Yes. Jazz Jennings is one of them. His parents did not want a gay son and rather have a transdauggter

Schools Silence the parents. Listen only to kids and let the kids make all life altering permanent decisions. Don't let parents speak. Trick parents to sign consent forms because of the lie and fallacy doctors tell them "they will have a dead child if no affirmative care " lies, lies, lies. Breaking News=Sex change surgery has 100% failure rate. An inverted penis will never be a vagina. A forearm skin cylinder sewn on will never be a penis. Breaking News= Affirmative care has a 100% failure rate. Scienctist have now proven puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and mutilation surgeries NEVER CHANGE YOUR SEX OR AFFIRM YOUR GENDER. A male WILL always stay male. A female will ALWAYS stay female. You can't change nature, biology or molecular genetics.

​@@EradicatingTransame with Susie Green

Then, as a gay man (like myself) you should know that nothing you could do could change the fact that you're gay. The idea that young people are being tricked into thinking they're trans is just as ridiculous as suggesting you can be tricked into being gay, which is exactly what they said in the 90s about homosexuality. "Predatory homosexuals are indoctrinating children" was the tagline that brought in Section 28. Be a better ally for young queer kids and stop enabling transphobia under the guise of protecting homosexuals when it's doing the opposite.

I’m with you on this 100%

This is a perfect example that gender is not binary and is on a sliding scale, hence “tomboys”. That IS NOT the same thing as someone being transgender. People don’t transition to another gender just because they don’t like wearing dresses or vis versa.

So well put!

A tomboy is someone who identifies as a female but acts and likes things that are traditionally masculine. A transgender male identifies as a male but was born in a female body.

People do tell kids that - ask any gay or trans person. We're all told that. By society if no one else. At least you got to experience how oppressive gender can be. Helen may well be right that such social structures can be supportive but they can also be deeply oppressive and scarring and it's the modern recognition of that that has been liberating. But yes, one can run with that too far.

What a great comment. I hope you spread your story to as many people as possible.

@@MichelleLouiseDavis there are people who can be male or female and then the theythem creatures.

@@MichelleLouiseDavis cis is a hateful slur.

@@MichelleLouiseDavis Every time I have heard it used it was in fact being used as a derogatory term. I AM NOT a "cis woman" I am a woman. Period. Putting the "cis" in front of it as to imply my opinion is irrelevant, or I am somehow less than a trans woman is nothing shy of insanity.

@@jodiebasye9798 Is there a term you would prefer? "Non-trans" perhaps?

@@MichelleLouiseDavis We have the term "banana", and everyone understands what a "banana" is. Then along comes alien matter from space, looks like a banana, but is composed of some unknown material, so people start calling them "space bananas". Now, your "cis" bs, is the same thing, as claiming that in the example with the "space bananas", everyone would need to start calling the regular old earth bananas "cis bananas" now, to "differentiate" between edible earth bananas and the new space "bananas" - which is absolutely ridiculous, because the differentiation "banana" / "space banana" is ALREADY as clear as it gets. Everyone who refuses to buy into the quasi-religious tenets of "trans" ideology can see that trying to force the "cis" label onto people, when a perfectly clear distinction already exists, ie "woman" (female)/ "trans woman" (male), trying to forcibly rebrand every non-trans person, as "cis", when it is ALREADY perfectly clear that they are not "trans" because they aren't using the "trans" prefix, is nonsense, and simply a manipulative tactic to try minimise the real and perceived difference. The supposed "logic" behind trying to force "cis" onto people is laughably easy to dismantle, and if you haven't got an argument that can stand up to basic scrutiny then you haven't got much of an argument.

It’s so comforting isn’t it

I thought I would never see the day when abuse is called sanity. Finally!!! 🥳🥳🥳

Yet, I find it odd that someone like Dawkins, who has amassed an untold wealth of knowledge of empirical and theoretical research on biology and evolution, frames this discussion in such an un-nuanced and un-scientific way by advocating that the immense diversity of human sexuality, (behaviours, experiences, and identities) can be adequately or appropriately, (or usefully) described by a binary categorization... Isn't he the one who said "Nature abhors a category"?!? For example, at minute 3:10 he mentions gamete size and chromosomes (weirdly not mentioning penises and vaginas)... what about the vast assemblage of interacting influences amongst an individual's biochemistry, physiology, emotional states, the complex web of our minds/psychology, developmental learning/enculturation, etc., etc. which evolution continues to shape and influence over millenia? Human sexuality occurs along a mutlitude of axes and spectrums. I guess my main point is to question the value of focussing discussions of sexuality on a binary category? Scientific knowledge of sexual differences in relation to medicine/disease and behaviour/psychology must of course largely cleave to these distinctions (and the individuals and professionals involved by and large do), but that's it! In the realm of our intimate and formal social relationships, institutions, and cultures, science can only provide one kind of understanding, while art and communcation to share our lived experiences provides a much broader and comprehensive avenue to develop a shared understanding of what it means to be human and how to thrive... With all respect to Dawkins (and the visible and invisible minorities who are affected by public policy and public mis-apprehesions concerning gender identity), the inflamatory, inflating, and conflating discussions that constitute "gender wars", and which grips media channels, political discussions, and the public sphere are like a form of madness. Much like mask wearing was in relation to the covid pandemic, where one falls on gender identity has become a flag and signal of tribal affiliation, rather than a multi-faceted issue to be discussed using our hearts, minds (and ears). Thus, I wish I could beseech Dawkins to reflect on which individual and social harms he is hoping to mitigate in engaging in this way with these issues, and which harms he is inadvertently perpetuating and exacerbating in both out broader society, and in relation to a persecuted minority.

@@La_Monde well you’re certainly not a grown up with a reply like that…

Came awfully late on Dawkins's side, didn't it? Oh well, better late than never. He's a huge voice, and I'm glad he did it.

Sometimes we are called to stand up for reality.your adult children are the problem,do not relent here,your children at best are brainwashed at worst havent a clue.Many are in a similar position as you and thats the purpose,to cause utter chaos to all aspects of society by people who have evil intent.

I truly sympathise with you as I also face this with family and friends. That is why I always listen to these podcasts as they make me stay strong and resolute in my beliefs.

Time to stop calling your children intelligent.

Have a Socratic conversation with them. Ask them questions, let them explain, and in the process hopefully let them discover the inconsistencies in their viewpoints themselves. Don't take a harsh, judgemental stance from the getgo. For inspiration, you could take a look at the work of Peter Boghossian, e.g. his "Street Epistemology" at Berkeley University.

@@EarthlingEveryman-zv7bsi second this

ok one thing though, what people have suffered in Iran for not complying with the theocracy is in NO WAY c comparable with people speaking against wokism in the western world honesty. That is a bad comparison.

​@@thomasdupont7186I think you get their point though, no?

The world is always changing. Right now we are in a time when the tides are changing a lot. Hold on, it will be a ride but it will be ok.

Another fake troll

In America today, there are people who will try to have you removed from a public space if you wear the wrong color hat.

University of Washington found that gender affirming care reduces suicide rate by 73% and depression by 60% in trans youth, and plenty of other studies have produced similar results, yet this woman claims there is no evidence that care prevents suicide?! Why show an interview where someone is spewing misinformation, saying there is absolutely no evidence for something that has mountains of evidence

Only when the kids are old enough to understand the context....

