priests.

[@Htnn]

I really wish Peter would have had a larger set that they defined in the beginning of this discussion. I think if he used this set below it would have cleared the whole thing up pretty quickly. I don't believe Stephen would have been able to come up with a comprehensible set of definitions for these words. Male Female Man Woman Boy Girl Masculine Feminine

[@peznino1]

Peter, great idea. Great guests. This type of content is the future because it's different and actually seeks to foster better understanding not division, outrage and hate.

[@bryanthomas3687]

I agree %100. Thoughtful and civil debates between well meaning, but but agreeing, parties leads to more understanding and helps prevent echo-chambers. It’s one thing to read or watch videos from people with differing views, but it is so much more useful to get people together and speaking with each other. The world needs more of this.

[@johnoneofmany]

This has to be the future of how hot button debates take place!

[@duncefunce1513]

I don't know. I don't want people who push nonsensical unreality to walk away thinking their viewpoint is equal to any other. I want them put in their place.

[@CrudelyMade]

"gender is not the same thing as sex" is an old definition. nowadays t-activists say things like, "sex assigned at birth" and wanting "sex" on drivers license to be changed to gender preference. this has been true for over 5 years, so it's not a new talking point from t-activists. so while gender USED to be different than sex, the modern activist message is that sex is assigned at birth, birth certificates sex should be marked "x" until the person is old enough to make their own choice, etcetera. basically you are having a discussion from 8 years ago. the modern trans stance has moved the needle already and "sex" on birth certificates and licenses is already being demanded to be changed. that's not a request to update "gender", it' a request to change "sex" status. as usual, they start with saying one thing and a few years later they're saying important bits need to be cut off to be who you are, at age 8. you HAVE to address the fact that they are targeting sex already, for years, on legal documents. to ignore this is to ignore what they're really talking about.

[@ransakreject5221]

Leftists worth say gender is not sex until it’s convenient to say they are the same.

[@Earthad23]

They read gender out of sex only to read it back in for their convenience.

[@tomcotter4299]

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see the bait and switch coming from a mile away.

​@@tomcotter4299This, absolutely.

[@nedhill1242]

And actually they get that wrong because sex is not assigned. It is observed. And actually today we know more times than not if a baby is a girl or a boy before it’s even born because you can see it in the scans while the baby is still in the womb, unless the sex organs are obscured. But it’s not like babies are born and the doctor flips a coin and says OK this one’s a girl and that one’s a boy. No. Do they have testicles and a penis? OK it’s a boy. Do they not? OK it’s a girl. And in some extremely rare exceptions, because of some type of biological or genetic issue that may not be the case, but that’s not because that’s what nature intended, but because there are birth effects, and genetic defects.

[@heylo5274]

Stephen Woodford is the prime example of how an incredibly smart and articulate person can be convinced of an utterly stupid idea.

[@bjkarana]

Happens all the time, but the trick is finding that one contradiction in their reasoning that causes them to suddenly see the error in their idea.

[@AmandaV269]

This was exhausting. Peter and Colin done well all things considered.

[@tomcotter4299]

What is gender? Make Stephen define “gender”. I guarantee you he can’t offer a definition that isn’t either sexist stereotypes or feelings.

[@theunknownatheist3815]

That should have been their FIRST definition.

[@tomcotter4299]

It is the kill shot. There is no good definition of gender, other than the linguistic one we endorse. I don’t understand why our representatives don’t go straight to it in these debates. Could have turned a 2 hour discussion into 2 minutes.

[@glocksundgeworfenheit_]

That's basically what he did by saying a man is a person typically associated with being a man

[@Earthad23]

The only definition does not apply to their twisted nonsense.

[@DrDeuteron]

gender is a category in systems of oppression

[@andymeier7708]

In all I've watched so far there isn't an acknowledgement that the consequences of male an female biology is the basis of gender norms. Yes gender is a social construct, but it wasn't constructed in a vacuum. Sex is a major input, with another other main input being environment. If the construct doesn't make sense as environment changes fine, but the last I checked the sex input isn't changing anytime soon. So naval gazing while sexual predators invade female spaces is a privilege for someone who is not impacted by his naval gazing....Stephen. Edit: After watching the whole thing my gut instinct tells me Stephen is desperately back pedaling to maintain the outward projection of his own intelligence, rather than admitting the scope of his initial mistake.

[@latterdayskeptic]

Stephen, does someone’s gender change day to day as they wear different clothing and participate in different activities?

[@evieblessed]

It could change from minute to minute (making it meaningless) couldn't it? I could be fairly 'feminine' one minute, quietly cooking dinner for the children, plaiting my hair and painting my nails then go full-on road rage the next minute when someone pulls out in front of me when I'm driving (perhaps more 'masculine' behaviour). Also, if you look at the definition of castle, it is nowhere near as ambiguous as Stephen was trying to make out. I don't think that was the great equivalence he thought it was.

[@theinnerlight8016]

As a man I really hate when I come out of the shower, wrap a towel around my waist and, since it resembles a skirt, I start menstruating. 😂

[@evieblessed]

@@theinnerlight8016 , ikr, the same when I put trousers on and get my man woody and stubble appears, even though I am female. On go the trous and - poof! - I'm a man!!! Crazy how that happens.

[@giorgosab9986]

funny how this was adressed in the video

[@SilverSixpence888]

And yet gender is some kind of immutable essence or soul. Make it make sense!!!

[@onepartyroule]

To be clear, when we're talking about things like changing rooms and toilets etc, it's not an issue of trans identified people per se that are the issue (this "you're calling transwomen perverts" red herring), it's any male who uses those facilities who may or may not socially claim a trans identity. Bear in mind there is no objective criteria for whether or not someone can "authentically" claim a trans identity, and we're talking about situations where you are in close proximity to _strangers_ where your safety and sense of safety is significantly compromised. Whether or not strangers are male in those kinds of situations is relevant to females.

