In the last question, they seem to be confusing “Male” with “masculine”. A castrated man isn’t less male, but probably less masculine. Huge difference.
Exactly. They should start with defining what the terms mean. So much of sex and gender discussion is about different interpretations of words and phrases
Exactly. Though a castrated "man" -- i.e., "adult human male" -- is technically sexless, at least according to standard biological definitions -- you might try Googling the terms. But you might have some interest in a note to a 1993 court case in which Justice Anton Scalia offered an illuminating and cogent analogy: "Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.” The case was "J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B." and it's on the Library of Congress website. We too should make a point of using "masculine" and "feminine" as genders -- basically sexually dimorphic personality traits and behaviours -- and insist on "male" and "female" only to denote the sexes, i.e., whether one has functional testes or functional ovaries. Too many transactivists are desperately trying to use "male" and "female" as genders -- an egregious and quite odious case of bait-and-switch. For example, the Wikipedia article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard asserts that, "In 2012, Hubbard transitioned to female." "She" didn't do anything of the sort -- "she" is still a male if "she" still has "her" nuts, and is a sexless eunuch if "she" doesn't. The rot that transgenderism has wrought -- so to speak.
sex: gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. ♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️ gender: sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact). Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”. Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition. Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language. If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!) For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms. Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning. Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
I think, throughout the whole debate it seemed to me that biologist were using "woman" as "feminine" and "man" as "masculine". Reflecting on an everchanging nature of being a woman and the difference of those terms with female/male she said, I don't remember the exact words, that basically some women are more womanly, and some men are more manly. I know we use these words in our language, but what was actually said is "more feminine" and "more masculine". Femininity and masculinity are definitely spectrums, I don't think anyone will argue this. But regardless where on that spectrum individual is, it does not change them being a man or a woman. I think I almost understood this ideology during this debate, as people literally confuse all this gender nonsense with masculinity/femininity. It wasn't something I understood before.
@@Lerkero A struggle over definitions and the power to define language is a huge part of the culture wars. Even if we all agreed that a man who defines himself as a women should be considered a woman in all contexts from that point on, that would only mean that we have to come up with a new word for women because the category "adult human female" still exists regardless.
As a male, i don’t even know what it feels like to be male. I just AM biologically. How can you describe what you are in comparison to something else, when you’ve never been that other thing?
I couldn't agree more. I have asked both males and females what it feels like being a man/women they usually talk about their bodies or liking or not liking football, when I keep pressing them saying what does it actually feel like, it always ends up with them saying I don't know I'm just me!
@@rn3581she cannot even define what a biological women is? She says it’s a spectrum which biology and facts are most definitely not on a spectrum 😂men cannot give birth men don’t have ovaries men cannot biologically be a women 😊
@@rn3581 at 41:43 she argues defining "our sex" by completely unrelevant factors like "waist to hip ratio, broad shoulders" which have absolutely nothing to do with sex definition and it doesnt make it a range. Biologically in 99.9999% of cases XY=male, XX=female regardless of how broad your shoulders are.
If you cut the wings and legs off of a butterfly, is it now a caterpillar? A biologist standing on "slightly disagree" was all I needed to see, I do not have the brain capacity today for this kind of noncery. Thank you, as always, for your work Peter.
But what makes someone a man or woman? How would you know this about yourself or someone you meet in public. These are the conversations people don't tackle. Very few people can give definitions of man and woman and I've never seen someone give a definition you can use when you meet people in public.
sex: gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. ♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️ gender: sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact). Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”. Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition. Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language. If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!) For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms. Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning. Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
@@malirk A woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male. All variances in "expression" are personality type differences. Gender (and obviously sex) are NOT social constructs. However, any concept of a third or more gender type IS a construct born out of communist oriented liberal philosophy, a la Rousseau.
56:40 The biologist is wrong. Non-sexual physical characteristics, like height, do not drag sexual components (XX/XY, ovaries and penises and things) into a spectrum. You either have testicles or you don't. Yes I understand there are deformaties and abnormalities but these are exactly that and do not establish a spectrum.
This session merely demonstrates beyond contention that the higher education system is captive to critical theory ideologies up to and including doctoral degrees in STEM subjects. Were the biologist participant 10 years older, they would not have responded the way they did.
On second thought, I would like to extend my thanks to that young biologist for single-handedly removing any Trace of regret I was still holding about not being able to send my son to college.
@@DrDeuteron - Let me be more clear. If I have a child in the trades, and since I like daughters better than sons because boys will be boys, it follows that I’d rather have a daughter in the trades. Unless I’m missing a joke of some kind, it very much works that way. A girl can attend trade schools, same as a boy. Many do. I know a female septic tank cleaner, a female welder, a female truck driver, etc. of course it works that way.
@@dejavu666wampas9 You're missing the joke. "Would you rather have a daughter or a dead son" is the classic threat that gender clinics use to coerce parents into agreeing to transition their children.
I can't believe a biologist would assume the variation of secondary sexual characteristics means that sex is on a Spectrum. Primary sex characteristics are binary🤦♀️
Can you argue that sex is both binary, and on a spectrum? You can have two biological males, one typical male with 100% male anatomy, and another with DSD like ovo-testicular disorder so they have some female tissue in their reproductive organs, making them technically less male than the other guy. You could place them along a spectrum with a clearly defined middle that separates males from females.
@@MozFromOz sex is binary. Secondary sex characteristics are on a spectrum. Disorders of sexual development are specific alterations, a myriad of different things, the overwhelming of which are also one of the two sexes.
The biologists argument at the end had a big flaw that contradicts her reasoning. Saying a man who has cut off his nuts is less male negates how he feels. If he chooses to think of himself as fully male she would be telling that man he is less male. If she thinks how people feel about themselves is important or the defining factor then she would be telling someone their feelings don't matter and the truth as she sees it is what matters.
She also talks about reproductive capacity and the word potential. She seems to negate the need for the word potential. I wonder how she applies a definition to children, without using the word potential.
I can say that a woman has large or small breasts without judging that one has less value than the other. I can do it exactly the same way that I can say that someone is a man or woman without making a judgement that one has less value than the other.
@@paulalister Yes, absolutely. Any judgement made based on an immutable characteristic, or at least one which occurs naturally, is irrational. A small penis has the same value as small breasts, objectively no difference than if they were large. Some people like big, some like small, some like thin, some like fat. Society might infer implicit value, but that does not mean that it exists or that every individual subscribes to that notion. I have a rather less than average size penis; some might claim that lessens my masculinity, but I do not agree.
Dr. Taylor is mixing subjective judgment with objective observation. She sees biology through the lense of human perception and she is making biological sex way more complicated than it was designed to be. . Objective: females/women are designed to have breasts that feed milk to babies. Males/men are not designed in this way. Not that complicated.
To women, any judgement, even factual, will first be filtered through how they feel about it. So even if you say “I like that you have smaller boobs than that woman” they will first filter that through their assessment of the value of boob size and come to the conclusion that you’re lying because *obviously* bigger boobs are always better. This is a simplistic example and many women are savvy enough to realize that analysis is wrong, but they’ll still feel it to some degree. Which is why you should never compare women you love and care about to any other women in any way.
Holy shyte...hearing a "biologist" defining "sx" using the secondary characteristics that externally manifest on a body and not the primary GAMETES is litterally phisically hurting my brain... Is she gone to the University of Disneyland? :DDDD (someone take away the doctorate to this woman!)
sex: gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. ♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️ gender: sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact). Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”. Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition. Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language. If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!) For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms. Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning. Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
doctor: a teacher, from Middle English (in the senses “learned person” and “Doctor of the Church”): via Old French, from the Latin “doctor” (“teacher”), from “docere” (“to teach”). Throughout the modern world, tertiary education institutions have been given the right to confer Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees by the government of their respective countries. This is a fundamentally-flawed arrangement for the following reasons: As has been proven beyond any semblance of doubt in Chapter 22 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, non-monarchical governments have absolutely no authority whatsoever over the populace of their countries or nations. And even if a nation was ruled by a LEGITIMATE government (that is, a holy and righteous king), it is not within the purview of a national ruler to adjudicate which educational institutions are qualified to confer scholastic awards to its citizens. The role of a national ruler is (above all) to protect the population and to ensure that the law (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) is enforced and promulgated. Furthermore, universities and colleges (especially in the Western world) have been increasingly promoting what is colloquially known as “leftism” (“adharma”, in Sanskrit), as well as bestowing post-graduate degrees upon those who would never have been able to even enter a university in previous centuries (not to mention a certain proportion of abject dunces, simply due to the fact that life in the West is relatively easy, and those dullards are able to spend several years of their lives in study, without needing to work for their livelihoods). Personally, I am extremely glad to not be counted amongst those imbeciles who have garnered a masters degree or a doctorate at a government-endorsed institute of “education”. As the current World Doctor Himself, I have witnessed that the calibre of the typical doctoral candidate is nowadays so appalling, that I would be loath to be the recipient of a PhD degree from any extant so-called “university/college”. Honestly, I would consider it to be a great DISHONOUR! Even the so-called “hard sciences”, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and engineering, have become increasingly adulterated by adharma. For example, in Western academia (and by the time you are reading this Scripture, most all the schools of higher-learning in the East too) it is, in practice, impossible for an academic to assert the scientific fact that intelligence has a biological (that is, a genetic) component, and even if one was permitted to posit such a truism, it would be frowned upon to stress the fact that a person’s genome is the predominating factor in determining one’s intellectual capacity (not to mention bringing racial differences into the picture!). P.S. Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Roman statesman and philosopher who first introduced the term “doctor” in his book, “De Oratore”, in 55 BC, used the word to describe and to denote a MORAL guide of the state. Cicero breaks down the term “docere” further, and summarizes that “to teach”, means to provide truth through rational argument and statements of fact. Therefore, according to this most authentic definition of the term, very few so-called “doctors” are, in fact, doctors, at least in the field of academic philosophy.
I should be surprised that Gunes is pulling the 'bimodal, not binary' nature of sex nonsense, but I am not. Why does Gunes throw away basic biology to curry favour with blue-haired people she does not know?
Is it possible for something to be both binary, and on a spectrum? Like with regards to biological sex, the existence of some Intersex conditions clearly seem to make some males, less male than a typical male, and vice versa for some females. So can’t these people be placed along a spectrum, and that spectrum still be a binary if there’s a clear dividing line separating males from females?
Could you explain why it is nonsense? If certain features are not binary, then what should they be? The development from an embryonic form of genitalia is on a scale, depending on input from hormones that are regulated through a miriad of biomolecular pathways where each cornerstone can be fucked up regardless of even the chromosomes being XX and XY, let alone there being more combinations of chromosomes, let alone the epigenetic systems which we don't even fully understand. Make it make sense that there is only a binary outcome? From what point on are you no longer male, but female? How many male characteristics can you lose, and how many female characteristics can you receive or the other way around, before someone is no longer male? I get that binary sex maps onto real life experience quite well, and allows us to communicate, form policy, conduct research, apply healthcare for the most part. Changing that perspective doesn't invalidate anything at all, and simply allows for more communiciation, adjusted policy, further research and healthcare and so on. Sure there can be some issues about policy such as who allows to compete in sports and which bathroom or changing room someone should go, but these issues also exist when you have a binary view on sex. People that feel discriminated under a perspective and policy of binary sex are asking for some recognition, and you can call it nonsense, but several groups of people or minorities in the world have been fighting for their right to exist and earn the same freedom and rights as everyone else. People that feel and are discriminated by policy stemming from a binary view on sex deserve that same recognition of their freedom and rights.
