That's a man. Women are actually defective men according to Aristotle because they can't even produce seed and are merely a vessel for life creation. Virgin modern semantics vs based ancient empiricism.
Keep that same eregy when someone uses the "R or N word", or makes a transphobic joke like our fellow woman Destiny here. All of the sudden those "words" have very solid grounded non nuanced meanings, but the ones that make out the lefties to look like delusional "R-word" are magically complex to hard to define mysterious terms for the unintelligent masses.
I actually respect that. It may seem crazy to you, but people on that side of Politics are just as firm in their beliefs/ ideology as you are in yours. So cross-over matters because in those situations only the truly intelligent position can win the majority. Of course, there will always be the minority that won't care about reason.
Because there arent many intelligent and honest persons on the internet for that discussion. Theyre there in real life, but most normal people dont want to engage on it online because theres nutcases everywhere. Heck, just look at the comment section. So many people wanting to control other peoples life/identity because theyre afraid it would somehow harm them later.
The Hodge twins had decent energy with Destiny though. You cant deny that it was a nice watch, and refreshing to see him in a less serious environment.
I'm pretty sure I've heard Ben Shapiro say that in private he uses preferred pronouns, but in public he has to use biological pronouns because otherwise people try to use it to invalidate all his other trans-related political stances for example that biological men shouldn't be able to compete against biological women in segregated sports leagues. If you want an infallible answer to what a woman is where people don't retort with "well actually some women don't have-" it's just a human with large gametes. There's no female creature on the planet that doesn't have large gametes relative to male creatures who have small gametes.
*I don't think Destiny was making a good point here* I think some people use the preferred pronouns, of people in the media, and then say the biological sex to correct themselves, because they've heard that person be referred to as their non biological sex, so many times, so it's stuck in their head. *It would be like if the whole media kept referring to a famous transgender Crocodile as she* when it was in fact male, the same people would slip up, and call it she, not because they think the crocodile actually looks or exhibits as a female in anyway, but just because the way so many other people refer to the crocodile has got stuck in their head.
@@Light-lp8rn As a staunch anti LGBTQ I have preferred pronouns but do I force people to call me by them or legislate for it? No I do not cause THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE ME UNDERSTANDING nor should people be canceled and or banned or fired cause a cis man called another cis man at work a girl's name or a cis woman called another cis woman butch etc. Hell when is cis on cis language policing ever been a thing? At work an older man called me a girl cause I have no bicep muscle and he has instead of getting butthurt about it I laugheed and started doing pushups daily now I can do 100 a day
@@Kyotosomo Pronouns are social no matter what you base them on, there's no such thing as "biological pronouns". That would be like if i called you fat and stupid it wouldn't be a "biological insult", just because being fat and stupid has to do with your biology. You could say it's an insult about your biology, but calling it a "biological insult" is nonsense. That's not how the word "biological" is used.
Society didn't see chromosomes a thousand years ago, but they say penises, vaginas, breast, birth, differences in physical strength, periods, ect. Things that they associated with man or women, male or female.
Over 1000s of years more and more stuff got built on. Why don't you wear dresses now when the men in the past did? Why don't you wear make up and heels when men used to do it? Aren't you further away from them from the original source?
@@Jay-kx4jf Did those things change the man or woman? Did men stop being men once they used dresses of makeup? Did women change as a group once they became housekeepers? This Talk about social cues doesnt Matter because through history men werent treated like women or women like men just because they changed what they socially did. The natural groups of man or woman have Never been mixed. In fact, when you use the fact that men used makeup you are reinforcing the basic classification that men, people born with a penis, used makeup in a point of time. Through all of human history, you could and can see sex. The social characteristics of men and women have changed, but the natural group of men and women have never changed.
Yes, but there have always been people who are much more ambiguous for human comfort. Men who have fat deposits and dispositions that are are typically feminine and vice versa. Even before hormones and surgery, there is something very different going on. Take a brain scan and the brain has the appearance of the gender the person identifies with. It's clearly not just chromosomal sex that creates a man or a woman. It doesn't even guarantee a male or female.
