If you missed it, Destiny is starting a Vtuber career on the second channel ---> kzfaq.info/get/bejne/obSkfJqj27yneas.html It's a charity goal.

Gender is so confusing, for instance, did you know? Destiny is a girls name, yet he is a boy. Curious?

We’re officially in the gender arc

>Finishing watching latest Destiny video "what else is on" >right in my feed "oh cool"

this discussion feels like people defining D&D rules for their group where everyone has a rulebook from a different year.

Having a girls name while identifying as a man means a conflict between Destiny's objective and subjective gender, making him trans.

I need to get onto more of these panels

So annoying when people absolutely refuse to interact with a hypothetical.

Destiny? Thats a non-binary streamers name

When did gender become another word for personality?

It upsets me that Dr K doesn't put in an effort to remain logically consistent.

Destiny really revealed his full power level from the start, showing an insanely more nuanced understanding of the words and the feelings with his first two definitions, and every response from the panel in the first 10 minutes I've seen so far was just brainlet nitpicking.

So it sounds like some people are using the word choose in ways that I don't think they would normally. I dont think people choose their feelings. You dont choose to feel happy, sad, hungry, sexually attracted to certain people, etc. People instead make choices (take actions) based off those feelings (you're hungry, you eat), or to try and get a certain feeling (you want to be happy, so you watch a movie you really like). I think gender identity is in the same boat. You dont choose how you feel about your gender, you just feel your gender, and then you make choices (take actions) based on those feelings. It's very strange to me that people are trying to make the claim people choose their gender identity, since again, I don't think people would normally claim they choose any of their feelings. Edit/Update: Based on the comments I am seeing below, it seems I should clarify some points. I am trying to draw a distinction between feelings (desires and identity) and choices (actions). I don't think most people would say they "choose" to feel hungry at a particular moment in time, or that they "choose" to feel sad when a love dies, or that they "choose" a particular person they are attracted to. I think most people would say they make choices (take action) based on their feelings (but also including external pressures/forces). If a person were feeling sad, but desired to be happy, I don't think most people would claim they could just will themselves to be happy, they would probably take actions (make choices) that they know illicit a feeling of happiness for them. Saying because they desired to be happy, so they choose it sounds to me like it is skipping the part where they take actions to become happy. (Also if you were sad, but desired to be happy, where does the desire to be happy come from?) So to connect this back to gender identity, however a person decides to express their identity is the choice part, and the feelings that lead them to make these choices is their identity/feelings. I look at identity as a series of feelings that are much less prone to change than the other "emotional" feelings of happy or sad I was using as examples earlier. How a person feels about themselves probably can't be changed on a whim, and is going to reflect their choices and how they feel about those choices over time. I think to claim that feelings/identity is a choice broadens the definition of the word choose in a way that most people don't use, and isn't necessary to convey these points about gender, identity, and expression across (if anything, it only serves to confuse people). (Although to be a bit fair, the definitions of words have and can broaden in usage/definition overtime, and maybe I am just having a hard time processing the attempt to do it to the word choose) Hopefully this clarification makes more sense, and not less.

Destiny and RGR actually helping change minds on trans people. I like this arc..

Both parties aren't getting through to one another because ideas like "choice" , "belief" and "want" aren't neatly defined.

I'm 8 minutes in, and i seriously need someone to just express: "Your identity is hard to understand internal mess that you constantly feel. And while you don't choose what that mess contains, you can choose how you catagorize and identify that mess" I'm pretty sure everyone could agree on that.

These discussions are usually pretty interesting, then Dr. K walks in...

To me, this fell apart when it got to the race and sex talk. it was like they were purposely being dense with each other, it was irritating.

Who is the person who would randomly interject while not seemingly paying attention, "who on this panel has had to buy a binder for their child" person?

What an interesting chat. Seems to be messy, but at least people are engaging with it politely and... _Dr. K has entered the chat_ Nevermind.

