When my Brother at 11 years of age was lured by a pack of pedophiles .Ultimately groomed, used ,then basically slaughtered ! Also tried to explain gender abnormalities ! Why they are being shoved down our throats is to keep on destroying the normal balanced Families Which develop healthy communities and Culture . Divide and conquer . So the psychopath Elite can ?

I respect personality and individual identity. What I have a problem with is the gender theorist claim that a great many behaviours are incompatible with a biological sex (of which there are only two. There is no third mechanism by which reproduction may occur in humans, nor can humans switch between the two). What the majority of people think about typical behaviours associated with certain sexes is irrelevant and it is the height of narcissism to define your personal identity around what other people think - so far as to claim, you may have been born into the wrong body because of what other people think of your body. Of course people have always behaved differently. But it is an entirely new phenomenon for activists to claim that mere behaviour has changed their physiology, entitling them to access to the protected spaces of the opposite sex.

Don’t worry Americans, Texas will save us! Texas will show us the way forward. Texas!!!!

"As Butler says, there are many perspectives on gender." And all of those stemming from modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) are incoherent. "As Butler acknowledges at 1:41, there are biological differences in sex." And in age groups. Hence, we not only have terms to distinguish between sexes (male and female) but also terms to distinguish between age groups (child and adult). For efficiency's sake, we call an adult human female a woman, a human child that's female a girl, adult human males men, and human children that are male boys. "To clarify: Most people are born with the sex of either male (with XY chromosomes and male anatomy) or female (with XX chromosome and female anatomy). A small proportion of people are born with different chromosomal or anatomical makeups (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome)." And those people are also either males or females, because your chromosomal makeup is not what actually makes you one or the other gender. "Gender is the role people of a specific sex play in different cultures." Nonsense. You are confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms. But if we were to equate them, it wouldn't be workable with the rest of your worldview. After all, if someone were to adhere to the roles/norms expected of men but identify as a woman, what would you call them? "The phrase 'assigned at birth' refers to how most of us are raised from birth with the gender role most typical of the sex you are born." No. Doctors *observe* our gender (aka sex) and simply report it. Even in those extremely rare cases in which our external genitalia mislead them on our gender, the truth is still found by taking a deeper look at our biology. "Transgender people are those who intuitively identify with a different gender from their sex or assigned gender, and decide to live as it." First problem: We can't possibly know what we "intuitively" identify with, because we've no basis for that comparison. We've all only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman, or indeed if there is such a difference to begin with. Second problem: What is meant by "decide to live as (a gender)"? Again, you seem to be confusing gender roles/norms with gender itself. But someone who adheres to all of the gender roles and norms of a man but doesn't identify as one wouldn't be considered one even by you. "There are well-documented examples of transgender and non-binary people for hundreds, if not thousands of years" Which doesn't explain the recent apparent uptick in its popularity. And if the narrative that not going along with their self-identification causes them to unalive themselves, it becomes inexplicable why there wasn't a huge amount in self-unalivings throughout history, as people were inarguably far less tolerant of this nonsense than they are today. "For a deeper dive into the scientific research around transgender issues, check out our columnist Ethan Seigel's recent article..." Let's not pretend that actual science can back this worldview. Science is about objective, observable reality. Transgenderism can't even produce objective, workable definitions for its terms. And neither can any of the so-called "scientists" giving the worldview lip service.

As a trans woman, I would've hoped that Judith would've been more specific and mentioned gender role, gender expression and gender identity rather than just lump the 3 all together under the umbrella term of gender. This is because 2 of those (gender role and expression) are social constructs, and gender identity is as biological as our genetic sex. Our gender identity is hard-wired into our brains during the 2nd trimester of gestation through exposure to differing amounts of androgens, but because people are lazy, identity gets lumped in with role and expression and is classed as a construct. This gives anti-trans bigots the opportunity to dismiss my identity as just a choice when it is not. It doesn't make sense to think it is. Who would risk losing family and friends, getting beaten up or worse, and being discriminated against by the state if they had a choice in the matter?

Most of radical feminist theory involves lesbians and queers. No wonder most women reject this brand of feminism.

hear hear!

@@aminahmad2595 Most people don't know or care

Doubtful, especially since 'toxic' definitions weren't part of the vocabulary until the late 2000s. That's also just not the philosophy of modern feminism as it didn't matter if you got married, so long as it was a consensual setup where you weren't coerced into being homebound.

​@@erikfldt390 What was it called prior to the identification of the term "toxic word"?

you just ended the whole argumnet, congrats

GOAT comment fr

That's wt I'm talking about! Pop off, Sis! 🙌🏽

Can I hear an "amen!"? LOL

This wins

Of course you cannot escape influences from your environment. The language you're most comfortable in and probably think in was given to you by your environment, and affects how you think. In most languages you cannot say "I broke my arm" unless you're a bit insane and purposefully broke your arm, but in English that's no problem. Same thing for accidentally breaking a vase. In English you can say "He broke the vase" whereas in Spanish you would say "The vase broke". The long term affects being that in English we would remember WHO did it and punishments would be more likely and in Spanish they would remember that it was an accident, and not necessarily who did it. -ted talk How language shapes the way we think | Lera Boroditsky It's just a silly thing to say in my opinion, as the gender discussion wouldn't even be happening without an environment to have it in.

​@@DH-og5yr I'm talking about pervasive gender discrimination in its many forms. Those create a hostile environment to individual freedom, it curtails development, it stifles creativity, it's a constant struggle to break out of the narrowly defined roles the female gender is put in. And when you do conform, you really don't have equal power. We don't even know much about women's history. I don't understand why men feel compelled to comment with gaslighting explanations of the reality many girls and women experience.

Ok but why this need to "define it for yourself"? Why do you actually care? And how do you propose to fix the inevitable conflicts that arise when how you define for yourself contradicts with how others perceive you?

​@@sozeytozey Because as a woman I am confronted with misogyny in its many subtle and not so subtle forms. I don't like that, it's depressing and even traumatizing. I want to live in an environment that is inclusive of diversity. Because when a hostile environment is created for girls and women who dare to step out of their very narrowly defined roles, it distracts, it stifles creativity, it obstructs development to become your genuine self. With diversity and inclusion, also men will profit from that for themselves. Misogyny is instrumental, there f.e. was a research report about why girls and women face so much street harassment. It turns out that young educated single women are harassed the most. So it's a form of oppression, these young women are seen as very threatening to the patriarchal hierarchy: autonomous women who step out of the gender role of dependent, subordinate, nurturer, caregiver, mother, wife or h*ker.

@@sozeytozey "And how do you propose to fix the inevitable conflicts that arise when how you define for yourself contradicts with how others perceive you?" I guess it's important to become activist again, glad to know there are men who also want change and who commit to women's organizations. Being a 'feminist' is very unpopular, but it's really about human rights.

❤

Gender is also connected to this. As is the word gene, and the word genetics. The 'gen' part of the word comes from the ancient greek word for birth, 'genesis'.

Human sex is a social construct that classifies certain physiological features human bodies tend to have into 2-3 boxes (3 depending on your view on intersexuality). Different societies and cultures have had different understandings and definitions of sex, it often varies from medical professional to medical professional! Human sex itself serves to enforce the binary structures we try to break and feeds into the essentialization of our bodies.

@@Phiwipussu are an idiot 💀

@@Phiwipuss Men and women are more alike than they are different, but it is anti-science to claim that men and women are the same, and only have differences created by society. Wouldn't it be more progressive to admit our differences as sexes, than to pretend that those differences are all a lie created by a great cultural conspiracy?

and we should be chill if people refuse not to participate in you going against the norm

@@rickperez8975 Project much? No one cares about people minding their own business, it's when reactionaries do all they can to f*** with vulnerable groups that aren't in any way affecting them.

That’s fine with me. I just don’t want to hear about it! I’m sick of this topic! 🤦🏻‍♀️ Can something in this world be kept private!?

@@Onceuponatime889 No one forced you to watch the video.

@@erikfldt390 I didn’t. I just needed to hear first few sentences.

BD, you don't have to be anywhere near trans to hear those insults. Just be a tomboy. Just be a boy who would rather practice violin than play baseball. This is all a distraction to avoid people seeing the money leave their possession to find its way into the billionaires offshore accounts, and maybe a way to appease the crueler evangelical sects.

As a feminine gay man, this was always the case. I was made fun of for beeing too girly, but if a trans woman states her identity, then no matter how feminine she is, she is "a man". People don't care about "natural order", "biology" or "reality", they only care to excercise their control over others.

TRUE! You are absolutely right! So are others! Notice what you wrote about transwomen's experience of being told "you’re not a real man". We know exactly what this means. However, this statement --- “you’re not a real man” --- is not the same as that "you are a woman" nor that "you are a real woman" nor does it imply so. However, the very moment that the person goes “no actually, you’re right, I’m not a man, I’m a woman”, at that instant the person is wrong! No, that person is still a man, but not a 'real' man, in the sense of being a manly man, macho man, or an otherwise a normal man (as difficult as it may be to define "normal" for the purposes of the current context). And it is absolutely correct that such a person should be told “you’re not a real woman” as well as “you’re not a woman at all in any sense of the word WOMAN”. Individuals, no matter what their preferences and behavior, should be free to live life according to their own choices for maximum happiness. Everyone's rights must be protected and advanced no matter who that person is and how he/she behaves (without impinging on others' rights, etc.).

​@@fraiopatll633 So you're saying they're not a "real" man or woman? What a ridiculous notion. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The person is a "real" whatever the hell they want to be, in that "man" and "woman" do not have unambiguous definitions. I'm a man that usually does not exhibit "macho" behaviour, in fact I find it pretty stupid. I'm still a real man. "Man" and "woman" as they pertain to how we fit into society have nothing to do with what genitals you have or how masculine/feminine your look or behave. Everyone is what they feel they are, and they are a real one of whatever that is. I suggest you watch the video again, seems like it went completely over your head.

It is may be better to stay as you were in the beginning and not listen to what whoever says... 😂

Indeed. How can we get along if we can't even withhold our first impressions based on a title alone?

It's called personality - gender has come to be called that by fools who want to be something special just because of their personality.

You do not have the power to decide 'who you are', if 'who you are' refers to your fundamental construction. You can choose your personality, the qualities you choose to reinforce, even behavior. But who you are is a matter of fact, and not a matter of your personal aspirations.

@@burgerbobbelcher No. you cant - you are born either a boy, or a girl. That's why we recognize them as boys and girls. You cant apply your stupid fairy tale on the facts.

@Matt But do you really? Can you really emancipate yourself from physical reality? Can you be suddenly less tall? Have a different hair Color or be an animal? Or be less old? Now a gender feminist would say that woman and men are only different with their sexual organs. For a social constructionist everything is a social construct. But is that really true? Actually we know it is not true. Research is very clear on that. Doesn’t mean we are born very differently or that society has no influence but there are such things are inherent differences. Why are there two genders if they are by default entirely the same?

@@burgerbobbelcher What a well articulated opinion.

Mental illness too? Is that performative?

​@@Open-6As someone with mental illness, I'd say yes, to an extent. There are certainly ways in which we feel people with mental illness are stereotypically "supposed" to act and think about themselves, and these ideas can shape our behavior. To be clear, "performative" doesn't mean something isn't real, just that there's a performative element to it, a way in which we've been socially taught to behave.

