Notice the difference between his balanced, calm tone in discussing this issue. He acknowledges the core problem (that there are people who genuinely and consistently harbor the feeling that they were born in the wrong body) whilst acknowledging that we have to be careful about uncritical, sweeping affirmation of this phenomenon because it could have side effects like social contagion which causes needless confusion. Now compare this to Jordan Peterson's recent tirades against this issue and the way he called the doctors performing the surgery on Elliot Page criminals. Think about how needlessly incendiary and reactionary that rhetoric is, how unmeasured it sounds, how much it fuels this kind of antagonistic sentiment among people already iffy about this subject.
@@blue24563so many a big point the comment was making is that how ideas are presented is important when looking for a good faith conversation and not trying to cause further division
@@jamesjarvis530 Good faith? From the Woke re’tards who call Peterson a racist, sexist, fascist bigot? Such people deserve to be treated with absolute contempt for the way they have misrepresented and smeared Peterson.
Young people are very vulnerable as they grow older through adolescence. Past adolescence people stabilize. Children should not be exsposed to anything that strives to have them consider or decide on gender issues that will be self apparent and self evident later on to the individual themselves. But having them involved in this on top of learning more important knowledge and life skills is very counterproductive to their development and i feel its only reason for existence in the common parlance is to change societal beliefs, ideas and behaviors.
I disagree. Sam harris is just presenting his opinions and you seem to agree with most of his opinions. Sam harris has always been shady. Just listen to him presenting word salads when confronted with concrete philosophical questions.
I have never heard this argument outside of Germaine Greer, so I'll shoot my shot: transgenderism is based inherently in sexism. The spectrum of how gender presents itself in MASCULINITY and FEMININITY. AKA, if you like to wear dresses, it does not mean you are a girl; what's so wrong with a boy wearing a dress, wearing makeup, having long hair? And on the flip side, a girl can present as masculine as she desires; this does not make her any less of a woman. Out of respect for others, I will always call someone by the pronouns that they wish to be called, but it does always raise a red flag of lack of critical thinking skills and underlying sexism.
You make a very interesting point about ideas concerning gender, but I think it's important to remember that gender disphoria is a very bodily thing. People who genuinely have gender disphoria are not so much concerned with clothing or gender norms as they are with their own primary and secondary sex characteristics.
Trans people have the exact same number of neurons in their bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, and the medial preoptic area of the anterior hypothalamus. There's a biological link to dysphoria.
We don’t know how much of “feeling like your in the wrong body” is just not being satisfied with the body or if there’s other factors and to what degree. And just because the person doesn’t dress as the stereotypical opposite sex doesn’t mean your not still being sexist. If a man dresses like a man, but thinks he is a woman based on interests in dance and fashion, then he has essentially boiled down womanhood into a stereotype.
I just questioned the perfection of the woke and trans movement in response to a post in an atheist Facebook forum and was immediately hit with hateful, angry vitriol from people on the far left so I can't imagine how many angry messages he gets. I think he's completely right though.
Is there any more recent content from Sam on this topic? I find some of his comments concerning (such as him accepting the premise that children are being convinced they are trans, or that children are receiving surgical interventions). There is also a ton of science about the unacknowledged fluidity of gender in nature and in humans. In curious if he's given more thought to his position, because in listening to him on other topics he's generally better informed than he seems to be here.
That one observes in a society that a certain % of the citizens will jump off bridges ending their lives ... Doesn't make it a good thing or an act that should be lauded . Observing that a % of humans in society do not FEEL properly represented by their real time biological shape ... Doesn't make them laudable nor true . If one morning I wake up being convinced I am an adolescent ... I will be ridiculed when confronted by reality from my peers . Men can dress up as women but cannot expect they will be labeled women by everyone in real time ... I can label them Clowns if I FEEL they look like one . My feelings twd them is as VALID as theirs . When one establishes its reality on a feeling ... Everyone around can pull the same trick and go on their own . In my opinion ...
Transgenders do not state that they "feel" to be a woman or man, but to BE a woman or man. The same way that you could defend that you ARE heterosexual, if that is the case. It is not a feeling that it changes, it is an understanding of ones true nature that reveals as they grow up. You need to give them that. Label it as feeling is a complete missundertanding.