Sadly, this interview would be considered blasphemy toward accepted doctrine; hatespeech that wiuld never be allowed anywhere near a typical school today.

One of my favorites as well but he also believes in man made global warming and that nationalism is a bad thing so there is room for improvement.

@@Sigmund1924 You may want to read my comment again, and come back with a more scientific response.

@@alibabaschultz352 I merely questioned his, “Unwavering commitment to science and truth.” Why would that merit a scientific response given your post lacked scientific data?

​@@Sigmund1924three things he is right about on.

​@@Sigmund1924I'm curious, do you think nationalism is a good thing? And if so, why?

They said you can FEEL safe, not BE safe. If they wanted you to BE safe, men would be welxomed, and it would be leftists banned instead.

What is wrong with a woman who feels “unsafe” swimming with men present? Sounds like an anxiety disorder to me.

@@EASTSIDERIDER707certainly could be. But why not allow them some time to enjoy their swimming with Reduced anxiety?

​@@EASTSIDERIDER707 There are examples of full males with intact genitals who are claiming to be trans females and stating they have a right to use female swimming pool change rooms...and are literally exposing themselves to female children and women as well as watching female children and women disrobe into their swim clothes.That is male Voyuerism and male Exhibitionism and paedophilia. Not all transgender females are genuine trans. They're males who are using wokism to their advantage and a way to get away with their perverse s****l behaviours. They're using the trans label to increase access to their female prey... their victims. It is happening. And that is why women must have women only venues to protect genuine females of all ages. It is not neuroticism or an anxiety disorder. It is a matter of safety and security for genuine females of all ages.

Sounds like that's based in Islamic culture.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. While Helen Joyce is indeed articulate and has contributed to the discourse on gender issues, it's crucial to consider the full scope and nuances of these topics. For instance, her statement about 'sterilizing children' is not accurate according to medical guidelines. Treatments for gender dysphoria are generally not recommended for children under the age of 16, and even then, they are carefully considered and are reversible in most cases. Misinformation can create unnecessary fear and stigma, so it's important to rely on accurate medical information and ethical guidelines when discussing such sensitive issues.

@@qarl8176 Why are you replying to near every comment as some sort of "expert", when you can't even answer basic questions like defining what a "woman" is, or explaining what you think the difference is between girls and women?

@@ambientjohnny You've been harassing me repeatedly. I am not inclined to answer your questions. I wish you the best.

@@qarl8176So basically she's completely right. At least some children are being sterilized by your own admission, a child being defined in law as anyone under 18 in multiple countries, and it's the definition that Helen has used repeatedly. What on earth are you talking about? Treatments for gender dysphoria in children are applied as young as 4, beginning with social transition, psychiatric care, then at onset adolescence, puberty blockers, followed up with cross sex hormones and body augmentation, not necessarily in that direct order, as treatment pathways very greatly between countries, and between what kind of institution (private / public) and even the care provider. The vast majority of patients move on to cross sex hormones, which cause sterility 100% of the time. Marci Bowers, a transgender surgeon of great renown, is quoted as saying "every single child … who was truly blocked at Tanner stage 2 is unable". Care providers now recommend freezing of gametes to allow for fertility later in life. Blockers have been prescribed off label for kids as young as 11. The UK government had to outlaw it just over a year ago and even now there are workarounds - this is as a result of the Kiera Bell case, and they can still be applied to 16 year olds who are legally referred to as "children". A full treatment pathway, which is started in early adolescence dramatically impacts fertility, and if the full treatment path is concluded, the person will be 100% completely infertile without artificial aid. You with the absolute gall to accuse others of misinformation, when you're spreading extremely dangerous medical misinformation to others is pure evil. Helen is completely right to say "they are sterilising kids", and now I'm going to laugh at you for moving the goalposts which is what you're about to do. Go for it.

@@eleccy Oh, and, small correction: Helen doesn't say "they are sterilising kids" she says "they are sterilising children".

I think the focus of this conversation is entirely displaced from where it needs to be, and that is analyzing the role of gross inequalities in power/influence in society. Trans activists are not 'sweeping' away the ability of woman to define themselves, or the scientific understanding of human biology, (there's also heaps of cultural, physical, and physiological diversity within the group "woman" anyway"). Trans people are not challenging what a woman is, and they are not who are oppressing woman. It's the patriarchy! Or more broadly, its the system of gross power/influence inequalities based on wealth that enables some individuals and institutions to oppress, persecute, or ignore others. Its patriarchical institutions if anything who wants to be in charge of defining sexes, just ask the christian churches, just ask right wing idealogues, just ask most commentors who kick back against trans-activists and anyone else trying to seek justice or a safe place from oppression by this system, just ask the CEOS of multi-nationals who align their stores and entertainment venues to whatever demographics or social trends they think will make them the most money... The greatest potential to challenge our current configuration of entrenched hierarchies of wealth/power lies along socio-economic lines, not gender/identity lines. The power held by powerful men (or woman) in modern society largely depends on wealth and its associated myths (e.g., meritocracy: the myth that rich people deserve to be rich and poor people deserve to be poor, the myth that free market dynamics can function in the presence of gross wealth inequalities, the myth that something's value to the human and more than human world is represented by its price, the myths that brands and labels can define us, etc., etc.). In short, the power of all elites and their institutions to work in their own self-interest while subverting the interests of the less powerful is through wealth. WEalth poured into advertising, wealth poured into lobbying, wealth poured into political campaigns, wealth poured into outright bribery and corruption, etc. You want to challenge patriarchy? you want to engender a fair and equitable society? Then challenge the concentration and entrenchment of wealth in individuals and institutions. Lots of these other issues and problems will evaporate when our individual material well-being and security isn't presaged by how much wealth we earn.

@@CCDR07 “Trans people are not challenging g what a woman is” >> Yes, yes they are. They are precisely doing that. - the populace treated ‘Gender’ as a simple genteel SYNONYM for sex. Not some vague notion of a feeling in one’s head. - Social behaviour, how one feels or expresses oneself, does not affect one’s sex / gender - the Transgender movement relies on ingraining misogynistic sex behaviour stereotypes of which western societies have been chipping away since the 1950s. - No woman has, or had, a penis. - There are only two gametes. There is no such thing as non-binary gender. - Everyone has a unique persona which includes one’s manifestation of a particular mix of masculine/feminine traits. Persona has no bearing on whether one is male or female. - If you want, persona is non-binary, not gender/sex. - Apart perhaps from radically hermaphrodite babies, no one is assigned their sex at birth. Male or female is observed, based on prospective gamete type production, and immutable. - Gender has ab-so-lute-ly nothing to do with power and who is or isn’t oppressed. It has nothing to do with socialism or equality / inequality.