[@joedge6142]

Yes, trans is undefined and indefinable, it's whatever you want it to be. It's effectively decriminalised voyeurism and exhibitionism, the two most common sexually motivated offences.

[@SilverSixpence888]

Yes, it is quite possible that a person who has a genuine discomfort with their sex has no interest in harming women. But a man who goes into female spaces with the express purpose of harming women, LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME TO US. How are we to protect ourselves from the men in women's clothing??

[@shaunclubberlang2887]

Stephen is 100% ideologically captured. Those ACA folks really did a number on him. A woman is an adult human female. The social contagion that entertained the idea that it was anything other than that has hit it's high point and is in the process of being completely rejected by the wider society.

[@stazoola3616]

It was the absurd reaction to Woodford's trans athletes video by Tracie Harris and co. that led to my peaking. The ACA is now a cult preaching gender theology. I still value the critical thinking skills I gained from Dillahunty and crew, before they went insane.

[@Phoneybeetlemaniacxs]

It really isn’t only a few bigots don’t like it

[@flavioespanol8868]

It's concerning that you can watch this video and still be so ignorant on what's being discussed. Imagine coming away from this video with a state like "A woman is ..." when both participants were in agreement that the definition isn't objective.

[@hpesoj00]

@flavioespanol8868 Yeah it's quite amusing that Steven brought up the point that some people in Peter's audience will claim that "woman" has an objective definition and anyone who disagrees is crazy, and Colin confirmed that he did not think this way and that two people could have a rational discussion about the utility of definitions. Then along comes exhibit A... 😂

[@amandamcgovern5744]

@@flavioespanol8868it’s about utility. Stephen’s definition has zero utility nor is it how it’s ever been used. Females who have lived up to male stereotypes on their preferences and behaviors have NOT been treated like men… it’s just utterly false.

[@burnhamsghost8044]

Humans seemed to know the answer to this until about 2015. I guess that makes us sophisticated.

[@Celestina0]

Wish we could go back to the good old days, when women were women, men were men, the earth was the centre of the universe, disease was caused by demons...

[@richarddoan9172]

@@Celestina0 No one is saying that. It's a straw man.

[@franciscolopez7101]

@@Celestina0 Who knew Archie Bunker was a prophet? Boy, the way Glenn Miller played songs that made the hit parade Guys like me we had it made Those were the days Didn't need no welfare state ev'rybody pulled his weight gee our old LaSalle ran great Those were the days ** And you knew who you were then ** ** girls were girls and men were men ** Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again People seemed to be content fifty dollars paid the rent ** freaks were in a circus tent ** Those were the days Take a little Sunday spin go to watch the Dodgers win Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin Hair was short and skirts were long Kate Smith really sold a song I don't know just what went wrong those were the days kzbin.info/www/bejne/rIvWc3mnm7OjrNU

[@amandamcgovern5744]

@@Celestina0there seems to be a kind of cousin of the naturalistic fallacy that goes something like: “This is progress, therefore this is good” That doesn’t follow..

[@burnhamsghost8044]

@@Celestina0 how about just say, 2000?

[@Paradox-dy3ve]

Heres my question to people with Stephen's ideology: What's to stop this language game from being played with other categories? "I identify as a toddler". "You can't. A toddler is a human child between the ages of 2-4" (lets say, idk if thats technically correct) "But 'age' is just a social construct of traits we associate with that age group, such as being under 3 feet tall, not being able to take care of yourself, and speaking improperly. I identify with those traits, therefore my 'age' makes me a toddler. Even though I've lived 35 years, I really want to be under 3 feet tall so I've gotten surgery to make myself that height. I speak in the way a toddler does ect." "But being a toddler has nothing to do with those things. Its just about how old you are." "Why is my definition of 'age' illegitimate? 'Age', the way I use it, is different than the amount of years you've lived. Why can't I use it that way?" "I guess you could but that really has no utility and only serves to confuse reality. We all know what toddler means. If we change it to mean 'anyone who acts childish' than it could legally change things in socially untenable ways. Adults would be placed in facilities that are meant for children as an example." "................" ".............................." "Why do you even care bro?" 😅 Lol Its the nature of the language game that makes this all so insane.

[@violau8550]

Means Stephen debate something that he is not even understand the core meaning of it. Maybe that's why for him, every definition can change for people liking.

[@eleccy]

EXACTLY this. His problem is prioritising "social constructs" which, btw, he's not actually using according to its original meaning, but rather defining it expansively, in order to define other things expansively. If he's happy just categorising things as social constructs then anything goes, then what you're saying is completely correct, he would have to concede that age IS a social construct and therefore can be "acted" or "identified" into.

[@livi6440]

Peter has a lot of work on his hands to deprogram Stephen. I’m glad he’s made a start.

[@livi6440]

@@RaveyDaveyhe just loved Matt and Alex so. Poor thing. They both rejected him in one way or another

[@MT-ln8xb]

@@livi6440 Matt lost all my respect a long time ago with his angry woke politics. And then, quelle surprise, turns out he's banging a transwomen himself. I guess you have to applaud his committment to the cause! I get the feeling Alex isn't onboard with it all though?

[@Rainbow_with_slowfeet]

We haven’t had to discuss police bathrooms until very recently. It was pretty obvious for hundreds of years. Complete androgen insensitivity occurs in 2 out of 100 000 ppl. Not a situation most of us often encounter. The edges don’t make the definitions.

[@SilverSixpence888]

A very few people have more or less than 10 fingers and 10 toes, which does not alter the fact that humans have 10 of each. You do not make rules out of exceptions. Those who do know they have already lost the argument.