@@niluvinilu - It is ONLY feelings based . There is NO science of being another gender than the one assigned @birth . Doctors do not GUESS when a baby is born ... Being female or male is an empirically demonstrable scientific data . Sexual preferences are NOT IDEOLOGICAL and deff NOT feelings based . Mixing sexual prefenrences with sexual identity is a non-sequitur . All this said ... I have nothing against people that have these feelings . I do not want them to use Feelings to allow biological males to bet up women in any venues where being a male is an advantage . Nilu ... No anger here ... I would accept links to the science behind transgenderism being more than ... Feelings based . I would read them ...Promise . Be safe out there .
You open up your statement with a false equivocation fallacy.... This issue is not about what's "good" or should be "lauded". The reality is that we live in a society where a certain percentage of people are born more susceptible to suicidal thoughts and tendencies and a certain percentage are born with the inclination that they are in the wrong body. This is just a FACT. And we know this because the phenomenon manifests. Whether or not it's "good" or to be "lauded" is irrelevant. What matters is what's the best course of action to ensure their well-being. If you identify as an adolescent that's perfectly fine for you until you begin to infringe on the rights of others... How someone personally identifies and how YOU identify them are completely independent from one another. And if it's more important to you that you identify someone who you don't understand and who disagrees with you as a clown than to allow them to personally identify the way they want to then that says more about YOU than it does them.... 🤷🏽♂️
@@amac9044 - " born with the inclination that they are in the wrong body" Nah ... Your proposition just died here on this line from the start . Inclination is ONLY about FEELINGS and feelings are NOT FACTS nor SCIENCE . Inclinations cannot be presented as evidence . No one is BORN in the WRONG body . This is an OPINION based on inclinations = FEELINGS . Worthless . Good day
Call me a coward but i am happy that i wasn't born transgender. I can't imagine my right to exist being debated frequently and to enter the bathroom can get me killed. I won't even get medications and surgeries that will help me peacefully without lots of medical interventions. To all trans people out there , I hope you guys pass through this ; everything will be okay
It is really very simple. A man cannot be a woman no matter how much he wishes it nor can a woman be a man. You cannot be in the wrong body, you are your body.
@@BlueBarrier782the idea of a female brain in a male body literally does not make sense because a male brain is simply the brain in a biologically male body meaning all “trans women” have male brains. now, you may take a case of a male brain with atypical characteristics such that is resembles a female brain in certain ways but that is NOT a female brain, it is simply a male brain with atypical characteristics. to call a male brain with unusual characteristics a female brain is simply to play with language in an either undiscerning or dishonest way
@@ericmusgrove958 This claim has been proven wrong multiple times over in neuroscience. There are indeed biological males with biologically female brains and vice versa, at least to the degree that explains body dysmorphia descriptively and not just as a epistemologically subjective thing as you claim. And the dimorphic difference went way past "male brain with some female characteristics". It was much more similar to female brains with biologically female bodies than male brains with biologically male bodies. "Remarkably, studies have examined brains of transgender individuals, concentrating on brain regions that, on the average, differ in size between men and women. And consistently, regardless of the desired direction of the sex change and, in fact, regardless of whether the person had undergone a sex change yet, the dimorphic brain regions in transgender individuals resembled the sex of the person they had always felt themselves to be, not their “actual” sex. In other words, it’s not the case that transgender individuals think they’re a different gender than they actually are. It’s more like they got stuck with the bodies of a different sex from who they actually are." - Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
The issue is not men being women or women being men. The issue is that trans people and cis people are biologically distinct at a sexually dimorphic level even before birth. So now that more and more people are acting in accordance with that reality, what should society's stance be?
He says he hasn't focused on this issue and it shows. At this point, the good faith discussion isn't priority. The alphabet authoritarian mutilators simply must be stopped. Children cannot consent to puberty blockers and this does not require any more "good faith discussion" than whether or not children can consent to sex. In fact, you could make the argument that puberty blockers need even LESS discussion because they are absolutely permanent and sexual assault could be worked through in therapy. The argument for puberty blockers is in fact the argument for legalized pedophilia. Nobody had a good faith discussion with Bundy or Dahmer. Monsters simply must be stopped and THEN we can discuss why they are monsters
Would y’all stop talking about how you feel!? Kids transition young. They grow up. They wanna be their birth gender. They can’t go back so they kill themselves.