​@@CCDR07I'd argue that trans ideology works in tandem with the patriarchy as biological males still have a stance of power in places where trans ideology is widely accepted. A personal example is in my small liberal town, a self identified trans women have been caught peeping at women and children over their stalls within the last 5 years. They have been caught 2 times by women in the locker room but got away each time due to the staff being afraid of getting in trouble for discrimination. The fact of the matter is trans women are at risk of ridicule and violence in certain parts of the world, yes, but they are also at a physical advantage over women everywhere no matter the political setting. Especially transwomen who still have pensises. We see this with prisoners being raped and even impregnated by self identified trans women. How is this not a threat to women? I also push against the assertion that trans activists are not trying to take away women's right to speak how they'd like or trying to destroy the reality of sex. First of all, we are removing language that works for the majority to appeal to the minority in medical care, not when the minority is being cared for, but around the board. Using words like chest feeders, uterus Havers, birthers, which is seen as dehumanizing to many women, but that doesn't seem to matter because people with vaginas don't matter as much, which is due to the patriarchyyoh speak of. Notice how very little accommodations there are for trans men. Medical and journalist terminology hasn't changed to call men penis Havers or sperm donors. Also the term assigned male or female at birth is a direct affront to the material reality that sex is real and for the majority and for the normal functioning, is visible identifiable, so yes, there is an attack on sex, which is a serious problem, particularly for medical purposes. Most trans men continue to compete in women's spaces but trans women are now going into women's. Why is that? If it's about being true to your identity, why are trans men not competing with other men? Trans men are at an advantage with upped testosterone AND trans women are at an advantage for having a male body, even with the lowering of strength via estrogen. How is this not an attack on biological women's rights to equity and just safety of their body? The patriarchy is also a huge reason why so many young women are now identifying as trans, trans identification of adolescent females has SKYROCKETED within a mere decade, and it makes sense considering the dire reality of being female in a patriarchal society. It's also a fact that 90% of these youth find themselves not actually trans when gone through adolescence, and many of them ending up actually homosexual, so the current tran movement as it stands also benefits from homophobia as well as the patriarchy. I am not saying therefore let's not give trans people opportunities, accommodations or respect as fellow human beings. What I am saying is we need to find a way to exist within material reality AND honour people's unique experiences. If there is nothing wrong with being trans, why try and skew biological reality? And I am also saying that I agree, patriarchy and wealth disparity are a HUGE issue and are tangibly harming people, for many demographics much more directly than trans ideology, but trans ideology is intertwined with patriarchy and homophobia, so it is a part of the puzzle

@@CCDR07 "Lots of these other issues and problems will evaporate when our individual material well-being and security isn't presaged by how much wealth we earn".- so you want things that belong to others, given out to those that did nothing for it ie for free. That was tried in the 20th century. It was called Communism.

@@CCDR07uh

There kind of is. It's the Scientist Party and it's a tyrannical belief in experts instead of processes. It's the opposite of science.

As a scientist trust me that is the last thing we need.

The last thing you need is Sleepy Joe and the Democrats?

A science party would be fantastic. No more group identity BS from the left and no more bible brainwash from the right.

God help us. The governing bodies of scientific disciplines in the US have been taken over by raging Wokesters.

If you voted Democrat, is there a safe way for you to contact your representative on this matter? Same question for your family doctor, with whom you should be able to speak confidentially?

Woke and trans ideology are in a battle against freedom of speech. These people are fascistic not liberal. Don't let them claim otherwise. You're a liberal they are not.

I wish it was like that here in the Scotland. The left wing among my age (under 30) believe this shit fully, Only a minority disagree

There in the democratic party between liberals and progressives, and the progressives have the power. I fear the only way to fix it is to splinter and create a new party.

Hence the importance of the stance that Maya Forstater took against her employer, about the relevance of biological sex. Helen Joyce tells her story at 47:40. It was the American headquarters that gave Ms Forstater trouble.

The irony is that a normal woman wouldn't make rape threats. That is a male thing to do. (I know not all males would make those threats, but women as a rule do not tend to)

Maybe you deserved it for your own invalidating behaviour you vile creature! If you address trans woman as sir then you are guilty of text-book misogyny and psychological violence according to Council of Europe on Gender Matters, which states and I quote: «All forms of violence have a psychological aspect, since the main aim of being violent or abusive is to hurt the integrity and dignity of another person. Apart from this, there are certain forms of violence which take place using methods which cannot be placed in other categories, and which therefore can be said to achieve psychological violence in a ‘pure’ form. This includes isolation or confinement, withholding information, disinformation, and threatening behaviour. In the private sphere, psychological violence includes threatening conduct which lacks physical violence or verbal elements, for example, actions that refer to former acts of violence, or purposeful ignorance and neglect of another person. One common example of such violence in the public sphere includes the isolation of young women or men who do not act according to traditional gender roles. Isolation in the public sphere is most often used by peer groups, but responsible adults - such as teachers and sports coaches - can also be perpetrators. Most typically, isolation means exclusion from certain group activities. It can also include intimidation, in a similar fashion to psychological abuse in the private sphere." Interesting how most bigoted psychopaths seem to be constantly self projecting their own sickness and misogyny while pointing finger at others. Let's see how an adult reacts to invalidation that has been abused this way often on a daily basis since childhood by being forced into being what they are not, literally their life being turned against itself - which is what the definition of abuse is actually about and forced into puberty to furthermore mutilate/deform their body. The evil is deeply embedded in ignorance. Bigotry begins where other people’s dignity and right to exist ends, the truth is it is bullies like you who have blood on their hands, because using correct pronouns especially for children has been confirmed by the majority of medical and psychiatric institutions as suicide prevention! Please seek psychological help yourself before causing more harm and damage towards others around you!

@@bluesteakmanflesh131 That is because you are ignorant of what is going on here, these threats are not real threats like when men do it because they truly mean it, they are done out of anger and desperation to push their fears they already have of them because they see them as men and feel afraid they might rape them. It is usually a payback for the humiliation they have experienced by them. Time to look in the mirror first! Because then you will see who is the REAL aggressor here and who initiated the abuse through radical dehumanization and devaluation of their dignity as human beings. You would not be able to cope with the level of abuse they are experiencing almost on a daily basis, so please do us a favor and shut up.

@@hanziumterra Are you saying it is right to act like this even if we were abused this way? I am not saying that I disagree, I think what you are saying is more correct and true to reality, cause trans women are not raping anyone, they are not making threats to innocent people, this is more like typical revenge thing, but because we've been abused it does not excuse us from causing more abuse ourselves.

@@Arabella868 No not at all, I dont excuse their behaviour. I am just trying to show why that is happening, that it is not because they are men, but because they rather make fun of their abusers this way. Not all trans women are like this, but look at the pattern here how these people use these incidences to portray all trans women like this as if they are a cult that share the same behaviour or beliefs, as if being trans was a belief itself anyway.

Who is Dr. Dawkins? 😛

@@mTsp4ce Basically people who never went to university like to pretend that they respect academia by adding celebrity academics' titles to the front of their heroes' names. They think it's respectful, but it just singles them out people who have never set foot inside a university. It's fucking cringe. Dawkins does have a doctorate though, just in case you were unaware. Hence, Dr. Dawkins, regardless of how sycophantic and fawning it sounds. You'll see the same fawning behavior in the comments sections of any Dawkins or Tyson video. Hell, even that clown Jordan Peterson's comments are full of this fawning bullshit. OMG I LOVE YOU DOCTOR PETERSON. YOU ARE SO SANE AND RATIONAL....

@@Welcome2TheInternet Thanks. Yes, I am aware that he has a doctorate, he also is a Professor though, so it would be more appropriate to call him Prof. Dawkins.

Yes we'll do e Dawkins and Joyce. Great stuff. Good interview. Good people. Good comment.

Helen, sure. Richard, not so much.

I hope you are not alone but in touch with other gender critical students and people generally, for moral support. The gender ideology cult is deeply misogynist and homophobic, and operates by bullying and silencing. Its verbal violence is becming ever more physical, especially towards women. Hope you stay safe.