I’m a trans woman, I agree with Destiny’s takes on this 100%. I felt really cringe towards the person who was non-binary and is now trans. I feel like they tried to dominate the conversation and had a very delusional stance on trans people and what words mean. Destiny has been saying exactly what I’ve been telling people. Being a woman is being treated as a woman by society and being trans is being treated as trans by society, so trans women can have both of those experiences generally, but no one can just suddenly self-ID as trans or as a woman and be that. To me, trans means to transition. There aren’t any real examples of actual trans people who don’t transition unless you’re talking about medical issues, expense of transitioning, or conflicting issues with your environment that don’t allow for transition. Words have to reference something, and if they reference nothing, then it’s completely meaningless. Your social experience is what you pass as. Period.

10 kills on the board right now

I think it comes down to how much “pressure” to “not conform” is placed on confused children. It’s gone beyond helping ones that need help, and gotten to the point that some people want to fine tune the gender identity of kids that haven’t even fully developed one.

I’m a lesbian so I fully understand Destiny and RGR’s arguments that I made the choice to identify myself as gay, but I didn’t choose to be gay. I made the choice to come out, but I was always attracted to the same sex even when I thought of myself as straight. That tension between what I’m feeling and the category I’ve fit myself into is what motivated me to explore my own identity and express that to the world. None of this is controversial at all. People are just so worried about where the argument is headed (aka “people who don’t feel x aren’t valid”) that they aren’t letting themselves listen

Right in my feeeeed

I feel like I could just spend all my free time on watching Destiny Highlights, with the current rate at which you're uploading

Destiny, That's a woman's name... ...Wait hold on, what's a woman again?

The argument that the debate over trans individuals in sports is moot because it constitutes such a slim percentage of cases seems like a strange point to make. Whats the threshold that makes it matter? Trans people only constitute .6% of the total population but we don't say trans issues aren't important because of that.

Did not expect to see John Snow on this panel.

22 seconds, right in my feed!

Destiny’s patience is astounding. I get the other person was acting in good faith, but they just couldn’t understand where destiny was coming from.

"uuuh.. sorry I was counting my factories" hahah

AH! I get what GSUGambit is saying now, his belief is that EVERYTHING is a choice, right? So, much like the example that Steven used about black girls having to straighten their hair, it can be a choice to change your hair and to change your gender identity. It’s just that there are a bunch of things weighing down one side of the scale. Heaviest of all being Black identity/convenience for not straightening hair, and your inner feelings for gender identity. So it’s stupid basically. You don’t really call that a choice. Would you consider it an honest choice if someone held a gun to your head unless you cut your tongue out? It’s a choice, right? You CHOSE to cut out your tongue. RIGHT?

I don't think there's a single gender debate/discussion where everyone involved comes out less confused than not

Just CHOOOOOOSE! OH MY GOD IM CHOOOOSING!

We could do a lot of work by just rejecting gender as this compound concept, and only refer to the underlying components when necessary

There is evidence that brain structure and gender identity are related. There's a part of the brain that's generally different in males and females, and it correlates with the gender you recognise as and not simply your sex. The important thing though is it's an imperfect correlation. You can't even tell if someone is male or female, let alone trans or not, from that alone. The correlations, however, are plenty strong enough for us to say there's almost certainly a biological basis for transness. The nature vs. nurture thing isn't a real dichotomy. It's pretty much always both, and whatever characteristic is being looked at is affected by each to a differing degree.

I don't like the take that finding correlations between certain brain signals and transgenderism is "biological essentialism". It was mentioned offhand but I gotta push back on it. Unless you're gonna argue for mind-body dualism, gender identity and everything else in our consciousness has a biological origin. As in, the signals that make up our consciousness arise from biological processes. They are material, and therefore they are measurable, in principle. It might be extremely difficult to ever do this practically or to decipher every single individual's brain signals and their meaning, but nevertheless, it's possible. That's not "essentialism".

Wait, you can't have your cake and eat it too?