@@theprousteffect9717 separating "performative" from "worthless" or "not real" was a super important step in understanding how i interact with fashion and personal expression!! for a while i was pretty frustrated that a decent chunk of my interest in those areas was driven by approval & acknowledgement from others w/ similar design philosophies as opposed to being generated intrinsically-took me a long time to realize that the entire world of experimental fashion is built around performance, trading style that most people connect with at a base level with a more intimate connection with much fewer. it gave me a lot of peace with how i share my gender with others & what i hope to gain from it

She is amazing! And I totally agree

read more poetry...

these identities are unfortunately held over us and used to oppress, these form constructs and cages, but we can find liberation through breaking the constraints and fighting patriarchy and capitalism.

Exactly, no such thing.

? just take a break? I don't know but as a math student i just focus on math, why focus on race or gender if it makes you upset and tired

@@MonkeyDLuffy-gd6se Right, as a black person in the US, I'll just not focus on it. I'm sure it's just because I'm thinking about it, nothing to do with how other people treat me, every day. Like, are you serious?

@@RadicalTrivia well just dont try to let it consume and dictate your life

These ppl dont want debates...and this is why we just watched a video where she is alone spitting nonsensicals unchallenged...

Id prefer Helen Joyce vs BUtler. Joyce is a much better debater than Kathleen Stock

surely she can just respond to Butler’s texts? If gender performativity is wrong, you can show that in writing without needing a “gotcha” moment no? it’s what every other respected academic does

@@dimercamparini cause debates rarely bring out the truth. Most people just wanna "win" debates and not genuinely try to have a discussion and add to the knowledge base. Its mostly a fancy dck measuring contest rooted in tribalism nowadays. It seems you also fall into that category.

@@itsbenbitch14 It was proven completely wrong by its inventor - Dr John Money. Look up his experiment with twins. His appalling experiment proved his theory of gender (which he had invented) to be completely wrong - yet he claimed success and his deeply traumatised victims had to expose themselves in public in a deeply intimate way in order to let the world know he was lying. They both went on to kill themselves. This is the foundation of all gender theory and now trans-ideology - deeply, murderously sociopathic and toxic right from the start. Yet lawgivers are trying to impose this on the public?!? WTF is going on? Trans ideology - and its nonsensical notion of self-identification - has nothing to do with the rights of Trans people to identify as hey please - The ideology is about forcing someone's by-definition unverifiable statements about their by-definition unverifiable subjective feelings onto others even when in defiance of the very evidence ofvtheir senses. That is unspeakably grotesque forced-faith with which only the weak-minded could comply

Welcome brother!

Same

enjoy the scroll

Well you'll have to be quick as there's a ton of deletions already!!! Reasonable comments I might add but obviously not woke enough so auto-delete is in effect!!!

@@jamesbrown4107woke counter 1! Y’all are silly as hell! What’s reasonable to you is probably ignorance since you unironically use “wholeness”

IMO critical theory and intersectionality is just individualism with more steps. But also we have to label everyone and everything.

@@NorthernRealmJackal They are both a set of methods derived from analysis of reactionary movements. Critical Theory has its origins in analyzing Nazism, which in turn was a reactionary movement against Weimar liberalism. It wasn't the critical theorists who labeled, it was the Nazis who labeled. The critical theorists just tried to find out why and on which grounds the Nazis labeled and then started to deconstruct those labels. Which is why critical theorists still play a major role in Nazi conspiracy theories to this day. Intersectionality is the method of working out shared goals between oppressed groups. It's the result of recognizing that oppressions often works systemically and these systems affect several oppressed groups at once. Gender might indeed become a "pointless distinction" once liberal ideals are fully realized, because in a sense the label only became necessary because oppressed groups were attacked for freely expressing their identity. These attacks lead to the naming of the things that are being attacked. Hannah Arendt once said that if you are being attacked as a Jew you have to defend yourself as a Jew, not as a Citizen of the World or with reference to human rights. The freedom liberalism promised means we get to make up the way we live, the things we come up with are not real until we make them.

I think part of the point is, and what separates gender theory from individualism, is that when it comes to gender, you can't simply choose who you are. Yes, to some extent we have free will, but we are also created and limited by the social forces that have made us. When it comes to gender, we don't simply choose to be a man or a woman, or trans, or non-binary, we are formed by the social norms of our society. Most people conform to those norms. But where the is power there is always resistance. Where there are rules, there are always exceptions. Where there are norms, there are always things that subvert those norms. It's not entirely understood how or why people become trans, but what is clear is that they have little choice in the matter. Sometime, for some reason, a person's sense of self attaches to what society tells us the opposite of what they should be. Other times, it subverts society's binary rules completely. Gender does not exist an any objective, material way, but it is certainly real in so far as it constrains and informs how we live our lives, how we think of ourselves, and how we feel and desire.

@@themovingkitchen5238 The same is true for individualism. Prior to the industrial revolution people lived in tighter communities and needed to repress their individualism in order to protect the integrity of the group. With industrialization people moved to cities, had more privacy and somewhat anonymous relationships with the people around them, which allowed for more individual expression without threatening the integrity of social fabric. If you ask me, gender is just what happens when you have several generations of liberally socialized people who grew up reproducing pre-liberal social norms less and less with each generation. We're now around 2-4 generations into that and people start questioning sexual and gender norms. It is the most obvious development ever. Nobody should be scared by it.

@@themovingkitchen5238 I understand the argument, but the more I think about it, the more it sounds like astrology and religion. Anyways, I'm happy to live in a society where people can freely be what they want to be.

No

When people talk about sex being "assigned" they're not talking about traits that already exist. They're talking about the ways in which we give social and cultural significance to those traits. Did you get assigned a social identity based on your blood type? Did your parents proudly declare "it's an AB-positive"? Did they dress you in colour-coded clothes based on your blood type? No. You were free to form your personal identity, unencumbered by your blood type. The same is not true for sex.

@@deadeaded The term "assign" is essentially something given, transferred, appointed to someone. Sex can not be assigned, it is only verified by objective physical traits. To claim that it is assigned is to suggest that it has not objective verifiable traits by which it is identified, that's the beginning of the lie. The cultural and social significance of sex for babies when they are born is due to their parents' expectations and the obvious differential roles they occupy in the family and society. It does not happen like that with blood types. And nobody identifies as having a different blood type than what they have. So, the use of the word "assign" is to negate the objective reality of gender as being only male or female, which is nonsense because it cannot be assigned.

@@Music1art I have explained what the phrase "assigned sex" means in this context. If you stubbornly insist on using it in an entirely different way, then it's entirely your own fault when your interpretation doesn't make sense. Don't blame others for your own refusal to engage with what they're actually saying.

@@deadeaded you all have the same thinking problem of using words with meanings that they don't have, it's a dirty tactic. But I MUST stick to the strick meaning of the words in order to demand a sincere communication without tactics of manipulation. Sex can NOT be assigned in any way shape or form. Sex is a biological reality, not an emotional and illutional fluid idea to fit our personal desires. Sex is a the particular caracteristic of an organ, either the penis or the vagina with a spesific biological purpose. THAT, no human being can "assign" That is a product of biology, and exists outside of your emotions and mind. It's physical, not especulative. You, either speak English or Chinese, but you can't mix both. In other words, you CANNOT use a word with a meaning that it does NOT have in order to make an illusory point. If you don't use the correct word for the idea you bring, it means dishonesty.

@@Music1art You've never worked in academia before, have you? It's very common for words to have specific technical meanings in an academic context that are different from the colloquial definition. Every discipline does this. For example, the phrase "almost everywhere" in mathematics is a technical term that has a different definition to the usual English definition. The word "organic" in chemistry has a completely different meaning to the usual one. Gender theory is no different from any other discipline: you have to learn the terminology. If you refuse to learn what the technical vocabulary means, that's on you.

Thank you. Your explanation of gender is better and more clearly defined than Judith

It really is just one of those things in life where you know it when you see it. Like as a kid we learn that the stove is hot.

Just because an idea pours from the human mind, it does not then follow that such an idea is worthy of being taken seriously.

You're acting like you're all about free love and people identifying how they want, but then you fall back to the fundamental culture war lie that people are forcing or pressuring others to be trans. That's not the case. That's right wing propaganda for no other purpose than to make you hate trans people under the implication that trans people are controlling others but they aren't. Trans people just want to be accepted. That's literally it. Stop validating fascists and making the issue so much more than it is.

Exactly. Unfortunately, the cultural marxists have hijacked this cause/philosophy that is kind, and good, and egalitarian, and are using it to disrupt, destroy, and control. My daughter loves racing gokarts, martial arts, sailing, driving, camping, but she is, and always will be a girl. I actually allow her to be her "true self" by not telling her she is actually a boy trapped in a girls body and then proceed to destroy her body, life, and identity to suit old gender tropes.

Sadly i'm not sure how much longer humanity has on this planet... if we keep yelling at each other over this type of crap (instead of just letting people live their lives and also not trying to force people to be respectful) ... all we have left is our own self to worry about

So i will be ww2 german

Little Edit:,, Be the best Version of yourself.

😂

That is actually a great question. "Becoming" is a very philosophical verb about the nature of nature itself... She's specifically referring to simone's philosophy around the early conception of the difference between the biological objectivity of the body and the aocial construction around and about that object

@@imiguifurr Quit conflating gender/sex with personality traits and temperament and gender roles, as though they're synonymous. They're Not. All men are born male, all females are born female and there are exactly ZERO exceptions. Neither are social constructs, feelings, fetishes or costumes. Your DNA literally organizes your physical body. DNA dictates the production of objective biological differences between males and females. 100% of the population is either male or female, even intersex people. If they have a Y chromosome, they are heterogametic and male. If not, they are homogametic and female. But you knew that because you've actually educated yourself on these conditions, right? Personality traits and temperament (Neither of which is gender exclusive -- hence effeminate males, butch females and tomboys), aren't synonymous with gender or gender roles. There is no internal feeling that is exclusive to men or women (or boys/girls), what makes anyone a man or a woman is being either male or female and reaching adulthood. Their sex and stage of physical maturity makes them men or women, not some "feeling" they have. Believing there is some "essence" specific to males or female as far as feelings go, that can manifest "in the wrong body", is akin to a religious belief, having faith in something that is impossible to prove or disprove. The thing is though, that no one on the "trans" side can actually even explain what this "essence" is, they can't even explain it to themselves yet have convinced themselves that the feeling they have means they "are in the wrong body" - without realizing that their discomfort simply stems from not realizing that they view conforming to sexist stereotypes as legitimate measures of manhood or womanhood. That is why every explanation given of WHY a male "can't be a man, but is instead woman" etc. relies upon listing stereotypical stuff, or, in some cases is completely abstract and refuses to actually provide any explanation of what they mean, simply stating they "know" that what they feel means what they say it does, even though they can't actually provide a definition of it. "It's hard to explain but I know I'm right" is an attitude one constantly comes up against - a religious faith in something they can't define. This idea that the terms "man" and "woman" carry all this baggage, sexist stereotypes, that people need to live up to or feel comfortable with is a complete fabrication coming from the "trans" side. You lot want a term to reflect aspects of your personality as well, you want to create more boxes to put people in, as you won't accept simply just being a man or a woman based on being born male or female (and reaching adulthood, obviously people are boys and girls before becoming men or women), but believe you need this "freedom of expression" to broadcast what sexist stereotypes you feel more comfortable with - thinking the world needs to adopt the sexist view you lot have (you fail to see just how much you have in common with Conservatives). Replacing objective definitions which are based in physical reality, with entirely subjective metaphysical claims, is not logical in any way, is not morally superior, and is demonstrably harmful, not least to female rights and protections, but also to practically anyone that buys into it as it warps people's perception of the underlying issues. It hinders people in their quest for individuation, creating this false narrative of them becoming more "authentic" when the total opposite is true, they believe they need validation from others in order to be happy etc. instead of being encouraged to find more inner strength and resilience with less reliance on how people see them. Demanding to be legally recognized as the opposite sex of what one is, is in no way shape or form more authentic than accepting the physical reality one is born into. To believe we as individuals can have 100% control over our identity in society, what we are seen as by others, in interaction with, and in relation to, society/the world/physical existence is a fool's errand, it is a delusional understanding of reality and existence.