If i walk down the street and see a human with specific features, traits and characteristics, im going to say "hey, look at that woman over there" despite not being able to see their genitalia or their chromosomes. How do i know that its a "woman" without knowing that its an "adult human female"?
@@SenatorDodo09 the fact that it is possible to misidentify something because of limited information doesn’t mean that the thing itself is changed or the category has a new definition. You’re observing aesthetic characteristics of a clothed person, which can be fairly accurate at deducing their gender, but far less so than maybe a whole physical evaluation or genetic testing would be. Your accuracy might not really matter on a normal interaction with a stranger, but it would be more important based on the relationship. Presenting as a woman in public might be different from being one in private, which is the difference between needing to clarify further than “woman” to a random on the streets and to a straight guy you’d like to date or hook up with. There are different levels to “passing” but ultimately trans women are going to have to clarify things that contradict what is simply assumed of women
@@asargentb they're girls who will grow up to be women. But you know that. This is not a legitimate debate. Even Destiny is pulling a Vanish here and acting like he's retarded on this issue. He's not.
I genuinely don't understand this. Our perceptions don't make someone a man or a woman. If I dress up as a woman, I might look like a woman and people might accidentally call me a woman, but I'm not a woman, right? I will still be nice enough to call someone who likes a woman a she or a her, but at the end, she's not a woman.
I think the best way to understand this, is to genuinely ask yourself socratically, "What is a chair?" Without the social dancing, just by yourself, curiously. You'll likely not reach a conclusion. But you'll gain the insight that helps this understanding Or if you're lazy watch a cogsci lecture series.
But it kinda does. If every single person in the world looked at someone, and agreed that they are a woman, then why wouldn't they be a woman. The exact meaning of words in a public setting is decided by how people use that word.
Destiny seething about the what is a woman question is peak cope. The whole point of the question is that transgender ideology is reliant on taking basic concepts and making them convoluted because the underlying premises can't be derived from pure logic or observation. Is sex the best descriptor for womanhood? No, but it's something. The trans-position is reliant on simultaneously undermining and reaffirming traditional definitions of gender and that's shown when someone has to answer what a woman is. Destiny yapping about how complex language is while completely missing this only proves the point.
@@Alibastard807 exactly, you can actually see how convoluted the language is by Destiny’s own strategy here. He’s obfuscating concepts, which previously he’s argued are obvious. He talks about the transgender sports debate or Vaush’s “aqua” quote as if he can clearly identify boys/girls and the way they grow, but now suddenly saying “female” to help define women is circular and language is muddled and impossible to pin down? The “using female to define woman is circular” point is actually sort of ironic because it assumes the traditional definition of woman, in that it’s essentially the same as biological sex and is synonymous with “woman.” Destiny here sounds like Jordan Peterson when he’s asked if he’s a Christian lol
Trans debate aside neither of you understand how language works at all if you think you can take practically any word and attach it to a completely objective and stringent category with no issue. Tell me what is a Castle, what is a Chair, what is an Adult, what is a Cake?
Destiny's right that there COULD be a valid alternative definition of "woman" based on social characteristics. The problem is trans activists always retreat from that definition back to the self-ID definition, which is circular and therefore meaningless. That actually is a fundamental problem with trans ideology, considering literally the whole point of language is to convey meaning.
Not familiar with trans ideology, but how do you personally define a man or woman? Do you think it's something we just intuit or do you think there's like a hard set of defining characteristics? (biologically, socially, etc)
We use social and physical characteristics to determine whether someone is a man or a woman every single day. The chromosomal definition doesn't work because if you look into how chromosomes work, you'd understand that it's extremely complex. You might have XY chromosomes, but you then present as a female phenotypically. For instance, an experiment was done in 1953 where a scientist removed the gonads on rabbit fetuses and, regardless of whether they had the XX or XY chromosome, they all presented with the female phenotype. That means that they all had a vagina and a uterus.
@adlernelson285 No one with an understanding of biology defines sex by chromosomes. It's based on which of the (2) reproductive systems an organism has.