Not in all cases certainly. There's a major percentage of social contagion, yes, sure. But there are quite a few that do have feelings of gender dysphoria and there are two forms of treatment for them. 1.) Transition 2.) Therapy. TO claim that therapy is not an apt protocol is to say that psychiatric experimentation over decades have failed. Which is what seems to be happening today.
Allthough what we are actualy talking about is what a man or a woman SHOULD be in a society and the notion that that is somehow an intrinsic construct. Its not. We could make it whatever we want on an individual basis. No intellectualy honest person is denying the biological differences but thats not really what its about.
In the context of sex, sure. In the context of gender it's more complicated. I believe freedom of expression is extremely important and if a man would like to be perceived as a woman then they're a woman to me. Because I value their happiness if it doesn't burden anyone.
@@BurnerBagel So you value feelings and delusions over undeniable facts and truths,what about biological men posing as women and competing against biological women in sports,obviously you don’t care about women’s feelings do you.
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 (roughly in order) - He ignorantly perpetuates the bunk "social contagion" argument that has no scientific basis. - He incorrectly asserts that youths are getting irreversible hormonal and surgical treatments without any due process or regard for their long-term well-being, indicating that he knows very little about what gender-affirming care (ie transitioning) actually looks like, especially for minors. - By implication, he exaggerates the 'problem' of re-transitioning (ie transition regret), the overwhelming majority of which happens at a young age well before anything irreversible has been done. - He defends JK Rowling and her statements, essentially characterizing them as 'innocuous at worst'. She has effectively dedicated her post-Harry Potter life to demonizing transgender people and is leading the TERF crusade to curtail/deny trans rights. Her level of commitment to her anti-trans position is actually rather shocking. Upon sufficient inspection, there is no way to interpret her behaviour as anything other than vitriolic bigotry. So either Harris has not read what she has written on the subject and is merely parroting what he has heard from others, or he is incapable of reading between the lines. The latter would surprise me. - He blames trans activists for the admittedly poor quality of discourse on the subject. While many average people have good intentions but are just ignorant about the subject, the discussion is being driven by a minority of very loud opponents (such as Rowling) who are unambiguously engaged in a campaign of bigotry and and hatred. Furthermore, this moral panic has also been weaponized by cynical political actors using it for personal gain. In Instead of calling out those bigots, Harris instead condemns those who do. That'd be like criticizing the civil rights movement for calling segregationists racist. Generally, I'm a fan of Harris and believe his heart is in the right place. But he seems -- and even admits to being -- rather ignorant on the subject, so why is he talking so confidently about it? to his credit, he acknowledges it as a real phenomenon and advocates for civil discussion about it. Those are good things. But it's fallacious to think that civil rights advocacy must itself be civil at all times. It's the stupid notion that being tolerant also means being tolerant of others' intolerance.
Sam Harris pleading for good faith? That is rich. I just listened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali today on a podcast with Jordan Peterson and a couple of others. Sam will be crying himself to sleep if the reality can penetrate his sophistic armor that he is an actor with the least propensity to exhibit good faith on positions he considers anathema of what he probably considers his old allies.
So your reasoning is if there were no transgender activism did everything would be OK. There’s an old saying The squeaky wheel gets the oil. And I’ll add to that the silent wheel is ignored.
That isn't what he's saying at all, what he's saying is that the extremities of the sides and conversations are the issues. People aren't even allowing for conversation to be had without calling someone a bigot.
Trans is a fad. When these kids grow up and accept reality they'll have a hell of a time explaining to their grandkids the pictures of them with beards and dresses.
@@PinchePeloSpiderman How would you characterize a comment like this: "women are women men are men sorry nature's law not mine". That's copy-pasted from this very comment section, and I see that kind of comment all the time all over trans-related content on youtube. It certainly doesn't come across as open-minded, intellectually curious or charitable, or in the spirit of healthy, good-faith debate. It is a boldly offhand attempt to shut down the discussion, a wholesale rejection of the opposing point of view. It's not _overtly_ bigoted; there are no slurs or hate speech. But it's certainly coming from a place of intolerance, willful ignorance, and privilege. You know, you don't have to use the N-word and go around lynching people to qualify as a racist. At what point does bigoted subtext cross the line and become full blown bigotry? How offensive does someone's speech need to be before we can call a bigot a bigot?