I'm just sorry I can't "like" you twice!

@@markfoster1520haha me too 😊

lol. Mental illness is more and more common 😊

"I wish I could take a break from these infernal new clothes!" - The Emperor

see a psychiatrist asap

The concept of Gender as something that is distinct from Sex is extremely new. Like, 1950's new. Coined by people who performed experiments that would today be illegal, and likely lead to a life of condemnation. Go ahead and look up John Money, and/or the history of the word gender.

a slate to its use, i think i see your point but i disagree. a father is a fulfilment of the role. a mother is a fulfilment of the role. both should be encouraged because they are better than the mentally ill or narcisist alternatives with regards to a functioning peaceful society. we all have the capacity to choose to not fulfil our roles but to do so is pretty obviously to our detriment

@@dkillips A father will typically be a certain way on average, and a mother too, but these roles are essentially the same; they are both carer roles, taking on different responsibilities, as it's too difficult to do it all. If the mother is the breadwinner and the father the person who cares for the home, the child is given the same support. Although this is less typical, it doesn't act as a detriment to anyone. If you are a parent and don't fulfil the role of parent in any way, then you're simply a bad parent, regardless of sex. Gender doesn't need to be a part of any of this. In fact, it's worse, because you're disallowing people to do what feels right to them, especially if it so happens that you don't adhere to your sex's "typical" traits. That turns out to be a lot of people mind you; there's more variance of temperament within each sex than there is between them.

I agree with you!! Have been thinking the same way and finally someone said this

I have often heard people defend their sexist arguments with ''men and women are different''. Yes Sherlock, obviously they are, but pointing out some people are born with a penis and some with a vagina doesn't validate claiming women should stay at home and watch the kids, as if they may not have any other dreams or aspirations. Even tho it is theoretically true, men and women ARE different, I always wince when I hear someone say it because 99% of the time they actually mean the nasty, disproven stuff that is sexist. A good rule of thumb is to only focus on the physical sex differences, because it's been proven time and time again that, apart of some hormonal differences, the male and female brain are pretty much the same and think the same. Also, people don't seem to realize how much society influences the way someone behaves. The famous Scully effect was documented when there was a huge surge in women in the STEM field. And that is just ONE show. Then imagine how impactful a millenia of gender norms can influence someone. To finish it off, in most countries, the average IQ is so devastatingly close between men and women, it breaks your heart when you see people put such a huge emphasis on gender.

People with AIS are assigned female at birth, despite having testes and XY chromosomes... Expressions like those are describing objective reality. In objective reality there are no exceptions. If there are then you're not being objective. You cannot say "all things are green, except when they're not" because you're not saying anything of any substance or worth hearing.

your preference for “recognize” changes nothing about butler’s argument or the gender discussion. the doctor recognizes sex characteristics and then assigns a sex category to the body usually based on genitalia. butler wouldn’t disagree with this

@@user-pd2kt2dv5i it's not preference, but scientific research and methods. If you are not aware of the difference between "assigned" and "recognised" I recomend watching 5min speech of dr. Grossman. And then try to reply.

Medically she's correct, sex *is* assigned at birth, the doctor literally assigns you a sex based on a checklist of medical criteria. This is a useful distinction to make because of intersex people, some intersex people are born with ambiguous genitalia, somewhere between male or female genitals, the doctors have to make a call as to how to assign that person's sex and sometimes they get it wrong.

@@treeaboo Nope... Sex is established at conception and is observed and documented at birth or before. No, Gender (There are only 2 male/female... That's it) is established at conception and is observed at birth or before. Way too many conflate gender/sex with personality traits and temperament (There are a ton, and none are gender exclusive-- hence effeminate males, butch females and tomboys), and gender roles (Which vary from culture to culture, society to society and country to country--BUT, they all refer to the roles of males and females in those various cultures, countries, and societies... Without exception), as though they're all synonymous and that's a massive error. All women are born female, all men are born male and neither is a social construct, feeling, fetish nor a costume. The main problem the trans activists have is that life is based in objective reality and the trans imagination just doesn't override the vast majority of people's capacity to discern the difference. Your DNA literally organizes your physical body. DNA dictates the production of objective biological differences between males and females. 100% of the population is either male or female, even intersex people. If they have a Y chromosome, they are heterogametic and male. If not, they are homogametic and female. But you knew that because you've actually educated yourself on these conditions, right? Personality traits and temperament (Neither of which is gender exclusive -- hence effeminate males, butch females and tomboys), aren't synonymous with gender or gender roles. There is no internal feeling that is exclusive to men or women (or boys/girls), what makes anyone a man or a woman is being either male or female and reaching adulthood. Their sex and stage of physical maturity makes them men or women, not some "feeling" they have. Believing there is some "essence" specific to males or female as far as feelings go, that can manifest "in the wrong body", is akin to a religious belief, having faith in something that is impossible to prove or disprove. The thing is though, that no one on the "trans" side can actually even explain what this "essence" is, they can't even explain it to themselves yet have convinced themselves that the feeling they have means they "are in the wrong body" - without realizing that their discomfort simply stems from not realizing that they view conforming to sexist stereotypes as legitimate measures of manhood or womanhood. That is why every explanation given of WHY a male "can't be a man, but is instead woman" etc. relies upon listing stereotypical stuff, or, in some cases is completely abstract and refuses to actually provide any explanation of what they mean, simply stating they "know" that what they feel means what they say it does, even though they can't actually provide a definition of it. "It's hard to explain but I know I'm right" is an attitude one constantly comes up against - a religious faith in something they can't define. This idea that the terms "man" and "woman" carry all this baggage, sexist stereotypes, that people need to live up to or feel comfortable with is a complete fabrication coming from the "trans" side. You lot want a term to reflect aspects of your personality as well, you want to create more boxes to put people in, as you won't accept simply just being a man or a woman based on being born male or female (and reaching adulthood, obviously people are boys and girls before becoming men or women), but believe you need this "freedom of expression" to broadcast what sexist stereotypes you feel more comfortable with - thinking the world needs to adopt the sexist view you lot have (you fail to see just how much you have in common with Conservatives). Replacing objective definitions which are based in physical reality, with entirely subjective metaphysical claims, is not logical in any way, is not morally superior, and is demonstrably harmful, not least to female rights and protections, but also to practically anyone that buys into it as it warps people's perception of the underlying issues. It hinders people in their quest for individuation, creating this false narrative of them becoming more "authentic" when the total opposite is true, they believe they need validation from others in order to be happy etc. instead of being encouraged to find more inner strength and resilience with less reliance on how people see them. Demanding to be legally recognized as the opposite sex of what one is, is in no way shape or form more authentic than accepting the physical reality one is born into. To believe we as individuals can have 100% control over our identity in society, what we are seen as by others, in interaction with, and in relation to, society/the world/physical existence is a fool's errand, it is a delusional understanding of reality and existence.

Lol

Revise ourselves to think, speak, act and live sickly to rot! - Jude Butler

The very fundamental principle that Judith stands on is broken. And that broken idea gets hidden behind magical thinking, which is very attractive to people and narcissist's. She radicalizes her idea into a violent act by saying not thinking of gender as fluid, (which is just words in a language and not reality) as the people that are trying to "threaten democracy" or perform an "attack on gender". Her idea is broken at its core, and the has violently tribalized hate methods to cover that up with soft calm language. Oh, when she says society tells you what gender is, and not your body, that's the part that's broken, that's the part that introduces binary and "magical thinking" as real, when our bodies and the earth is real, and our thoughts are just our means of navigating and understanding the world around us. She is in a revolt of reality its self, and is inciting violence by making you think the world or society is the problem and not you, and if you question her thinking you are the problem. Making debate a hostel act, when really debate is the core necessity of science.

​@@AstroSquidthank you

​@@AstroSquidvery well said

You're exactly right and radical feminist critics of Butler agree with you. Gender ideology is based in stereotypes and homophobia. It says that if a boy wants to wear dresses and play with dolls that he must be trans, based on the sex stereotypes of our culture. Effeminate boys often grow up to be gay, or they're just effeminate and that's ok. And there are tomboys. In the real world, we know that most men and women aren't GI Joes and Barbie dolls but have a wide range of interests and presentations. You're a man because you're an adult male or a woman because you're an adult female. That's it. Everything else (wearing makeup, shooting guns) is your personality, interest, hobby, etc. that we may or may not associate with masculine or feminine traits in any given culture.

Yeaaa mannn let’s just let go of social norms and allow potentially predatory and mentally unstable biological men into women only bathrooms, sports and spaces. Live and let live ✌️

Yes, Gender theory is and will continue to just confuse the hell out of kids, as they think they need to choose a gender. People have personalities that make them like certain things, period, and that is allowed and should be accepted in todays world. But the current state is that trans people arient being told they are accepted for who they are, which is different from who gender ideologists are telling them what sex or gender they could be.

Couldn't have said it better myself

This is how most 'nonbinary' people probably feel. I myself think we should abolish the idea of 'people being more similar to one another than different'

Love this! Glad you found happiness.

god bless you.... I went to a socialist march here in Los Angeles and I was so happy to have trans people walking beside me. I got a glimpse of a potential future that MLK was talking about. I want to respect trans people... everyone deserves dignity. Keyword EVERYONE

To each thier own. ❤

@@Gundum good for you. So long you’re happy. ❤

Judith has a brilliant take on this. Protect her at all costs

Great point! Maybe we should have used "personality" instead of gender. Before all this, when I was younger, doctor forms asked for "gender" meaning sex. It was interchangeable and meant the same thing. People gave the word "gender" a new definition, but I think much conflict would have been avoided if we just used a different word. "Hi I'm x and I have a female/ male/ non binary personality". Sounds much clearer and easy to understand.

That's what you get with decades of this psuedoacademic drivel

@@ladysensei1487 gender is just one aspect of personality, personality is much more than stuff that is related to sex, so a term like gender makes sense

Beauvoir was a pedo

Simone de Beauvoir is from mid 20th century. The scientific study of sexuality advanced a lot in these last decades, but Butler ignores it, and thinks she can take ideas about sexuality out of her head (and the heads of other armchair philosophers who also ignore scientific research).