@@machheydt176 Discrimination and sex being binary are two different things. You don't need to remove binary view on sex to get rid of policies that discriminate people based on sex, as proven by most western countries.
The lovely Gunes Taylor said quite a few things I would question, but one softball thing to which I can respond was this: At around 24 minutes in she said “Perhaps women know this more than men, because we have these very changeable bodies, and things happen and then you feel compelled to talk about it ... Imagine waking up and then just being like, “Ah, this bit of my body aches and I feel weird, and I don’t know what’s going on and … Actually, I can’t stop eating. My god, I’d give my left arm to eat this, that or the other.” My question for biologist Gunes Taylor is - Do you think men do not experience any of the things to which you referred? Do you think men never have the experience of wanting to stop eating? Do you think men do not have odd, unexplained pains and sometimes they freak out wondering if they are sick or even if they may die? Is that honestly something you believe? Do you see the conundrum with using experience as a yardstick rather than measurable evidence? You're gorgeous and smart as a whip. Jess de Wahls's reasoning was just stronger for me. And once again, Peter, Gunes and Jess, this was a terrific discussion, just beautiful. Thank you.
Women are adult human females. Adults are individuals who have attained the average age of first reproduction for their species. They have reached the age of maturity. The term adult applies across many species, and is used to distinguish them from juveniles, who are not yet capable of reproduction. Humans are members of the genus Homo. Our relatives in the genus Australopithecus, now extinct, are sometimes categorized as human as well. Every individual Homo sapiens is a human. Females are individuals who do or did or will or would, but for developmental or genetic anomalies, produce eggs. Eggs are large, sessile gametes. Gametes are sex cells. In plants and animals, and most other sexually reproducing organisms, there are two sexes: female and male. Like “adult,” the term female applies across many species. Female is used to distinguish such people from males, who produce small, mobile gametes (e.g. sperm, pollen).
How do you know you're female? How do you know someone you meet in public is female? Is a person who produces small gametes but is XX a male or female?
It would be unusual to meet someone with XX chromosomes and an SRY gene translocation and refer to them as male. They might appear female and identify as such. However, knowing they produce small gametes could lead you to consider them male. Worse yet, imagine you start an argument with them that since they produce small gametes, they are male. This doesn't seem like the world we live in.
The world we live in is one where people often identify as a gender. We've had instances where people have actually gotten their biological sex wrong their whole life. Take for example a Chinese man who found out he is a woman. He only found this out when he learned he had an ovarian cyst. Now should I start referring to this individual as a man even though they spent their whole life believing they are a woman, presenting as a woman, marrying a man believing they are a woman... It seems more logical that this person calls themselves a woman and thus I'll call them a woman too. However the fact remains that they are biologically XX. We should call sex just XX, XY or other categories. This is a fact and can't be changed (As of yet).
sex: gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. ♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️ gender: sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans). An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact). Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”. Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition. Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language. If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!) For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms. Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking. N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning. Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
Feminism is just supporting the equality of women in all aspects. I've heard this definition for decades. What definitions are you hearing and where? You might just be watching ragebait videos.
@malirk WTF? Women are not 'equal' in ALL aspects. Nor are men equal in ALL aspects. Both men and women are equal overall and complimentary to each other. We are not equal in every aspect. We have lots of very different qualities and different potential contributions to society. Fighting against inequality does not entail rendering males and females equal in every aspect of life. That was never the original goal of feminism either.
@malirk You are backpedalling and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Firstly, you said: "Feminism is just supporting the equality of women in all aspects." I responded: _WTF? Women are not 'equal' in ALL aspects. Nor are men equal in ALL aspects. Both men and women are equal overall and complimentary to each other. We are not equal in every aspect._ _We have lots of very different qualities and different potential contributions to society. Fighting against inequality does not entail rendering males and females equal in every aspect of life. That was never the original goal of feminism either._ Your response is thus: "I never said they're equal. I said we support equality. This means in the.work place, home, politics... you name it." So you DID say that feminism is supporting the equality of women in ALL aspects. I take it that you identify as a feminist and agree with this ambition but, correct me if I'm wrong. Now, unless I'm wrong, you appear to be advocating for equality of men and women in aspects or areas of behaviour and physical endeavour, where it's simply impossible. Men and women are completely different creatures. Advocating for their equality in principle OVERALL is a laudable goal it's the "every aspect" part that I disagree with entirely. Look, in the the home, women are faaaar better home makers than the average guy. Guys are far better bread winners and more prone sacrifice other benefits to earn a crust. Meanwhile women become a commercial liability, if they don't have the same burning ambition to earn money, but trade off the career for child raising and nest building. That's all fine, since women tend to spend over 60% of disposable all the money earned in the average family anyway. The corporate consumer world loves them and their obvious charms. Look. It all boils down to our different sexualy dimorphic strategies for getting our genes into the next generations. Look up epigamic differentiation and neoteny in biological evolution to learn the difference between male and female mammals and hoe sexual dimorphism effects our species. Whether you're saying males and females ARE actually equal in all aspects OR they SHOULD be equal in all aspects, it's equally as stupid and futile as a fact or a goal. We should compliment each other with our different qualities and compensate each other for our different weaknesses. But males and females never can, never should nor never will have "equality in all aspects".
Female and woman is not the same, but (human) female delineates the boundaries within what woman can be and exists in/as. Also, I really don't understand how people can have a hang up regarding the functioning of a reproductive system when defining male/men and female/woman. If we define human as a bipedal moving animal, when a human gets sick and is bedridden or gets born with malformed legs and can't move, do they stop being a human? Reality is you either have a male reproductive system, or a female reproductive system, and you are a male/men or a female/woman based on that. Whether it works or not has nothing to do with anything. Just like when a rhinosorous loses it's horn it doesn't become a hippopotamus, it's still a rhino, and a man/woman is still the same regardless of whether their reproductive systems works, or whether they check all the boxes for secondary sex characteristics. That's why they are called secondary, as they are not the primary defining factors.
Unless you consider "womanhood" as more of a "person good" or"individual conscious experience" maybe you could consider female cats and dogs women if they have a strong personality but I feel like that's getting away from the original spirit of the question
>Being a woman is really cool because our bodies change and we have moods and there are unique things about being a woman >Womanhood actually has nothing to do with your body and everything is a spectrum anyway
She couldn’t even keep her own definitions straight because she knows that women = female, even if she’s trying to be politically correct and appease the gender cult.
Sex is XX,XY, XXY and more. Gender is whatever group someone puts themselves in. At the doctor you should mark your sex. In society you tell people your gender. Simple.
Peter - You are doing really good work here. I think your epistemological interview technique is so effective. Perhaps the most glaring hypocrisy of the trans movement is the simultaneous, absolute convictions that “gender” is inborn, immutable and independent of biology but is also fluid and can be changed on a whim. How can they justify childhood medical and surgical transition?
Why is it so hard to logically and evidentially insist that, in the final analysis, one cannot possibly be a woman without being a biological female? Same for a male: one cannot possibly be a man without being a biological male. I'm stuck here. I can't get past it. Perhaps I'm like Dirty Harry: "A man's got to know his limitations." Performing as a man or woman is something else entirely--thespians, frankly. Furthermore, believing one is the opposite sex is something else entirely.
These ppl just dont accept the very simple fact that in language "woman" is used to define the specific SUBGROUP of females that are of the human species (and have reached adult stage)...they think there is "more"...they always try to add this "more" to the word (whatever this "more" would be in their heads...it obviously changes every time and to whoever person you ask, never defined). Instead is very simple...there are ALL the "females" (of every kind of animal)...and then there are the "women" that are the females of the human species (like the "sheep" is the female of the ovines and the "cow" is the female of the bovines)...no need to add anything or search for some deep meaning to the fact that you are a "woman"...
That is because for example there are males with androgen insensitivity that appear as women (and for a part even as female, because they lack certain primary features even). Without studying further or even knowing, we will accept that they are women without being biological female per the definition everyone throws around. I'm aware you could say the exception proves the rule. But I think it's just as valid, to say it is to be expected and completely normal - albeit rare. And however rare, there are a multitude of other rare conditions that all together, form a significant amount that warrants thinking about that rule (being that a woman needs to be a biolofical female), certainly in light of people that feel as the opposite sex they were born as. If we accept an androgen insensitive male as a woman without even knowing they have that condition, why wouldn't we be able to call or refer to a transwoman as a woman? What difference does it make? If a transwoman was passing, we would act as if they were a woman, without being female right? This thinking isn't a way to deny reality or biology. It is simply a way of finding a perspective that maps onto real life experiences and allows us to communicate and so much more. If we talk and refer to a woman - we don't feel the need to check their reproductive system. This is only important in certain situations, such as healthcare, bathroom policy and sports competitions.
@@machheydt176 There is performance, and there is biology. They are categorically different. And I don't need to "check reproductive parts" to understand that difference.
4:40 - "why am i crying over this random thing?" Wow, a biologist using gender stereotypes to describe what a woman is? Not good. Defining women and men should be separated from social stereotypical behavior
To me the issue I stand against is based in differentiating what is being asked for or demanded. I'm very happy to treat and even think about a transwoman _as_ a woman. I don't think I'm losing anything to that. I'm happy to treat someone in the way that will let them feel comfortable and accepted. This is very different from demanding that legally, scientifically, transwomen are _literally_ women. This is absurd. Transwomen are men who identify as women.
"I'm very happy to treat and even think about a transwoman as a woman. I don't think I'm losing anything to that. I'm happy to treat someone in the way that will let them feel comfortable and accepted." I used to feel that way too, but now it has become painfully obvious that if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. "Being nice" is how we wind up with men in the women's changing room, men competing in women's sports, and men in women's prisons. "Being tolerant" is how we wind up with kids getting brainwashed into a cult that confuses them about their identity, tampers with their endocrine system, and leaves them sterile and sexually dysfunctional. The ideology that underpins transgenderism is toxic, it's causing harm, and it needs to be stamped out.
Transwomen are men who *present themselves* as women. You CAN'T identify as something you ARE NOT. A white caucasian man cannot identify as an brown indian girl.
Some people have changed the meaning of "woman" to be "femininity" which to me is plain wrong. You hijack the word "woman" in the language but the law cannot change in response to that change so essentially you create two definitions: one that respects feelings and another one that describes rights. Consequently other words like "mother" or "she" and so on can also be hijacked by saying that it refers to "woman" and not "female", which creates a cascade of problems in the language. All of this, just for feelings.