@@nuynobi You mention an extreme point of view and then ask why isn't it bigoted. I think the question answers itself. And currently, we do not have the technology to make a male produce eggs or the ability to be pregnant, and we don't have the ability to make a female produce sperm. So I would understand saying that currently males are male and female are female, and that once the technology develops that statement will change. Regarding the men/women statement, all I simply have an issue with is the repeated refusal of trans-activists to answer the question of "what is a woman?" As someone who is trying to understand and support that which is supported by science and reason, I am finding it overtly obvious that there are gaps, be they purposeful or not, in explaining fully what is wanted by this activist group.
@@PinchePeloSpiderman I think you missed my point. It's not worth my time explaining though. As for "what is a woman?", trans activists answer this question literally *all the time*. It's answered point blank at least twice in Matt Walsh's schlockumentary. So you must not be listening. Or maybe you just don't like the answer they're giving.
Notice the difference between his balanced, calm tone in discussing this issue. He acknowledges the core problem (that there are people who genuinely and consistently harbor the feeling that they were born in the wrong body) whilst acknowledging that we have to be careful about uncritical, sweeping affirmation of this phenomenon because it could have side effects like social contagion which causes needless confusion.
Now compare this to Jordan Peterson's recent tirades against this issue and the way he called the doctors performing the surgery on Elliot Page criminals. Think about how needlessly incendiary and reactionary that rhetoric is, how unmeasured it sounds, how much it fuels this kind of antagonistic sentiment among people already iffy about this subject.
Thank you
Sam’s views on the subject are identical to Peterson’s.
This is such an important point, it can't be stressed enough. Thank you for pointing it out
@@blue24563so many a big point the comment was making is that how ideas are presented is important when looking for a good faith conversation and not trying to cause further division
@@jamesjarvis530 Good faith? From the Woke re’tards who call Peterson a racist, sexist, fascist bigot? Such people deserve to be treated with absolute contempt for the way they have misrepresented and smeared Peterson.
Young people are very vulnerable as they grow older through adolescence. Past adolescence people stabilize. Children should not be exsposed to anything that strives to have them consider or decide on gender issues that will be self apparent and self evident later on to the individual themselves. But having them involved in this on top of learning more important knowledge and life skills is very counterproductive to their development and i feel its only reason for existence in the common parlance is to change societal beliefs, ideas and behaviors.
They should be accepted for who they are. Strict gender roles confuse them.
As usual Sam Harris is a voice of reason in an ocean of irrationality.
thtas only your bias talking but in reality Sam is no voice of reason..
@@dtgb7 stay hidden in your closet
You’re not kidding about the ocean of irrationality. It’s absurd. Can’t even acknowledge facts.
I disagree. Sam harris is just presenting his opinions and you seem to agree with most of his opinions.
Sam harris has always been shady. Just listen to him presenting word salads when confronted with concrete philosophical questions.
@@saimbhat6243 You obviously don’t listen to him. I’m guessing you don’t bother listening to opinions with which you disagree.
I have never heard this argument outside of Germaine Greer, so I'll shoot my shot: transgenderism is based inherently in sexism. The spectrum of how gender presents itself in MASCULINITY and FEMININITY. AKA, if you like to wear dresses, it does not mean you are a girl; what's so wrong with a boy wearing a dress, wearing makeup, having long hair? And on the flip side, a girl can present as masculine as she desires; this does not make her any less of a woman.
Out of respect for others, I will always call someone by the pronouns that they wish to be called, but it does always raise a red flag of lack of critical thinking skills and underlying sexism.
You are confusing cross dressers with trans people. There are masculine trans women who NEVER wear dresses.
You make a very interesting point about ideas concerning gender, but I think it's important to remember that gender disphoria is a very bodily thing. People who genuinely have gender disphoria are not so much concerned with clothing or gender norms as they are with their own primary and secondary sex characteristics.