5:16 the most misinterpreted sentence "one is not born a woman, but rather becomes one" basically means the exact opposite this woman is claiming. De Beauvoir is talking about 'the concept/idea' of a woman as a role in society, not an actual woman (an adult human female). The meaning is that the concept 'woman' is accomplished when females play the role society wants them to: wife, mother, beautiful, carer, passive... That's what de Beauvoir is criticising, not affirming. The book is called "the second S EX" for a reason 🤦🏻‍♀️ because it's about the oppression women suffer because of their s ex, not their gender identity or other made up things. I'm just leaving the comment in case anyone is interested.

@@4651adri if you qualify gender identity as "made up" then I think you may be the one misinterpreting...

@@4651adri Beauvoir never equated "woman" with just "adult human female". She instead spent 800 or so pages exploring the question of "who is woman, and why is she the other?", and used "woman" and "feminine" often interchangeably - which, to be fair, has also to do with the French language. AND she was a major existentialist, while gender transition - defining oneself to live authentically - is pretty much the most existentialist thing one can do.

I completely agree!

dude your just gender non conforming. Nothing worng with it.

Yes! Replace "gender" by "personality" and we are back on our feet.

Well said sir.

I agree with you on gender abolition, but there are many people for whom gender is important and meaningful. I suppose the best path forward here, then, is to allow gender to become split up into more and more sublabels until the meaning and need for such labels becomes obsolete. All this, while at the same time rectifying the gender inequality currently present in our systems. Regardless, I think the most important part is not to understand gender identity and all the ins and outs of gender theory, but to go into the world with an open mind and respect for others.

insane how she doesnt even realise

Yes, and so what. This is America. We have freedom of religion.

@@brianiller7104 but not freedom from immorality

@@robertsimmons8249 thats why precisly China , Iran and Russia have stopped entertaining the notion that USA should be the moral compass and police of the world with this nonsense.

What differentiates atheists, agnostics and even moderate religious people from religious extremists is that although we all have strong ideas about morality, the first group mostly focuses that inwards to change themselves. The second group, however, wields morality like a bat to beat other people up. But it's okay, because they'll claim it's not THEIR bat, it's God's... You can't outsource morality to a made-up entity and then claim people are arrogant for wanting to figure out what's right or wrong and act on it. Besides, you missed her entire point because she was explicitly criticizing self-righteousness.

Same 🤣

😂😂

I actually couldnt wait for the video to end to read the comments 😂

We starting a flame war in the KZfaq™ comments section with this one🔥🔥🔥

This argument will not end anytime soon and it's the same points from both sides every time tbh

I cannot abide people who also don't recognize that when it rains the pavement gets wet. Narcissism rains in " my interpretation is as good as reality " . Who we are in a final way is not the same as biological reality .

@@QuintaJoryal I don't get why. Statements of opinion and fact are of different qualities. You shouldn't need to explain that your view on something is your opinion. It's so annoying to me.

@@wgo523I think this is not obvious at all for plenty of people I also find it trivial and annoying

Yes and no. On the one hand, Butler is directly concerned with a critique of the ontologisation of the empirical, which is why she would never call her arguments "facts". That would be reflexively rather unfavourable, because it would also imply a claim to unquestionable correctness. On the other hand, it is not just a matter of mere views or opinions, but in this respect an ethical postulate, which she also justifies rationally.

So glad you feel "comfortable." 😂😂😂

Correct

The idea is more like assigned by the DNA in the person's body

Sex/gender is "Established" at conception, and is observed and documented at birth or before.

@@zachman5150 did ya'll morons even watch the vidoe? Sex and gender are not the same thing,

How do they do with hermaphrodite babies?

A female is not a woman at birth, get your terms straight. Girls are not women, but both are female.

Different people feel differently about where they fall on a spectrum of gender. That's the short answer. The idea of "gender" is still mysterious I think but society ascribes certain things to certain genders and therefore if you feel female you might gravitate toward those things that are typically female. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as a person doesn't feel forced to adopt stereotypic behavior just to call themselves a certain gender.

excellent point..well said..

and some people do, and I'm grateful to all of them. But does one require radical action from everyone who finds themselves in a position to take it, morally or practically. additionally, pronouns are part of social role - sir or ma'am these are components of social role. I think part of the confusion is with language. When a trans man says he is a man he means "I would like to be treated in accordance with the social role we call man". Man in this sense is being used to signify the social role use of the term -- the fact that we use 'man' to mean everything from obviously socially determined things to the presence or absence of specific body features is absolutely a problem linguistically and causes a lot of strife and confusion. Perhaps we shouldn't do that. But if so, why do we so regularly use the word "man" when chromosomes or gametes have absolutely nothing to do with the situation? Clearly the way the word is used is being used both in situations where biology matters and in ones where it absolutely does not. I am not sure why there is a categorical line between taking on the social role of man except for the pronouns and doing the same thing but also changing pronouns? if someone wants to live the social role of man, up to and including the way men tend to address each other or try to look more like the way men are taught they should strive to look, that's up to him. If someone else wants to actively challenge the categorical lines we put between the social roles of man and woman, and call herself a woman while acting in many of the same ways, and be referred to as she/her, good for her. I don't demand one action or the other, and I hardly see why my demands even matter here anyway. I think whatever our future understanding of gender is can and will have to accommodate both of these desires. What we mean by gender role is always changing, and what we put in or outside of the bounds of any category shifts with society and culture. I'd love to live in a world where there are no gender roles at all, where we treat the sex marker no differently than we treat the eye color or height markers on our IDs. But that is not the world we live in, and I don't want to place the burden of getting there squarely on the shoulders of the people most harmed by this current system. It's not my place to tell them to take one path or another in living their life. Both paths you mention are radical in their own ways, imo, but that hardly matters - people are not obligated to be iconoclasts.

I don’t think that the desire to transition is a desire to be radical or progressive. It’s just a desire to live and present to the world in a way which more closely aligns with your felt sense of gender. Whether it’s ‘radical’ or ‘regressive’ doesn’t really come into it for most people suffering with gender dysphoria.

“To be a woman or man”. Is she talking about biology or psychology? She herself conflates sex and gender. How can sex be ‘assigned’ at birth but then gender is nurtured? I thought that she accepted that biological differences were factual? Is she contradicting herself?

Congratulations! You weren't born with an incongruence between your gender and your sex. How lucky for you. I wish I'd been that lucky, but I wasn't. That doesn't make me unhealthy, it just makes me transgender.

I believe this is a healthier way to articulate it. Personality trait/temperament.

@reachtrev69 The five broad personality traits are extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Where do you fit gender incongruence into any of those? Or are you proposing to add gender incongruence as a new personality trait?

@@Kleineganz You are unhealthy. There's nothing feminine or masculine other than the body. If you like dresses, wear dresses, but that doesn't make you a woman, your body does. If you like to work in the army or drive a truck, do it, without mutilating yourself, because truck drivers are not supposed to only have a penis between their legs. But accept what you have. Accept your body the way it is. Act the way you want! You just reject who you are, and therapy is the answer.

youre a woman, you were meant to be one. youre not a man, you will never be one, you cant be. Science dictates this. Yes, society may be cruel and setup behavioral expectations. This is your lot in life. You were born to your parents in a specific country. You can pick your friends, you cant pick your family and you cant pick your gender. Will you be miserable not accepting social norms for a woman. YES YOU WILL. Thats a choice. If youre prepared to deal emotionally with the consequences of people looking at you trying to be a man when youre really a woman, best of luck to you. I dont have to play along with a fantasy. I must live in my reality, the one i was born into. Its LIFE. Embrace it, stop fighting it. Women are different than men in so many wonderful ways. Find a man that adores you for the woman you were meant to be. No woman can love you that way, ever. My first wife so so wonderfully feminine until she stepped onto a basketball court. She never wanted to lose. Its ok to have attributes more closely linked to the other gender, no argument there. It makes you so amazingly unique as the woman that you are.. There is a man out there, right now. He is seeking YOU and everything you are. Let him find you and make you the happiest you can be. Hope is so much more desirable that despair.

Its always interesting to me that John Money is used to attack transpeople, when the lesson that should be taken from the John Money situation is the opposite - you cannot impose a gender on someone and insist they follow it based solely on their biological characteristics. The consequences can be severe mental trauma. This is exaclty what trans people have been arguing for decades!

​@@Celestina0So you shouldn't push your gender ideology on children?

@@whateverwhatever4026you shouldn’t pick your kids gender for them. what transphobes want to do to trans kids isn’t much better than what john money did to the poor kid.

@@Celestina0 That's called confirmation bias. The only reason that Rimer had an issue with his gender was that it was objectively incongruent with his biology. Gender dysphoria is when you "feel" as though there is an incongruency between your sex and gender - but gender dysphoria is a mental disorder while Rimer was simply lied to.

​@@whateverwhatever4026the only one forcing children to be who they are not is you tbh

I was overjoyed when Simone De Beauvoir was mentioned! She's my hero.

Judith Butler says that parental incest against children is sometimes not a violation. This is “queer theory.” Hat tip to Derrick Jensen for compiling the quotes from Butler (and for his commentary in between the Butler quotes). Here are Butler’s words “queersplaining” why parents raping children is sometimes okay: In her 2004 book Undoing Gender, she wrote, “It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be­--and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not--­it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside.”[1] So here she is arguing that sometimes parent-child incest is not a violation. She also wrote, “The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.”[2] This is the same old pro-pedo argument we’ve seen so many times already: if you perceive children who are being fucked/raped by adults as the victims of sexual abuse then you are oppressing and objectifying the child. And she wrote, “So I keep adding this qualification: ‘when incest is a violation,’ suggesting that I think that there may be occasions in which it is not. Why would I talk that way? Well, I do think that there are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.”[3] And there we go again, with the same old pro-pedo notion that it’s not the child rape that is harmful: it’s the social stigma that is harmful. And to bring it all home, she suggests, along with the other pro-pedo queer theorists and anarchists, that prohibiting parent/child incest is in itself harmful: “It might, then, be necessary to rethink the prohibition on incest as that which sometimes protects against a violation, and sometimes becomes the very instrument of a violation.”[4]

@@Memebrain777 your boy Derrick doesn't understand Judith Butler. I know that you didn't begin feeling angry about Judith Butler's theories because you were doing reading about incest, so what is your actual problem, and why have you decided to crusade against her with this nonsense?

​@@Memebrain777So, Queer theory is when.. No querness is involved? Instead, Queer theory is um, let's see... child abuse? Actual brainrot of an argument.

@@Memebrain777Derrick hasn’t done you any favours. Read the whole chapter. She’s not saying what you think she’s saying.

The algorithm knows you just can’t stop watching the stupidest culture war of our times. I prefer Covid to this trans nonsense.

then don’t

Dude, just prepare for the purge like I do.

Asking the same thing myself...

Same here. I guess I just want to know "other side" so we can better understand each other when talking about these issues. The more I watch their apologists the more I am astonished by their dogmaticism, logical inconsistency and factual and logical errors.

The problem with these sorts of short bite sized quotes is that they are always plucked out of a body of text which strips it of meaning and context. If you really want to understand what the person who stated “the body is not a fact” actually meant, then you need to go and read all of what they wrote. Don’t just assume you understand better a subject based on a short 6 word sentence.

​@@CharlieNoodleslol

@@johnsmith7140 ?

@@CharlieNoodlesbeautifully said.