I could be wrong but at 30:33, the biologist Güneş Taylor seems to be implying that biology only affects humans from the neck down...She said: "male and female are terms for biological bodies but when it comes to behavior and social stuff, it's woman and man."
@@cristopherq1935 And that is one of the flaws in Dr. Taylor's definition of sex. The terms she is looking for are masculine and feminine. These terms are useful when talking about social and behavior. Man and woman are biological and developmental terms.
It appears that her argument is that being a man or woman is NOT defined by which sex class you belong to but by how you behave, what interests you have, what you look like, etc.
This is incoherent. Man simply refers to a human being that is male and woman to a human being who is female. Neither are about performance. It is a linguistic definition of male or female human beings. Just as doe and stag are to deer. This is bloody painful. Taylor has totally misunderstood masculinity and femininity. Adjectives can be descriptive of both sees but a noun cannot. For goodness sake
What is the precise order of this spectrum, exactly? The colours in tge rainbow has a particular order violet, indigo, blue, ...Orange, red. What is the order of the sex/gender spectrum? Also what is it, precisely, that differentiates gender n from gender n-1 or gender n+1? There are no coherent answers to these questions because their ideas are b.s..
i think one can argue that hormone levels, and certain physical characteristics like muscle mass, skull shape, and al of those markers are on their own respective spectra, which can then be collected and used to determine someone's gender (read: sex) easily. there will of course often be correlation between those because it is partiallly hormone driven over time, but different genetic backgrounds can still come up with different permutations, even if those hormone levels were to be the same. regardless the outcome of someone's sex will be binary (hermaphrodites being the exception that prove the rule) what these people are doing, is pretending that cherry picking an outlier in 1 particular metric, somehow magically negates all the other metrics, and justifies creating this new bogus scale on whatever they cherry picked.
If you actually read up on what some of these supposed genders are, some of them are simply varying degrees of confusion about what gender you are. Not even joking.
*I treat my friends differently based on if they're a man or a woman .... but I also don't know what a man or a woman is .... despite being a biologist* That simply Must be confusing on a daily basis, assuming it's not just the regurgitation of what she feels she must say publicly
So, a masculine lesbian is less of a woman because that person doesn't "preform" the expectation of what a woman is supposed to be? Is the goal to make this debate clear or unclear?
Před měsícem
The goal is to confuse and warp language in order fostered psychological perversion. ALL of this 'critical theory' stuff is just a set of proxies to destabilize ontology and epistemology. Nothing more.
If biological sex is not binary, it suggests that there are other sexes beyond male and female. Therefore, any biologist claiming so clearly needs to define these additional sexes and provide a criteria that distinguish them from the traditional categories. Intersex conditions result from variations in the typical development pathways towards male or female, rather than a separate developmental pathway.
I'd love to see this exact same discussion but with two men, and with every mention of woman replaced with man, and male with female, etc. Particularly when it comes to specific feelings and urges as Guines was describing and how those characteristics are viewed/criticised/oppressed by society. Very interesting and thought provoking discussion. Fascinating seeing a tenured biologist conflating mental and physical state.
"Spectrum, definition: used to classify something in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme points." But sex is a binary. You are either a male or female. The fact that there are variations within those sexes doesn't mean biological sex is a spectrum. Even hermaphrodites don't represent a place on spectrum of sex, they just have aspects of both sexes. And intersex conditions involve males or females who have abnormal developments. // It's also dishonest to claim that gender ideology is primarily concerned with the issues that people with intersex conditions face.
These ideologues missed two good opportunities to raise the standard of human behaviour. First, they had the opportunity to grow acceptance of mental health conditions by saying "I need to walk through life with the external appearance of a woman, but I know I'm a male. Please accept my mental health issues." Many are also on the autism spectrum, and they could have championed people with that condition and those who support them. Second, they could have supported children with internex conditions by normalising the idea that sometimes children's bodies are not sex "perfect" (nobody's body is perfect) when they're born. And it's okay to grow up like that, and for the child with intersex to make their informed decisions at an appropriate (preferably adult imo) age.
People can fool themselves into believing anything. All of history supports this. The use of language can construct a story that subtly aligns with one's preferences.
During Chloe Cole's childhood, she was mutilated. The justification given for the mutilation turned on the notion that people, including children, have "assigned gender", "gender identity", and "gender expression". None of those three concepts is supported by evidence. But because of a religious belief in them, Ms. Cole was mutilated. Those who insinuate that human beings, rather than words, have "gender" are promoting the same beliefs that were used as the excuse to mutilate Ms. Cole, and so potentially, are promoting the mutilation of more children. People who so insinuate should take responsibility for what they are saying and where it leads.
36:56 you know how powerful the dehumanisation of men is when two women can't decide if a man would appreciate being treated nicely like they are. It's never even entered their head. We're human too
Yeah, rightly so. I’m watching this half a year after we filmed it and am puzzled myself that i said that, because i don’t actually think that conscription is a good thing. So i have nothing.
1) "Woman" is not a social construct or role that you can choose. Each INDIVIDUAL stereotypes is a social construct. Stereotypes like clothing, hairstyle, personality etc. The stereotypes that we choose don't change whether we're a man or woman. 2) There's no evidence of a common feeling of "woman" or "man" because it's impossible to compare the feelings of people. 3) In order to feel X then you need to have experienced contrary feelings. If it's possible to feel like a woman (Whatever that means) then you'd need to have previously felt like a man.
The question I would like to ask every person who claims that you can be a woman even without being female is: In a world where no human adult females exist, could women still exist? In a society composed only of biological males who are born and raised exclusively by other biological males (through cloning or the cultivation of eggs from an original donor) could some individuals claim to feel like women? Without ever having had any biological female as an example, and ignoring that women ever existed. The same thing also applies to reversed roles. When a biological male says he identifies as a woman, when asked what is a woman? he always answers according to his experience of contact with the opposite sex, it would be a more difficult question to answer if this trans person had only lived among biological males who kept him in the dark about the existence of women. The fact that women exist as a consequence of biological sex is for me an unquestionable scientific reality, no woman can exist where a human adult biological female does not exist at the same time. Peter Isherwell in the movie Don't look up, mentioned death by a Bronteroc, predicted using his technology, but not knowing what a Bronteroc was. A person who explains that they perceive themselves as the opposite gender/sex is like Isherwell talking about Bronterocs.
If you asked her about being a woman she would tell you about thinking “What fresh hell is this? How is my body behaving today? Why am I crying over this random thing?” I am a woman. I have never once waked up and thought of being a woman as a “fresh hell.” I do not equate womanhood with a misbehaving body or with irrational tears. Nor do most women. This is straight up misogyny.
There's a reason some chickens are called hens, there's a reason some cattle are called cows, and there's a reason some humans are called women. Because they are all sexually mature examples of the FEMALE of their respective species. You wouldn't call a female, pre-pubescent or even pubescent child a woman because she is specifically defined as a GIRL. The word "woman" fulfills that same purpose. It PRECISELY describes the end point of that stage of the female human developmental pathway. A post-pubescent human female is still considered(depending on jurisdiction or personality) a "girl" in the legal or emotional sense, but in terms of procreative potential, she is a young WOMAN. It's fascinating that a trained biologist seems oblivious to this basic scientific categorization.
This whole episode has just made me die inside. The so-called biologist having no understanding of what a woman is. This is middle class, naval gazing pontification, which gives too much crddence to the desires of some delusional activists. There are plenty of trans women and trans men who also know they are women and men. There's no need to legitimise the delusion of a dangerous few
The man who had his parts chopped off still has XY chromosomes. It baffles me that it took the biologist until the end of the video to bring up chromosomes. That is the heart of what makes us male or female. That drives our development in the womb.
4:39 Ironically Ms Taylor, when referring what it's like to be a women, she describes waking up and thinking about what her body is going to do today, her female body. In her first attempt at separating a women from a female, and she still failed. Ironic.
Maybe people believe things or don’t believe things. We only know what people say. People use communication for all sorts of reasons including manipulation.
Biological sex has a definition if you what to change that, then extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. If you have a theory and hypothesis that will change everything we know about biology then present it. Gender identity has no definition because everyone can and does define it differently. We recognize differences. Equal does not mean the same as. Everyone should pursue their interests, what they are capable of and competent at. I may what to be a ballerina or a football player or a rocket scientist but I have neither the brains, talent or body to pursue any of them.
" if you ask me what it feels like to be a woman I would talk about the sensation of waking up in a morning and thinking what fresh hell is this" TIL I am woman
Let me know when a third gamete type pops up in nature or a sexually reproducing species creates a new organism without any gametes & then you will have an argument for a "sex spectrum."
Humanity creates new organisms without any gametes (the created organism, not the creators) very often. Then the sex has to be assigned otherwise, sometimes arbitrary.
@@miriamlana833 It's still never assigned. It's determined by genes & can be tested for in great detail way before someone is even born. I've always thought it was inaccurate to say "either male or female" it's more accurate to say "female unless you have Y chromosome/SRY gene."
@@5-Volt that's arbitrarily picking one sex characteristic. Some even break it down to "functioning SRY gene". But then comes the question if it "functions" when other genes don't respond.
@@miriamlana833 To your point there's technically even been a few reported cases of XX males with no SRY gene at all, something else caused the development of male tissue, but the presence of male tissue makes them male. Sure. It *can* get to an arbitrary determination in very very rare exceptions, but we have a pretty darn good understanding of most, if not all DSDs. They all have their own unique but predictable path of development. None of this changes the fact that there are only 2 fertile endpoints of development though. For every animal, & the overwhelming majority follow those 2 paths. I'm not saying you can't make an argument against the sex binary, you just have to dig REAL deep to even try. 😂
@@faustoferrari4303completely agree. It's much more interesting to watch without challenge from the host for this type of content. It seems to stop people backing into a corner, so they open up more
Her drawing would have been better with two seperate graphs, one for females and one for males as those with DSD's fall either on the male or female catergory depending on their gametes
So sad to see the sciences being "a wokened". A biologist can't even bring herself to give the proper definition of woman or of female. Too hard to watch. Love you Peter. I appreciate you exposing people's beliefs and exposing people to their own beliefs the way you do. It's amazing what you're doing.
okay at first I wouldn't say I liked Güneș, but she has won me over. Still a bit wishy washy on the gritty details but I see her in good faith and it was an interesting conversation for sure. - WOW the last question means I repeal all my words and cannot say good faith any longer. SEX is not a spectrum. painful
I do find it interesting that these ladies think men don't talk about our bodies with our male friends, or that men don't have the Intense variability or demanding body needs (specific food etc). The biologist should frankly know better, because while men don't have period cycles we have far more dramatic biochemical effects from pain, blood loss, damage, illness, low or high blood sugar and many other factors that make us produce hormones and other chemicals in much larger quantities. Honestly this is the sort of thing men tend to discuss amongst their fellow men eg: man 1 - Im having a shitty week, I got ill monday and I just havent had the energy to work all week. man 2 - me too pal, I got wound up by some idiot and very nearly punched him - I came so close to loosing it, lets hit the gym and then get a steak and a few beers to chill. This is REALLY a discussion about the hormonal and biochemical balance issues we have, and our attempts to cope with them - and if we dont tell the ladies about it its because we dont want to scare them, we want to be thought of as protectors and providers - not the unexploded badly engineered powderkegs we really are.