I’m early umm.. Something about the name destiny and straight into my feed

1:21:38 This is actually just a cringe take to anyone who has a background in math. Russell's paradox is a criticism to naive set theory, which was thrown out long ago in favour of ZFC, which has yet to be proven inconsistent. The Axiom of Specification allows you to "filter" for elements from a larger set using arbitrary predicates, so as long as your larger set can be constructed in ZFC, it's fine. ZFC does provide a formal definition for "numbers". Also, Destiny's takeaway that "elements in a set might only share the fact that they're in the same set" flies straight in the face of the comments he's made on social constructions before. Even if a set is just defined by filtering over a disjunction of predicates, if the set is "interesting", (or analogously, if a social construction is "useful"), there are probably theorems about that set that would apply to all of the elements. And while I'm on this tangent, "set" and "category" aren't interchangeable when you're talking about formal math.

We should petition dr. K to change her name. She's making the other dr. K look bad.

omg i fucking love that this awesome conversation is happening. keep it up destiny and everybody else on the panel!

Empress' take is based af. Circumspect, researched, considered, self-reflective...

Set theory does not contain contradictions, at least of which we are aware. The problem is with naive set theory. Russell's paradox is relevant to naive set theory. However, modern axiomatic set theory (eg, ZFC) precludes such paradoxes by carefully choosing what axioms sets satisfy.

For minorities, it may be best to not give broad support for wide groups (like say black people), but give support for specific narrow issues (say color discrimination, historical trauma, judicial bias, etc). That way we do not have to try to cleanly define whatever group but we can easily address the issues people may face

I just want to know, is this whole video just GSUGambit being confused but still having a strong opinion on things?

I always miss these live.

that argument that only the cream of the crop would be affected, well professional athletes are the cream of the crop so that would make the differences even more pronounced

People who have been through such unusual identity crises might not be the best people to redefined how we interpret identity and such elements as gender.

Looks like Jon Snow in the middle there is still operating off of his Season 8 dialogue.

1:22:05 This is a clear misunderstanding of mathematical philosophy and a poor critique of set theory. Modern set theory under the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms resolved Russell's paradox. Currently, there are no known contradictions in the ZF Axioms, and it is regarded as highly unlikely that any contradictions exist. However, the only "issue" with the ZF Axioms is that, assuming no contradictions exist, they produce an incomplete system (by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem), essentially meaning that one cannot prove all true statements under this system using these axioms. This is not the same as saying that set theory is contradictory. Naive set theory is contradictory, but the ZF Axioms were literally created to resolve those contradictions.

How many analogies does Destiny have to use, Jezus. How is this so hard to understand?

"Being and Nothingness" finally has a practical application after all these years

i love how wholesome and respectful this is. right on

I started to get pretty confused by the guy because I started wondering about other situations people kill themselves over, but then he unconfused me when he said this all started because he believes all behaviors are choices rather than deterministic. Then I was like, "oh yeah, I believe 99% of behavior is deterministic, I dont actually agree with this guy at all". I just thought it was kinda funny that he started to shake my beliefs a bit but then solidly cemented me back in place with that statement.

in fact I DID forget to subrscribe! Nonetheless this showed up... right in my feeeed...

came right into my feed

This topic is so much more simple than people make it out to be. All the confusion is because people are going full religious apologists and attempting to force conclusions that aren’t justified. For example... we don’t choose our preferences, we do choose how to identify with them. Didn't take 1000 words to parse that out.

Where's the timestamps

omg im only 25 mins in and holy shit listening to a convo that doesn't devolve into a ad hum about above relevant dumb shit is refreshing kudos on destiny and the panel for having a civil talk about a crazy hard topic and not have anyone fip there shit about it

I see sexuality as a preference spectrum from male to female, where your sexual identity is where you place on that spectrum. If you place in the middle of that spectrum you're truly bi and could happily choose either partner with equal preference. I can imagine that gender identity mimics that phenomenon. If someone identifies close to the middle I don't see it as unreasonable that they could temporarily lean to either branch depending on outside factors.

