then are you okay with male woman cuz sex and gender are not the same so a male can be a woman but still a male since sex is not the issue but gender is, if you dont accept that then you relink gender to sex after separating them. my issue is being forced to go along with you and not be allowed to disagree because forcing me to say whatever you like , means that i can force you to hear whatever i like it goes both ways, refer to yourself as anything and i will refer to you as anything unless you have an inherit problem with being a certain thing that only you believe that you are not.

and the bathroom thing cannot be argued because its not a rational thing its emotional, they are just uncomfortable and it all stems from the fact that most females are just scared of males but that is a separate problem, if someone is trans for their comfort then they should respect others comfort. if its an attraction thing then gay men should be allowed in the female bathrooms but the females would still be uncomfortable so its not a trans thing its a female thing , and as established gender and sex are separate and bathrooms are not gender based but sex based.

1- ‘TransgenderED’ is not a word, and is generally seen as derogatory as word-error goes, because it implies that the adjective ‘transgender’ is derived from some fictional verb- where someone ‘transgenders’ people and after that action, they ‘become transgenderED’ 2- ‘Transgenderism’- also not a word and a generally derogatory misconception- as it implies that being transgender- is because you learned sort of ‘ideological belief’ (‘Transgenderism!) or that there is some Trans Agenda called ‘Transgenderism’. 3- This Foucault-Butler ‘linguistic use via gender behavior’ - the ‘if it walks, talks and quacks like a duck’ theory of transgender validity is DEEPLY problematic. (Not the intent of the authors, but the theory itself is by logical necessity- actually invaliding of trans gender identity, the synonym for which is ‘transphobic’, however much the authors did not realize this is the logical consequence of this theory.) And glaringly so. It only ‘validates’ trans identity- for those trans people who DO chose to come out, and socially and generally of necessity- also medically transition- and are able to ‘pass’ as a pre-existing Binary gender- according to whatever fits the public visual and behavioral social signifiers of the gender binary in that era and locale. But what of the trans people who aren’t out, or who are NON-binary and can’t fit Butler’s ‘women are people who PUBLICLY identify ‘as’ women-gender, BY dressing, and enacting ‘woman signified’ behavior? What of transgender people who choose Not to change names, appearance, get surgery or take hormones- to ALSO ‘look and act cis’ (who are not binary and or who are binary trans, but can’t or who choose not to- adopt the cis look and gestures that are opposite-gender cis-signified?) Not ONLY does THIS- albeit increasingly popular’ ‘If it quacks like a duck’ Foucault-Butler ‘linguistic use’ theory obviously and overtly INvalidate both non-passing, and non-binary tran identities - because obviously a trans woman who and dresses and acts boy or man like (which is every trans girl and woman there is, at some point in her life) - and every non-binary trans person who either still appears and acts (passes as) cisgender, or does not ‘pass’ as either man-signified nor woman signified- obviously doesn’t fit the ‘language use’ criteria of gender identity. They ARE still ‘a duck’- but do NOT ‘walk, quack, nor swim’ like a duck, so to speak. It ALSO invalidates the gender identity of Passing Binary trans people- because it is superficial- it relies on rxternal appearance and behavioral Gender ROLE cionstruct signfiers, which ANYONE, trans or not, can deploy, to 'validate' Gender IDENTITY- which is different from Gender Roles, is NOT a construct, but instead intrinsic (not 'essentialist, not 'magical' or ontologically transcendent, not some odd Platonic Form, just integral to that trans individual) - and has NOTHING whatsoever- to do with 'appearance' or 'gender behavoir'. (And if it did, then why in ordinary linguistic usage - do trans people SO so often get accidentally misgendered, because they are as transgender as the day is long, but don't 'look' or 'act' - in linguistic- in social signifier terms- 'like' the gender they actually ARE?) This is not an insufficient validation of trans gender: it actually- however unforseen the consequences of this theory are, by the trans allies who created and developed it, and the younger or less philosophically oriented trsns people who offer it- actually transphobic. I’m not making any accusations- just pointing out the unintended but unavoidable logic embedded in it. If you accept the premises of any argument, you're committed to accept the conclusion, come what may. If you accept that public external Gender Role Enactment - ie fitting a social construct role (Butler) is IDENTICAL to Gender Identity (Foucault) - that gender IDENTITY is ELIMINATIVELY REDUCIBLE- to - is and is ONLY- ‘the linguistic use we apply to people who look and act manly or womanly according to local gender ROLE constructs (Foucault) then your committed to agreeing that non passing people and nonbinary people don’t have valid genders identity. Unfortunately - instead of validating trans identity- this Linguistic Use theory invalidates trans identity and validates any number of transphobic arguments: that 'being trans' is JUST 'trying to fool people by dressing and trying to 'act like' the opposite gender, that 'being trans' is not a natural variation, but artifice driven by unexplained or delusional thoughts, that being transgender is a CHOICE and a thin choice at that- to look and act a certain way in public presentation, not an authentic identity, just to get others to talk to and act with you ‘as if’ you were the opposite gender, that there 'is no such thing as non-binary', that it takes a whole complex theory just to try to ‘convince’ people of something that isn’t real. The misconception that just because Gender ROLES are social constructs (and we all agree there) MEANS that Gender IDENTITY- is reducible to- that Gender IDENTITY- ‘just IS’ acting out a Gender Role- is an error that does seem to somewhat ‘validate’ fully passing binary trans identity- but is actually deeply invalidating passing, non-passing, and every non-binary trans gender identity.