@@adlernelson285You could use a gamete definition: A man is an adult human male. Further, a male is someone who, after puberty, would normally have the reproductive anatomy that would produce small gametes.
@johnny4062 But these people don't want a definition that covers things most of the time; they want one that covers every possible situation. If a definition only applies some of the time, but not all, then there must be exceptions. Which is what a trans person is. I have no problem defining a man or woman as generally having XX or XY chromosomes, as well as generally presenting with a male or female phenotype, because then we could still have exceptions on the fringes. That's generally how biology works because nature does not care for categories. That is why a platypus is a mammal. That's why we don't really have an exact moment for when a certain species of ape became a different species of ape that we would call human.
oak trees exist. And maple trees are something different. If you decided that oak trees can be maple trees if you paint the leaves, that doesn’t change the fact that they’re oak trees. That’s the point.
Your point is demonstrates that the precision of your definition depends on the relevance of the differences. The whole Trans argument is that outside of some narrow contexts, biological sex is not very relevant, and that carving out exceptions for those contexts doesn’t cause untenable amounts of confusion. Your reductionism to formal definitions is not doable for most words in the English language (and, if linguists and philosophy/historians of language are to be trusted about why natural languages are like that, then this is a netadvantage for the language.
This is the dumbest take I've ever read, I'm pretty sure I've got cancer from this idiocy. Congrats on showing you stopped taking biology in 8th grade holy shit
Chatter: "You can still say a woman is xx chromosomes and admit that appearance can deceieve somone." Destiny: "Just admit you think trans people aren't real and should not have access to any healthcare" Now I see where vaush came from.
but that is the point they were making was it not? If they believe trans people are real then they already agree with destiny, the issue is that people don't think trans people are real.
"Just admit you think trans ppl aren't real,and don't deserve healthcare..." I'd have so much more respect for Destiny, if he just removed the words "you think" from that sentence... But the idea that (chemically OR surgically) mutilating 100% healthy body parts, using ZERO evidence-based diagnostic criteria, is somehow "healthcare" (ONLY in this one case, but no other) is utterly bizarre.
@@LiiRAE. *" the issue is that people don't think trans people are real."* - Asking 'are trans people real' makes you sound stupid. They're real human beings that hold a belief about themselves that is incorrect.
@@gaat_chris4960 I mean it makes sense. Things appearing different from what they are doesn't change the essence of what the thing is, only that you're not perceiving it correctly. We put way too much emphasis on changing definitions entirely rather simply adding extra information. Instead of saying "a trans woman is a woman" we could just say "a trans woman is a man, but due to social convenience and empathy for their condition we can refer to them as women when appropriate."
to the people who see it they're going to categorize it as a giraffe, yes. If it's *that* realistic then the difference is functionally meaningless. You could go "well akshually" to them and explain how this giraffe is composed, but you know the saying.. if it walks like a giraffe, and talks like a giraffe.. then it doesnt matter if it's actually 5 people inside to any observer.
@@viysnjor4811 yeah but you are wrong, you just don't know it. Essentially the question is whether there's an inherent truth that exists outside of your perception
@@DynamicDandalf well no, the question is what do *people* mean when they use language for everyday social interactions. We're not talking about writing textbooks or filling factoid blurbs.
BIG Destiny L here. This sounds like Vaush’s aqua nonsense. Also Female is well defined in biology, there’s nothing vague about that definition. If we were to communicate telepathically without languages, we all know exactly the idea we’re communicating when referring to women. Forget about all the sophistry and focus on the concept being referred to. Just like how water aka H2O existed way before language and way before we could create sounds with our mouths to say it. The idea being expressed already existed, just like the idea being expressed by the words “adult human female” exist even without language. THAT idea is what we mean by Woman
Destiny is dealing with the all too common problem of one of the most fundamental concepts of stupidity: An idiot can always prove you wrong even if everything you say is both true and supports your belief. Them lacking either the intellectual capability or intellectual honesty to understand it allows them to use it to reinforce their belief, even if it’s verifiably wrong.