It appears in most of these conversations that there is a disconnect between the two "sides" on the term "gender identity". Destiny appears to be using it to refer to a persons internal state of being, while those opposed are using it to refer to nouns like man, women, etc. Destiny should clarify that a persons gender identity (i.e. man, women,etc) would actually be a part of the term gender expression that was earlier used as those categories are wholly contingent on how other people see you. An example of this would be a cis man identifying as agender. Lets suppose that this persons remains identical after changing their identifier. What actually happens in this scenario is that the person finds a better identifier for their identity, but their identity doesn't actually change. Where as it feels the other people in the panel are misidentifying the terms we use for our gender identity and conflating that to be the whole of what someones identity is.

If no one can actually understand gender, why are we trying to change how we define ours. The term has always been pragmatic. If hardly anyone can actually understand what's going on, this sounds like it just leads to chaos.

I really like Professwahr, just a shame that they stated they think Destiny is a POS. Understandable, but a shame. would love to see a discussion

every 5 seconds " im not saying this is my stance but" lol so scared to speak

I watch these to see what our future will be and every day I get closer to pulling the trigger.

That’s one long ass intro

I logged off of my math proofs class and walk straight into a gender based set theory discussion. I think God exists and he's punishing me.

With the smoking example, the counter would be that the person should just stop desiring cigarettes. The desire for the cigarettes is something out of their control, engaging with smoking is in their control. Which lines up with destinys argument that gender identity(desire to smoke) is harder to change than expression(choosing to smoke).

It drives me fucking crazy when Dr K says "dude" It is the most condescending shit I have ever heard

At the beginning they don't understand the core of Destiny's argument. You don't chose your gender, you chose do you express it.

Amazin

This definitely cleared up a lot of things for me.

Maybe this gets brought up later in the hour that I have left to watch but why not just say "people are free to interpret their gender identity however they like" rather than calling it a choice? This provides the best of both worlds. The identity is innate but our language constraints and societal interpretations of gender mean that e.g. an amab person can make the choice to identify as either a woman or non-binary depending on how they want to categorise this fuzzy "femininity" they have within them. Neither interpretation is necessarily wrong and it might just be an intellectual exercise for them and, if they don't feel too strongly about it either way, they may decide on a whim Edit: nvm, I should have just kept the video going. At 27:00, Empress says it quite well while also adding the caveat that identity can be both innate and a deliberate political choice

Need timestamps

Destiny? Wait, is that a girl’s name?

Is there any chance that some people can change it and some can't? Idk that makes the most sense to me. That model explains why some people are forced to deal with dysphoria and why some people just switch it up and don't share these problems.

what stream or channel was this on ?

every debate with this dr k guy just screams spineless. He just throws things out with 0 evidence, reasoning, anything. wtf

God, the math take at 1:21:40 was so terrible I almost choked on my beer when I heard it.

Sounds like this guy is conflating how someone outwardly identifies towards the public versus how they genuinely feel on the inside. For example one could genuinely feel inside gay for several years and never outwardly Express for identify as gay oh, not so sure why that guy has such a hard time understanding what Destiny is saying.

That was a super interesting and nice, good faith discussion. Those are pretty rare so that was nice.

Destiny keeps using the words female and male to describe gender, even though these are biological descriptors. By the way, even though you should indeed differenciate sex and gender, the most common understandings of man and woman are respectively "adult male human" and "adult female human", these words follow the same pattern as donkey and jenny which have for respective definitions "adult male african ass" and "adult female african ass" (it's the same for all species). So we should definitely find words which actually refer to gender, it would be less confusing and prevent most conflicts (as most people who disagree think we are refering to sex when we are refering to gender, and it's our fault, honestly).

That empress chica is pretty sharp.

can someone explain to me how we know trans people are not experiencing a chemical or biological imbalance? how is this good faith with people saying there is no biological physical difference between sexes cant wait to see this play out.