Our bodies define our biological functions. Not the person we become in society, our personality or who we love. The body is not a fact, it's a tool, a shell we use to navigate the world. But we'll always exist beyond our bodies.

Perfect! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

have you ever had sex with a biological human?

money is also a social construct, and we've all tried to find a way out

Social construct means that it's a construct society imposes upon you. You personally might decide to disregard it, but others will still have an idea of what 'gender' you are.

@@torginus Just because the society imposes a social construct doesn't determine whether or not that social construct is valid or correct. I deem it invalid and arbitrary. You can impose it all you want, but myself and the majority of the population refuse to adhere to it.

Different cultures, or different points in time throughout history even. It's a very interesting question

@@jazwhoaskedforthis Then why are surgery or hormones necessary? This is what I don't buy.

Yep. They should leave sex alone. But they can't and won't.

​@williammkydde whose they? Or are you just gesturing at an imaginary boogy man.

@@panopticon7883 You know, you're part of it. I don't have to explain obvious things.

@williammkydde it's not obvious, I'm genuinely curious, please explain.

@@panopticon7883 Do you call our governments "boogy man"? Are you a human?

By challenge you mean 1. The same thing I've heard and already explained a million times like some kind of tour guide simply because people expect a explanation for my existence instead of just letting me live, and these aren't simple short topics, it's like giving a whole lecture 2. Really dumb stuff, like extremely dumb stuff, religious bullshit I don't believe in and that should have nothing to do with me, people who don't believe in individual liberty (even though they might claim to be fans). 3. Asking inappropriate questions about my genitals and how I have sex. There's a certain point you just need to mind your own business and let people live and practice their own individual liberty, you know?

@@No-ky3kb Atleast they stopped with the "leave the kids alone" bs.

@@frenchfry4017 Fortunately they'll never stop!

​@@No-ky3kbI'm a gay atheist and a socialist, and I don't believe in gender. Gender cannot be observed or measured objectively (that's why we're told to ask for pronouns), therefore it is an unproven hypothesis. Butler manipulates and distorts almost everything in her video and she never references any science throughout. Her manipulations and lies have inspired terrible confusion in LGB children, she has given license for males to invade lesbian spaces, she is a lazy philosopher, a fraud, and the imo the worst L to have ever lived. Shame on her for all of the hurt and pain her lies have caused LGB people.

Isn‘t that happening? New ideas always try to propose new ideas to the Status Quo, so to everyone else. So it‘s normal that they get challenged.

100%. I'm tired of trans identified people, "trans right activists" and "allies" purposely misconstruing her words.

Correct. First French to English book ( translation) was worst translation ever. They fixed it later but this akward notion on gender still exists.😅

The "body is not a fact" means what you basically described tho

@@jamestank8819 No, by "the body is not a fact" Butler means that bodies(!) are socially constructed. That's applied postmodernism.

⁠@@MK-uz4mo Judith Butler is literally trans but okay

I can almost agree with what u said, but the problem relies on how broad gender actually is. Gender is an identity and people identify as whatever the hell they want. I don't have problem saying that a trans woman is a woman or that a trans man is a man, but I will never believe in what you identify if you're out of one of these 2 gender (Man and woman). And that's where things starts to get messy. Gender Ideology believers like to say that people should treat them by their right pronouns, but a lot of them don't even have a gender to begin with/transitions gender every second. And if you refuse to call that weird guy as deer/deerself (? XD It exists, there is a Twitch user called Ferocious that identifies himself as a deer) because... well, you can't be gender deer, it doesn't exist (You're a human being, to begin with) these gender freaks will do everything they can to destroy your life. That's actually the only real problem with all of this gender ideology thing that a 100% agree. Non binaries doesn't exist and forcing people to deny science to accept someone else's identity is the definition of dictatorship.

​@@pedrovitor5324 the thing is, we have terms already available to describe them. A trans man is exactly what the term states as with trans woman. You don't need to change your beliefs about who should be called what. Once the politicization of this issue dies down we'll forget about each other's genitalia and get back to hating everything else about each other.

So you have your own theory about gender, just like Judith said. Cool!

@@pedrovitor5324 "these gender freaks will do everything they can to destroy your life" is all I need to know about you........ It's not your life that is being destroyed. You talk about dictatorship, yet your words are fascist. Maybe take a closer look at yourself, and what's in your own heart.

Gender is a believe system. It’s what I and only I believe what suits me the best. It’s unfalsifiable. Recognizing that is very important in this debate. If we can live for thousands of years with religion, I don’t see any reason why can’t find a way to accept it in our society.

Spoken like a person who has never had problems with people refusing to acknowledge their preferred XYZ.

@@Giby86 you can think of me and call me whatever. No sleep lost.

should i then treat black in a certain way because they're black ? is that okay?

@@Giby86 Spoken like a person who doesn't know how to critically think about this situation holistically and instead uses a rhetorical fallacy as their argument. @AA53057 That's well said.

@@portraits_of_bliss let me try that then.. we haven’t had a dialogue for me to believe I was shutting down any of your opinions from a premise of my statement. You accused me of not knowing what it’s like for someone to deny my request for them to treat me a certain way. I definitely do, as do most people by some point. I spent all my 20s being insecure about my appearance with social anxiety. It stunted my growth as a person. I don’t know what it’s like to have gender dysphoria, but the scope of my original comment went beyond gender identity and was just my 2 cents of a truth I spent over a decade suffering through. If that can help someone with what they are going through then fantastic. There is nothing wrong with wanting people to respect a request that you make(how people refer to you), and in certain environments such as school or work, people adhering to that is essential and enforceable by the establishments we reside in. Said establishments shouldn’t hire or treat people based off labels but from character and competency in a functional meritocracy. We cannot control other people’s freedom of expression. If Bob wants to call Sally a lint licking cootie queen behind her back or to her face during a run in with each other at bingo night, he is free to do so. Discrimination is real, it is also human nature, and saying so, doesn’t justify the act. That is why we have HR and cultural shifts towards more tolerance, which is sorely needed in an internet connected, non homogeneous society. The clashes I see in the realm of gender is more of an argument of semantics and how that pertains to what is considered fair and safe for all parties. Besides trolling, I would be surprised if most people that disagree with you are doing so with malicious intent. Most people now days can identify discrimination and do not condone it. Edit: I thought you were the other person lol. I’ll keep this here though.

she sounds like bill clinton when they asked him just about anything. ON one hand......

This video isn't going to provide you with a one sentence zinger. Much like race, gender requires cross disciplinary academic study. If you want to listen to what she's saying, she will provide you with an in-depth breakdown of gender and gender identity. This is an expert who has dedicated her life to academic research and sociological questioning. Assuming you know better just because you disagree is insanely arrogant.

@@wynburke It isn't a matter of disagreement. People just want to have it explained to them. Before getting into all the details, what does 'gender' actually mean?

Imagine coming into a video about a subject as vague and subjective from culture to culture as gender, thinking it's going to provide you with a rigid definition.

@@user-vt9xz7vo6x But are you able to offer at least a start? Give us a clue.

@@RickyM6666 an under understatement

Good for you

Loser

​@@nedab1067and around people closed minded like yourself, but there is nothing to worry about, man will always want to hate what doesnt compensate them.

You are not an adult.

Holy shit, I forgot that could happen

It does not stand to reason that ambiguity in personality types automatically results in the acceptance of the philosophies being espoused by this professor.

Judith Butler says that parental incest against children is sometimes not a violation. This is “queer theory.” Hat tip to Derrick Jensen for compiling the quotes from Butler (and for his commentary in between the Butler quotes). Here are Butler’s words “queersplaining” why parents raping children is sometimes okay: In her 2004 book Undoing Gender, she wrote, “It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be­--and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not--­it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside.”[1] So here she is arguing that sometimes parent-child incest is not a violation. She also wrote, “The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.”[2] This is the same old pro-pedo argument we’ve seen so many times already: if you perceive children who are being fucked/raped by adults as the victims of sexual abuse then you are oppressing and objectifying the child. And she wrote, “So I keep adding this qualification: ‘when incest is a violation,’ suggesting that I think that there may be occasions in which it is not. Why would I talk that way? Well, I do think that there are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.”[3] And there we go again, with the same old pro-pedo notion that it’s not the child rape that is harmful: it’s the social stigma that is harmful. And to bring it all home, she suggests, along with the other pro-pedo queer theorists and anarchists, that prohibiting parent/child incest is in itself harmful: “It might, then, be necessary to rethink the prohibition on incest as that which sometimes protects against a violation, and sometimes becomes the very instrument of a violation.”[4]

@@Memebrain777 This lady, man, or whatever, is among the least intelligent people ever employed by a university.

Right because there’s masculine women and feminine men. But a feminine man is still a man and still will have some masculine traits and behaviors that will never change. It doesn’t matter what society does or if they were told they were a girl from day one and were treated like a girl their whole life. It’s happened. One of the gender theory founders (who was a sick pedophile child abuser) did a study where he did a sex change on an infant boy and his family lied to him and told him he was a girl. But he still had male traits. He was still miserable being confused thinking he was a girl when he was a boy the whole time. He ended up lol himself. Gender definitely isn’t a social construct. Have children and you’ll see it. With little babies and the way women and men act around children. This whole theory is a lie made up by a pedophile. Pedophiles are pushing it on children. It’s disgusting and wrong.

Because we live in a world where we think mental illness is the new norm.

gender dysphoria

100%

The entire ideology is chock full of nonsense like this.

TRUTH!!!

Yes, yes, to the mental and moral degradation that falls under the name of "freedom". You are really ignorant to the point of being affected by one video.

Here she is being prescriptive, rather than revelatory. Before Butler got paid attention to, the focus was on BEING YOURSELF, and expressing yourself how you wanted to. Being yourself isn't what she's saying - and that's why what she's saying is dumb.

In other words, "Change your opinion to MY point of view, because it is the correct one"

For Butler 2+2= what ever she wants it to.

@@johnsimspon8893 It's not even close to logic bro it just says nonsense with some rudimentary evidence

Yes that’s what assigned means.

@@avacadomangobanana2588 What do you mean by that? The user above just demonstrated that it's not assigned.

but, but, but... isn't that what was already said in the video?

Those abnormalities shows exactly that sex is assigned to some degree. I had a friend who klinefelter syndrome meaning he has xxy chromosomes, I would never have known and nor do we care, his sex stands as male because we overlooked his chromosome difference. He is not irrelevant, he is a living example of the binary not binarying.

​@@flaviusmuntean6391I think there was some confusion about what "assigned" means.

She bears a resemblance to George Soros. No proof of blood/DNA relation, but still.

The dictionary is a description of how humans use language, i.e. it's a description of how humans think about and categorize things in the world. To point out that the dictionary has changed is to point out that society has changed. That's the point Butler was making.

@@deadeaded LOLOLOL imagine thinking this is a 'descriptivist' definition of the word. Bullshit, pure prescriptivism.

@@ashleybrooks-lawrence5972 Are the prescriptivist lexicographers in the room with us right now?

@@deadeaded DEFLECT! ATTACK! DENY!