I’m gonna push back a bit on the woman = female argument being tautological. It’s not. Because you can define the words adult, human, and female. So it’s not tautological.
@@justsomedude77 A female is “denoting the sex that CAN bear offspring/produces ova to be fertilized by male gametes”. We have been able to identify women without “testing” their chromosomes. I’m not making the argument about chromosomes. Though they are a part of the human genome sex.
@@Malik_Maverickso a woman that is infertile from birth is a different sex? As she does not have the potential to bear children. how does that process of identification work? We do not know someone is a woman, we assume they are a woman based off secondary sexual characteristics and societal expectations of what a woman ought to do.
@@justsomedude77sex isn’t defined by chromosomes, it’s defined by proclivity to produce gamete. How do you think we recognise that some bovines are cows and some are bulls, ie female and male? We do the same with humans.
@@justsomedude77Nobody ever assumes someone is a woman based off what women do. If that were the case we’d consider gay men or sissies women Humans have 10 fingers but we don’t say otherwise simply because some humans are missing some Just how we say women bare children despite there being some that cant. We ONLY identify women from their biological characteristics. If you were to freeze a naked woman and put her in a museum you wouldnt go “Maybe she acted and presented as a man” you’d assume its a woman based off her biological features We don’t need chromosomes to figure this out because we do it all the time
- Peterson, do you believe in God? - Destiny, what is a woman? (sorry, I'm not a native speaker and I don't know English, but I think Destiny's answer about women is like answering Peterson about God: "What do you mean? Do you want to know which team I'm on?)
There were 42,000 children diagnosed with gender disphoria is 2021 (3x the amount since 2017). Since then, the number of children who have been diagnosed with gender disphoria, and identify as trans is 300,000, over a 7x increase. 2% are on, specifically categorized as, "hormone blockers", 11% of children are on hormone therapy, which might have close to the same effects. thats 13% of 300,000 (39,000) children who might have detrimental life long effects. Matt was wrong, but in as little as 4 years, it might not be the case. I HAVE TO SAY THIS: Destiny: "why would nature create a category?" *acts belwildered* Well destiny, before humans were ever here, animals DID categorize other animals. as mates, rivals, prey, and predator, to list just a few. You're acting like without people there to witness and assess the things, that they arent anything. The concept of gravity existed long before man conceptualized it for ourselves. Those concepts are real and have actions, reactions, etc, even if people don't acknowledge them. Yes, i understand youre not saying those don't exist, but we are using words to communicate those real life things. I can't go around calling leaves rocks and expect anyone to either A) understand what i am talking about B) take me seriously C) be understanding when i try to shame them because theyre not holding my same view, and I find that harmful to my emotions (which i might categorize as assault) The "what is a woman" question is a simile/metaphor to "if you didn't eat breakfast this morning". Yes, dumb people can use both questions, and not grasp them, but that doesn't mean they arent a good way to gauge another person's ability to think logically, before trying to engage in an honest discussion. I don't feel like wasting time with someone that feels emotions are the end all be all. I see them as people who watch too much anime and think that if they just get upset enough, they can go supernova, and everyone around them will just except it, because, main character(syndrome). Destiny: "who is to distinguish a leaf from a branch" The people who use the language. that is why this trans issue is such a big deal for so many people. they feel its the deconstruction of our very basis of communication. As a liberal, i think the Left is awful about this. They constantly repurpose words, or use language to incite emotion, to complete goals. Youre making the perfect point for me, who is to say who says what is what, everyone, not the people trying to use peoples way to communicate with others as a weapon against them, while also trying to make them sound like the "better-than-thou" authority. BLM is the epitome of this.
Gravity isn’t a good example because its not socially constructed to fit into the human beings way of life. It is considered an “Absolute true”. Something we discover, or learn. And like most things that get social accepted later on in society like being left handed or being gay first have a huge rise then then plateau out eventually.
@@michaeltaberner4079being left handed didn't have a "huge rise" once it was socially acceptable, there where always the same amount, just some societies forced left handed people to use their right hand.