Why did he talk about changing his thoughts on dating black women when asked how he thought himself into being bisexual?

This gambit guy is insufferable omg

Editor? That’s the name of someone who should put chat on screen!

dang they had john snow come on the panel? that's hype

You know that everytime we create a new exclusive social group society gets better. Fact of the day! Everytime we subdivide a social group in a more exclusive manner, the less separate and tribal we become!

I didn't know iDubbz was transgender

Dxstiy? Thats a nonbinary name

As a CIS man and an athlete, an I allowed to take testosterone so that I can perform better? If not, then why allow another CIS man who has higher natural testosterone levels compete? Consequently, why would we allow a Trans man to take testosterone and compete instead of working with what they naturally have? And even further, if someone is a Trans women, why would they need to take estrogen to compete in a women's league? Why not just work with what they naturally have?

Lovely video

Tbh as a dark skin toned black man I actually would have a problem with empress saying the n word in the room. Regardless of his experiences.

*Premise 1:* Environmental factors play a role in shaping one’s gender identity. *Premise 2:* A person can choose to alter their environment, including its aspects which influence their gender identity. *Premise 3:* A person can do so with awareness of the first two premises and intent to indirectly alter their gender identity. *Conclusion:* A person can choose to alter their gender identity. *edit: premise 2 was meant as “A person can choose to alter some aspects of their environment...”, not “all aspects of...”. Also, the conclusion doesn’t say anything about the extent to which a person can alter their gender identity other than that it is nonzero. Moreover, I think internal psychological factors play a major role in the shaping of one’s gender identity, not just their external environment. People give self-talk to reinforce or reject their felt gender identity, e.g. a female-assigned-at-birth person giving self-talk to reinforce their largely unchosen masculine identity. So while we might not be able to choose our gender identity “on a whim” (which seems essential to the concept of gender identity, if well defined*) we can still make choices that intentionally change our gender identity over time. At any given moment, you could ask yourself “Is my gender identity a choice?” and recognize “It has been influenced by internal and external factors, some of which are influenced by choices I made”. The extent to which your gender identity is a choice depends on how much you have intentionally influenced it; the condition of some state of affairs (gender identity, in this case) being chosen is not binary. Returning to a previous example, a female-AAB person who innately feels masculine and actively reinforces this identity via self-talk could be said to have chosen a more strongly masculine identity, but their gender identity is mostly unchosen on the whole. On the other hand, I see no reason why a person couldn’t have one innate gender identity and radically change it over time by choice. I suspect this line of argument applies similarly to sexual orientation. *I don’t have a great definition, but the way I am understanding gender identity can be put in this way: a person’s sense of gender when isolated from any internal motivations or external pressures, but NOT necessarily unaffected/unconditioned by previous internal motivations and external pressures. In other words, it is independent from current pressures but is influenced by previous pressures and is subject to change over time according to current pressures. If the distinction between X being isolated from but not unaffected by Y is unclear, consider X to be a person and Y to be the person’s social anxiety. If you were to suddenly “cure” their social anxiety, they would still be a different person compared to if they had never had social anxiety from the start. For instance, being socially awkward might be a part of that person which doesn’t necessarily suddenly disappear if you remove the social anxiety, so it would exist in that person when “isolated” from their social anxiety. PS: I wrote this about 10 minutes into the video after seeing a lot of talking past each other, so I don’t yet know how much it overlaps with what is established in the next hour, but I thought I’d share anyways. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

TO THE FEED!!!! 🙏🏾🥵

Can confirm that HRT kinda nukes you. The best comparison I can make is when purely on T, before HRT, it's like being nuclear powered. It's just, WOW, stuff is so easy. Estrogen is like being steam powered, you can still reach incredible power, but it takes longer and takes it's toll quicker. I was concerned about my bone density, but my bones were basically wolverine-tier before HRT. I should be good or near average now.

the most first world problems video ever