Thank you for keeping an open mind. And sick profile pic btw ;)

@@themanicpineapple8772 thx man

Me too. Thank you!

Thanks a bunch :) I hope I did the community proud with this one

Short, sweet, and true :)

Officer, please slow down, or ima need to find me in happiness jail :) *you're too kind, thank you

Based

Thank you so much for this comment :) I'll do my best to address each part in order. First off: glad you enjoyed the video! It's one of the videos I'm the proudest of making on this channel. Regarding the music choice, I deeply enjoy the music of all musicians present in the description. I'm a HUG fan of Tyler the Creator (possible foreshadowing of later video ;)) and Dorian Electra's Flamboyant is one of my favourite albums of 2019. I sadly only got into Sophie after hearing of their passing, but it very much struck a chord with me. As for your criticism regarding my terminology, thank you so much for the correction! I take absolutely no offense to you pointing that out. To be honest, I'm kind of confused as to how that got in there in the first place, as that's not really a term I could ever see myself using in any content (maybe a typo? But that doesn't seem likely either, so I'm stumped). Still though, I'll keep an eye out for it in the future. Thanks again for the your thoughtful comment. I wish you a lovely day, and thanks for stopping by :)

I'm glad someone caught that little reference ;) And glad you enjoyed the video

Not sure if you're agreeing with the point I made in this video or arguing against it, but I wish you a lovely day regardless

@@themanicpineapple8772 i wish you too a lovely day, but you are actually wrong when you were talking about vegetables. You said that vegetables are fruit, which is straight up wrong.

@@CallofTheCult Dear sir, I certainly never said that "all" vegetables are fruits. Carrots, for example, are always vegetables. In your definition, you said that a fruit is an edible portion of a plant and that a fruit is the mature ovary of a plant... so what if the mature ovary of a plant is edible? Then that thing could be considered both a fruit and a vegetable, correct? The two definitions can certainly have overlap. My argument was rooted in the fact that the term vegetable is typically used culinarily while the term fruit has a both a scientific context and fruit has a scientific and culinary definition. Thus, whether or not a tomato is a fruit or vegetable depends on the context in which the question is being asked. I hope this cleared things up for you.

Heyo! I have definitely considered it, but I'm far more likely to tackle different classic rap albums. The reason being is that TPAB has been spoken about TO DEATH, and there are in fact some really fine analyses out there. If I find that there's something I can add to the convo, then I'll make a video about it, but I'm not sure if I have that much new to add to the TPAB discourse. I love the album though, so who knows, maybe I'll still make one anyway ;) At the end of the day, I just love talking about great music

@@themanicpineapple8772 That's dope. I appreciate how you care to add something new.

If gender seems like an empty concept then.. uhh... Good? Gender abolitionist or gender apathetic views are pretty much widespread in trans communities. One of the major aspects in the dissolution of a social class is the mobility into and out of it. Along with the loss of distinction between classes. To quote the funny: When everyone is super, no one will be.

Thanks yo, that means a lot. The Ouran was 100% Serena though, so I can take no credit for it ;)

@@themanicpineapple8772 As always, your editor has discerning taste :P Y'all are a great team.

That's very humbling of you to say. I hope all goes well and hopefully they have their minds changed

@@themanicpineapple8772 Thanks dude

Nah: you're a SUPERB trans guy. We only speak truth 'round these parts

We used several different anime in this video, the most prominent being Food Wars though :)

Thanks.

Glad you enjoyed it :) And many thanks

FluffyPants52 says trans rights :)))))

It took me like a year and a half to get comfortable with my own voice through video, so that's honestly very validating

Of all the videos that I've made over the years, this is one I'm the proudest of :) So I do hope lots of people get to see it. That said, it's already been taught in a high school class, and has helped certain people discover their own trans identities, so I'm in awe at the reception that it's gotten already

I've spent the past few days trying to figure out how to respond to this message, but despite my best efforts, I just can't seem to be able to find the right words to articulate how your comment made me feel. What I will thus simply say is that your comment brought tears to my eyes, and that I am so proud of you. I wish you all the best, and I'm glad my work played some small role in helping you become your true self.