Except here, most of what we care about what the thing "actually is" is directly tied to how we use language. Destiny is saying you should just come out and say you don't think trans people should be treated as women. That's an arguable position, and you should argue it if you believe that, rather than hiding behind ambiguous language.
Except we don’t really know, what most of things actually are, on a fundamental level. Whatever you try to describe, might change the next day, based on our deeper understanding of the field in question. It really is a language question, not scientifical one.
@@jeffwells641 "Except here, most of what we care about what the thing "actually is" is directly tied to how we use language." That's not true. The shorthand is a crude but necessary substitution for knowledge of the thing in itself. We cannot exist in a world where we need to constantly test our perceptions against reality, so the shorthand is substituted for knowledge of the things we perceive. In MOST social situations, the shorthand is substituted FOR PRACTICAL REASONS, but in principle the actual truth of the matter trumps the pragmatic shorthand. Want proof? Ask every lesbian who's confused a man for a butch woman about how her attraction suddenly vanishes when she learns the truth.
@@doomhand6360 yes it will probably always be a language question, but wouldn't we want it to refer to something that is as close as possible to the fundamental level? and I kind of feel like that's what people are asking about
A better question to ask would be " If someone had never encountered a woman. How would you describe one?" You are playing the word salad game Destiny. Those who are losing the argument loose their composure.
It’s really as simple as distinguishing between “biological females” and “women”. Yes, a biological female has two X chromosomes, a vagina, a uterus, etc. But we have a vocabulary for a reason, and “woman” is not meant to be mean exactly the same thing as “biological female”. The terms “man” and “woman” are social constructs that exist separate from mere genetics, they moreso describe a set of characteristics commonly associated with biological sex, but they don’t inherently require someone to be a particular biological sex to qualify. Which is why some women are labeled “masculine” when clearly they are biologically female - if man/woman is as simple as binary biological sex, how the fuck could a woman be perceived as “masculine”, because in that context man/woman is a purely binary concept and it makes no sense to describe people as differing in their manliness/womanhood. But that’s not how the language has ever worked, this very fact alone solidifies the concept that gender is a spectrum and not a binary.
@@lukegpb177 sorry, but using the term "masculine " to describe certain characteristics of a woman who exhibits some traits that are presumed to be a general characteristic of most men. The same is true when using the term "feminine " for a man. The words used for men and women since we developed the spoken language until 5 years ago was understood that we didn't have to explain when describing the sexes their biological makeup. I have no animus towards trans people they should live as they wish and be accepted. When you cross the line of biology for feelings you have to suspend reality. In Asia where they have many trans people they are accepted but called "ladyboys". If you want to fight any backlash towards the trans community let's just accept the three classifications of gender.
32:50 Destiny, you are literally acting like Vaush in his aqua debate against that professor guy. Words, (such as "woman" or "sex" or "gravity" or "genocide" refer to real physically existing things that are there regardless of how we describe them, or what words we use to name them, what that guy in your chat said was saying is that there are material differences between what we categorize as "the two sexes", and these are real regardless of how humans call it, he is not saying that dogs know that there are female dogs and want to have sex them in order to make little dogggies, he is saying that a certain kind of dogs get horny for a diferent kind of dogs due to hormonal reasons, this happens regardless of whether humans exist or not, it just so happens that we humans call the dogs who penetrate "males" and the ones who are penetrated "females," It might be the case that all humans died one day, thiswould not change how these dogs are. There is a difference between "male," the word we use to talk about… well, males, and MALES, the physically existing creatures, ok? It's like how "Male" has four letters, but MALE has no letters, male is not a thing that can have letters, male is just a certain type of organism. So the issue is that we have this word "woman," and we're asking "what is it describing in the actual material world?" People think it describes females of the human species, if yo have a different idea you must elaborate and explain why this definition you are proposing is better
Destiny is not talking about changing the definition, he is talking about how the definition currently is. If i walk down the street and see a human with specific features, traits and characteristics, im going to say "hey, look at that woman over there" despite not being able to see their genitalia or their chromosomes. How do i know that its a "woman" without knowing that its an "adult human female"? This simple test shows that the definition "adult human female" does not cover all the ways that we (all of us included as a people with a common language) use the word "woman". This is NOT changing the definition, this is how we use the word today, all of us.