What was fascinating were the amount of inconsistencies in the biologist's beliefs, produced from the veracity of her lines of thinking. I wanted to point them out individually, but it seems the comment section is already on to a few.
I feel that in this conversation the Word Woman is being used interchangeably with the act/felling of Femininity. It would been interesting to separate the difference in thoughts between being a woman vs being feminine.
When the Marxist are done instilling instability in our society. This is not to help anyone but those who will thrive off the instability to gain power in all our institutions. It will end when enough actually wake up.
Extremely High Neuroticism, High Openness, Low Conscientiousness, Low Agreeableness and extremely High Extraversion personalities have taken over the conversation
Před měsícem+3
Science communicator? How so? Re: feminism...liberation from what exactly? And if a woman says the same nutty crap as a 'male feminist', 4th wave or otherwise, are we to consider those views more seriously cuz a woman said it? It's ALL just so ridiculous, vapid and juvenile really
I really missed the question after 32:06 which is like "Wait, isn't feminism is all about having equal rights?" It is truly amazing that it always turn out that they want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities.
When I was 5, i had a pair of pants. Back then it was rare for a girl to wear pants. I immediately declared myself a boy. Since then, I matured a little bit and never felt that i was a male just because i felt like declaring myself one.
the biologist was shocked at the comment around 6:00 minutes that some women like their period. that alone shows her bias and thinking. I have known plenty of women that accept/embrace/celebrate their periods and everything it means being a women. It's very common in women circles, red tents etc,. 29:10 was surprising and also the reason given for it. the next prompt was even more surprising considering. 31:00 from the biologist was pure nonsense and I applaud peter for his ability to hear such things and continue having a debate. 33:00 women in the west are oppressed. considering how pedantic they have been about terms and definitions up to this point I'm surprised they both went to slightly agree instead of at least neutral. 34:10 was just hilarious. 43:31 Is brilliant and the biologist fumbled her response to that. that biologist is confused about male/female and feminine/masculine. A biologist discounting biology when it suits her is mind boggling.
Funny that the textile artist knows more about evolutionary biology than the biologist. Chivalry and all similar protective behaviors towards women is absolutely a biologically and genetically driven behavior. The institutions created to cultivate and moled chivalrous behaviors may be cultural, but the impulse is biological. The same goes for all other differences in gender roles. They are all biologically driven, only culturally nurtured. The entire "sex/gender is a social construct argument is complete nonsense. At the end of the day, despite their chosen professions, it appears that Textile Artist is just a bit more intelligent than Biologist. She's more rational and a more honest thinker.
How much did it cost to get this doctorate? It was too much. It should cost less than 50p to learn that stereotypes are not biological sex markers, and it’s completely free to learn that saying people born with DSDs are not male or female is offensive AF.
🙄 Whether it's "offensive" or not to say that "people born with DSDs are not male or female", it's still the "truth". Or it is at least the logical consequence of standard biological definitions that say that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. You might try Googling the definitions or, better yet, see those published in reputable sources like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology.
@@SteersmanOaring roll your eyes all you want - every human being is either male or female, if their gonads work or not, are still there or not, if their sex immediately obvious on sight or not. Stop dehumanising people born with distressing and sometimes life-threatening illnesses to prop up your crackpot ideology, and while you’re at it I recommend being less self-assured and condescending. I have learned a great deal about disorders of sexual development from The Paradox Institute channel - do watch. It’s a little more in depth than a captured dictionary and apparently biology doctorates. Start with trying to understand the SRY gene, its location and activation. Roll your eyes when you present to the world the third gamete, maybe even a fourth or fifth, and after you’ve personally told everyone with a DSD that they’re not male or female.
@@SteersmanOaring the starting premise is flawed. She talked about ‘potential’ and you’re using the word ‘functional’. You both mean that only people who produce viable sperm and eggs are male and female. This leads to the obviously stupid conclusion that children, post-menopausal women and people who’ve lost gonads to cancer, accident or disease don’t have a sex. Bat shit lunacy.
The fact that a biologist struggles to try to make sense of both biological reality and her ideas on gender says it all. However, I think she is someone who would be open to changing her mind if she spent less time talking to ideologues. They were both very good choices of guests for this, I don't think this would've gone quite as well if you hadn't got someone like Jess for the opposition.
Oxford dictionary. Woman. An adult female human being. That’s it. The biologist would perhaps be more correct to stay within the field of biology - rather than taking the biology and changing words to align with current social theory.
@@cocoruse yes. A confused “biologist” another victim of deception and propaganda, wanting to please people. You have heard of paradise lost? This is an example of facts and reason lost. Or Science Lost
@@excalibro8365 if so, will just confirm their delusion and their denial of some basic tenets of science. A scientists refusal to follow the scientific process is guilty of 2 fallacies / crimes.
Great conversation! They did a great job illustrating the complicated categorization of gender unless one boils it down, distills, or grounds their belief to only reproduction. Güneş summed up Jess perspective quite well, "Because of course Jess is right. Procreation we are either. That's how reproduction works. There are only two things that can work. There needs to be an egg and there needs to be a sperm."
In the last question, they seem to be confusing “Male” with “masculine”.
A castrated man isn’t less male, but probably less masculine.
Huge difference.
Exactly. They should start with defining what the terms mean. So much of sex and gender discussion is about different interpretations of words and phrases
Exactly. Though a castrated "man" -- i.e., "adult human male" -- is technically sexless, at least according to standard biological definitions -- you might try Googling the terms. But you might have some interest in a note to a 1993 court case in which Justice Anton Scalia offered an illuminating and cogent analogy:
"Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
The case was "J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B." and it's on the Library of Congress website.
We too should make a point of using "masculine" and "feminine" as genders -- basically sexually dimorphic personality traits and behaviours -- and insist on "male" and "female" only to denote the sexes, i.e., whether one has functional testes or functional ovaries.
Too many transactivists are desperately trying to use "male" and "female" as genders -- an egregious and quite odious case of bait-and-switch. For example, the Wikipedia article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard asserts that, "In 2012, Hubbard transitioned to female." "She" didn't do anything of the sort -- "she" is still a male if "she" still has "her" nuts, and is a sexless eunuch if "she" doesn't.
The rot that transgenderism has wrought -- so to speak.
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
I think, throughout the whole debate it seemed to me that biologist were using "woman" as "feminine" and "man" as "masculine". Reflecting on an everchanging nature of being a woman and the difference of those terms with female/male she said, I don't remember the exact words, that basically some women are more womanly, and some men are more manly. I know we use these words in our language, but what was actually said is "more feminine" and "more masculine". Femininity and masculinity are definitely spectrums, I don't think anyone will argue this. But regardless where on that spectrum individual is, it does not change them being a man or a woman. I think I almost understood this ideology during this debate, as people literally confuse all this gender nonsense with masculinity/femininity. It wasn't something I understood before.
@@Lerkero A struggle over definitions and the power to define language is a huge part of the culture wars. Even if we all agreed that a man who defines himself as a women should be considered a woman in all contexts from that point on, that would only mean that we have to come up with a new word for women because the category "adult human female" still exists regardless.
Its a sad day when the artist argues for facts, and the scientist argues for feelings.
Bravo! I think that's profound, but I reflect a little more.
Can I quote you?
That's the indoctrination in academia.
What feelings did the biologist use? What facts did the artist use? Give examples.
@@malirkher very first clarification of what a woman means to her.
As a male, i don’t even know what it feels like to be male. I just AM biologically. How can you describe what you are in comparison to something else, when you’ve never been that other thing?
EXACTLY. And so crumbles the entire tr@ns cult.
exactly.. it's all completely insane and purely a western thing btw.
Bravo! This is a point I always make in the trans debate and it always shocks me that hardly anyone I have suggested it to agrees. Baffling.
Exactly. No idea how it feels to be a woman I just am one. We should stop telling kids that it's possible to "transition" from one to the other
I couldn't agree more. I have asked both males and females what it feels like being a man/women they usually talk about their bodies or liking or not liking football, when I keep pressing them saying what does it actually feel like, it always ends up with them saying I don't know I'm just me!
Being a biologist, listening to that woman made me really hurt, professionally.
Agree. It's the new gender war Marxist curriculum 😢
She does make your field look bad, I’m sorry.
Could you give an example of something she said that is biologically untrue? (If that is what you meant 🙂)
@@rn3581she cannot even define what a biological women is? She says it’s a spectrum which biology and facts are most definitely not on a spectrum 😂men cannot give birth men don’t have ovaries men cannot biologically be a women 😊
@@rn3581 at 41:43 she argues defining "our sex" by completely unrelevant factors like "waist to hip ratio, broad shoulders" which have absolutely nothing to do with sex definition and it doesnt make it a range. Biologically in 99.9999% of cases XY=male, XX=female regardless of how broad your shoulders are.
If you cut the wings and legs off of a butterfly, is it now a caterpillar?
A biologist standing on "slightly disagree" was all I needed to see, I do not have the brain capacity today for this kind of noncery.
Thank you, as always, for your work Peter.
Sticking Feathers Up your Butt Does Not Make You A Chicken --Tyler Durden
But what makes someone a man or woman? How would you know this about yourself or someone you meet in public. These are the conversations people don't tackle. Very few people can give definitions of man and woman and I've never seen someone give a definition you can use when you meet people in public.
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
@@malirk chromosomes
@@malirk A woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male. All variances in "expression" are personality type differences. Gender (and obviously sex) are NOT social constructs. However, any concept of a third or more gender type IS a construct born out of communist oriented liberal philosophy, a la Rousseau.
Imagine paying money to get a doctorate in biology and arguing semantics on sex.
56:40 The biologist is wrong. Non-sexual physical characteristics, like height, do not drag sexual components (XX/XY, ovaries and penises and things) into a spectrum. You either have testicles or you don't. Yes I understand there are deformaties and abnormalities but these are exactly that and do not establish a spectrum.
This session merely demonstrates beyond contention that the higher education system is captive to critical theory ideologies up to and including doctoral degrees in STEM subjects. Were the biologist participant 10 years older, they would not have responded the way they did.
-10 years older-
*had tenure
🎯
Plenty of old people including academics swallowed that nonsense ideology.
On second thought, I would like to extend my thanks to that young biologist for single-handedly removing any Trace of regret I was still holding about not being able to send my son to college.
"Would you rather have a son in the trades, or a daughter with a degree?"
@@DrDeuteron- I’d rather have a daughter in the trades.
@@dejavu666wampas9 that's not how it works.