@@ashleybrooks-lawrence5972 I invoke Hitchens's razor: "that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" Anyone who knows anything about lexicography knows that modern lexicographers are almost universally descriptivists. You are fighting an enemy that doesn't exist.

maybe it's not the answer. Maybe people are right when they say that changing the body you have through hormones/surgery/etc so that you can go from one box to another is ultimately futile for some people. Maybe the push to liberate people from discrimination on the basis of sex and gender, when done wrong, makes some people feel like, oxymoronically, their right to define themselves is being taken away- and no matter how far that strays from the original movement, that feeling is valid. But I don't actually think that "people should have the right to change their bodies" and "we should stop gender from defining us" are contradictory statements. I don't think transgender liberation involves trying to "streamline highly subjective concepts", nor do I think most trans people want to. I'm transgender. I have dysphoria. I'm not sure about medically transitioning yet, but I have gone by a different name, used a bunch of pronouns other than the ones I was socialized with, and shrugged at so, so many different people asking me what my gender was and how I knew. I don't know what my gender is! And what I've found, in both trans and cis people, is even when people are very confident in what gender they are, if you ask the average person what makes them a woman, or a man, or a bunch of other things, and what makes them sure- they'll get a little foggy eyed, and you'll get a bunch of different answers. Your very conservative grandmother might tell you it's because she was born a woman, and she's never had a problem with being one. Your transgender schoolmate might tell you it's because he always wanted to go through male puberty, and when he didn't, he knew there was something wrong with him. Your cisgender uncle might confess that, although he's never felt the need to be traditionally masculine, he has always felt like a man- and although others might not have understood that distinction, he knew it didn't really matter. Your genderfluid cousin might tell you it's because xe likes wearing flowery dresses and suits, likes being Mr. and Ms., and likes being pretty and handsome, and when people tried to force xim into one category, xe disavowed all unchanging labels. the fact is that it's very difficult to stop gender from defining you when *so* many things in society do that for you- from primary school lunch tables to sleepovers, from school sports to locker rooms to public showers, from clothing shopping to period pad packaging to advertisements what your sister and brother get for birthday presents, nearly everything you will do in life comes with the connotations of male vs. female, boys vs. girls, pink vs. blue, and somewhere in there, whatever the hell is going on with the boy moms of tiktok. That's fine for some people. a lot of people won't notice, or they'll take it as the way life needs to be in intelligent societies. But others might take issue with that binary. whether it is because they want to sit with the boys and the girls at lunch, or because they feel like those systems are used to oppress women, or because they don't think they were given the manual to those rules, or because they want in on the other side, there are always going to be some people who are very uncomfortable with being told, "this is how your life needs to be, and everyone else is fine doing what they need to do". And, like I've already said, even if it seems like a mere sliver of the larger population, those feelings deserve to be heard. What you're describing isn't impossible- I think it's a good goal! I think a lot people would benefit from knowing that their gender/pronouns/voice/body type don't need to define their lives. But it's very hard to constantly have that other voice telling them that gender is a fact, sex is a fact, body type is a fact, and any and all discomfort with the cards you were dealt makes you stupid and sick. Maybe in a utopian society, gender/pronouns/voice/body type wouldn't define the way you were treated in a society at all, but they do, and since we're social creatures, that does define a big part of your life (unless you live alone in a cave underground, which, with the way things are going right now on the surface, can't blame ya). I think you're right when you say that we should make the best of what we have, but I also think that sometimes, making the best of what we have involves shaking things up a little. A man, trans or cis with a very high voice shouldn't feel like he needs to change his voice to be accepted as a man, but what if he's talked to his therapist and wants to start voice training so that he's treated better? Is that okay? If it is, is that only because he's been assessed by a medical professional? is it okay if he's cis but not if he's trans? if it's not, why? Is trying to change this aspect of his body a way of avoiding addressing his negative self image, or will it help? Should he suck his discomfort up and deal with it to inspire all the other high-voiced men out there? I ask these questions honestly because like I've already said, I don't have all the answers, and I don't pretend I do. These are things that I debate, both with myself and others. Is the right to change yourself the same as the right to self expression? Are those rights inalienable? Does a random lawmaker you've never met who lives ten hours away from you have the right to tell you what parts of yourself you should love, and which ones you should hate? I think people change themselves all the time, both temporarily and permanently. I dye my hair purple every winter because I get bad seasonal depression, and the bright colors make me feel happy. People may start going to therapy because they want a more positive outlook on life. Actors put on costumes, makeup, and even elaborate prosthetics to look like what they strive to imitate. People have their last name legally changed to reflect the relationships they have with the people they love. People have their badly damaged limbs amputated because they don't want intensive, painful restorative surgeries. Cisgender women have their breast size reduced because of back pain, or enlarged because they feel that makes them more feminine. And, most critically to the whole international discussion, transgender (and cisgender!) people use different pronouns than the ones they were expected to, change their names, go on hormones or hormone blockers, and get surgery that chances the shape of their body. All of these experiences are different because we're all different, and we change as a more natural part of life than this whole idea of "gender" ever was. those changes might be difficult. The reactions of the people we care about might hurt. But doesn't it matter if someone wants them, and if it changes an important part of the unique life they live for the better? I don't think transgender liberation comes at the cost of freedom to live the life you want. Humans aren't a set of preset options for gender/pronouns/voice/body type, and I don't think anyone genuinely believes that. I think some people are scared of change- if a transgender woman faces misogyny on the basis of her gender expression, what does that mean for the cisgender woman who always viewed discrimination on the basis of sex? If we broaden and increase these categories and allow people to choose how they express, why they express that way, and what they view themselves internally, that might be scary for some people. And that's okay. It really is. But no one is forcing your children, your friends, or you to act a certain way because of trans liberation. We want you to live your life on your terms, just as we wish people would calm down about the conspiracies they read on Facebook and let us live ours. sorry for leaving an essay length reply on your comment, random internet stranger. I probably misspelled some things, could have worded others better, and I'm definitely missing some important stuff (aren't we all?). But, yeah. Just wanted to put that out there for your enjoyment, criticisms, and discussion, however you feel about it.

The reason doctors recommend trans affirming care is because it's been shown to be extremely effective. The mental health issues in the trans community are well known and in particular the suicide rate being 10x higher than the general population. Trans folk that go through the whole protocol - therapy, then puberty blockers, then HRT, then surgery (when they're adults) by contrast actually have better mental health than the general population. It being safe and effective isn't something to brush aside when the treatment saves lives. Having a more tolerant society is also needed but this isn't an either/or imo

When they said "bodies can be more free to breathe, to move, to love" -- my mind immediately went to chest binders and I was like... that ain't breathing better or moving better.

​@@im2randomghghthat is a lie. There are not long term studies of hormone replacement effects, or surgeries, etc, mainly because they are experimental stuff. You can give your opinion, but do not lie, that's wrong

@@TheScaredLittleScholar omg this is the most detailed, logical and empathetic description I have seen about this topic. I really want to thank you for writing this in such a lucid way. In fact, it's probably the best youtube comment I've ever read :) I am cis-gendered but this helps me understand trans people and our society so much better and helps me be a better ally and a better person.

It's come out that pervert doctors and degenerative actors with a really sick fetish are mainly responsible followed by a wave of online pedophiles whispering in their ears of neglected youth, More and more people are coming out. Happy Straight Modesty Month by the way.

Exactly! Bravo. One sane and intelligent comment on this very unfortunate list of naive and “philosophy wise” ignorant comments.

@@luizalouyoga happy 11 months of straight modesty to you too fellow internet person.

@@PostalFerretWithRum Cheers, mate 🍻

Let's also not forget that if "gender is a social construct" then it is society that says what gender you are. You don't get to pick one yourself.

But you believe God can part the seas and walk on water ? And words do change our understanding of things and beings around us. Reality as an objective material plane is only accessible to us through the cognitive and linguistic schemas the we employ. As those change so does our interpretation of ‘reality’ itself change.

@@RationalistMH Why should a man, regardless of his anxiety about his gender which was established at conception and was observed and documented at his birth, or his desire that reality were different, be treated as anything other than a man?? The inability to cope with things as they are in reality, rather than as you/they wished they were in your/their subjective imaginations, doesn't change reality. The main problem the trans activist's narratives have is that life is based in objective reality, and most people don't have difficulty deciphering reality from the trans imagination. What you exist as, is a matter of objective reality, and wishing you were something else doesn't affect that in the slightest. All men are born male, all women are born female and neither are social constructs, feelings, costumes, fetishes or preferences. That you/they can't accept that, is at the root of the problem w/ GD. It's the inability to cope with things as they are in reality, rather than as you/they wished things were-- while failing to realize that your imagination doesn't impact the capacity for discernment of the vast majority to decipher reality from the trans imagination.

Ouch lmao, that's honestly kind of sad I feel bad for the 10k+ people suing them now for medical malpractice though. Best of luck on their way to a good life again.

Lol then don’t watch

@@ht21 Did you not read my comment or did you think I was being sarcastic? I wasn't being sarcastic, that was a sincere comment.

So? This video explicitly puts you in the bag of the mass murdering SS if you don't accept her drivel. Multiple times she calls arguments against her stupid ideas an attack. Castrating and slaughtering the gullible victims of the plastic genitals industry for profit is called freedom by her. Questioning that is called an attack on democracy by her. How can someone be more malicious?

Judith Butler says that parental incest against children is sometimes not a violation. This is “queer theory.” Hat tip to Derrick Jensen for compiling the quotes from Butler (and for his commentary in between the Butler quotes). Here are Butler’s words “queersplaining” why parents raping children is sometimes okay: In her 2004 book Undoing Gender, she wrote, “It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be­--and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not--­it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside.”[1] So here she is arguing that sometimes parent-child incest is not a violation. She also wrote, “The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.”[2] This is the same old pro-pedo argument we’ve seen so many times already: if you perceive children who are being fucked/raped by adults as the victims of sexual abuse then you are oppressing and objectifying the child. And she wrote, “So I keep adding this qualification: ‘when incest is a violation,’ suggesting that I think that there may be occasions in which it is not. Why would I talk that way? Well, I do think that there are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.”[3] And there we go again, with the same old pro-pedo notion that it’s not the child rape that is harmful: it’s the social stigma that is harmful. And to bring it all home, she suggests, along with the other pro-pedo queer theorists and anarchists, that prohibiting parent/child incest is in itself harmful: “It might, then, be necessary to rethink the prohibition on incest as that which sometimes protects against a violation, and sometimes becomes the very instrument of a violation.”[4]

Big Think is also Woke and forces female representation in their videos in spite of the scientific fact that females are substantially outnumbered by Males in high IQ occupations for purely genetic reasons, meaning that it is appropriate for Males to continue outbumbering Females as science communicators and that their agenda is ridiculous.

Hello! It's a blessing to hear you had loving parents. What do you think of adults (20s up to 80s even 90s) who come out as transgender and choose to transition, even late in life?

@@johannpaoloclarchaves2751 As I said: these people deserve all respect and support. I defend the rights of transgender people, I also defend that children must have some guidance not to feel they were born in the wrong body. I thank the universe that my parents did that, and I wasn't raised by some extremist progressive or conservative freaks who would have abused me psychologically. I think both extremes border child abuse. Watch the documentary I mentioned (made by a progressive documentary maker, by the way): 5-year-olds will tell you one day that they are boys, the other day they feel like girls... and the next day they want to be cats. That's what it is like to be children. You cannot take the word of 5-year-olds seriously and transition them into cats because they tell you they feel like cats. But that's what genderless education is doing to kids in Sweden: they never tell boys or girls that they are boys or girls, they are completely free to decide: that's increasing the rates of gender dysphoria, depression and suicide rates in kids. It's painful to watch children suffering without knowing how to decide who they are. So I think the LGBT movement needs a bit more balance in this issue. It's too early to do these experiments with kids.