Trans people have the exact same number of neurons in their bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, and the medial preoptic area of the anterior hypothalamus. There's a biological link to dysphoria.
We don’t know how much of “feeling like your in the wrong body” is just not being satisfied with the body or if there’s other factors and to what degree. And just because the person doesn’t dress as the stereotypical opposite sex doesn’t mean your not still being sexist. If a man dresses like a man, but thinks he is a woman based on interests in dance and fashion, then he has essentially boiled down womanhood into a stereotype.
I just questioned the perfection of the woke and trans movement in response to a post in an atheist Facebook forum and was immediately hit with hateful, angry vitriol from people on the far left so I can't imagine how many angry messages he gets. I think he's completely right though.
I’d like to see a discussion between Sam Harris and Yuval N. Harari
Unless you meant specifically this biological topic, you're in luck (several already exist): ruclips.net/video/IZBCxH1mUJs/видео.html ; ruclips.net/video/vTqOk19itfM/видео.html
Is there any more recent content from Sam on this topic? I find some of his comments concerning (such as him accepting the premise that children are being convinced they are trans, or that children are receiving surgical interventions). There is also a ton of science about the unacknowledged fluidity of gender in nature and in humans. In curious if he's given more thought to his position, because in listening to him on other topics he's generally better informed than he seems to be here.
Master class from Sam Harris talking about an issue and not saying anything.
That one observes in a society that a certain % of the citizens will jump off bridges ending their lives ... Doesn't make it a good thing or an act that should be lauded . Observing that a % of humans in society do not FEEL properly represented by their real time biological shape ... Doesn't make them laudable nor true .
If one morning I wake up being convinced I am an adolescent ... I will be ridiculed when confronted by reality from my peers . Men can dress up as women but cannot expect they will be labeled women by everyone in real time ... I can label them Clowns if I FEEL they look like one . My feelings twd them is as VALID as theirs .
When one establishes its reality on a feeling ... Everyone around can pull the same trick and go on their own .
In my opinion ...
Beautifully put.
Transgenders do not state that they "feel" to be a woman or man, but to BE a woman or man. The same way that you could defend that you ARE heterosexual, if that is the case. It is not a feeling that it changes, it is an understanding of ones true nature that reveals as they grow up. You need to give them that.
Label it as feeling is a complete missundertanding.
@@niluvinilu - It is ONLY feelings based . There is NO science of being another gender than the one assigned @birth . Doctors do not GUESS when a baby is born ... Being female or male is an empirically demonstrable scientific data .
Sexual preferences are NOT IDEOLOGICAL and deff NOT feelings based . Mixing sexual prefenrences with sexual identity is a non-sequitur .
All this said ... I have nothing against people that have these feelings . I do not want them to use Feelings to allow biological males to bet up women in any venues where being a male is an advantage .
Nilu ... No anger here ... I would accept links to the science behind transgenderism being more than ... Feelings based . I would read them ...Promise . Be safe out there .
You open up your statement with a false equivocation fallacy.... This issue is not about what's "good" or should be "lauded". The reality is that we live in a society where a certain percentage of people are born more susceptible to suicidal thoughts and tendencies and a certain percentage are born with the inclination that they are in the wrong body. This is just a FACT. And we know this because the phenomenon manifests. Whether or not it's "good" or to be "lauded" is irrelevant. What matters is what's the best course of action to ensure their well-being.
If you identify as an adolescent that's perfectly fine for you until you begin to infringe on the rights of others... How someone personally identifies and how YOU identify them are completely independent from one another. And if it's more important to you that you identify someone who you don't understand and who disagrees with you as a clown than to allow them to personally identify the way they want to then that says more about YOU than it does them.... 🤷🏽♂️
@@amac9044 - " born with the inclination that they are in the wrong body" Nah ... Your proposition just died here on this line from the start . Inclination is ONLY about FEELINGS and feelings are NOT FACTS nor SCIENCE .
Inclinations cannot be presented as evidence . No one is BORN in the WRONG body . This is an OPINION based on inclinations = FEELINGS . Worthless . Good day
Call me a coward but i am happy that i wasn't born transgender. I can't imagine my right to exist being debated frequently and to enter the bathroom can get me killed. I won't even get medications and surgeries that will help me peacefully without lots of medical interventions.