@@themanicpineapple8772 Aw thank you :) You are really sweet. It has been a tough road and I don't know when I could start transitioning but I won't let anything bring me down!

@@lizzzbenoist figuring out my transness and how i wanted to transition was a hard but very euphoric journey. i hope u have a fruitful, joyous and beautiful transition, my friend!!

All my homies love the Frindle book

Same to you :)

Transracialism is an interesting and complex subject, though I'm not sure if I can find many examples of this being a widespread phenomenon other than fringe cases like Rachel Dolezal. It is my opinion that race is indeed socially constructed, however that fact on its on doesn't validate trans-racialism as a concept. Without typing out a masters dissertation on the subject, I'll say this pertaining to the idea of a non-black person identifying as a black person: being a black person in our current day and age comes down to having a shared history that can trace itself back to generations of slavery and oppression, as well as the sociological facets of existing as a POC in society (ei: systemic oppression) That said, the rapper Logic, for example, who grew up with a black father, looks white AF. The dark skin that is associated with blackness doesn't visually present itself when he walks around in public. Does that make him "less black" then lets say Laverne Cox? That feels kinda wrong to me since he grew up in a black household and has a shared history with black people. So while Dolezal may experience the contemporary sociological negatives that a black person might face and Logic will not, she doesn't share the lineage and shared history of black people like Logic does. This is a very watered down version of my thoughts, but TLDR: race is socially constructed, but transracialism leaves a bad taste in my mouth due to the implications that it carries. I'd have loved to have a deeper convo over tea and cookies, but alas KZfaq comments don't work that way sadly ;) Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and sorry for the long response.

Thanks for the fix yo :) I'll update that in the description, and I'll also include the Sargon Destiny debate (totally forgot that too). In terms of brain chemistry, I'm genuinely love to read up on that, so any sources you have would be great. I passively read a headline the other day that was talking about the fact that male and female brains seem to have less and less actual differences the more they are studied, but, again, using a headline reading alone isn't something I use to justify my takes, so I'm eager to learn more. Also, glad you enjoyed the video!

@@themanicpineapple8772 Hey sorry for the super late answer Thanks for the link! I thought Destiny said that statement lmao. Even though he's not exactly an ethical role model, that still felt out of character from him. The two studies that I read were academic.oup.com/cercor/article/18/8/1900/285954?login=true link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5 The rest of this comment discusses the gendered brain. I've read a recent study which might be the one you're referring to: Dump the Dimorphism by Lise Eliott. She essentially took most of the relevant gendered brain studies and draws conclusions by grouping and comparing them. The only problem was that the paper didn't actually go over all the structures and all the brain reactions which have been previously studied. To be fair, that would have been an inhuman task. With that said, the information presented *strongly* implicates that, aside from brain size, there are no differences that result from sex. Rather, the differences found between the sexes are actually a result of size, not sex. In other words, the "differences" previously found between men and women can also be found between men with large brains and men with smaller brains. In terms of brain responses to stimuli, no consensus can be found between the studies that Lise used and men having greater lateralization seems to be a myth. “The parsimonious conclusion is that group-level sex differences, if they exist, are buried within the greater variance of individual difference.” What does this mean in terms of the previous transgender studies then? One interesting article I came accross considers this. www.crossdreamers.com/2021/05/debunking-female-brain-vs-male-brain.html Essentially it argues that there is probably more to gender identity than the brain (or what we know of it, which is still extremely little). At the very least what Dump the Dimorphism suggests is this: "The way some brain researchers are identifying male and female identities in transgender people is by using lists of how well they adhere to female or male stereotypes. That does not work."

@@s_4589 Wow, thanks for sharing this! It's honestly incredible, and I'm looking forward to sinking my teeth into the research. And thanks for letting me know about that confusion I caused pertaining to Destiny. He had a notorious debate with Sargon in which Destiny defended the notion of trans validity whereas Sargon took the opposing side. I'm actually making a video about Destiny in June (stay tuned), but any honest person would agree that Destiny has been a pretty good faith trans ally on his platform, so I'll try to figure out some way of letting people know I was referring to Sargon being the dunce and not Destiny. Thank you for your super in depth response by the way! I wish you a lovely end of spring

Not only that but intersex people also always have one sex organ more developed than the other thus so many cases of intersex people just choosing to live as the percivied gender of the more developed organ.

Objection! As mentioned in the video, words can have different meanings as they develop over time. Sure, it might have been used as how you describe it in the past, but this is the present and things are different now. Language has evolved.

@ahhhhhhhhhhhhsocool Language evolves, true, but in this case we're talking proven biological terms. Some things are required to stay consistent for the sake of science; capital F is always "force", lowercase m is always "mass", etc.

No

Yeah that's true bc men can't become women and women can't become men. Ever. It is not possible.