[@Apistevist]

25:35 Yes, Stephen. You have swallowed the woke pill and you'd garner far more respect from actual thinking beings if you admit you made a mistake. I think this shows some self awareness on Stephen's part, I suspect he might be realizing he's been indoctrinated into a cult, before this I suspected he was just grifting for clicks or pandering to his loudest audience.

[@bdesruis]

Very interesting conversation. I use to think like Stephen but Colin arguments made me change my ideas about this subject. Thank you guys for your civilities and Peter for organizing this.

[@KatMoore-ih6mw]

The minute Stephen said the best case scenario would be to just have 1 bathroom that everyone uses, I wanted to scream. He doesn't understand how dangerous that is FOR ACTUAL women! Society used to have one bathroom only before employers were forced to create women's rooms specifically because of the sexual assault and harassment women were experiencing in those bathrooms, where men were waiting until they had to pee and then pouncing! The effect was so extreme that women began holding their bladders for their entire shifts, sometimes for 12 hours. Guess if any women died doing that. (They did) he needs to stop living in lala land and face the truth that single sex spaces are for women's safety and good men fight to uphold that like Peter and Colin!

[@shannonsayshi]

I want colin to say he wants definition of man/woman to be rooted in biology bc it's OBJECTIVE

[@sub-harmonik]

there is no such thing as an 'objective definition' only consistent definitions and definitions that exist within a social context. you're claiming that a basis in biology would be clear and consistent. whether it has utility, or if that definition actually exists within a social context are separate questions.

[@manunderyourbed]

@@sub-harmonik I think shannon means a definition based on things that can be objectively determined.

[@eahere]

@@manunderyourbedBut this is Stephen’s contention though. Practically for almost all issues we will not be able to objectively determine someone’s sex. Some trans men look extremely masculine so it makes no sense that they should use the women’s bathroom, for example. I think phenotype is the only metric that actually makes sense

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

i wonder if any of these males hold to objective truth? they all seem to be sceptics in one form or another, but RR is probably the worst example

[@Liberaven]

Are all concepts that we have words for objective concepts?

[@misswallison]

Stephen is just being facetious here. He knows he doesn’t need to see testes to know that the 6ft 2 person with wide shoulders, a pronounced brow, a square jawline, long filtrum, Adam’s apple, flat chest, narrow hips and size 12 feet is a bloke and doesn’t belong anywhere near a 4ft 11 person with size 5 shoes and hips wider than the waist. And he doesn’t need to see her ovaries either. He knows what he’s attracted to without being intimately aware of their gonads.

[@eclipticpath]

"He knows he doesn’t need to see..." Yes, that's why he defined gender by phenotype (an individual's observable traits), rather than gametes. 6ft 2 person with wide shoulders, a pronounced brow, a square jawline, long filtrum, Adam’s apple, flat chest, narrow hips and size 12 feet is a bloke, but if said bloke produces large gametes, it's a female. So essentially the "gender" argument, as I've understood, is that it's societally more beneficial to call him a bloke (as per phenotype), not a girl (as per gametes). For example, Sara Forsberg is very clearly a girl no question, although she is genetically a male (if you're interested, see her video: I'm genetically male). It would serve little societal purpose to call her a man.

[@jayterra2060]

@@eclipticpath Sara has a genetic anomaly. Anomalies don’t determine definitions.

[@jayterra2060]

@@SkidRowTrashso true

[@eclipticpath]

​@@jayterra2060 Quite the opposite. For example, Colin's definition for sex was good, cause it took anomalies into account. To test the validity of Colin's definition, you could ask: "what if a female can't give birth, is she not a female then?" Instead of conceding with "well that's just an anomaly", Colin gave a definition that could account for the anomalies too. Same with chromosomes. He had that covered too. No anomaly could have been used to make him contradict himself, therefore his definition of male/female were solid. If one is to say that "woman" is an "adult human female," and then say that "Sara is a woman", that's a direct contradiction. To remain consistent, one must either rework their definition of "a woman" or start calling Sara a man.

[@realMaverickBuckley]

​@@eclipticpath Indeed. Its so frustrating that people are devating what a bloody man or woman is, but more so that people use abnormalities to argue their corners. 1 in every 500 children is born with a 6th digit on their hand. But a hand is accepted to have 5. (4 fingers and a thumb) if it was 1 in 4 then maybe we'd think again.

[@rosytreasure4348]

Thanks

[@drpeterboghossian]

Thank you for the support!

[@janebennetto5655]

Oh. Loved this conversation BUT I will never be a philosopher as a hard ‘biology based’ person. Talking is Stephens best ability whereas Colin has facts that are the cement of society. Thank you all. ❤🇬🇧

[@arjay9745]

If you go back and watch Woodford's original videos on this topic, it becomes painfully obvious that he first drew the actual, reasonable, logical conclusions, found himself facing a mob of his peers, realised they were going to kick him out of the cool kids club like they did Richard Dawkins (who has a spine and did not budge), and simply caved. Instead of putting his logical faculties toward persuading others, he put them toward constructing a purple haze of philosophical blather that he thinks will let him keep his club cards. The whole thing made me extremely sad.

[@radubradu]

Dawkins is also rich, he can afford to stay truthful. What would Stephen do if he upset the woke crowd? Get a day job? Neah, much easier to flush rationality down the drain.

[@arjay9745]

@@radubradu Yes, that's the part that makes me saddest. To be intellectually honest in this ideologically captured environment, you either have to be reckless, massively independently wealthy, or a meaningless nobody no one listens to. Bleah.

[@CrudelyMade]

Generally, when it comes to sex, for the past 100 or more years, society has managed to segregate male and female clubs, bathrooms, dormitories, societies, changing rooms, abuse shelters, etcetera without many issues.. so.. society has figured out how to manage separate areas for men and women. Why ask to imagine a new way to do this? that's just a bizarre question. sure, there is the occasional fringe, but those have been handled historically already. just look at how that's been handled. why reimagine the wheel that already exists and is rolling down the road?