What happened? Have you considered legal protection? There are crowdfunding platforms

You’re not the weird one.

Sanity itself is under attack. Strangely uni’s are one of the hardest places to be in now.

@@ThinkTwice-hy5hy7so3j Don't try to legislate our medicine away and you won't get death threats. Continue testifying before Congress and quite frankly, we have no other choice.

my ecology lecturer was doing a workshop on statistics, and when a study came up discussing how male and female differed in height, she said, "This study did not include nonbinary people, unfortunately". When I asked her why did she say that, considering all people are male and female, she lectured me on the phenomenon of intersex and that I should educate myself. She didn't seem to have any idea that nonbinary has nothing to do with disorders of sexual development. A lecturer! And trying to teach stats too. It's just embarrassing.

Do you think because we have removed ourselves from the land, tat we are confused by biology?

The current young generation finds it fashionable to force psychotic delusions on the clueless world that they were born into. At the deepest level it is both a test and a protest against Continued Universal Human Cluelessness. Children find it humorous when adults are too witless to explain reality adequately.

@@balalaika852 As if it was in any way a significant data to begin with🤣

It would seem that way from this video wouldn't it? Interesting they'll dismiss the answers they get without engaging the subject matter, and go on to insist that the trans community is making claims that they've been told they aren't. It's one thing to disagree that there's this thing called "gender" that is separate from "sex", it's another to talk about people who do see it that way as if they don't either. It is very sad hearing a detransitioners story, but it's also sad hearing stories of trans people who never had any support. This is serious, but the discussion in this video is not the balanced a reasoned discussion it purports to be. You'd think trans people haven't been around since long before they were born.

Its allways talking about Trans Folks, not whit them. Listen to counterartuments and form an actual Oppinion. They never ever dissagreed whit each other. Trans Supporter call others Bigot and theres no Equivalent? Im sorry? The Thousands of Republikans calling Trans People Groomers? Rowlings Friend who states she wants to murder Trans People? Hes not very intellectual Honest.

Yet, I find it odd that someone like Dawkins, who has amassed an untold wealth of knowledge of empirical and theoretical research on biology and evolution, frames this discussion in such an un-nuanced and un-scientific way by advocating that the immense diversity of human sexuality, (behaviours, experiences, and identities) can be adequately or appropriately, (or usefully) described by a binary categorization... Isn't he the one who said "Nature abhors a category"?!? For example, at minute 3:10 he mentions gamete size and chromosomes (weirdly not mentioning penises and vaginas)... what about the vast assemblage of interacting influences amongst an individual's biochemistry, physiology, emotional states, the complex web of our minds/psychology, developmental learning/enculturation, etc., etc. which evolution continues to shape and influence over millenia? Human sexuality occurs along a mutlitude of axes and spectrums. I guess my main point is to question the value of focussing discussions of sexuality on a binary category? Scientific knowledge of sexual differences in relation to medicine/disease and behaviour/psychology must of course largely cleave to these distinctions (and the individuals and professionals involved by and large do), but that's it! In the realm of our intimate and formal social relationships, institutions, and cultures, science can only provide one kind of understanding, while art and communcation to share our lived experiences provides a much broader and comprehensive avenue to develop a shared understanding of what it means to be human and how to thrive... With all respect to Dawkins (and the visible and invisible minorities who are affected by public policy and public mis-apprehesions concerning gender identity), the inflamatory, inflating, and conflating discussions that constitute "gender wars", and which grips media channels, political discussions, and the public sphere are like a form of madness. Much like mask wearing was in relation to the covid pandemic, where one falls on gender identity has become a flag and signal of tribal affiliation, rather than a multi-faceted issue to be discussed using our hearts, minds (and ears). Thus, I wish I could beseech Dawkins to reflect on which individual and social harms he is hoping to mitigate in engaging in this way with these issues, and which harms he is inadvertently perpetuating and exacerbating in both out broader society, and in relation to a persecuted minority.

Another way that it resembles a cult.

​@@tuffwith2effs899it's never been possible to trans male female or reverse mental facilitation. I've seen it too often. Man at work perpetuates his wife's anxiety by feeding on her mental illness

Correction, you mean "two people who both believe the same thing about the same topic".

​@@jakeenvelopes9561 here goes mister leftist. Yes mister Open Minded, you see, the sad thing is that the bright minds of this world must come to explain such simple, basic, obvious, normal things, desperately trying to stop this world to transform the delusion into mainstream

Beautifully said! Thank you.

Fantastic point. Thanks for laying this one out.

Fantastic comment!! 🥳

Exactly. Women are not a shield for male on male violence.

its the biblical story of sodom and gomorrah playing out in real life - throwing the women out be raped, in order to save some precious men from it.

This sounds truly horrible. But I've heard several horrible stories in this discussion which have turned out to be not true - so sadly I must remain skeptical of all claims. Can you cite some examples of violence committed against those who have questioned the science of gender affirming care?

I hope you understand - when you make claims like that and then don't back them up, it reinforces the belief that these claims are fiction. So far in these comments I've seen no fewer than five people make horrible claims like this, only to see them disproved.

​​@@qarl8176you have a fair point . From my part, just in the last week I had an exchange on FB which has left me a bit shaken, as in worried for the future. I commented positively on a girl's comment about gender roles being social constructs . As a 57yo woman of very liberal views, i said yes, indeed they are purely socio-cultural constructs, unlike genders, which are biological. Within seconds, another user self identifying as a trans male (biological female) sent me out of the blue a super long super aggressive litany of insults, calling me in capital letters a BIGOT, IGNORANT, an enemy of the trans community and a dangerous individual. In the meantime i exchanged some polite comments with otber young users. I responded politely to the trans activist, explaining my lifelong support to LGBTQ people but at the same time making some scientific points and highlighting the plight of young, permanently mutilated and sterilized detransitioners who were failed by a system that should have had better safeguards in place. Oh my god, he vomited another super long litany of ideologised propaganda,calling me all sorts of names and concluding I am a danger and an enemy to the trans community , that the community doesn t want me 😂 and I should crawl back into whatever "tartarus encrusted crack I had crawled out of". Yes. He was so off the mark on all counts, and so triggered, i did not respond. But eventually i did offer an olive branch, explaining that we had in fact similar views on some of the points he was shouting abouts , and surely we could build bridges and not end the conversation on such a horrible note. So again, I calmly and politely made my points, trying to clear the misunderstandings and also calling him out on a couple of bullshit claims( he was talking about monosomy and trisomy like they had anytbing to do with sex not being a binary thing). I truly wished him a long, happy and fulfilled life, and assured him that I would not engage further. He then onge again responded aggressively calling me a complete ignorant, a propagandist of the far right , Trumpist and fundamentalist christian side. I mean, I am even an ateis😂t, for fxxxx sake😂 that's it. I did not engage further. I feel sad for these angry young people blinded by ideology and totally incapable of real debate and civil disagreement. The future is bleak.

Gender has always been a role. Eunuchs were a third gender in certain societies. Gender absolutely is a spectrum; its merely how you represent. Is there literally anything to argue with there? Because genuinely, every counter to that I've seen is totally schizophrenic or a etymology fallacy. What's your 0.02$?

@@alexlink4623 there is no suck spectrum anywhere except in the inferior intellects of deranged individuals perpetually victims of their own existential and identity crisis. I pity such individuals, but in no circumstances I take them seriously.