@@DrDeuteron - Let me be more clear. If I have a child in the trades, and since I like daughters better than sons because boys will be boys, it follows that I’d rather have a daughter in the trades.
Unless I’m missing a joke of some kind, it very much works that way. A girl can attend trade schools, same as a boy. Many do. I know a female septic tank cleaner, a female welder, a female truck driver, etc. of course it works that way.
@@dejavu666wampas9 You're missing the joke. "Would you rather have a daughter or a dead son" is the classic threat that gender clinics use to coerce parents into agreeing to transition their children.
I can't believe a biologist would assume the variation of secondary sexual characteristics means that sex is on a Spectrum. Primary sex characteristics are binary🤦♀️
Genitalia is not binary. Get to know a couple and you'll find plenty of variation.
💯💯💯
Can you argue that sex is both binary, and on a spectrum?
You can have two biological males, one typical male with 100% male anatomy, and another with DSD like ovo-testicular disorder so they have some female tissue in their reproductive organs, making them technically less male than the other guy. You could place them along a spectrum with a clearly defined middle that separates males from females.
@@MozFromOz sex is binary. Secondary sex characteristics are on a spectrum. Disorders of sexual development are specific alterations, a myriad of different things, the overwhelming of which are also one of the two sexes.
@@MozFromOz the male with ovotesticular tissue is male.
The biologists argument at the end had a big flaw that contradicts her reasoning. Saying a man who has cut off his nuts is less male negates how he feels. If he chooses to think of himself as fully male she would be telling that man he is less male. If she thinks how people feel about themselves is important or the defining factor then she would be telling someone their feelings don't matter and the truth as she sees it is what matters.
She also talks about reproductive capacity and the word potential. She seems to negate the need for the word potential. I wonder how she applies a definition to children, without using the word potential.
“I can very easily prove to you that education and intelligence are not at all linked.”
“Really, how?”
“Watch this video.”
Imagine getting a degree in biology without understanding basic biology.
Phd
Probably bought it at some trashcan
Embarrassing
Deeply shameful, yet unrealized.
Breast size is always a negative judgment? What? It can’t be a fact? Huh?
I can say that a woman has large or small breasts without judging that one has less value than the other. I can do it exactly the same way that I can say that someone is a man or woman without making a judgement that one has less value than the other.
@@jswets5007 In the same way you can say a man has a large or small penis without being negatively judgemental, just stating an observable fact
@@paulalister Yes, absolutely. Any judgement made based on an immutable characteristic, or at least one which occurs naturally, is irrational. A small penis has the same value as small breasts, objectively no difference than if they were large. Some people like big, some like small, some like thin, some like fat. Society might infer implicit value, but that does not mean that it exists or that every individual subscribes to that notion. I have a rather less than average size penis; some might claim that lessens my masculinity, but I do not agree.
Dr. Taylor is mixing subjective judgment with objective observation. She sees biology through the lense of human perception and she is making biological sex way more complicated than it was designed to be.
.
Objective: females/women are designed to have breasts that feed milk to babies. Males/men are not designed in this way. Not that complicated.
To women, any judgement, even factual, will first be filtered through how they feel about it. So even if you say “I like that you have smaller boobs than that woman” they will first filter that through their assessment of the value of boob size and come to the conclusion that you’re lying because *obviously* bigger boobs are always better. This is a simplistic example and many women are savvy enough to realize that analysis is wrong, but they’ll still feel it to some degree. Which is why you should never compare women you love and care about to any other women in any way.
Holy shyte...hearing a "biologist" defining "sx" using the secondary characteristics that externally manifest on a body and not the primary GAMETES is litterally phisically hurting my brain...
Is she gone to the University of Disneyland? :DDDD
(someone take away the doctorate to this woman!)
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
doctor:
a teacher, from Middle English (in the senses “learned person” and “Doctor of the Church”): via Old French, from the Latin “doctor” (“teacher”), from “docere” (“to teach”).
Throughout the modern world, tertiary education institutions have been given the right to confer Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees by the government of their respective countries. This is a fundamentally-flawed arrangement for the following reasons:
As has been proven beyond any semblance of doubt in Chapter 22 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, non-monarchical governments have absolutely no authority whatsoever over the populace of their countries or nations. And even if a nation was ruled by a LEGITIMATE government (that is, a holy and righteous king), it is not within the purview of a national ruler to adjudicate which educational institutions are qualified to confer scholastic awards to its citizens. The role of a national ruler is (above all) to protect the population and to ensure that the law (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) is enforced and promulgated. Furthermore, universities and colleges (especially in the Western world) have been increasingly promoting what is colloquially known as “leftism” (“adharma”, in Sanskrit), as well as bestowing post-graduate degrees upon those who would never have been able to even enter a university in previous centuries (not to mention a certain proportion of abject dunces, simply due to the fact that life in the West is relatively easy, and those dullards are able to spend several years of their lives in study, without needing to work for their livelihoods).
Personally, I am extremely glad to not be counted amongst those imbeciles who have garnered a masters degree or a doctorate at a government-endorsed institute of “education”. As the current World Doctor Himself, I have witnessed that the calibre of the typical doctoral candidate is nowadays so appalling, that I would be loath to be the recipient of a PhD degree from any extant so-called “university/college”. Honestly, I would consider it to be a great DISHONOUR! Even the so-called “hard sciences”, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and engineering, have become increasingly adulterated by adharma. For example, in Western academia (and by the time you are reading this Scripture, most all the schools of higher-learning in the East too) it is, in practice, impossible for an academic to assert the scientific fact that intelligence has a biological (that is, a genetic) component, and even if one was permitted to posit such a truism, it would be frowned upon to stress the fact that a person’s genome is the predominating factor in determining one’s intellectual capacity (not to mention bringing racial differences into the picture!).
P.S. Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Roman statesman and philosopher who first introduced the term “doctor” in his book, “De Oratore”, in 55 BC, used the word to describe and to denote a MORAL guide of the state. Cicero breaks down the term “docere” further, and summarizes that “to teach”, means to provide truth through rational argument and statements of fact.
Therefore, according to this most authentic definition of the term, very few so-called “doctors” are, in fact, doctors, at least in the field of academic philosophy.
Uni of Disneyland with Marxist curriculum.
A woman is born female and its nothing to do with behaviours clothing and interests jobs hobbies and beliefs .
I should be surprised that Gunes is pulling the 'bimodal, not binary' nature of sex nonsense, but I am not. Why does Gunes throw away basic biology to curry favour with blue-haired people she does not know?
Is it possible for something to be both binary, and on a spectrum? Like with regards to biological sex, the existence of some Intersex conditions clearly seem to make some males, less male than a typical male, and vice versa for some females. So can’t these people be placed along a spectrum, and that spectrum still be a binary if there’s a clear dividing line separating males from females?
Could you explain why it is nonsense? If certain features are not binary, then what should they be? The development from an embryonic form of genitalia is on a scale, depending on input from hormones that are regulated through a miriad of biomolecular pathways where each cornerstone can be fucked up regardless of even the chromosomes being XX and XY, let alone there being more combinations of chromosomes, let alone the epigenetic systems which we don't even fully understand. Make it make sense that there is only a binary outcome? From what point on are you no longer male, but female? How many male characteristics can you lose, and how many female characteristics can you receive or the other way around, before someone is no longer male?
I get that binary sex maps onto real life experience quite well, and allows us to communicate, form policy, conduct research, apply healthcare for the most part. Changing that perspective doesn't invalidate anything at all, and simply allows for more communiciation, adjusted policy, further research and healthcare and so on. Sure there can be some issues about policy such as who allows to compete in sports and which bathroom or changing room someone should go, but these issues also exist when you have a binary view on sex.
People that feel discriminated under a perspective and policy of binary sex are asking for some recognition, and you can call it nonsense, but several groups of people or minorities in the world have been fighting for their right to exist and earn the same freedom and rights as everyone else. People that feel and are discriminated by policy stemming from a binary view on sex deserve that same recognition of their freedom and rights.
@@machheydt176 Discrimination and sex being binary are two different things. You don't need to remove binary view on sex to get rid of policies that discriminate people based on sex, as proven by most western countries.
If you pluck the wings off a fly is it still a fly, or do you confuse everyone, and start calling it a walk?
Move underrated comment here, I wanna rapid 👍 this comment. 😂
The lovely Gunes Taylor said quite a few things I would question, but one softball thing to which I can respond was this: At around 24 minutes in she said “Perhaps women know this more than men, because we have these very changeable bodies, and things happen and then you feel compelled to talk about it ... Imagine waking up and then just being like, “Ah, this bit of my body aches and I feel weird, and I don’t know what’s going on and … Actually, I can’t stop eating. My god, I’d give my left arm to eat this, that or the other.” My question for biologist Gunes Taylor is - Do you think men do not experience any of the things to which you referred? Do you think men never have the experience of wanting to stop eating? Do you think men do not have odd, unexplained pains and sometimes they freak out wondering if they are sick or even if they may die? Is that honestly something you believe? Do you see the conundrum with using experience as a yardstick rather than measurable evidence? You're gorgeous and smart as a whip. Jess de Wahls's reasoning was just stronger for me. And once again, Peter, Gunes and Jess, this was a terrific discussion, just beautiful. Thank you.
She’s fundamentally a narcissist. Total whack job thinking from any normal person’s point of view
Women are adult human females.
Adults are individuals who have attained the average age of first reproduction for their species. They have reached the age of maturity. The term adult applies across many species, and is used to distinguish them from juveniles, who are not yet capable of reproduction.
Humans are members of the genus Homo. Our relatives in the genus Australopithecus, now extinct, are sometimes categorized as human as well. Every individual Homo sapiens is a human.
Females are individuals who do or did or will or would, but for developmental or genetic anomalies, produce eggs. Eggs are large, sessile gametes. Gametes are sex cells. In plants and animals, and most other sexually reproducing organisms, there are two sexes: female and male. Like “adult,” the term female applies across many species. Female is used to distinguish such people from males, who produce small, mobile gametes (e.g. sperm, pollen).
How do you know you're female?
How do you know someone you meet in public is female?
Is a person who produces small gametes but is XX a male or female?
It would be unusual to meet someone with XX chromosomes and an SRY gene translocation and refer to them as male. They might appear female and identify as such. However, knowing they produce small gametes could lead you to consider them male. Worse yet, imagine you start an argument with them that since they produce small gametes, they are male. This doesn't seem like the world we live in.
The world we live in is one where people often identify as a gender. We've had instances where people have actually gotten their biological sex wrong their whole life. Take for example a Chinese man who found out he is a woman. He only found this out when he learned he had an ovarian cyst.
Now should I start referring to this individual as a man even though they spent their whole life believing they are a woman, presenting as a woman, marrying a man believing they are a woman... It seems more logical that this person calls themselves a woman and thus I'll call them a woman too.