@@SenatorDodo09 Incorrect, Destiney is infact talking about changing the definition. See below. If I walk down the street and see 'a cat that looks like a dog', I'm going to say 'hey look at that dog over there'. How do i know that its a 'dog' without knowing that its a member of species "Canis Lupus Familiaris"? This simple example shows that you have committed an equivocation fallacy by conflating 'readily observable attributes used to INFER a classification' with 'the actual definition of the classification that is based on genetics (which arnt readily observable)'. Your position DOES attempt to change the definition because based on the current definition if you identify 'a cat that looks like a dog as a dog' or a 'a man[male] that looks like a woman[female] as a woman' then you are simply mistaken.
@@user-ui5bo5um7n if tomorrow everyone started calling things that traditionally were thought of as cats "dogs", then our classification would change the names. The cats wont literally become the same as dogs, our definitions would just update with our use of words. There are plenty of animals that are commonly referred to with names despite not belong to the group that name belongs to. Crabs are a very common example of this, most things we call "crabs" arent actually part of the crab family. Again, that doesnt literally make them a part of that group, they just have a bunch of characteristics that we associate with crabs so we call them crabs. Right now, we often use "woman" to describe people without actually knowing what group they are a part of. That DOESNT literally make them the exact same as what we traditionally think of as women, we still refer to them as such though therefor our definition includes that. Definitions are just attempts to keep up with how we use language
@@SenatorDodo09 *"if tomorrow everyone started calling things that traditionally were thought of as cats 'dogs', then our classification would change the names. "* - The fact word definitions CAN change organically over time does not provide a logical basis for disregarding the meaning those words DO have in the present. *"There are plenty of animals that are commonly referred to with names despite not belong to the group that name belongs to. "* - What you are describing here are DIFFERING CONTEXTUAL USAGES of a given word. eg. Biologists may have a SPECIALIZED DEFINITION of the word 'dog' that is used within the SPECIALIZED CONTEXT OF biological classification to refer to any Canine, however the word 'dog' when used within a colloquial context [a normal every day context] typically refers to domestic dogs (Canis Lupus familiaris). - This has no relevance to the word woman because in the case of the word 'woman', the biological definition and colloquial definition are exactly the same ; adult human female. It also does not justify having non-cogent definitions that lack logical consistency. 🙂 *"Right now, we often use 'woman' to describe people without actually knowing what group they are a part of. "* - What you are describing is the usage of readily observable characteristics to INFER a classification. - I reiterate: based on the current definition if you identify 'a cat that looks like a dog as a dog' or a 'a man[male] that looks like a woman[female] as a woman' then you are simply mistaken. *"Definitions are just attempts to keep up with how we use language"* - The attempts to redefine the word woman and deny it's contingency on biological-sex are not an organic change that has occurred over time. It's an ideologically motivated, far-left partisan talking-point that has come to prominence within the last 15 years.
@@SenatorDodo09 If you have a penis you are a man, if you have a vagina you are a women is typically how it would have gone down. Or you can look at any of the other 100 features that differentiate them. You don’t need to have an understanding of chromosomes to make that observation. The genitals or masculine/feminine physical features you present are still ultimately dependent on your chromosomes. That’s why when someone transitions into a woman they are ultimately trying to replicate the natural form of someone with XX chromosomes, whether they even know it or not.