Well said

I was told that I am a girl. Didn't help at all. Now I have full version of identity crisis at 23 y/o. Should I say to my parents they didn't love me enough just because I don't feel like being binary is the answer to who I am? And no, it's not attention seeking. I don't plan to come out in real life. Its just who I am. Someone who is internally open to possibility, that there is more than being female or male. That people are more than sex.

⁠@@adnuserg Of course people are more than sex. Don’t be distressed about the identity crisis, it sounds like you have a rich and thoughtful inner world and it might just be a creative superpower.

Yeah not the genocide or rising fascism or climate collapse, just gender in some very specific circles right?

@@jazwhoaskedforthisthis ideology is being used to brainwash and indoctrinate vulnerable children and young people.

This is a thirteen minute video explaining basic concepts. She has written extensively on the subject if you want to dig further.

is this scientology?

​@@mikesrandomvideospretty much

@@LaughingStock55 Your DNA literally organizes your physical body. DNA dictates the production of objective biological differences between males and females. 100% of the population is either male or female, even intersex people. If they have a Y chromosome, they are heterogametic and male. If not, they are homogametic and female. But you knew that because you've actually educated yourself on these conditions, right? Personality traits and temperament (Neither of which is gender exclusive -- hence effeminate males, butch females and tomboys), aren't synonymous with gender or gender roles. There is no internal feeling that is exclusive to men or women (or boys/girls), what makes anyone a man or a woman is being either male or female and reaching adulthood. Their sex and stage of physical maturity makes them men or women, not some "feeling" they have. Believing there is some "essence" specific to males or female as far as feelings go, that can manifest "in the wrong body", is akin to a religious belief, having faith in something that is impossible to prove or disprove. The thing is though, that no one on the "trans" side can actually even explain what this "essence" is, they can't even explain it to themselves yet have convinced themselves that the feeling they have means they "are in the wrong body" - without realizing that their discomfort simply stems from not realizing that they view conforming to sexist stereotypes as legitimate measures of manhood or womanhood. That is why every explanation given of WHY a male "can't be a man, but is instead woman" etc. relies upon listing stereotypical stuff, or, in some cases is completely abstract and refuses to actually provide any explanation of what they mean, simply stating they "know" that what they feel means what they say it does, even though they can't actually provide a definition of it. "It's hard to explain but I know I'm right" is an attitude one constantly comes up against - a religious faith in something they can't define. This idea that the terms "man" and "woman" carry all this baggage, sexist stereotypes, that people need to live up to or feel comfortable with is a complete fabrication coming from the "trans" side. You lot want a term to reflect aspects of your personality as well, you want to create more boxes to put people in, as you won't accept simply just being a man or a woman based on being born male or female (and reaching adulthood, obviously people are boys and girls before becoming men or women), but believe you need this "freedom of expression" to broadcast what sexist stereotypes you feel more comfortable with - thinking the world needs to adopt the sexist view you lot have (you fail to see just how much you have in common with Conservatives). Replacing objective definitions which are based in physical reality, with entirely subjective metaphysical claims, is not logical in any way, is not morally superior, and is demonstrably harmful, not least to female rights and protections, but also to practically anyone that buys into it as it warps people's perception of the underlying issues. It hinders people in their quest for individuation, creating this false narrative of them becoming more "authentic" when the total opposite is true, they believe they need validation from others in order to be happy etc. instead of being encouraged to find more inner strength and resilience with less reliance on how people see them. Demanding to be legally recognized as the opposite sex of what one is, is in no way shape or form more authentic than accepting the physical reality one is born into. To believe we as individuals can have 100% control over our identity in society, what we are seen as by others, in interaction with, and in relation to, society/the world/physical existence is a fool's errand, it is a delusional understanding of reality and existence.

@@codechartreuse thanks.

The people attacking gender are the ones who despise free gender expression especially if it doesn't align with their fixed view of how gender should be.

Thank you ! 👏

I agree. But it's more of like the varying gender norms in different cultures and human societies and the existence of lgbtq people makes us rethink about about gender and to make a distinction between it, sex and sexuality. Since gender norms are also different in the other species. It's not objective.

Not sure if your example is great. No black people being oppressed doesn’t mean we have to rethink race. We rethink race cause it is a concept not supported by rigorous science. I suppose gender is similar but I don’t know enough about it. But it would beg the question whether we need to take it do seriously if it falls apart under scientific scrutiny

Which is supposed to work both ways god damn it.

Amen to that. In recent months university students in filed petition against several professors because they proposed to reexamine sex change in minors. And some professionals were diciplined or even threatened to lose their licence because they questioned having biological males in women sports. The backlash against transgender is not due to their existence (which they state as a reason) but because of their aggresive activism and emotional blackmails. I heavily supported transgener cause until they started obstructing every debate related to children and women's rights in the context of transgend activism

Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.

But the people who "disagree" with queer people existing don't seem like they are afraid of violence. What about them?

that is the exactly reason that i am a dissident of LGBTQwhatsoever movement, nothing but tyranny.

well she was reciting simone de beauvoir there. don't know why that would be an issue.

@@eanji36 because…you can’t…change…your sex. gender? yes. sex? uh…yea, nope, negative.

@@astrovicis you don't have to shout so loud about your Dunning-Kruger syndrome. just stick to talking about concepts you can grasp.

@@rufusdashiell2706 You could also enlighten me if you have a working definition for non-biologically-informed sex in addition to whatever term we’re now using to refer to XX vs. XY chromosomes instead of slapping me with a sophisticated insult devoid of actual information.

@@rufusdashiell2706 Rufus seems peeved and needs a time out.

He/she is not cosmic he/she exists. If you are a father you probably met him/her in the adminstrative establishment where the "birth certificate" (or equivalent term) was registered. This day you assigned your child a sex, a first name, a date and so on. BTW Trump agrees: Ex-US President speech on "left-wing gender insanity" The January 31, 2023 "... establishing the only genders recognized by The United States Government are male and female and they are assigned at birth..."

Yes there is lol, You have a penis or a uterus, How do you think a baby human is made, Oh I forgot to ask what type of stork delivers the baby,

Is there a bird in leather, If that the case I'm sccaran

There is a doctor, who puts the assigned sex on a birth certificate, which has to be certified by a county govt office. So yes, everyone is assigned a sex at birth.

Cannibal Corpse - Hammer smashed face

Great point

no it’s just going to be another moral panic conservatives were wrong about

You just spoke straight facts. This is what happens when you remove God from the equation @@flachrattenmann

And psychoanalysis is just pseudoscience.

Nonsense

Bingo

True

@Dimple_5 You can "be" whomever you want to be, but sex is assigned by reproductive organs, not feelings. Words don't define how you feel, just what you have. Stop making it more complicated than it needs to be. It's no different than race... Is a black person that fits better / feels more at home in a Hispanic culture or white culture no longer African American? No

That would be another reconstruction of gender ! Someone who identifies as a “woman” may simultaneously show “masculine” traits. For example, in western cultures women are more free to position themselves as the “bread-winner” of the house etc

@@irialoshi4089 That's not answering the question. What gender would someone be if they identified as a woman but adhered to the norms and roles expected of men in their culture? Because if we go by the definition Judith gives in the video, these types of things allegedly help us determine their gender, and it sounds like they would be a man despite identifying as a woman.

⁠@@Vic2point0 they would be a woman :)

@@Vic2point0 If Judith said that cultural norms and values help us define our gender, that means gender is an external concept that shapes us and our identity. As norms and cultures are always changing (they are not static), so are our ideas of what it means to be a “man” or a “woman”. Therefore, someone can identity as a woman while posturing masculine traits. Women is Saudi Arabia were allowed to drive a few years ago, and so they started driving, a man activity. Does that make them any less of a woman?

@@irialoshi4089 "they would be a woman" Okay, so you seem to be rejecting her definition of "gender" then. How would *you* define it? "If Judith said that cultural norms and values help us define our gender, that means gender is an external concept that shapes us and our identity." But at the end of the day, it seems to be saying that we must adhere to the norms and values the culture we live in expects of women, to be a woman. You said that a person would be a woman even if they adhered to the norms and values their culture expects of *men,* if they only identified as women, which means what you really believe is simply "gender is whatever the person identifies as" aka "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman". Is that not the case? "As norms and cultures are always changing (they are not static), so are our ideas of what it means to be a “man” or a “woman”." Speak for yourself. For many of us, "man" has always meant "adult human male" and "woman" has always meant "adult human female". Even between cultures and despite the variance in gender roles and norms from one time and place to another. "Therefore, someone can identity as a woman while posturing masculine traits." Well of course they can *identify* as a woman regardless of anything else. I'm only asking what *makes* them a woman? What is the difference between someone who identifies as a woman and is correct, and someone who identifies as a woman and is incorrect? "Women is Saudi Arabia were allowed to drive a few years ago, and so they started driving, a man activity. Does that make them any less of a woman?" Not according to *my* worldview, which recognizes them as women regardless of what rights they have, how they behave, etc. And by the way, when you say "women in Saudi Arabia were allowed to drive a few years ago", who were you referring to there?

Are you going around, asking to see everyone’s genitals? That’s disgusting, even if you are thinking about other people’s genitals, just stop being creepy.

I'll go one better: I wish they took out all the b-roll protest footage too. I know we have to appeal to dwindling attention spans, but I wish they could have just put the camera on her and left it there. Everything else feels emotionally manipulative.

Very interesting observations! I agree, it all feels very emotional manipulative.

sadly, yes :/

Great observation! Thanks! Goebbels would have loved this era we are in. All this potential to propaganda! I Bet we would see a lot of Hitler's discourses with environmental epic music. Goebbels believed that music could create a public emotional and spiritual experience competitive with religion. Concert halls with their darkened auditoriums and formal settings exposed the audience to an experience similar of going to church. The music of Wagner was the centerpiece of the new "Aryan" spirituality, aiming to attain the same "impact generated by traditional Christian religious ecstasy and devotion". Not to say she is anything like Hitler! Of course I don't belive that.

@mathiasrennochaves3533 I can certainly see the value of invoking historical context here. I'm told history does tend to repeat itself if we don't understand and remember it. I can even appreciate a little bit that you'd want to muse about hypothetical scenarios of what Nazis would be doing today. We are certainly living in a world where individual actors and organizations with significant resources are trying to influence what we think and feel. I wonder though - genuinely - if maybe you could clarify and elaborate on what you think about this video - maybe even how you feel when you watch it or listen to it? I find it hard to tell if your final comments are authentic or tongue-in-cheek.

Literally! lol she has had such a big influence.

Yeah more like Queer and Gender Studies Pioneer or something

A very influential scientific denier.

@joaodecarvalho7012 I believe she is in fact a scientist, is she not? Like literally that's what studying gender from an academic perspective is about. But what do you think?

​@@brianhunt4164 No, she does not do scientific research on sexuality, and she explicitly says that she is not interested in what science has to say about the subject. Her references are philosophers from decades ago, such as Simone de Beauvoir and Foucault. She also politicizes her “theory”, turning it into on anti-establishment protest or something.