However the fact remains that they are biologically XX. We should call sex just XX, XY or other categories. This is a fact and can't be changed (As of yet).
sex:
gender; the BINARY state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These allosomes consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, whereas males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. Rare chromosomal anomalies include X (Turner syndrome); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); XYY; and XXX. In such cases, the sex of the human is still either male or female, because one’s sex/gender is determined primarily by the gametes produced (see below).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex dichotomy of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-nefarious agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️♂️♀️
gender:
sex; the BINARY state of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. Therefore, even if a human being possessed a male reproductive system (or, at a minimum, produced spermatazoa, despite not having a complete reproductive system [in other words, a man without a distinguishable penis]), yet was superlatively feminine in every other possible way, he would be required to mate with a biological female in order to reproduce (and, as explained in Chapter 27, marriage is a societal obligation for the vast majority of humans).
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those persons who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that every human belongs to one of only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in “his/her” womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate ‘him/herself’). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. In those rare cases in which a human is born without gonads, the other characteristics of sex/gender would be taken into consideration - firstly, the allosomes (sex chromosomes) found in the DNA of every cell, and then, any extant genitalia, since even those females who have experienced the misfortune of being born without ovaries, for instance, usually have their remaining sex organs intact).
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from “genus”, such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus”, is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word of late, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, OBJECTIVELY-IMMORAL doctrines.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term. And even in the former case (where the word has been used to denote something other than the sexual binary taxonomy), predominantly in those places where leftist ideologues comprise a significant portion of the population - mainly Anglophone countries at present, although by the time you are reading this document, probably every nation on earth, with the exception of Islamic lands. See also “leftism”.
Ultimately, the term “gender” is not absolutely synonymous with the word “sex” (otherwise, why would progenitors of the Latin tongue have coined two distinct words for two slightly divergent concepts), but it most definitely does not refer to the notion or notions invented by leftists (those who adhere to adharma), especially the idea that “sex” refers to a binary division of human biology and/or anatomy, whereas “gender” refers to how one identifies according to societal norms in regard to sexual roles. For example, most all leftist ideologues define “woman” as “someone who identifies as a woman”, which is a wholly circular definition.
Those of us who stand for dharma (righteousness) must push-back with all our might against the adulteration of the language.
If you are truly wise and intelligent, you would surely have recognized several amazing secrets contained within the body of this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. However, perhaps the most secretive secret of all, shall forthwith be revealed:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to change his or her sex/gender! (You are implored to keep this secret - do not tell a soul!!!)
For example, a man who castrates himself and wears a skirt or a dress, is simply a mutilated, transvestinal male - not a woman, nor is he a female. Similarly, a woman who attaches an appendage resembling a phallus to her crotch and dons a pair of pantaloons, is merely a transvestinal woman with a fake penis between her thighs, and not a man, nor a male, in any accurate sense of the terms.
Actually, I would contend that any “man” who excises his reproductive organs was always a dickless “man”, metaphorically speaking.
N.B. Even though the glossary entries “gender” and “sex” are worded somewhat differently, they could easily have EITHER been interchangeable, or else worded identically, since, in practice, they possess the same meaning.
Even when the term “gender” (or any non-English cognate of the word) is used in grammar, it indicates whether a particular noun or pronoun is masculine, feminine or neuter, although most nouns in the English language do not have a gender (neuters).
@@malirk OMG...Malirk...you are still here, trolling?! :DDDDD
(dude seriously...let it go...)
A woman is simply a descriptor term for a Female at the adult stage
an Adult human Female.
Something a male could never be in any sense.
I am not even halfway through, and I'm not sure if the screaming in my head will ever stop.
You must be from the USA. No offense meant, just my observation.
@@txwaterbird6115 you're teetering on a hate speech strike.
Thanks for the heads up! I’m six minutes in. Think I’ll stop now and come back later.
Schrödingers definition of feminism:
You cannot predict the definition of feminism until it’s observed.
Feminism is just supporting the equality of women in all aspects. I've heard this definition for decades. What definitions are you hearing and where?
You might just be watching ragebait videos.
@@malirk that is not the performative definition of feminism.
@malirk WTF? Women are not 'equal' in ALL aspects. Nor are men equal in ALL aspects. Both men and women are equal overall and complimentary to each other. We are not equal in every aspect.
We have lots of very different qualities and different potential contributions to society. Fighting against inequality does not entail rendering males and females equal in every aspect of life. That was never the original goal of feminism either.
@@skepticusmaximus184 I never said they're equal. I said we support equality. This means in the workplace, home, politics... you name it.
@malirk
You are backpedalling and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Firstly, you said: "Feminism is just supporting the equality of women in all aspects."
I responded:
_WTF? Women are not 'equal' in ALL aspects. Nor are men equal in ALL aspects. Both men and women are equal overall and complimentary to each other. We are not equal in every aspect._
_We have lots of very different qualities and different potential contributions to society. Fighting against inequality does not entail rendering males and females equal in every aspect of life. That was never the original goal of feminism either._
Your response is thus:
"I never said they're equal. I said we support equality. This means in the.work place, home, politics... you name it."
So you DID say that feminism is supporting the equality of women in ALL aspects. I take it that you identify as a feminist and agree with this ambition but, correct me if I'm wrong. Now, unless I'm wrong, you appear to be advocating for equality of men and women in aspects or areas of behaviour and physical endeavour, where it's simply impossible.
Men and women are completely different creatures. Advocating for their equality in principle OVERALL is a laudable goal it's the "every aspect" part that I disagree with entirely. Look, in the the home, women are faaaar better home makers than the average guy. Guys are far better bread winners and more prone sacrifice other benefits to earn a crust. Meanwhile women become a commercial liability, if they don't have the same burning ambition to earn money, but trade off the career for child raising and nest building. That's all fine, since women tend to spend over 60% of disposable all the money earned in the average family anyway. The corporate consumer world loves them and their obvious charms.
Look. It all boils down to our different sexualy dimorphic strategies for getting our genes into the next generations. Look up epigamic differentiation and neoteny in biological evolution to learn the difference between male and female mammals and hoe sexual dimorphism effects our species. Whether you're saying males and females ARE actually equal in all aspects OR they SHOULD be equal in all aspects, it's equally as stupid and futile as a fact or a goal. We should compliment each other with our different qualities and compensate each other for our different weaknesses. But males and females never can, never should nor never will have "equality in all aspects".
Female and woman is not the same, but (human) female delineates the boundaries within what woman can be and exists in/as.
Also, I really don't understand how people can have a hang up regarding the functioning of a reproductive system when defining male/men and female/woman. If we define human as a bipedal moving animal, when a human gets sick and is bedridden or gets born with malformed legs and can't move, do they stop being a human? Reality is you either have a male reproductive system, or a female reproductive system, and you are a male/men or a female/woman based on that. Whether it works or not has nothing to do with anything. Just like when a rhinosorous loses it's horn it doesn't become a hippopotamus, it's still a rhino, and a man/woman is still the same regardless of whether their reproductive systems works, or whether they check all the boxes for secondary sex characteristics. That's why they are called secondary, as they are not the primary defining factors.
As a lover of Venn diagrams, the woman circle is contained in the female circle.
@@DrDeuteron Yes, which is contained in the human circle.
@DrDeuteron, not always. All women are human, not all females are human
Unless you consider "womanhood" as more of a "person good" or"individual conscious experience" maybe you could consider female cats and dogs women if they have a strong personality but I feel like that's getting away from the original spirit of the question
Personhood not person good *
>Being a woman is really cool because our bodies change and we have moods and there are unique things about being a woman
>Womanhood actually has nothing to do with your body and everything is a spectrum anyway
Satire?
I'm glad I'm not the only person confused here.... and I don't mean sexually confused
She couldn’t even keep her own definitions straight because she knows that women = female, even if she’s trying to be politically correct and appease the gender cult.
amazing. The biologist squirming around conforming to a cult.
Sex is XX,XY, XXY and more.
Gender is whatever group someone puts themselves in.
At the doctor you should mark your sex.
In society you tell people your gender.
Simple.
@@malirk OMG...Malirk...you are still here, trolling?! :DDDDD
(dude seriously...let it go...)
@@malirk your first sentence is nonsense. And if you're right about gender, then single sex spaces and sports are irrelevant to it.
Multiple identifiers does not mean that there is a nonbinary resultent of those factors.
Not to mention all the identifiers align properly in the overwhelming majority of people.
So my hands are more of the size of female hands, so I am 10% less male 🙄
@@Scratchy8644 that is what this ideology would arrive at.
Peter - You are doing really good work here. I think your epistemological interview technique is so effective.
Perhaps the most glaring hypocrisy of the trans movement is the simultaneous, absolute convictions that “gender” is inborn, immutable and independent of biology but is also fluid and can be changed on a whim. How can they justify childhood medical and surgical transition?
Why is it so hard to logically and evidentially insist that, in the final analysis, one cannot possibly be a woman without being a biological female? Same for a male: one cannot possibly be a man without being a biological male. I'm stuck here. I can't get past it. Perhaps I'm like Dirty Harry: "A man's got to know his limitations."
Performing as a man or woman is something else entirely--thespians, frankly. Furthermore, believing one is the opposite sex is something else entirely.
These ppl just dont accept the very simple fact that in language "woman" is used to define the specific SUBGROUP of females that are of the human species (and have reached adult stage)...they think there is "more"...they always try to add this "more" to the word (whatever this "more" would be in their heads...it obviously changes every time and to whoever person you ask, never defined).
Instead is very simple...there are ALL the "females" (of every kind of animal)...and then there are the "women" that are the females of the human species (like the "sheep" is the female of the ovines and the "cow" is the female of the bovines)...no need to add anything or search for some deep meaning to the fact that you are a "woman"...
being a man is a definite limitation of being a man, though acting somewhat like a woman is not.
No one is stuck here. You are on point.
That is because for example there are males with androgen insensitivity that appear as women (and for a part even as female, because they lack certain primary features even). Without studying further or even knowing, we will accept that they are women without being biological female per the definition everyone throws around.
I'm aware you could say the exception proves the rule. But I think it's just as valid, to say it is to be expected and completely normal - albeit rare. And however rare, there are a multitude of other rare conditions that all together, form a significant amount that warrants thinking about that rule (being that a woman needs to be a biolofical female), certainly in light of people that feel as the opposite sex they were born as. If we accept an androgen insensitive male as a woman without even knowing they have that condition, why wouldn't we be able to call or refer to a transwoman as a woman? What difference does it make? If a transwoman was passing, we would act as if they were a woman, without being female right?
This thinking isn't a way to deny reality or biology. It is simply a way of finding a perspective that maps onto real life experiences and allows us to communicate and so much more. If we talk and refer to a woman - we don't feel the need to check their reproductive system. This is only important in certain situations, such as healthcare, bathroom policy and sports competitions.
@@machheydt176 There is performance, and there is biology. They are categorically different. And I don't need to "check reproductive parts" to understand that difference.
4:40 - "why am i crying over this random thing?"