@stakahz4513 OK so a person can identify a woman without looking at a woman's chromosomes. So chromosomes arent actually necessary in the normal persons definition of woman. In fact a person can identify a woman in a single glance in miliseconds. A person has no ability to look at a womans chromosomes or whether they have a vagina. But they can still identify a woman in a single glance. And if a man is small and more feminine looking and puts on womans clothes a person can mistake him for a woman, BUT the man does not become a woman just because a person percieves him as such. Hold on. A woman exists as a concept with features like xx chromosomes but that is not the definition of woman most people are using. People can just tell on a glance. So what if the definition of woman people use is not the same as the actual definition of woman. So there is a concept in peoples mind of what a woman is and then there is what a woman actually is(xx chromosomes) So hypothetically(for the sake of the argument) lets say we named the concept of what a woman or man is in peoples minds as "gender" and what if we named the actual definition of woman as "sex". Do you understand?
The 'what is a woman?' question is asked to challenge the lie of 'transwomen are women'. That is exactly why women like me started asking the question. Sexual reproduction - where there are 2 sexes - is responsible for the evolution of complex life on earth. It has nothing whatsoever to do with language of humans. Just because you create words for the 2 sexes doesn't make them a social construct, which is up for debate on meaning. Sex is binary & immutable. It doesn't matter in most areas of life, but in the few areas where it does matter, pretending it doesn't harms women & girls.
No serious group of people is arguing that the modern social construct of woman should override the definition or essence of biological women. There's some overlap, but they're clearly distinct concepts. When you say "biological woman" or "biological female", it's completely clear that you're referring to sex, XX chromosomes, and so on. Trans people themselves are very accepting of the fact that they're distinct from biological women.
Well if the argument was about literal classification of berries then the language is suddenly fucking important isn't it? It's laymen asking a complicated question without realising it. Thinking about "female" and asking about "woman" as if they are the same. You can think they are, but then you aren't actually asking the question. It's just supposed do be a dunk because "me understand easy answer good"
it's a type of vegetable, you see everyone in my social circle says its a vegetable so it is, what it really is outside of my social construct of a social circle doesn't matter you see. P.S. if anyone takes this comment seriously we all know you don't want a white house but a RAINBOW HOUSE
A strawberry is that red fruit we like to eat, plus the single floating oxygen molecule at the 75th angle from the center. Period. Anyone who disagrees with this definition is a moron because I say so.
It perplexes me that Steven is so muddle-headed on this topic. Language can be complicated, yes, but the things that the words "man" and "woman" were created to refer to are not. The answer to "what is a woman", as a statement of fact, is not complicated. A woman is an an adult human female. A human is a species of primate. An adult is (at minimum) a member of a species that can reproduce. And a female is any member of a species whose biology is organised around the reproductive strategy that utilises large gametes. Whenever we use "woman" in any other context we are engaging in figurative and creative use of language, not statements of fact. I would have thought that Steven, of all people, would unerstand this.
What a way to miss the point... You just say "men" and "woman" mean "adult human male/female" and declare victory. The whole fucking point is, that we simply do not use language like that and your post-hoc definition doesn't change that. The definitions of words come AFTER a word is being used. If we all collective decide that a woman is everyone with long hair, then this is what a woman is. A definition has no truth value. The only thing we can use to determine the definition of a word is to observe it's real world usage and the concepts that are being invoked. The idea that words were created with a factual definition in mind and that any change of the meaning is now wrong or just "creative use of language", betrays a very childish understanding of language. Languages change, definitions change and the concepts in people's minds change. I'm sorry that I had to be the one to tell you, but you have to deal with that knowledge now.
@@maxwellsdemon10 If any person or people want to redefine a word it is incombant upon them to justify it. It is deceptive and unreasonable to require people to start using a word or term (particularly one that has profound implications for truth statements and peoples lived experiences) in ways that obfuscate rather than clarify. To appropriate a word used to refer to a specific sex (in its literal application) for another sex is doing just that, and obviously has profound implications, in this case, specifically for females. If people were simply advocating for new terms for males who want to pretend theyre female or females who want to pretend theyre male ( transwoman/trans-woman and transman/trans-man, for instance) it would be a different conversation, but that is nt what people are doing.
So according to Destiny, the definition of a woman would be someone who presents as an adult human female, since the word is actually used to describe what we perceive rather than what is objectively true. If that’s the case, wouldn’t only passing trans people count as trans? So even if we grant the argument, it still doesn’t justify the conclusion that as long as someone identifies as a woman then they actually are a woman.