@@alexlink4623 Richard Dawkins is right, JKR is right, the GT movement is right, Lia Thomas is a man, a man can never be a woman no matter how he may identify. End of the story.

@@Rothko0281 If you would call a male a woman in any circumstance, that is wrong. You would; gender is not sex. You are either a bigot or slow.

@@Rothko0281100% agree.

I was surprised at how well that scene has aged! :)

The joke in that scene is that Loretta wants to have babies. Wich is not possible, no matter how accepted her transition is. Because people can't change their sex, they can only change their gender.

Nice whataboutism

Maybe if I identify as Aboriginal I can qualify for affirmative action?

😂

The bank must be staffed by bigots 😂😂😂

@@MonkeyDIvanYou should look up the definition of words before using them. You wouldn’t embarrass yourself so thoroughly 😂

While it's good that you support the autonomy of adults, it's important to note that medical interventions for transgender minors are often supported by extensive medical and psychological evaluations. These are not decisions taken lightly, and many medical organizations stand behind the best practices for treating minors with gender dysphoria. Regarding sports, it's a nuanced issue that requires balancing fairness with inclusivity. Many sports organizations are implementing policies that aim to create a level playing field for everyone involved, taking into account more than just biological sex. Dismissing these efforts as "antifeminist" simplifies a complex debate.

@@qarl8176 I know I feel very differently about things as an adult, and have psychologically changed immensely since I was a child. If I had been held, by medical intervention, to something I was even maybe 'obsessed' (not a good word but it exemplifies children's thought processes) with as a child, I may be more psychologically damaged throughout my life and needing to seek further medical and psychological intervention.

​@fluffyfour and that's what leftists dont even think about, the effect it has on your body 5 to 10 years after. 90 percent of the time if you leave kids to it, they will grow out of it

I agree with you to an extent. However, just because adults can do things which harm themselves, it doesn't mean society should encourage it. We allow tobacco, vaping, drinking, even marijuana in some states now. Just because you are free to indulge these things doesn't mean you should, or that society should encourage their use. On the contrary, we educate people about the negative side effects, we fight the people who advertise these products to get kids addicted, and we have huge warning labels about the possible injuries. The way things are now, even the adults who elect to undergo hormone therapy or surgery aren't being properly educated about the long term costs of the procedures. Let alone adults, even kids as young as in kindergarten are being lied to on a fundamental level about what it means to be human.

@@qarl8176often? Definitely not always. And TRAs are trying to get investigating thr possibility the person is disturbed or deluded as “conversion therapy”. No minor is able to meaningfully condense to having irreversible treatments and operations etc

Why is it a "generation defining battle" when it affects so few people? Does it affect you?

@@craigjones9372 The push to redefine sex in law to a metaphysical belief affects a lot of people, actually. You're watching Dawkins, you'd reasonably object if any other metaphysical belief became the basis for laws.

@@LightSpell28 "The push to redefine sex in law to a metaphysical belief affects a lot of people, actually." Citation please. Who is pushing what and where? "...you'd reasonably object if any other metaphysical belief became the basis for laws." You aren't going to sneak in any lies about me. I have in no way endorsed any enshrinement into law of any nonsense that you haven't even defined.

@@craigjones9372 look up all the countries that have gender self-id. gender identity shouldnt trump sex, they should both have some separate legal status.

@@craigjones9372 nice trivialising there. Women are 52% of the planet. 25% of the world’s population are male children. Helen has x2 Post Doctoral degrees in Higher Mathematics, you obviously don’t hve basic school arithmetic let alone mathematics or statistics.

Indeed, and sad to see how irrational and suscetible to emotional manipulation the supposedly educated "elite" is.

Her arguments are absolutely incorrect. University of Washington found that gender affirming care reduces suicide rate by 73% and depression by 60% in trans youth, and plenty of other studies have produced similar results, yet this woman claims there is no evidence that care prevents suicide?!

Good point, Richard Dawkins and Helen, are both intelligent educated highly moral enlightened centre left people. And the fact they can say it's ok to say biological sex exists, and has consequences, helps suppress the bigoted hateful Orwellian tra agenda that claims biological sex does not exist,

@@lsmith6036 I’m a left handed spigot, it’s not an onerous position 🙂

Yep. It's just a shame they both already agree with each other. If they disagreed and remained civil it would have inspired some hope.

Yeah, it's weirdly unnerving isn't it? I was thinking "hey, common sense! I remember this:)"

​@@Scimaradyes, what, have they been drinking, normal water, they just sound sensible. And correct

They agree on the topic. Why wouldn't this be an easygoing chat?

@@tayler2396 I'd bet that both speakers would still be respectful even if they were speaking with people with whom they disagreed...

University of Washington found that gender affirming care reduces suicide rate by 73% and depression by 60% in trans youth, and plenty of other studies have produced similar results, yet this woman claims there is no evidence that care prevents suicide?!

I hate this SO much! It makes me think these people (I am surrounded by them in my company) are only paying lip service to caring about women.

Have you ever considered that they might be right? That said, a shame if they won't engage properly

@@topwomble Such extreme black and white thinking cannot be right, it's ridiculous, and even more "funny" how it shows an utter and complete lack of perceiving any nuance at all, yet the people who engage in that type of behaviour frequently accuse others of failing to grasp nuance, such textbook projection.

I am in the same position. One person's opinions seem to rule the rest and I have been literally shut down by some just because they were worried I might disagree with that person. They all have multiple degrees and are more articulate than I (who only have a bachelor's) but seemingly discussion is only allowed if you agree with the group!

​@@topwombleThe problem is that those people never consider that THEY might be wrong

Yes, completely agree. This mealy-mouthed gobbledygook espoused far too often (‘it’s not that difficult to just be polite!’)was and still is nothing more than a means in use to get you from one island of insanity to another, and they’re not stopping with just this one thing . when you give just a little in the name of being polite, it’s on to the next ‘ask’. You did this thing, why can’t you just do this next thing? It’s not a big deal really, it’s just one thing. I appreciate that last thing but now I need this next thing. Look, if you want to play dress-up and have a grand time playing make-believe, have at it. I’ve no issues with you and I’m perfectly happy to coexist- you’ll have no issues with me. When your mental illness requires me to partake, engaging in obvious distortions in order to appease your fantasy, I’m drawing a firm line.

Just because we call someone who looks physically male a 'he' doesn't make us bigots... couldn't agree more.

Helen is more than a gem- Ms. Joyce is an absolutely amazing person with the ability to hide her cape impeccably because I’ve yet to see it, but I’m completely certain that, as a superhero, she does wear one. Ireland has many issues, but this product of the Emerald Isle may be the best export they’ve ever produced, and it’s too bad there’s not a bumper crop.

I agree, she is a superhero.

@@YourMomLivesHere There is another Superwoman who hails from the Emerald Isle: Psychotherapist Stella O'Malley. Do you know her? If not, you should definitely check out her work.

She has an awesome rack, too.

@@EarthlingEveryman-zv7bs thanks for the tip- I hadn’t heard of her previously but will do so now.

This comment is my spirit animal.

Keep strong! ❤

The way Helen takes the time to slow way down and delineate the direct line from capitulation on the pronoun to more consequential trouble is really awesome.

Sorry but that line of reasoning is called "The slippery slope fallacy". You can do one thing without having to commit to other things. A quick reminder. Gender Dysphoria is real and some people are suffering from it. If I can ease their pain by using a preferred pronoun I will gladly do so.