To all trans people out there , I hope you guys pass through this ; everything will be okay
Nobody is debating the right of transgender people’s existence.
It is really very simple. A man cannot be a woman no matter how much he wishes it nor can a woman be a man. You cannot be in the wrong body, you are your body.
So what if certain aspects of your brain are closer to one sex rather than another?
@@BlueBarrier782the idea of a female brain in a male body literally does not make sense because a male brain is simply the brain in a biologically male body meaning all “trans women” have male brains.
now, you may take a case of a male brain with atypical characteristics such that is resembles a female brain in certain ways but that is NOT a female brain, it is simply a male brain with atypical characteristics. to call a male brain with unusual characteristics a female brain is simply to play with language in an either undiscerning or dishonest way
I’m pretty sure that’s just what Harris said.
@@ericmusgrove958 This claim has been proven wrong multiple times over in neuroscience. There are indeed biological males with biologically female brains and vice versa, at least to the degree that explains body dysmorphia descriptively and not just as a epistemologically subjective thing as you claim. And the dimorphic difference went way past "male brain with some female characteristics". It was much more similar to female brains with biologically female bodies than male brains with biologically male bodies.
"Remarkably, studies have examined brains of transgender individuals, concentrating on brain regions that, on the average, differ in size between men and women. And consistently, regardless of the desired direction of the sex change and, in fact, regardless of whether the person had undergone a sex change yet, the dimorphic brain regions in transgender individuals resembled the sex of the person they had always felt themselves to be, not their “actual” sex. In other words, it’s not the case that transgender individuals think they’re a different gender than they actually are. It’s more like they got stuck with the bodies of a different sex from who they actually are."
- Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
The issue is not men being women or women being men.
The issue is that trans people and cis people are biologically distinct at a sexually dimorphic level even before birth. So now that more and more people are acting in accordance with that reality, what should society's stance be?
He says he hasn't focused on this issue and it shows. At this point, the good faith discussion isn't priority. The alphabet authoritarian mutilators simply must be stopped. Children cannot consent to puberty blockers and this does not require any more "good faith discussion" than whether or not children can consent to sex.
In fact, you could make the argument that puberty blockers need even LESS discussion because they are absolutely permanent and sexual assault could be worked through in therapy. The argument for puberty blockers is in fact the argument for legalized pedophilia. Nobody had a good faith discussion with Bundy or Dahmer. Monsters simply must be stopped and THEN we can discuss why they are monsters
Would y’all stop talking about how you feel!?
Kids transition young. They grow up. They wanna be their birth gender. They can’t go back so they kill themselves.
Anybody like to posit that the attacks on the traditional family and fatherhood/masculinity might just have a bearing on this?
Social contagion- that's it.
2:36
Not in all cases certainly. There's a major percentage of social contagion, yes, sure. But there are quite a few that do have feelings of gender dysphoria and there are two forms of treatment for them. 1.) Transition 2.) Therapy. TO claim that therapy is not an apt protocol is to say that psychiatric experimentation over decades have failed. Which is what seems to be happening today.
Nailed it.
Like God?
What is right is not always popular what is popular is not always right, women are women men are men sorry nature's law not mine
Allthough what we are actualy talking about is what a man or a woman SHOULD be in a society and the notion that that is somehow an intrinsic construct. Its not. We could make it whatever we want on an individual basis.
No intellectualy honest person is denying the biological differences but thats not really what its about.
In the context of sex, sure. In the context of gender it's more complicated. I believe freedom of expression is extremely important and if a man would like to be perceived as a woman then they're a woman to me. Because I value their happiness if it doesn't burden anyone.
That's why too simplistic lmao
@@BurnerBagel So you value feelings and delusions over undeniable facts and truths,what about biological men posing as women and competing against biological women in sports,obviously you don’t care about women’s feelings do you.
Nature proved so many times to be way more complex that this simplistic statement.
Lol Ayaan barely speaks this title is misleading
Never have I heard someone speak so painstakingly careful in an effort to tread a thin line and yet fail so utterly and completely.
Why does he fail?
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 (roughly in order)
- He ignorantly perpetuates the bunk "social contagion" argument that has no scientific basis.