[@theinnerlight8016]

For attention, I guess

[@ponygirl1716]

Postmodern deconstructionism. Why settle for the same old wheels when you can use square blocks instead and pretend that they work just as well? This is about tearing down all norms and definitions, including the notion that women and girls are, by definition, female. It's being sold as progress, when it's actually incredibly regressive. Never thought I'd find myself having to explain to people that putting males in female prisons and r*pe crisis centers is actually a really bad idea. Amazing times.

[@sub-harmonik]

well many people don't like segregation and gender roles being expected (though I think progressives take it too far)

[@MattTheStatsMan]

One might have asked this exact same question when gendered spaces were first being formed. In fact, they did - and there were good answers like "Women need to have some place to go to the bathroom in public spaces." But now we have different questions like, "If I don't fit neatly into your male/female dichotomy, which bathroom can I use?" (implied that if I use the wrong one I might have physical violence used against me). Just because something was the way it was 100 years ago doesn't mean we have to do things the same way right now.

[@oliverhug3]

@@MattTheStatsMan, who does not fit into male @ female dichotomy? Even people with DSD conditions are either male or female.

[@shasmithie4630]

Next: a debate about whether a circle can be a square.

[@jayterra2060]

😂😂😂

[@rosemaryalles6043]

Yes.

[@rogerward801]

Perfect

[@rogerward801]

You're born with a nut or a bolt. What you with them after birth doesn't change what you were before

[@justmy2cents652]

Maybe it "feels" very edgy 😆

[@aperson_1852]

What a wonderful, thoughtful, and respectful discussion. I really appreciate Stephen's willingness to sit down with you and talk it out. Although he did reveal himself to be firmly planted in nonsense.

[@SilverSixpence888]

I think that is as a result of the battery he received from pointing out that we need to ask a few more questions about letting men into women's sports.

[@scottfoster9452]

It is readily apparent that Stephen is indulging in political ideology/sophistry and not rational debate and therefore rationality does not rule, with Stephen in regards to this subject.

[@Liberaven]

Is it “readily apparent”. His argument had lots of merit. As did Colin’s. They both argued well for the most part.

[@s4m130]

​@@Liberaven the tortured sophistry of Stephen was readily apparent

[@SilverSixpence888]

He needs to maintain his YT channel member numbers.

[@MT-ln8xb]

The idea that changing the meanings of "man" and "woman" away from the universally accepted definitions used by mankind since its inception to new confusing meanings that include the opposite sex has "more utility" has to be one of the most dishonest things I've heard this year.

[@DemanaJaire]

I went to SW's channel to read some comments and it was so wild. One of the comments was "He doesn't want to talk about gender, yet he keeps saying 'man' and 'woman'". And there's a ton of that. Of course they talk about neuroscience and Robert Sapolsky (a neuroscientist who doesn't understand the concept of sex). I cannot comprehender the lunacy of those people.

[@eleccy]

It's very typical for audiences of a channel to enter a cope spiral when their favourite video creator gets routed, and this is very often the way. And yes they cling to the "small part of the brain is statistically different when you don't control for same sex attraction" argument as that's their last tiny hope in the debate sphere. I've heard it a hundred times and the evidence doesn't support it in and of itself, let alone the massive implications of grounding words on tiny parts of the brain only accessible by magnetic imaging. Also the "bbbb but sex is not gender" argument that they all think is so insightful for some reason. They post this under everything. It's a cope spiral from a dying community. Love to see it.

[@SilverSixpence888]

@@eleccy They say sex is not gender and then they talk about gender stereotypes when they clearly mean sex stereotypes etc etc etc. Make it make sense.

[@improvesheffield4824]

One of the problems with Stephen's position of utility is that his example of which toilets to use doesn't work either. He hasn't worked his argument to its logical conclusion. Here's why. His argument seems to be that a transwoman would be more at risk using a male bathroom than a female one without taking into account the entirety of who might be at risk and why. A transwoman is the only person in this scenario that may be at risk when using a male bathroom. However, if a transwoman (biological male) uses a woman's bathroom then, potentially, all the women using that space are at risk. In other words: Scenario 1 - one biological male at risk. Scenario 2 - potentially several biological women at risk. Therefore the utility of the situation still doesn't support Stephen's poorly thought out position but DOES support keeping the status quo based on the number of people potentially at risk!

[@theinnerlight8016]

Especially when every sexual predator can dress up in a vaguely female fashion, claim trans rights and enter female only spaces. Wolf in sheep's clothing...

[@geekgurl2000]

​@@ADDISON396 actually, transwo-men are a GREATER risk to women than ordinary men are.

[@tonyhoffman3309]

And in the first scenario, there is zero risk of a trans woman being forcefully impregnated, in the second one there is. Women are not at risk because of how they identify, but because of their reproductive biology.

[@eahere]

You are failing to account for base rates. Just because there’s more women at risk doesmtn mean the total risk is greater than the total risk for the trans woman

[@geekgurl2000]

@@eahere how about all evidence points to there being FAR more transwo-men violent and/or sex offenders than the hyperbolic claims about how vulnerable and victimized those men in cosplay imagine being? Reduxx has the FACTS. Those delusional fetishistic skinwalking cosplaying womanface LARPing Perverted MEN are far more dangerous than ordinary men.

[@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559]

Stephen comes across as though he overestimates his own intelligence.

[@ransakreject5221]

In fairness it’s easy to do at his level of brains

[@RuthIreland-qk4cp]

He's like every pompous 1st year philosophy student ever who comes home after one semester thinking he knows everything and lectures all his relatives at the dinner table

[@BlackBeltMonkeySong]

Definitely pompous.