​@@Simchenbut that doesnt mean you need a hormone and surgery to treat it.

​@Simchen the slippery slope fallacy occurrs when the imagined escalations don't happen or aren't credible, in the trans case, they have ALL already happened, it's a statement of fact as to what the consequences were of being "polite". Please engage one brain cell if you have it.

@@pankakesnotstellar Exactly - I wanted to write this very thing when I read the charge of the slippery slope from Simchen this morning. Glad someone else got to it. The slippery slope is a fallacy where you DON'T delineate how one thing leads to another, but Joyce does in fact delineate it in excruciating detail and with very forthright, fulsome logic. It is a masterclass in extemporaneous speech. Joyce is a verbal titan. Helen, in this case - not James. ;)

I’m also a leftist from birth but I was forced to write right handed 😂

Defeats the object of being a left winger 🙄

​​@@KianJ2003 Did you tell that to people who voted for Biden, whose administration approved a multi-billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, a country which punishes lgbtq by death? I hope you don't consider such people left wing. Democrats are a right wing neoliberal party, no less, no more right wing than the Republicans, they agree on 99% of important issues.

​@@KianJ2003such a sad narrow minded view!

@@rocoe9019 nope.

Thank you for sharing. ❤

we all go through it but i am white gay man(bith) whose trans love my body now , we all have different journeys , hormones wont hurt most kids , everyone should chill trans panic is a fabrication created , its propaganda using the few narcissistic youth on tiktok, to represent a small group amongst a small group lol its sad , distracting us from real issues

It interests me why you went this way around puberty and beyond. What were the causes? Did you have people around you giving negative feedback about how you look? Were your family critical? Did you want to have a partner and they rejected you? I have had my own experiences back around puberty, eg having a total crush, and being gently pushed away (mercifully)...i look back of course and see we were so young it was silly, too young to marry, sex wouldve been a bad idea etc. As you say "im so grateful...or who know could have happened to me..." . Lucky things were different back then.

I agree that they got around gender and sex as biology, but I wish they would have at the very least touched on the subject of developmental biology. This is where this issue becomes a real problem to define ! There are males with a brain that resembles a woman's more then a male's, and vs versa with woman, saying that such a people are any specific sex/gender makes litte sense to me.

@@realitymatters8720 its called variation, bro. a man is an adult of the male sex, and brains do not determine sex, sex determines the brain. a man with a brain that overlaps with female brains is just as much of a man as a man with a height that overlaps with female height, and his brain is a male brain that has zero female cells in it.

Hitchens-quote: "So you are offended. Now what is your argument?" Very, very applicable here.

I'm far more concerned with the MAJORITY of the atheist/self-appointed """skeptics"'" (on YT, at least), who HAVE unquestioningly embracef the 100% evidence-free ideology of (sex-independent) "gender", regardless of the fact it shares THE EXACT SAME standard of evidence as the traditional religions, who they smugly act so superior to. Matt Dillahunty is the most obvious example, with his enthusiastic promotion of the irreversable mutilation of 100% healthy children, justified by exactly ZERO empirical evidnce of any medical issue, whatsoever... Off the top of my head, there's also Aron Ra, Katy Montgomery, Jimmy Snow, Seth Andrews, even T.J Kirk. These people should NOT be allowed to quietly sweep this aside, and go back to pwning Evangelicals, like nothing happened. I have NEVER been a fan of "cancel culture" (unlike most listed above...), but actively, consistently promoting chemical sterlilization of gay lesbian and autistic children (over 80% of needlessly mutilated detransitioners are same-sex attracted), based on a 100% IDENTICAL standard of evidence, to that used to justify Islamic FGM, is different to Tweeting an edgy joke once in 2014, or associating with the wrong people. From where I stand, this has been the atheist/"""skeptic""" version of the Catholic child abuse issue- We have ALL had to make a choice; Either (1) prioritize the physical protection of children, the rights, safety, and self-determination of (evidence-based) women. And most importantly, prioritizing CONSISTENT STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE-BASED TRUTH... Even IF that means "going against your own tribe", and being called a "hateful transphobic bigot" on Twitter... Or else (2) we could choose to prioritize the latest-greatest left-wing cause of the day, even though that meant REJECTING consistent standards of evidence, and SACRIFICING the rights and safety of women, of gays and lesbians. And (IMO worst of all) sacrificing the health, safety and rights of children, all in the name of SIDING WITH "the tribe", standard political "team sports", and opposing atheism's (and the left's) "traditional enemy" of the religious right (who happened to land on the CORRECT side of this one issue. "Even a broken clock..." as the saying goes). At its core, it's the same decision Catholics faced a decade or two back, that we as atheists have been (justifiably... AS LONG as we hold ourselves to the same standard...) not letting them live down, ever since; The choice to either protect "your side", even when that means letting children get harmed and sacrificing principles... or to STAND BY your principles, and PROTECT children, even when that means "going against the tribe"... People like Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Peter Boghossian, etc have STOOD BY their principles, and PASSED the test that the Catholic establishment failed... But atheists/seld-appointed """skeptics""" like Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, Katy Montgomery,Jimmy Snow, Seth Andrews, etc all acted JUST as immoral, unethical and intellectually dishonest, as the Catholic hierarchy did... And those atheists were arguably even MORE enthusiastic and pro-active, in their encouragement of 100% needless, irreversable harm to children, for NO evidnce-based reason,at all... (to be clear, I'm not comparing Dillahunty and pals to the Catholic priests who PHYSICALLY ABUSED children... merely to the priests who CHOSE TO ACTIVELY PROTECT THE ABUSERS, regardless of the harm to children...)

You're blind if you think you aren't religious. You just have no clue what exactly your god is. Even the great atheist prophet Dawkins has a god.

No need to be kind to fetistists! And most of the Atheist lot have been utterly useless, pro trans etc and Dawkins has taken ages!

@@vicw9223 you seem to be suffering a condition known as intelligence dysphoria

@@La_Monde More projection from a groupthink cult. Religion really doesn't change its spots, huh?

Like Neil Degrass Tyson

like Matt Dillahunty. All of a sudden observed evidence goes out the window.

@@zilchnilton Dillahunty is not a "colleague" of Dawkins - they aren't even on the same level. I think a closer comparison to Dillahunty would be TheAmazingAtheist.

She should be, but the opposition threatens violence. The platforms and more importantly the institutions that would benefit most from a debate of ideas have opted for the kind of censorship we railed against in the Bush years.

@@La_Mondeshe is. What is your argument against what is being said here?

@@La_Mondethere is no such thing as a transgender person. There are only people with gender dysphoria. I’m sorry if you have gender dysphoria, it must be very difficult. However, there is no such thing as being “born in the wrong body” as there is nothing but the body. The psyche and the body are not separate. It doesn’t really matter how much you have thought about any of this. You are simply what you were born as and you will never be anything different. You just happen to live in a time where you have the ability to change the appearance of your body. If you have decide to attempt to fool the rest of the world to make living life more bearable then more power to you. I wish you all the luck in your charade.

@@La_Monde Thanks for your well-thought out and comprehensive replies. I don't think I could stress enough the role that entrenched wealth/power striving to maintain the teetering economic hierarchies that plague modern globalized society (along with plutocratic and patriarchical goverments and social instutions, which you alude to) play in maintaining the anger of said mob. Anything to divert attention away from class-based inequalities and injustices, and their inherent dysfunctions (e.g., destroying the environment, irradicating indigenous societies and other ways of being, etc.