- He incorrectly asserts that youths are getting irreversible hormonal and surgical treatments without any due process or regard for their long-term well-being, indicating that he knows very little about what gender-affirming care (ie transitioning) actually looks like, especially for minors.
- By implication, he exaggerates the 'problem' of re-transitioning (ie transition regret), the overwhelming majority of which happens at a young age well before anything irreversible has been done.
- He defends JK Rowling and her statements, essentially characterizing them as 'innocuous at worst'. She has effectively dedicated her post-Harry Potter life to demonizing transgender people and is leading the TERF crusade to curtail/deny trans rights. Her level of commitment to her anti-trans position is actually rather shocking. Upon sufficient inspection, there is no way to interpret her behaviour as anything other than vitriolic bigotry. So either Harris has not read what she has written on the subject and is merely parroting what he has heard from others, or he is incapable of reading between the lines. The latter would surprise me.
- He blames trans activists for the admittedly poor quality of discourse on the subject. While many average people have good intentions but are just ignorant about the subject, the discussion is being driven by a minority of very loud opponents (such as Rowling) who are unambiguously engaged in a campaign of bigotry and and hatred. Furthermore, this moral panic has also been weaponized by cynical political actors using it for personal gain. In Instead of calling out those bigots, Harris instead condemns those who do. That'd be like criticizing the civil rights movement for calling segregationists racist.
Generally, I'm a fan of Harris and believe his heart is in the right place. But he seems -- and even admits to being -- rather ignorant on the subject, so why is he talking so confidently about it? to his credit, he acknowledges it as a real phenomenon and advocates for civil discussion about it. Those are good things. But it's fallacious to think that civil rights advocacy must itself be civil at all times. It's the stupid notion that being tolerant also means being tolerant of others' intolerance.
Sam Harris pleading for good faith? That is rich.
I just listened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali today on a podcast with Jordan Peterson and a couple of others.
Sam will be crying himself to sleep if the reality can penetrate his sophistic armor that he is an actor with the least propensity to exhibit good faith on positions he considers anathema of what he probably considers his old allies.
This was really stupid and insensitive to do.
So your reasoning is if there were no transgender activism did everything would be OK. There’s an old saying The squeaky wheel gets the oil. And I’ll add to that the silent wheel is ignored.
That isn't what he's saying at all, what he's saying is that the extremities of the sides and conversations are the issues. People aren't even allowing for conversation to be had without calling someone a bigot.
Trans is a fad. When these kids grow up and accept reality they'll have a hell of a time explaining to their grandkids the pictures of them with beards and dresses.
@@PinchePeloSpiderman How would you characterize a comment like this: "women are women men are men sorry nature's law not mine". That's copy-pasted from this very comment section, and I see that kind of comment all the time all over trans-related content on youtube. It certainly doesn't come across as open-minded, intellectually curious or charitable, or in the spirit of healthy, good-faith debate. It is a boldly offhand attempt to shut down the discussion, a wholesale rejection of the opposing point of view. It's not _overtly_ bigoted; there are no slurs or hate speech. But it's certainly coming from a place of intolerance, willful ignorance, and privilege. You know, you don't have to use the N-word and go around lynching people to qualify as a racist. At what point does bigoted subtext cross the line and become full blown bigotry? How offensive does someone's speech need to be before we can call a bigot a bigot?
@@nuynobi You mention an extreme point of view and then ask why isn't it bigoted. I think the question answers itself. And currently, we do not have the technology to make a male produce eggs or the ability to be pregnant, and we don't have the ability to make a female produce sperm. So I would understand saying that currently males are male and female are female, and that once the technology develops that statement will change. Regarding the men/women statement, all I simply have an issue with is the repeated refusal of trans-activists to answer the question of "what is a woman?" As someone who is trying to understand and support that which is supported by science and reason, I am finding it overtly obvious that there are gaps, be they purposeful or not, in explaining fully what is wanted by this activist group.
@@PinchePeloSpiderman I think you missed my point. It's not worth my time explaining though. As for "what is a woman?", trans activists answer this question literally *all the time*. It's answered point blank at least twice in Matt Walsh's schlockumentary. So you must not be listening. Or maybe you just don't like the answer they're giving.