This is anything but philosophy!

@@JaysonT1 what do you mean?

"Philosophy"? This is just ideology. Make no mistake.

​@@mallorga1965indeed tis no philosophy to be found here the ideology was upgraded to "cult" status somewhere between 2017 and 2020, it's now 2023 and the philosophers have finally arrived to let you know, this definitely isn't a philosophy

FYI women have wombs, the clue was in the name this whole time, Man + Womb = Woman

Read Butler's work

Lol

I am gender nonconforming and an advocate for trans people. We are not in competition with each other, that’s patriarchal dominance culture thinking. We don’t operate that way.

And assigned. My best friend is intersex yet she was assigned female. This happens a LOT to intersex people. So yes, sex is absolutely assigned

​@@tadesubaru1383 Your best friend has both penis and a vagina? What about animals? Do they assign sex to themselves so they know what roles to perform? The only thing you and your friend get assigned is a "moron" label.

@@tadesubaru1383 intersex people are rare. The exception to prove the rule. MOve on with that stupid example.

@@tadesubaru1383you do realise “assigned” implies it can be changed? Which isn’t true, which means it is observed it can be wrong can be right but it’s observed as we can’t change it.

​@@tadesubaru1383First of all, intersex people are exceedingly rare and for everyone who doesn't fall into that tiny, tiny fraction of people, sex is most definitely and quite easily observable and certainly not assigned at all. Secondly, even intersex people are almost always either male or female, as determined by their genetics. To use them as an argument to support the notion that sex is assigned to people by the outside world is utterly ridiculous.

All words are social constructs... All things that we can interact with are agreed upon beforehand...

@@imiguifurr That is true. What your comment doesn't contain is that words have a meaning and if that meaning drifts too fast and far away from its initial meaning, the word becomes useless and such rapid change of meaning (instead of coining a new word) is an indication of intentional manipulation and hijacking of the weight of implied meaning for manipulative purposes of changing perception faster.

@@DerDoMeN nothing can stop or manipulate the rate at which language develops... "Manipulation" is only a projected form of control... You're giving the external world the power to control your perception instead of perceiving objectively

@@imiguifurr Objective perception is non existent... What you perceive is always clouded by feelings and you probably know the paraphrasing of "people have a short memory span but strong feelings so to pull them in a certain direction you must associate a short or a single word slogan that represents all the strong feelings". So... Good luck with your objectivity there.

@@DerDoMeN Perception is not not objective because it's clouded by feelings... Perception isn't objective because it's perception. All perception is subjective.

Enlighten us! Name the 1st 3 drawbacks that come to your mind!

@@ruzica1974 the enablement of those in power and control to exploit the desires of the masses to escape from solving their actual everyday issues and instead indulge in the pretense of joining a "noble cause" and thereby dividing society further to convenience their votemongering

@@ruzica1974 the increasing occurrences of trigger responses by those who see themselves as oppressed, the increasing ease at which they get triggered, the increasing lack of restraint when unleashing their emotions, etc. there are right ways to do right things. there are also wrong ways to do right things. just as plundering shops does not serve to push for racial equality, neither do these drawbacks serve gender equality or gender-whatever-you-want

Name few. Please. This can be valuable discussion. And I am not saying this in a sarcastic way. I do believe in having these discussions.

@@juzam6 'Seeing themselves as oppressed,' 'lack of restraint when unleashing their emotions.' Hmmm, are your rights under attack as trans peoples' are today? Are you told that you can't have sex without the potential life changing possibility that that one day could lead to a totally unplanned and unwanted future? Do you not see that your way is not the way for others? If you were facing your rights being removed, you would justifiably consider yourself oppressed. I wouldn't complain about you being down right pissed off about it either.

Lol

Thanks for saving my time! amazing summary tool!

Sex is not "assigned", only registered...

I hope Judith Butler and her followers open their minds to new ways of thinking instead of regurgitating the same old patriarchal shit, putting a new dress on it and calling it 'progress'.

@@Mel-wn9gb care to ellaborate?

then why are they always out front and centre shouting from the rooftops and having a parade every month? That's not very peaceful. Attention lovers

Gender stereotypes exist for a reason, and at numerous points in history there were attempts to change it and every single one failed, either by not winning over the majority or causing a societal collapse that reset the roles. Most recent example is the Soviet Union.

​@@AntonBerglund88 the key question is WHY do gender stereotypes exist, and I think the answer is largely because they reflect and uphold social systems of power. A revolutionary movement may seek to disrupt governmental forms of power, but many will also aim to (or unintentionally) disrupt social power relations, including gender relations. So it's true that periods of widespread social change may also see changes in gender roles, but the cause and effect between 'societal collapse' and changes in gender roles (whether incidental or intentional) is reversed. Also, neither the civil war or (highly disruptive) societal reorganisation after the 1917 revolution or the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union were caused by people attempting to change gender stereotypes. Yes, equality was a key tenet of the ideology of communism, but to believe that the USSR was ever truly communist is to buy into their propaganda. Stalin, who at 35-6 had two children with a 14-15 yr old, and who married an 18 yr old at the age of 41 then drove her to suicide, was not, it should be clear, a feminist icon. There's also an issue in arguing that gender roles can be 'reset' as that implies there is some innate natural order, and neither philosophy nor history shows that there is a single, 'natural' way to organise society. Furthermore, there have been many, many changes to gender stereotypes which happen outside of any organised ideological or revolutionary movement. Take what clothes are stereotypically 'masculine', 'feminine' or neutral. High heels were seen as perfectly respectable for men, and pants were totally unfeminine until relatively recently. But equally, you can see this in attitudes towards women having employment, which has changed drastically in the last 100 years (especially for the middle-upper classes). Gender stereotypes are a reflection of social attitudes and gender roles, which are constantly being re-negotiated in our society, and this is both normal and observable.

@@elizabethh5022 Amusing wall of text, but absolutely meaningless because you are wrong.

yes, women shoul go shirtless if they want to

@@AntonBerglund88 And you've just demonstrated your inability to muster a cogent argument. FAIL.

Exactly! Except that if you slap them on their cheek, then they come to appreciate the workings of the laws of physics and mechanics. [Don't forget the "if".] So, not everything is arbitrary. Hunger is quite real. Death is another reality. Some boundaries are much harder to transgress. And somethings are indeed fluid, and many are not. There is much order to the world, while at the same time there are vast degrees of disorder, often understood as randomness. In a way, the generation of varieties of novel beings and forms is perhaps --- on average --- a good thing. And the development of our capacity to welcome and accept a vast array of varieties is worth pursuing. But all this must be done within the confines of reason and objective understanding of reality. But everything is contextual! Language is contextual. And it is context within larger context and further within even much larger context, perhaps without an end. And then there is the matter of relevant contexts to the issues under the discussion. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!

No. I find that to be a very coherent comment, expressed clearly. You nailed it. I'll go a step further. She assumes because gender roles are reinforced in heteronormative families, that gender roles are, therefore, constructed. She also assumes that because such families are consistent with patriarchal norms, these must be wrong or injurious, and thus, the individual's version must therefore be correct-or better by feminist standards. This is a really nice example of how Feminism is built on an inversion of the naturalistic fallacy. Biology =Heteronormative family=nuclear family=patriarchy=automatically bad, therefore any answer we come up with to replace that must be better. Particularly, if that alternative marries well with Butler's book, or with the aims of feminism, generally. This is an openly engineered false dichotomy. Meaning, her argument relies on portraying the situation as having 2 possible outcomes, where outcome number 1 is automatically wrong. Because outcome number 1 is ASSERTED to be wrong, we must accept what lies behind door number 2! This gender nonsense is what we find there and, Butler, goes on valorizing option 2 as "Freedom." She really leans into this to really sell the idea while simultaneously hiding her obvious false dichotomy. On top of denying Biology aka nature, this strategy also does a nice job hiding the fact that women hold all the cards when it comes to shaping gender roles in heteronormative relationships-and always have. Men are "price takers" because almost universally, females, not just women, pick and choose. Across the animal kingdom. This is something Feminism has been running from all along. Females, almost entirely, determine male and female roles. Sure a society may exert some influence; but only in so far as the key power group accepts this and chooses to play along. However, nature, provides us with a handy control group, in this regard, illustrating how females are almost entirely dominant in this role, despite Feminism's constant slew of sophistry and B.S to the contrary.

@@TheQuixoticRambler Very well said. I learned something today. Thanks! You wrote: "Meaning, her argument relies on portraying the situation as having 2 possible outcomes, where one is automatically wrong. Because outcome one is ASSERTED to be wrong, we must accept what lies behind door number 2!" Zeroing in on either of two alternatives in human affairs --- a genuine dichotomy or not --- it's almost always possible to find that alternative to be problematic, unsavory or bad enough. Looking naively at the remaining alternative as the winner and thus concluding as the better is a recipe fraught with greater pain, suffering, failures and unhappiness on large scales. What is needed is a battery of OBJECTIVE standards of measurement that can be reliably applied to objectively determining the worth of each alternative unhindered by emotional judgments. Elsewhere you wrote: "Men are "price takers" because almost universally, females, not just women, pick and choose." I find it difficult to agree with your adverb "almost universally". While in advanced technological and industrial societies your observation holds true, in much of the world females have limited freedoms. We need statistical evidence to see to what extent females "pick and choose".

@@fraiopatll633 Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. To clarify, when I say "females" I mean females from ALL species, with an emphasis on mammals and other categories similar to us. When I mean human females, I use the term, "Woman/Women." And, perhaps, I should also have clarified I meant women belonging to the group historically in question when Western Feminists are speaking i.e. Western women. In general, I welcome your calls for greater reliance on claims with empirical backing. However, I believe the onus for same rests with the person or group, initially advancing novel claims. Unless their arguments can be diposed of by reason alone, as I have attempted to do above! Ok, and some reliance on some notion of common sense and an assumption of the existence shared truths-objective or otherwise. May I add, I like the nuance and clarity you brought to the table in your earlier comment, above.

Dude, you know what Butler means when she says sex is assigned at birth. If you don't then I'll spell it out: The doc and the parents look at the newborns genitals and determine the sex based on what they see - boy or girl. If they have male genitalia then the sex is assigned as male. If they have female genitalia then the sex is assigned as female. Gender on the other hand is what someone identifies as regardless of their sex (or genitalia).

If I might input, there is something of transference of psychic energy when one defines themselves as anything contrary or in contradiction to their external appearance. There’s that meme I always found funny (but slightly alarming) that goes, “I identify as an Apache helicopter.” To me, the signification is a masculine proactivity, or gesturing/postulating/affronting. It’s one that comes implicitly with all this history and non-substantive literacy which one needs to develop in order to survive in our modern world, consciously or unconsciously. It is inherently political as you describe with the assignment of an infant’s gender, but this visuality coming into question begs another question, which is, whom is at the helm of our medical institutions? And moreover, what bases ground their strategies and forms of analysis, etc, which produce the knowledge of gender construction for the sexual being (I.e. male, female, intersex, etc). So I find this a helpful video but I appreciate your contribution to the comments section in the purview of summary and contextualizing your standpoints. 💚

I aint reading all that

You wrote a book.

@@deannickname OK!