Wow, a biologist using gender stereotypes to describe what a woman is? Not good. Defining women and men should be separated from social stereotypical behavior
i'm gong to assume you're taking the piss
nice b8 m8
There are only 2 5exes, but within each 5ex there is a spectrum of morphological variance, and varying degrees of overlap.
To me the issue I stand against is based in differentiating what is being asked for or demanded. I'm very happy to treat and even think about a transwoman _as_ a woman. I don't think I'm losing anything to that. I'm happy to treat someone in the way that will let them feel comfortable and accepted. This is very different from demanding that legally, scientifically, transwomen are _literally_ women. This is absurd. Transwomen are men who identify as women.
It will make me feel comfortable and accepted if you call me "my master" and refer to yourself as "your abject slave".
@@radubraduBut that doesn't mean we have to act upon it
"I'm very happy to treat and even think about a transwoman as a woman. I don't think I'm losing anything to that. I'm happy to treat someone in the way that will let them feel comfortable and accepted."
I used to feel that way too, but now it has become painfully obvious that if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. "Being nice" is how we wind up with men in the women's changing room, men competing in women's sports, and men in women's prisons. "Being tolerant" is how we wind up with kids getting brainwashed into a cult that confuses them about their identity, tampers with their endocrine system, and leaves them sterile and sexually dysfunctional.
The ideology that underpins transgenderism is toxic, it's causing harm, and it needs to be stamped out.
Transwomen are men who *present themselves* as women. You CAN'T identify as something you ARE NOT. A white caucasian man cannot identify as an brown indian girl.
Some people have changed the meaning of "woman" to be "femininity" which to me is plain wrong. You hijack the word "woman" in the language but the law cannot change in response to that change so essentially you create two definitions: one that respects feelings and another one that describes rights. Consequently other words like "mother" or "she" and so on can also be hijacked by saying that it refers to "woman" and not "female", which creates a cascade of problems in the language. All of this, just for feelings.
I could be wrong but at 30:33, the biologist Güneş Taylor seems to be implying that biology only affects humans from the neck down...She said: "male and female are terms for biological bodies but when it comes to behavior and social stuff, it's woman and man."
@@cristopherq1935 And that is one of the flaws in Dr. Taylor's definition of sex. The terms she is looking for are masculine and feminine. These terms are useful when talking about social and behavior. Man and woman are biological and developmental terms.
It appears that her argument is that being a man or woman is NOT defined by which sex class you belong to but by how you behave, what interests you have, what you look like, etc.
This is incoherent. Man simply refers to a human being that is male and woman to a human being who is female. Neither are about performance. It is a linguistic definition of male or female human beings. Just as doe and stag are to deer. This is bloody painful. Taylor has totally misunderstood masculinity and femininity. Adjectives can be descriptive of both sees but a noun cannot. For goodness sake
It certainly has equal effect from the neck up
@@Gingerblazeexactly. It’s the most sexist, regressive ideology I’ve ever come across. And they have the gall to act like it’s a progressive movement.
What is the precise order of this spectrum, exactly? The colours in tge rainbow has a particular order violet, indigo, blue, ...Orange, red. What is the order of the sex/gender spectrum?
Also what is it, precisely, that differentiates gender n from gender n-1 or gender n+1?
There are no coherent answers to these questions because their ideas are b.s..
“Spectrum” is a euphemism for “everything and anything that empowers my argument”.
Exactly
i think one can argue that hormone levels, and certain physical characteristics like muscle mass, skull shape, and al of those markers are on their own respective spectra, which can then be collected and used to determine someone's gender (read: sex) easily.
there will of course often be correlation between those because it is partiallly hormone driven over time,
but different genetic backgrounds can still come up with different permutations, even if those hormone levels were to be the same.
regardless the outcome of someone's sex will be binary (hermaphrodites being the exception that prove the rule)
what these people are doing, is pretending that cherry picking an outlier in 1 particular metric, somehow magically negates all the other metrics, and justifies creating this new bogus scale on whatever they cherry picked.
If you actually read up on what some of these supposed genders are, some of them are simply varying degrees of confusion about what gender you are. Not even joking.
the is truly the most foolish time in human history
Give me 10 minutes with that biologist and I'll have her saying "sex is binary" by the end! 😆
*I treat my friends differently based on if they're a man or a woman .... but I also don't know what a man or a woman is .... despite being a biologist*
That simply Must be confusing on a daily basis, assuming it's not just the regurgitation of what she feels she must say publicly
Oh so if I am smaller than other male, I am less male ? 😂 rigghhtttt.....biologist can be sexist too I guess
So, a masculine lesbian is less of a woman because that person doesn't "preform" the expectation of what a woman is supposed to be?
Is the goal to make this debate clear or unclear?
The goal is to confuse and warp language in order fostered psychological perversion. ALL of this 'critical theory' stuff is just a set of proxies to destabilize ontology and epistemology. Nothing more.
>Not every man looks like Chris Helmsworth, but they are men, but it shows there is a spectrum
What
pure idiocy
I absolutely have days when I feel extremely Chris Hemsworthy (usually on Fridays and Saturdays). On other days, not so much
I've only done elementary school biology and even I can debunk that, good god
If biological sex is not binary, it suggests that there are other sexes beyond male and female. Therefore, any biologist claiming so clearly needs to define these additional sexes and provide a criteria that distinguish them from the traditional categories. Intersex conditions result from variations in the typical development pathways towards male or female, rather than a separate developmental pathway.
I'd love to see this exact same discussion but with two men, and with every mention of woman replaced with man, and male with female, etc.
Particularly when it comes to specific feelings and urges as Guines was describing and how those characteristics are viewed/criticised/oppressed by society.
Very interesting and thought provoking discussion. Fascinating seeing a tenured biologist conflating mental and physical state.
I'm smoking a cigarette outside and sighing deeply as I consider whether I can put myself through watching this.
Watch it. You’ll thank me later
Your poor head lol
@@utarian7 don't watch it. You'll thank me later
Switch to a joint and you might be able to handle it
"Spectrum, definition: used to classify something in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme points."
But sex is a binary. You are either a male or female. The fact that there are variations within those sexes doesn't mean biological sex is a spectrum.
Even hermaphrodites don't represent a place on spectrum of sex, they just have aspects of both sexes.
And intersex conditions involve males or females who have abnormal developments.
//
It's also dishonest to claim that gender ideology is primarily concerned with the issues that people with intersex conditions face.
Correct their religion is all about folding the margins to the center as a massive political power grab.
@@breakthecycle5238 misfits seeking power as a substitute for actual self development.
These ideologues missed two good opportunities to raise the standard of human behaviour. First, they had the opportunity to grow acceptance of mental health conditions by saying "I need to walk through life with the external appearance of a woman, but I know I'm a male. Please accept my mental health issues." Many are also on the autism spectrum, and they could have championed people with that condition and those who support them. Second, they could have supported children with internex conditions by normalising the idea that sometimes children's bodies are not sex "perfect" (nobody's body is perfect) when they're born. And it's okay to grow up like that, and for the child with intersex to make their informed decisions at an appropriate (preferably adult imo) age.
But someone isn't XX or XY. You can be XX, XY, XXX, XXY and more.
@@malirkkeep going.
People can fool themselves into believing anything. All of history supports this. The use of language can construct a story that subtly aligns with one's preferences.
During Chloe Cole's childhood, she was mutilated. The justification given for the mutilation turned on the notion that people, including children, have "assigned gender", "gender identity", and "gender expression". None of those three concepts is supported by evidence. But because of a religious belief in them, Ms. Cole was mutilated. Those who insinuate that human beings, rather than words, have "gender" are promoting the same beliefs that were used as the excuse to mutilate Ms. Cole, and so potentially, are promoting the mutilation of more children. People who so insinuate should take responsibility for what they are saying and where it leads.
36:56 you know how powerful the dehumanisation of men is when two women can't decide if a man would appreciate being treated nicely like they are. It's never even entered their head.
We're human too
Would like to hear the "good reasons" Jess has for agreeing with men being forced to military service and women not. Unfortunately Peter hasn't asked.
Great point
Yeah, rightly so. I’m watching this half a year after we filmed it and am puzzled myself that i said that, because i don’t actually think that conscription is a good thing. So i have nothing.
1) "Woman" is not a social construct or role that you can choose. Each INDIVIDUAL stereotypes is a social construct. Stereotypes like clothing, hairstyle, personality etc. The stereotypes that we choose don't change whether we're a man or woman.
2) There's no evidence of a common feeling of "woman" or "man" because it's impossible to compare the feelings of people.
3) In order to feel X then you need to have experienced contrary feelings. If it's possible to feel like a woman (Whatever that means) then you'd need to have previously felt like a man.
The question I would like to ask every person who claims that you can be a woman even without being female is:
In a world where no human adult females exist, could women still exist? In a society composed only of biological males who are born and raised exclusively by other biological males (through cloning or the cultivation of eggs from an original donor) could some individuals claim to feel like women?
Without ever having had any biological female as an example, and ignoring that women ever existed.
The same thing also applies to reversed roles.
When a biological male says he identifies as a woman, when asked what is a woman? he always answers according to his experience of contact with the opposite sex, it would be a more difficult question to answer if this trans person had only lived among biological males who kept him in the dark about the existence of women.
The fact that women exist as a consequence of biological sex is for me an unquestionable scientific reality, no woman can exist where a human adult biological female does not exist at the same time.
Peter Isherwell in the movie Don't look up, mentioned death by a Bronteroc, predicted using his technology, but not knowing what a Bronteroc was.
A person who explains that they perceive themselves as the opposite gender/sex is like Isherwell talking about Bronterocs.
does this hypothetical world have "The Hub"?
@@DrDeuteron ?
@@raff9219 the hub is pr0n, sissy pr0n perversion is a big motivator for transitioning and role-confusion (and that's no my idea out of the blue).
Words are social constructs. 3, 2, 1...
A thing can be a social construct and still be valid and or useful for social progress. 3, 2, 1...
If you asked her about being a woman she would tell you about thinking “What fresh hell is this? How is my body behaving today? Why am I crying over this random thing?” I am a woman. I have never once waked up and thought of being a woman as a “fresh hell.” I do not equate womanhood with a misbehaving body or with irrational tears. Nor do most women. This is straight up misogyny.
There's a reason some chickens are called hens, there's a reason some cattle are called cows, and there's a reason some humans are called women. Because they are all sexually mature examples of the FEMALE of their respective species. You wouldn't call a female, pre-pubescent or even pubescent child a woman because she is specifically defined as a GIRL. The word "woman" fulfills that same purpose. It PRECISELY describes the end point of that stage of the female human developmental pathway. A post-pubescent human female is still considered(depending on jurisdiction or personality) a "girl" in the legal or emotional sense, but in terms of procreative potential, she is a young WOMAN. It's fascinating that a trained biologist seems oblivious to this basic scientific categorization.
What a great conversation, thanks Peter. So refreshing to just hear people talk and not spit ideologies at each other
Is the cardiovascular system a spectrum?
Is the legs number in human a spectrum?