[@HenryLeslieGraham]

Dunning-Kruger effect personified

[@jambec144]

Oh my God, yes. So flippin' smug, the way he squints and leans his head back, looking down at his opponent through his nose.

[@JudithMurphy-mh5wt]

I enjoyed the debate and the process BUT after all these detailed and reasoned arguments and intellectual exercise I still cannot for the life of me understand why we cannot see that woman and man are the same as bull and cow, hen and rooster, hog and sow, stag and doe etc....the male and female version of a species. Just because we have a better understanding how our bodies work in more detail, does not mean that we all of a sudden have to become confused about what the words man and woman mean. Apart from all the sex stereotypes and the attributes associated to masculinity and femininity, the one thing that is true is that women are the ones who have to deal with the reality that their bodies prepare to become pregnant and carry new life, every month during their fertile decades, that they will become pregnant and bear a new life, be completely responsible for that life etc, unless they take serious precautions. The awareness is always there. Because our bodies are designed to be able to do this, we are physically at a disadvantage regarding strength, punching power and other things. Because of men having a different reproductive function. their sex drive is different than that of women. All this makes women much more vulnerable to men. It is existentially very important to women that it is very clear that we need to be protected because of our sex - from men because of their sex!. AND SEX matters big time! The reproductive roles we play are extremely important, especially to children. Every child that was ever born, was born by a mother, who is a woman because her sex is female. And every child has a father, who is a man and whose sex is male. If I could travel all over the world and into every time period since humans are on this earth, I could correctly identify everyone as man and woman. Hair, fashion, activities, behaviour, expectations of society, don't come into it. Every skeleton is identifiable as male or female. WHY complicate something that is so simple and so fundamentally important to our species? Why are the roles of men and women in procreation and the creation of the next generation always missing from these discussions?

[@eleccy]

The question I want answered from RR is under his consideration, what ISN'T a social construct? It seems like he spent the entire conversation appealing to nipping at the edges of well defined, materially grounded categories (biological sex, and even alarmingly age and maturity) and then substituting them with even LESS well defined fuzzy categories (gender) and then hate to say it, just deferring to self-id when pressed, and also bizarrely utilitarian's view of utility. The number of times RR said "social construct" even approached parody at certain points. RR's whole worldview can't win, won't stop, and just won't go away. And of course, another gender abolitionist that predicates his world view on lionising and enhancing gender, like all gender abolitionists they feed the fire they claim to douse.

[@TheDMG45]

I wish they'd challenged him more on what he thinks gender abolitionism is and what he'd like to see. Because I don't see how you can say "woman" means anything other than "adult human female" under gender abolitionism.

[@siggyincr7447]

Exactly, language is in and of itself a social construct. So any word's definition will be too. But there is a lot of variation in how rooted a construct is in unalterable facts vs. social convention. And "man" and "woman" are terms that are firmly rooted in human biology, far more so than his example of the word "castle".

[@tomcotter4299]

It's like the Critical Race Theorists who want to eliminate racism--which to them means achieving equity of outcomes--by forcing everyone to hyper focus on race. Seems there's a single dividing line in American politics: Do you think the solution to division is to place less significance on the attribute that divides us? Or do you think the solution to division is to place even more significance on the attribute that divides us?

[@liberality]

​@@siggyincr7447 A dog can tell man from woman without knowing the human words for them. Ergo biology is real and exists independently of language.

[@siggyincr7447]

@@liberality Did anyone state otherwise?

[@Kirby789z]

Nothing about sex or gender has anything to do with being a "social construct." There were so many bad, false analogies made in defense of that. Great job Colin.

[@bertieboo]

Peter please have Stephen on with a woman whos knows safeguarding, helen joyce would be good x Stephen is talking about how he wants society to be, not how to keep women and children safe.

[@sharifsalem]

No, better would be KJK

[@bertieboo]

@@sharifsalem i suspect Stephen would wet his pants if kjk took him on, he would have no space to make shit up.

[@abcdeshole]

@@sharifsalem they both have their place. Different styles.

[@stephengreen9720]

Who is Kjk please?

[@sharifsalem]

@@stephengreen9720 Kellie-Jean Keen. English women’s rights activist and founder of the new Party of Women in UK.

[@Eliterubberduck]

Very impressive showing by Reid for keeping up and connecting everything on the fly like that. The conversation was great and I appreciate everyone being patient and civil. It feels like only the surface has been scratched but 2 hours flew by. It was a cool format.

[@anantayanamandra3491]

I'm curious whether Stephen would extend this reasoning to age or race. It feels like his entire position relies on hiding behind nuanced critiques of others' definitions without having to offer one himself.

[@MattTheStatsMan]

He did extend it to age, they talked about adulthood for like 20 minutes.

[@slacktoryrecords4193]

@@MattTheStatsManThe person you’re responding to wasn’t asking about what passes for adulthood, they were saying “is trans-aged” also legitimate, also “is trans-racial legitimate?” Surely you realized that? (And are they?)

[@Mr_Case_Time]

A lot of this comes down to experience. I have three daughters, so my sensitivity to gender differences might be much greater than someone with no kids. I don’t want boys on their softball team, that would be unfair and potentially harmful. I don’t want boys in their locker rooms when they go to high school. These issues affect me in a way that they might not effect Stephen, so he has the luxury of having his views without having to commit to them in any way.

[@jambec144]

Yup, life is too easy for these people.

[@SilverSixpence888]

Also he is not a woman, so he just cannot understand how a woman feels when she has to undress in front of a man. And he is not prepared to try and understand, because he is just a misogynist.

[@geekgurl2000]

I *had* a friend with Turner Syndrome X0. She didn't experience puberty and is therefore infertile, but she's an adult having reached the age of majority in the US, and she is female because only females can be X0.