@@DosYeobos University of Washington found that gender affirming care reduces suicide rate by 73% and depression by 60% in trans youth, and plenty of other studies have produced similar results, yet this woman claims there is no evidence that care prevents suicide?!

Don't forget Graham Linehan!

And Miriam Grossman!

If you enjoyed this, as I did, thought I'd add this for those who're interested: Reading list: Hags by @glosswitch Material Girls by @Docstockk Defending Women's Spaces by @K_IngalaSmith Time to Think by @hannahsbee Irreversible Damage @AbigailShrier The Abolition of Sex @KDansky The End of the World Is Flat @simonjedge Unpacking Queer Politics” (2003), by Sheila Jeffreys, which critiques female-to-male transsexualism as capitulation to misogyny. Sheila Jeffreys’s released “Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism.” @Serena_Partrick had an excellent list going too. 💜🤍💚🙏

And Bill Burr.

​@@simonhadley8829😂😂😂

I think the terms feminine or masculine itself is problematic because people use it in a different way it doesn't have a specific definition. For example sometimes people say it's feminine because it looks like a typical woman but at the same time people also use it to describe someone feminine because they are submissive ( which is Sexism) or for being more gentle or elegant and call someone masculine just for being bold or dominant. This is nothing but sexism. A male is a man and a female is a woman and then they have their own personalities.

It's a strawman. The entire time he's conflating sex and gender. When a biologically born male who is trans, they are not saying they are now a biologically female (changing chromosomes is just a technological limitation for now, and not to mention women with vaginas can be born with XY chromosomes regardless), all they are saying is they are feeling consonance with that sex which is all gender is. It is completely biologically based, as the brain/ mind is physiological. There is no female/ male brain, just a brain. And there's no treatment outside gender affirmation. Why cannot definitions adapt? How would you define a chair? Because you could sit on anything. Someone losing their genitalia to cancer doesn't make them less of that sex/gender.

@@archangelarielle262 Define 'gender'. Many see it as just a pile of regressive stereotypes that we spent the last few decades trying to abolish, or at least reduce the importance of. The conflation of sex and gender comes from the trans activists. They say it's about 'gender' (expectations/stereotypes/performance) and downplay the significance of diagnosable health conditions (gender dysphoria/body dysmorphia), but then demand drugs, major surgery, and to be treated as the opposite *sex* in situations where sex really does matter, rather than just be accepted and respected as a gender non-conformer. Encouraging kids to be gender-nonconforming is great, but telling them that they can actually change sex, encouraging them to seek medical transition, and to become obsessed with 'identity' is terrible. But a lot of it is now political, isnt it?, It's about recruiting for a political movement, not about the best outcomes for those kids.

​​​@@archangelarielle262You make the crucial point yourself: At present, going to the hospital to have one's chromosomes changed -- that is, in every cell of one's body -- is not an option ... and won't be for a ve-e-ry long time ... probably never will be. And yet, in our times, "gender affirmative care" is suggest-sold by authority figures and institutions to impressionable young people and their parents, as if this torturous procedure would transform a person into a member of the opposite sex.

​@archangelarielle262 There is a female/male brain actually. Lmao. Nice fantasy. Reality disagrees. There is zero evidence for the existence of your fantasy. You will never be able to swap chromosomes. End of.

​@archangelarielle262 You are a delusional cultist. I will never change my language to accommodate deluded 21st century cults. You cannot change gender, ever. There is no such thing as "gender affirmation" that's just called delusion.

I want Rebecca Reilly-Cooper on! Her talk to Coventry Skeptics on this subject was great, its a shame most of the skeptic movement won't touch this. That video is on youtube with a q&a, and is 7 years old or something.

Well - as long as she keeps telling lies ("They're sterilizing children") she's not going to do very well against Tyson.

@@somethingdiabolical3894 Yes, I understand there is a lot of hysteria. There are a lot of people cashing-in on that hysteria. Can you provide any scientifically verified evidence? No you can't. So please, stop.

Her open disgust is very attractive.

Yet, I find it odd that someone like Dawkins, who has amassed an untold wealth of knowledge of empirical and theoretical research on biology and evolution, frames this discussion in such an un-nuanced and un-scientific way by advocating that the immense diversity of human sexuality, (behaviours, experiences, and identities) can be adequately or appropriately, (or usefully) described by a binary categorization... Isn't he the one who said "Nature abhors a category"?!? For example, at minute 3:10 he mentions gamete size and chromosomes (weirdly not mentioning penises and vaginas)... what about the vast assemblage of interacting influences amongst an individual's biochemistry, physiology, emotional states, the complex web of our minds/psychology, developmental learning/enculturation, etc., etc. which evolution continues to shape and influence over millenia? Human sexuality occurs along a mutlitude of axes and spectrums., surely Dawkins should be the first to admit this? What is the value of focussing discussions of sexuality on a binary category? Scientific knowledge of sexual differences in relation to medicine/disease and behaviour/psychology must of course largely cleave to these distinctions (and the individuals and professionals involved by and large do), but that's it! In the realm of our intimate and formal social relationships, institutions, and cultures, science can only provide one kind of understanding, while art and communcation to share our lived experiences provides a much broader and comprehensive avenue to develop a shared understanding of what it means to be human and how to thrive... With all respect to Dawkins (and the visible and invisible minorities who are affected by public policy and public mis-apprehesions concerning gender identity), the inflamatory, inflating, and conflating discussions that constitute "gender wars", and which grips media channels, political discussions, and the public sphere are like a form of madness. Much like mask wearing was in relation to the covid pandemic, where one falls on gender identity has become a flag and signal of tribal affiliation, rather than a multi-faceted issue to be discussed using our hearts, minds (and ears). Thus, I wish I could beseech Dawkins to reflect on which individual and social harms he is hoping to mitigate in engaging in this way with these issues, and which harms he is inadvertently perpetuating and exacerbating in both out broader society, and in relation to a persecuted minority.

University of Washington found that gender affirming care reduces suicide rate by 73% and depression by 60% in trans youth, and plenty of other studies have produced similar results, yet this woman claims there is no evidence that care prevents suicide?!

Agreed. I’ve seen it been argued that therapy to reconcile with one’s natal sex should be the only approach; but from what I’ve seen (no studies to back this up yet, so take this with a grain of salt) many of the detransitioners who advocate for this admit that they’re still dysphoric. Meanwhile, given my own experience with transition, I do genuinely feel like my dysphoria has been alleviated beyond what therapy-only could achieve; most of the time, I feel like I’ve been cured! Both are valid approaches, but the idea that medical transition is always a mistake, and does nothing to really help a person, is simply false.

Me too.

People call him a conservative and even alt right now. It's so ridiculous.

@@nickaslanidis6156 because people have lost their minds! Dawkins is the single most rational person I've come across. His arguments are precise and whenever he approaches a territory that he doesn't have sufficient knowledge of, he doesn't pretend- he says it like it is and admits that he'll have to read about it. I admire him for his sincerity and good intent in any and all argumentations he ever had. It saddens me that he's getting older and that I will probably never get to meet and thank him in person for influencing my personality the way he did.

@OldTimer16s i understand, I've been reading his books since the early 90s. This is not a topic he's ignorant of, this is area of expertise and people should listen to him.