This whole episode has just made me die inside. The so-called biologist having no understanding of what a woman is. This is middle class, naval gazing pontification, which gives too much crddence to the desires of some delusional activists. There are plenty of trans women and trans men who also know they are women and men. There's no need to legitimise the delusion of a dangerous few
Science and ideology should never mix.
science + ideology = ideology
(it's a, wait for it: idempotent operator).
The man who had his parts chopped off still has XY chromosomes.
It baffles me that it took the biologist until the end of the video to bring up chromosomes. That is the heart of what makes us male or female. That drives our development in the womb.
4:39 Ironically Ms Taylor, when referring what it's like to be a women, she describes waking up and thinking about what her body is going to do today, her female body. In her first attempt at separating a women from a female, and she still failed. Ironic.
I really appreciate the thoughtful intelligence of all the commenters to this great dialogue.
oh my... the state of academia is truly something.
"biologist"
Maybe people believe things or don’t believe things. We only know what people say. People use communication for all sorts of reasons including manipulation.
Biological sex has a definition if you what to change that, then extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
If you have a theory and hypothesis that will change everything we know about biology then present it.
Gender identity has no definition because everyone can and does define it differently.
We recognize differences. Equal does not mean the same as.
Everyone should pursue their interests, what they are capable of and competent at.
I may what to be a ballerina or a football player or a rocket scientist but I have neither the brains, talent or body to pursue any of them.
" if you ask me what it feels like to be a woman I would talk about the sensation of waking up in a morning and thinking what fresh hell is this"
TIL I am woman
Let me know when a third gamete type pops up in nature or a sexually reproducing species creates a new organism without any gametes & then you will have an argument for a "sex spectrum."
Humanity creates new organisms without any gametes (the created organism, not the creators) very often. Then the sex has to be assigned otherwise, sometimes arbitrary.
@@miriamlana833 It's still never assigned. It's determined by genes & can be tested for in great detail way before someone is even born. I've always thought it was inaccurate to say "either male or female" it's more accurate to say "female unless you have Y chromosome/SRY gene."
@@5-Volt that's arbitrarily picking one sex characteristic. Some even break it down to "functioning SRY gene". But then comes the question if it "functions" when other genes don't respond.
@@miriamlana833 To your point there's technically even been a few reported cases of XX males with no SRY gene at all, something else caused the development of male tissue, but the presence of male tissue makes them male. Sure. It *can* get to an arbitrary determination in very very rare exceptions, but we have a pretty darn good understanding of most, if not all DSDs. They all have their own unique but predictable path of development. None of this changes the fact that there are only 2 fertile endpoints of development though. For every animal, & the overwhelming majority follow those 2 paths. I'm not saying you can't make an argument against the sex binary, you just have to dig REAL deep to even try. 😂
I wish Peter would challenge his guests more on the bs they spew.
The whole point of street epistemology is that he doesn't do that. The whole thing would be redundant.
@@faustoferrari4303completely agree. It's much more interesting to watch without challenge from the host for this type of content. It seems to stop people backing into a corner, so they open up more
Her drawing would have been better with two seperate graphs, one for females and one for males as those with DSD's fall either on the male or female catergory depending on their gametes
So sad to see the sciences being "a wokened". A biologist can't even bring herself to give the proper definition of woman or of female. Too hard to watch. Love you Peter. I appreciate you exposing people's beliefs and exposing people to their own beliefs the way you do. It's amazing what you're doing.
Feelings don’t change reality.
Thanks for your work
I wholeheartedly agreed with literally every word the lady in the striped shirt said the entire video. She was incredibly well spoken and reasonable
The biologist is wrong about biological sex being a spectrum as there's only two gametes therefore two sexes. And the biologist has a PhD. Shocking.
I've been waiting for a good one. This may do it.
The state of higher education is showing in this video. This level of ignorance can only be taught, it isn't natural.
okay at first I wouldn't say I liked Güneș, but she has won me over. Still a bit wishy washy on the gritty details but I see her in good faith and it was an interesting conversation for sure. - WOW the last question means I repeal all my words and cannot say good faith any longer. SEX is not a spectrum. painful
I do find it interesting that these ladies think men don't talk about our bodies with our male friends, or that men don't have the Intense variability or demanding body needs (specific food etc).
The biologist should frankly know better, because while men don't have period cycles we have far more dramatic biochemical effects from pain, blood loss, damage, illness, low or high blood sugar and many other factors that make us produce hormones and other chemicals in much larger quantities.
Honestly this is the sort of thing men tend to discuss amongst their fellow men eg:
man 1 - Im having a shitty week, I got ill monday and I just havent had the energy to work all week.
man 2 - me too pal, I got wound up by some idiot and very nearly punched him - I came so close to loosing it, lets hit the gym and then get a steak and a few beers to chill.
This is REALLY a discussion about the hormonal and biochemical balance issues we have, and our attempts to cope with them - and if we dont tell the ladies about it its because we dont want to scare them, we want to be thought of as protectors and providers - not the unexploded badly engineered powderkegs we really are.
So then men can discuss and solve amongst themselves right
What was fascinating were the amount of inconsistencies in the biologist's beliefs, produced from the veracity of her lines of thinking. I wanted to point them out individually, but it seems the comment section is already on to a few.
To me, chivalry comes from a place of power. Graciousness, from a place of lesser strength.
I feel that in this conversation the Word Woman is being used interchangeably with the act/felling of Femininity. It would been interesting to separate the difference in thoughts between being a woman vs being feminine.
When will the kookiness end?
When the Marxist are done instilling instability in our society. This is not to help anyone but those who will thrive off the instability to gain power in all our institutions. It will end when enough actually wake up.
Pole flip and micronova
Extremely High Neuroticism, High Openness, Low Conscientiousness, Low Agreeableness and extremely High Extraversion personalities have taken over the conversation
Science communicator? How so? Re: feminism...liberation from what exactly? And if a woman says the same nutty crap as a 'male feminist', 4th wave or otherwise, are we to consider those views more seriously cuz a woman said it?
It's ALL just so ridiculous, vapid and juvenile really
Fabulous discussion demonstrating all the semantic stumbles.
Classic example of book sense vs common sense.
I really missed the question after 32:06 which is like "Wait, isn't feminism is all about having equal rights?" It is truly amazing that it always turn out that they want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities.
such a cool episode!
When I was 5, i had a pair of pants. Back then it was rare for a girl to wear pants. I immediately declared myself a boy. Since then, I matured a little bit and never felt that i was a male just because i felt like declaring myself one.
the biologist was shocked at the comment around 6:00 minutes that some women like their period.
that alone shows her bias and thinking. I have known plenty of women that accept/embrace/celebrate their periods and everything it means being a women.
It's very common in women circles, red tents etc,.
29:10 was surprising and also the reason given for it. the next prompt was even more surprising considering.
31:00 from the biologist was pure nonsense and I applaud peter for his ability to hear such things and continue having a debate.
33:00 women in the west are oppressed. considering how pedantic they have been about terms and definitions up to this point I'm surprised they both went to slightly agree instead of at least neutral.
34:10 was just hilarious.
43:31 Is brilliant and the biologist fumbled her response to that. that biologist is confused about male/female and feminine/masculine.
A biologist discounting biology when it suits her is mind boggling.
Judgment is also subjective. What sort of biologist is this woman? Seperates female from woman? Feminine, masculine.
Funny that the textile artist knows more about evolutionary biology than the biologist.
Chivalry and all similar protective behaviors towards women is absolutely a biologically and genetically driven behavior. The institutions created to cultivate and moled chivalrous behaviors may be cultural, but the impulse is biological.
The same goes for all other differences in gender roles. They are all biologically driven, only culturally nurtured.
The entire "sex/gender is a social construct argument is complete nonsense.
At the end of the day, despite their chosen professions, it appears that Textile Artist is just a bit more intelligent than Biologist. She's more rational and a more honest thinker.
Such a great process. How many times do we disagree and can't understand why and it's because we are talking about 2 different things.
I hate the term performance in regard to being a man or woman. Can we come up with a different term? It’s not an act, it just is
This discussion would be some much better with two men and two women. The amount of sexist stereotypes they levy at men is insane!
How much did it cost to get this doctorate? It was too much. It should cost less than 50p to learn that stereotypes are not biological sex markers, and it’s completely free to learn that saying people born with DSDs are not male or female is offensive AF.
she really should get her money back
🙄 Whether it's "offensive" or not to say that "people born with DSDs are not male or female", it's still the "truth". Or it is at least the logical consequence of standard biological definitions that say that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. You might try Googling the definitions or, better yet, see those published in reputable sources like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology.
@@SteersmanOaring roll your eyes all you want - every human being is either male or female, if their gonads work or not, are still there or not, if their sex immediately obvious on sight or not. Stop dehumanising people born with distressing and sometimes life-threatening illnesses to prop up your crackpot ideology, and while you’re at it I recommend being less self-assured and condescending. I have learned a great deal about disorders of sexual development from The Paradox Institute channel - do watch. It’s a little more in depth than a captured dictionary and apparently biology doctorates. Start with trying to understand the SRY gene, its location and activation.
Roll your eyes when you present to the world the third gamete, maybe even a fourth or fifth, and after you’ve personally told everyone with a DSD that they’re not male or female.
@@SteersmanOaring the starting premise is flawed. She talked about ‘potential’ and you’re using the word ‘functional’. You both mean that only people who produce viable sperm and eggs are male and female. This leads to the obviously stupid conclusion that children, post-menopausal women and people who’ve lost gonads to cancer, accident or disease don’t have a sex. Bat shit lunacy.
@@SteersmanOaringthey don't have to be functional.
HAHA biologist was DROWNING every question.
The biologist learned some things today 😄
This is such an interesting, informative, helpful, fun, and encouraging conversation!
The fact that a biologist struggles to try to make sense of both biological reality and her ideas on gender says it all. However, I think she is someone who would be open to changing her mind if she spent less time talking to ideologues. They were both very good choices of guests for this, I don't think this would've gone quite as well if you hadn't got someone like Jess for the opposition.
Oxford dictionary. Woman. An adult female human being. That’s it. The biologist would perhaps be more correct to stay within the field of biology - rather than taking the biology and changing words to align with current social theory.
I would argue that the biologist would do well to leave biology as her misrepresentations are actually dangerous and have real life consequences.
@@cocoruse yes. A confused “biologist” another victim of deception and propaganda, wanting to please people. You have heard of paradise lost? This is an example of facts and reason lost. Or Science Lost
They'll just change dictionary definition then.
@@excalibro8365 if so, will just confirm their delusion and their denial of some basic tenets of science. A scientists refusal to follow the scientific process is guilty of 2 fallacies / crimes.
Great conversation! They did a great job illustrating the complicated categorization of gender unless one boils it down, distills, or grounds their belief to only reproduction. Güneş summed up Jess perspective quite well, "Because of course Jess is right. Procreation we are either. That's how reproduction works. There are only two things that can work. There needs to be an egg and there needs to be a sperm."