[@Deuterocomical]

Stephen says he rejects the self-ID view, but also says he would have to ask the hypermasculine person how they identify

[@ABCDEF-zl6nj]

Stephen seems to do a great dance with mental gymnastics circumventing Colin's criticism with the need to nail down through "clarification", his overly detailed criteria to engage in discussion.

[@theinnerlight8016]

He's doing a Jordan Peterson 😂

[@jamesgattuso9778]

I agree, although it’s great that he’s willing to engage in discussion. Stephen’s arguments sound smart, but they are really weak upon analysis. The triple-alloy coinage argument is where he lost me as it is constructed upon a false but cleverly obscured premise.

[@Un-Woke]

I remember the video that got Stephen into trouble. Watched it moments after it came out. Men in women sports is wrong. I was in full agreement with him… then he allowed himself to be confused just to appease his progressive American Atheist pals. The name of the Atheist group escapes me. Gave up on them and Stephen afterwards. Clown world.

[@theinnerlight8016]

@@Un-Woke Atheist community of Austin (ACA)

[@cosmicsaipen875]

stephen gives a very simple example of Wittgensteinian view on family resemblance* every right-wing retard: "mucho texto. 2complicated4m3. that's a lot of words to say nothing."

[@WilliamJohnston]

Peter’s summary ‘this is actual work’ rang so true - this was a monumental effort to discuss in detail whilst keeping totally civil and being strict about getting definitions etc, the conversation on this topic I’ve been waiting for, I really hope this inspires more conversations just like it, well done!

[@johnoneofmany]

Totally agree. I feel that more debate structures like this might lead us to a place where rationality and truth prevail.

[@markd2209]

Sex and gender are synonyms of the same thing: biological sex. EVERYTHING else about the modern use of gender identity is simply one’s unique, individual, personality. That’s it.

[@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559]

Exactly. The Gender Cult members pretend that 'gender' is different and not biological, because that allows them to make it anything they want to be.

[@samuelsnow8714]

Well said.

[@sherylwhite2201]

Don't agree. The word "sex" refers to the biological reality of having either male or female gametes, thus being either a male or a female. The word gender describes a feeling of being either male or female. Activists have tried, rather successfully, to get people to understand that the two words are synonyms, but the reality is that they are not.

[@fullyfb3847]

Yes.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

sex: gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. ♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️ gender: sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact). Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”. Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition. Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language. If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!) For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms. Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning. Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).

[@daveerickson9524]

We had something that worked for centuries. Why are we denying the obvious, the functional, and wasting our time in a confusing sea of b.s.

[@mortagon1451]

Unfortunately there's an ever increasing minority to whom this gender nonsense matters a whole lot and it is causing direct harm to vulnerable people, to society and even to science and reason. We need to untangle these ideas with reason, compassion and civil discourse if we are to ever find a way past it which is why discussions like this needs to happen.

[@supergran1000]

@@mortagon1451It's exhausting though, isn't it? My head hurts after watching this.

[@theunknownatheist3815]

@@mortagon1451this is part of the far left plan to tear down society for their Marxist soft revolution. They don’t give a damn about T people. They are being used as pawns.

[@ponygirl1716]

@@mortagon1451 The proper response of society to this gender nonsense should have been a simple, resounding "NO." Boys are boys and girls are girls. A society that cannot stand firm on such a simple distinction isn't heading anywhere good.

[@daveerickson9524]

agreed completely , a very bad distraction from our serious issues@@mortagon1451

[@PuddilyOops]

I get really tired of hearing about animals/other species as examples and arguments of what humans are supposed to be. If we add all of the animal kingdom into the human definition it’s just chaos. Like people are always talking about clownfish changing their gender as some sort of point, but we don’t include how clownfish breath under water and are immune to anemone stings do we? Also stop using intersex conditions as an argument against normal human development.

[@adlernewman]

I'd say only one thing about Woodford: if your position has to be propped by an elaborate, labyrinthian, sophistry based construction which constantly shifts, than apart from trying to show off how clever you want to appear, you prove nothing.

[@bengreen171]

I don't think Colin's surname is Woodford.

[@jambec144]

Exactly. Woodford is exactly the type driven by a need to be cleverer than thou, even if it makes him a fool.

[@bengreen171]

@@jambec144 I think you spelled 'Boghossian' wrong.

[@jambec144]

@@bengreen171 I think you spelled 'right' wrong. Do you know of any other rhetorical jokes?

[@bengreen171]

@@jambec144 I admit it was a pretty old joke, but it had the advantage of an immediate callback, which always makes it better. And to be honest, you guys don't deserve, and would probably not understand, more refined humour.

[@ransakreject5221]

They spend 15 minutes getting Stephens definition of man and woman. He specifically says “yes that is my definition.” Then in the second half he says it’s not his definition.

[@Earthad23]

Rationality apparently means working backwards from a conclusion.

[@radubradu]

Yep, he's a sleezeball

[@tonyhoffman3309]

He didn't understand nor could he describe his own

[@r_manu]

It was more like, yes, that's the definition. But, I don't like it. Instead of changing it, let's just use it. :D

[@garycannon2887]

It’s his definition of how the words are used in the real world. With the bathroom scenarios for example Colin highlights how Stephen’s definitions make more sense than having to invasively inspect someone for testicles when they enter a bathroom. Transphobes attacking women going for a piss because they think they could pass for a man is just pathetic, and Colin should be removed from male or female bathrooms if he is hanging about being a creep like in the example he gave.

[@Mountebanksrus]

The question is is it really kindness to affirm a person's delusions? And is it okay for a person with a mental illness to insist that we were refer to her as a cat? How far should we go? What if she wants to use a litter box as one woman wanted to insist upon. Or eat from a bowl on the floor. From lots of past history. Once you can get people to say things that they know are not true. Society is on the decline and totalitarianism on the horizon.