@@nickaslanidis6156 that is true! It is a matter of simple sixth grade biology

the wikipedia article for the musician "SOPHIE" uses the word "SOPHIE" every time a pronoun would normally be used, since he insisted that no pronouns should be used to identify him. its getting ridiculous.

​@@jacobmatthews7524 "Its getting ridiculous". 'it' in the word it's is a pronoun,Jacob. The word is banned.

So true, so when someone asks your pronouns, the proper response is me, myself & I.

Oh that's really good I may purloin this, if you don't mind?

@@JaneA544 I like that you used the word 'purloin'.

Her narrative seems to rely on sensationalism, especially with assertions like "they're sterilizing children." While such statements could easily incite public anxiety, they are not supported by the facts. In the vast majority of cases, hormone therapy doesn't begin until the patient is at least 16 years old and never before leaving childhood for puberty.

@@qarl8176 Why should MALES be allowed access to SINGLE-SEX spaces reserved for FEMALES based on their "gender identity"? If sex and gender are separate, then a male announcing his "gender identity" is "trans woman" does nothing to change their sex, they are still MALE - so why should they be afforded rights reserved for the opposite SEX? The movement is regressively sexist, and misogynistic.

@@ambientjohnny You've been harassing me repeatedly. I am not inclined to answer your questions. I wish you the best.

@@qarl8176 In law children become adults at the age of 18, so her statement was accurate (in as much as we have to have some standard to adhere to for clarity).

@@OldGreyMulletTest LOL. I dare you to walk into a classroom of 16-year-olds and call them children. In the text of contracts, "child" means under 18. In all other contexts it does not. Helen is trying to create hysteria because it helps her book sales.

"It is up to us on the left to walk this thing back. I want liberals to make room for gender diversity -- and that includes masculine girls and feminine boys -- WITHOUT telling them they need to leave their sex category, because they are different." Lisa Selin Davis, Author of "Tomboy", In the trailer for the documentary, "No Way Back" (2023). Given the current behaviour of the Democratic Party, this would have to be a long haul project, starting from the grassroots? This would need a new, non compromised, younger generation of politicians in that party?

I’m a guy but damn, me too. Pure luck to be born in the 70’s

I was a Tom boy too and I remember literally crying to my mother saying I wish I was a boy. I was actually in tears. I'm not sure how I actually felt at that moment, whether I literally wanted a penis and to be fully male or whether I just wanted to be one of the boys as my friends were boys. But I'm glad that it wasn't taken seriously because of course I don't actually want to be male. I'm a woman and I know I'm a woman. I have nothing against trans people at all, I'm a live and let live type of person. But I often wonder had I cried about wanting to be a boy in 2023 how would it go down? And how would parents, schools etc have reacted to it? Would they start calling me he/them? I don't know. I totally understand that what I was experiencing probably wasn't feeling trapped in the wrong body, it was different to what actual trans people experience I'm sure. But I do think people's reaction to it now would have been different and possibly could have led me down a path I didn't want to go down. I also cried over the idea of growing breasts so if someone suggested that there was something I could do would I have wanted it? For me personally it was a phase and something I grew out of. This is why I think it's important to maybe wait as long as you can before making such life changing decisions. Be gay, be trans, be a damn space hopper for all I care but I just think it's wise to wait until you're an adult before you make those decisions.

@@lynsey4224 Yes, you might well have been started on puberty blockers nowadays !!! It's a scary thought.

@@lynsey4224 same here!

About 7 years ago i saw a video on youtube, Rebecca Reilly-Cooper's talk to Coventry Skeptics. Its really good and also has a q&a video. It sucks how much the skeptic community dropped the ball on this one.

Unfortunately, atheism isn't an inoculation against irrational beliefs or even religiosity, as this nonsense has proved.

@@Lycaerix Sad but true, but what I really lament is not just atheists per se, but the disappointments of those who make a big verbal deal about active, conscious, skepticism, and yet....

Honestly they've been sticking their heads in the sand since it became obvious atheism is a darwin award.

Matt, we’re talking to you….

Hitch🥃

Well then you can't have children. The way you raise your child has infinitely more impact on their later life than a tattoo. And funnily enough, gender affirming care is just about that. Actual surgery is super fucking rare, mostly it's puberty blockers so they can make a permanent choice when they are older.

Well, it kind of makes sense 🙂

Big difference between tattoos and sex change... But yes i tend to agree. However, your view has been annihilated by woke marxism out there in the real world. Whatever jurisdictions have a lot of activists, they have tended to cave in. My prediction is that non-radical people (ie non woke people) will reorganize away from radical woke. America has the advantage of charter schools etc but in places like UK and Australia we have no choice. Once public institutions fall to woke, theres nowhere else to go that is affordable.

In the UK you can’t get a tattoo until your 18 but a child can change their gender and in Scotland this can be kept a secret between the teacher and child.

@@KZfaqBrowser-vh5eehow so

Godlessness lubricates the absorption of that inane ideology.

University of Washington found that gender affirming care reduces suicide rate by 73% and depression by 60% in trans youth, and plenty of other studies have produced similar results, yet this woman claims there is no evidence that care prevents suicide?! Hope you don't agree with that

@@martinpelama Please supply your supporting evidence, after all that is what science is about.

@@stevenhoward3358 Evidence of what?

@@citizenghosttown evidence to support the famous scientist turning into a believer of unscientific crap. He hasn't become religious has he?

@@stevenhoward3358 In the video, Dawkins not only heavily relies on self-help books, anecdotal stories, and other non-peer-reviewed sources, but he also ignores the extensive body of published scientific research on the subject. This is a significant departure from his usual commitment to scientific rigor. For an example of an actual scientific examination of the issue, compare Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder's video below. She emphasizes peer-reviewed research and offers a comprehensive overview of the scientific evidence. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mcBpjKR3vq-mf4k.html

@@qarl8176 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 recognised 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. This "woman is a social construct" thing IS the part that validates and perpetuates sexist stereotypes - woman isn't a social construct in that sense, it is a word society has chosen yes, but to describe a PHYSICAL state of being, not anyone's emotional states or where they fall on some spectrum of masculinity or femininity. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here of what the definition of man and woman means. The notion that people need to live up to sexist stereotypes of what "real men" or "real women" are, is complete fantasy. The fact that many people act as if sexist stereotypes were valid ways of measuring "real men" or real women" is a problem with the individual and their sexist bias, not with the terms themselves, as the terms themselves have none of the expectational baggage that people who internalise sexist stereotypes associate with them. A woman, is an adult human female, it is not an "identity" or a feeling, dress, attitude etc., that whole line of thinking is regressive in the extreme. Claiming there is some "essence" to "womanhood" that also males can access, but the reality is that women do not have to look or act any certain way, or act out some ludicrously sexist idea of the “social role of a woman”, all females who reach adulthood are women regardless of how they feel or look, and the one thing they ALL have in common, the one experience they ALL share, is that they are FEMALE, they do not have to "identify" as anything, they physically ARE women because they are female. Why should MALES be allowed access to SINGLE-SEX spaces reserved for FEMALES based on their "gender identity"? If sex and gender are separate, then a male announcing his "gender identity" is "trans woman" does nothing to change their sex, they are still MALE - so why should they be afforded rights reserved for the opposite SEX? The movement is regressively sexist, and misogynistic.

Because if gender identity is the definition of woman, trans-identified men are the most womanly of all.