[@roxee57]

Female humans may reach reproductive maturity (ability to get pregnant) at young ages that we don’t consider legally (a construct) as mature, that doesn’t mean they’ve reached anatomical or cognitive maturity. Yes, we could pass laws based on cognitive maturity (via a test? because it’s different on average for males & females) but we could also pass laws based on anatomical maturity. There are many 10-12 year old girls who have reached reproductive maturity that would die in childbirth or be harmed by pregnancy if they weren’t anatomically as well as reproductively mature.

[@DMU386]

This is pretty simple. Forget everything else. Can a women produce sperm? No? Ok. Can a man produce an egg? No? Ok. Stories over. It was nice talking with all of you. Take care. The end

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

💯 sex: gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. ♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️ gender: sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact). Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”. Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition. Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language. If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!) For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms. Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning. Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).

[@DDeCicco]

I wish it were so easy, and really, it ought to be.

[@nathan87]

Nice definitions of sex you got there. How about the much more complicated bit where people prefer different treatment in society, independently of which gametes they produce (even though society dogmatically insists on relating their treatment to gametes)?

[@-Monad-]

​@@nathan87 How about the individuals in society who prefer to be referred as a mother when they have no children? Sure, the harm in playing along with the fiction might be minimal, but is that actually the right thing to do? Is that fair to the person with the delusion?

[@drockopotamus1]

@@nathan87 uh...because we have definitions that are required for language to work properly? Just because some people are born without a leg doesn't mean the human species isn't bipedal. Nor does it mean the legless people are any more or less human. Our natural biology shouldn't offend people. For what it's worth, gender being an identity is fine. But laws in our society will move away from gender if that's the case. It would also give credence to bird-self, fairy-self, or whatever other made-up genders people want to invent. Woodford, for one, is hilariously hypocritical in his hard critique of religion, but lack thereof in the gender fairytales.

[@sonofphilip8229]

How come this wasn't a problem for thousands of years and all of the sudden its a huge difficulty to enforce?

[@hooligan9794]

Because Stephen was being a dishonest in his question 😅

[@GodSoLoved.Yeshua]

Because demons are real, it's not just a fairy tale. Why else would blockers be pushed on children. Boys can't actually turn into girls, it's a lie from the pit. 🔥

[@theinnerlight8016]

Marxist culture war tactics. I recommed "war on the west" by Douglas Murray

[@lkae4]

Because Marxist atheism is so hot right now.

[@TheDMG45]

Because autogynephiles spotted the rise of LGB rights and saw an opportunity to exploit

[@Mantis11235]

Notice that Stephen’s stated definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are word-for-word identical! No wonder that none of his subsequent points have any utility.

[@RedClayFH]

Stephen sees himself as a philosopher, but the way Peter looks at him during this exchange is priceless. If looks could talk!!

[@33greenleaf]

He’s very mediocre without this topic, so he’ll cling to it at all cost.

[@Mapping_the_Mind]

Colin has so much patience. If it were me, I would have given up halfway through....life is too short!

[@ew5153]

I ran into this podcast by chance. I want to say that with all the confusion that has taken us by storm we need to have more of this conversation. But at the same time I can’t believe that we have to have this conversation. The current madness didn’t affect me that much because I have not forgotten what a woman and what a man are. Dr.Colin is a hero in my book not just because of his ability to deliver so much reality, truth and common sense but the man has patience. If I had to talk to his opponent I’d be pulling my hair out within 10 min because of how dumb he is. No offense but that dude with the long hair is not the sharpest knife.

[@DemiHavok420]

I think emotionally driven ideology is as ridiculous as religious ideology. The fact that ADHD is considered a disorder, but having the brain chemistry of a women, in a male body isn't given the same standards, is directly caused from having an emotional response to trans people, over the person who has ADHD. One being a disorder, and the other not being a disorder "due to not wanting to hurt their feelings", is irrational, and inconsistent by default, and i think this proves at least one aspect of why people call woke an ideology, not rooted in truth, rather emotions. My issue is, emotions are a rather flimsy thing to base a world view on. In the same way beliefs are a flimsy thing to base a world view on.

[@sunflare8798]

Irrationality Rules giving us a very good show

[@sunflare8798]

"There are exceptions and I win AHAH!" Gödel is smiling from the afterlife

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

leftism: Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”. In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively). In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit. As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population. According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia). For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12). Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator! This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles. Fear not, for God is with you! P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡 N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬 In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.

[@hooligan9794]

Haha yeah. God bless him, he never recovered from the smackdown he got from Matt Dillahunty when made a video about transwonen in women's sport

[@Earthad23]

Statistics are a bitch

[@GreenBeetle]

My guy disagrees with his own definitions what a useless discussion how much more time are we going to waste playing make believe. This guy needs to apply his intellect to something useful.

[@menoyuno8430]

his intellect is only good at one thing, being a con artist.

[@ransakreject5221]

Yeah he spends the second half changing the he established right away in detail. Snake

[@jasonhobman5973]

someone who lives up to a social construct that is typically associated with phenotype, aesthetics, and behaviours of what? How can the definition of both man and woman be the same… the argument falls flat from the very beginning.

[@gerdabuddenbrook8593]

Thank you!

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

A man is an adult male regardless of doing anything. He would be so conscious or unconscious. His mental state, health or education wouldn't make him a man. It's not a social construct as he would still be a man if he were the last man on earth.

[@duncefunce1513]

Yeah, but you're only using a definition that spans millennia and several different cultures. Get with the times.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

@@duncefunce1513 But the times as you say aren't limited to being human, or animal. You want to open Pandora's Box and control what comes out. You won't be able to. Words in all languages describe objective truth. The objects don't need the words we use to describe them.

[@duncefunce1513]

@@DonswatchingtheTube you and I I are in agreement, my friend. I was being facetious.

[@justmy2cents652]

To the "adult" arguement: It doesn't differentiate "woman or not woman" (

[@lolfzbf]

It seems Rationally Rules isn't very rational

[@biblicalworldview1]

1:37:00 Stephen seems to be using extreme outliers of a category to mean the category shouldn't exist for anyone. We can't live that way, and "adult human female" has served 99.999% of people to serve its purpose, and because of the .0001% we shouldn't then have binary categories. 1:42:30 If we want to make room for "trans" people, since they are simply self-identified, I would want to pin him down on what a "trans" person is in the first place.

[@brianbaldwin9100]

I appreciate what they’re trying to do, but all the talking around the issue over complicates the whole thing. It’s really not as complicated as Woodford makes it out to be. Word salad.

[@joanappleton2478]

How dare this mouthy male try to demand how I as a woman should think and behave in order to please the trans club members.😊

[@non_ideological_transexual7414]

I am curious by what you mean by "think and behave in order to please the trans club members" . I would only be guessing 🤷

[@Joshua-dc4un]

Except gender isn't restricted to women 😊

[@Leon-ty6bw]

@@Joshua-dc4un except you can’t change gender, no matter what you wear or how you alter your body.

[@Joshua-dc4un]

@@Leon-ty6bw and how is that relevant to what I said?

[@siggyincr7447]

While I'm no fan of Stephen's, I can't remember him making any demands or even suggestions of the type.

[@zeno2712]

45:00 Woodford tries to separate out sex from the terms women and men but as Colin points out, they are the same thing. And in terms of discrimination, single-sex spaces, etc the Equality Act 2010 defines women and men in terms of their sex (s.212). Woodford would have to provide an argument why discrimination rights, etc should be held by females but not women, by males but not men. Woodford doesn't, of course, and his attempts to use the term 'gender' to correlate with women and men but not sex is blatantly an attempt to deceive. By all means talk about gender if you want to, but the words woman and man are already taken. Find your own words.

[@radubradu]

No person is born in the wrong body. To say that to an adult is cruel, to say it to a child is child abuse. And yet, if we accept the insanity and idiocy of gender ideology, that Stephen is trying so hard to push, we end up hurting children. This should have been pushed more by the host. If adult human female is not enough to describe a woman, then child human female is not enough either to describe a girl. This opens lots of avenues for child abuse, from predation and grooming to mutilation and experiments on children.

[@livi6440]

Hurts women too

[@Canthavemybones]

Exactly this entire movement is a predators dream come true.

[@slacktoryrecords4193]

This discussion was frustratingly limited to definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’-which, don’t get me wrong, is a good place to start, but the whole issue of gender identity ideology encompasses many different issues. In the end, the conversation and most of the arguments in the comments here boiled down to “Is it the case or not that a woman is anyone who can get away with using the public restrooms designated for women?” That is just one issue, and certainly not the most important one. The big picture question is, Why are there so many people who want to try to “live as” members of the sex class that is not their own, and should we encourage them down this pathway? What are their motivations? How did they come to believe they have “gender identities” that are incongruous with the reality of their sexed bodies? Is it better to try to intervene and discourage them from going down a pathway that will cause numerous health complications, including shortening their lifespans, drastically limit their dating pools, possibly endanger women, and spread the concept of transgenderism to people who might be gay and/or autistic, etc. and cause them to think they might “be trans” themselves, when really they’re just autistic, have black-and-white thinking, and don’t adhere to societal norms? Is *anyone* “really trans”? The *only* reason why Stephen is in the position he’s in, defending his incoherent and incomplete definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’, is because gender identity ideology has become fashionable. And he wants to include males in his definition of ‘woman’ and vice versa, either because he doesn’t want to offend trans-identifying people or activists. But why does ‘trans’ exist in the first place? As at least one other commenter noted, it’d be great to see him debate Helen Joyce.

[@976charlie9]

Are we changing definitions now?

[@ransakreject5221]

Stephen had to change the definitions or accept hes gay

[@radubradu]

That's what the cultural revolution is all about

[@svanhoosen]

I think Woodford destroyed his own argument at 56:30. First he very clearly defined his definition of what a woman is, but then throws that all away when asked the gender of a female who displays all masculine traits, and he said, "I'd ask them." He completely nullified his definition of woman.

[@bengreen171]

you clearly didn't listen to his definition carefully enough. He said 'typically' has properties X, Y and Z. That's not an 'if and only if' statement. If gender is not always obviously communicated by physical traits, then it is logically coherent to propose that the way to find out about someone's gender is by asking them. We accept this all the time. How would you know where the average person in the street comes from? How can you tell definitively if someone is from Germany or Austria, for instance?

[@JustinSailor]

Gender abolition is essentially just taking the labels off of the salt and pepper shakers. Doesn't sound very utilitarian.

[@manchegocheese997]

Stephen's deconstruction to absurdity of adult, human, and male/female is a sign of absolute desperation. He would never accept this strategy if it were coming from a religious apologist.

[@MCP_Blackout]

Thank you Peter and Collin for this, you are great. I would have been unfortunately way to frustrated with those non answers and fallacies to have such a civil conversation. There where a lot of great arguments in the chat, I just hope we wheren't too rude some times.

[@KRGruner]

Woodford is wrong as soon as he says "social construct." Pretty easy.

[@brendadarling7743]

No mention of the AGPS?

[@radubradu]

also no mention of child abuse like puberty blockers and breasts and genital amputation of children, like in the case of jazz jennings

[@miroirs-jumeaux]

Isn't it nice to have a little bit of time without them around? I don't mind not having to think about them when they're not right in front of me sometimes.

[@philnelson7034]

Just watched the first 8 minutes. As someone who is confused trying to get my head around the gender ideology/trans issue I think this groundwork is helpful. Thanks for everyone involved for putting this on.