There’s women and then there’s transwomen. It’s completaly unarguable. The distinction is pretty clear. Anything other than that is beating around the bush regardless of what you feel to be true yourself.
@@idontgetthejoke4813 yeah but there’s a reason there has to be a distinction between them. Let’s say i wanna go on a date and a friend says he’s found a potential woman for me, and then i meet up and it turns out she has a d*ck 😳 I mean c’mon, you could have said she was a transwoman, you know what i mean?
If the difference is so obvious and unarguable, you would be fine with letting the adult human female who goes by the name of Buck Angel to be alone with your daughter in a restroom, right? The distinction is pretty clear, after all.
@@TheElitedeath huh? That’s exactly what i’m indirectly saying tho lmao😂 That’s the reason transwomen should be called transwomen and not women. And also should not be able to share restrooms with women. You misunderstood everything i said lol, or am i missing something? Seems like you’re just arguing for my argument
The categories exist. They just arent named or categorized. The male lion is the male lion. It just wouldnt be called a male lion. The way you're wording it would mean without humans everything would be the same. The universe would just be a giant blob. We simply name and categorize universal matter based on distingishable differences.
No Destiny, the reason "what is a woman" is asked because Trans women, are BIOLOGICAL MEN. So when we say "Womens Sports" we aren't talking about a group of things we associate with females, we are talking about BIOLOGICAL differences between the sexes. So while in the abstract you are 100% correct, this notion that we can't define the term woman in today's society when we are specifically talking about the differences between a female and a male, it should be easy to define.
Then they should ask what is a women biologically, not what is a women. None walks around and determines someones gender based off DNA, its off visual cues.
It seems like it should be easy to define, but women's sports has been trying to do this for decades, long before the word "transgender" entered the public discourse. At first they did genital inspections, and no one was a fan of that. Then they switched to doing chromosome testing, which seemed like an improvement, but that's when they learned about androgen insensitivity: some women go their entire lives without realizing that they have XY chromosomes. More recently, they switched to measuring testosterone levels, which also has a surprising amount of overlap between the two sexes, meaning that it's impossible to set a level that includes all biological women but excludes all biological men. All of this predates the transgender discussion.
@@SillyPutty125 I mean the real answer is probably to stop subsidizing women's sports and let it support itself to see just how long it lasts. I have nothing against people dividing themselves up into divisions and categories at their leisure, but I don't understand why I have to pay for someone else's privilege to play sports. If the government is not involved in funding it, it really becomes a non-issue outside of patrons/fans of the teams. Most of the reason all of this is even argued about in sports is because the rules exist and people will always try to find clever ways to get around or break the rules. Eventually the rulebook becomes so thick that no one knows all the rules with all the caveats, amendments and additions.
Curious. What makes a woman a bio woman? Is a tiny petite 5' 100lb female the same as a 6'5 230 basketball basketball player? Hormones can make a woman incredibly masculine or estrogen a make incredibly feminine.
If someone says something as utterly asinine as "One is two" the question 'What is one' isn't asinine, or semantic. The entire point of 'what is a woman' isn't to ponder the actual meaning of 'woman' but to point out the idiocy of someone who isn't a woman calling themselves a woman. It's not so we can have a better definition in the dictionary. This is really disappointing from Destiny. Probably one of the only times I've really disagreed with him. For literally hundreds of thousands of years no one has EVER struggled with what 'man' or 'woman' has meant. You can go to any culture, at any point in history and their words/understanding of what woman is, in relation to a man, will be as unambiguous as ANY concept in their entire language. Sex is literally, scientifically, logically a binary, so it has literally NEVER been "complex", no matter how complex language gets in other areas. Language being complex doesn't mean all words or the concepts they describe are similarly complex. This REEEALLY feels like Destiny wanting to trash the question because of its ubiquity or because of who it came from. Matt Walsh is idiotic; the question 'what is a woman' absolutely is not.
You still completely miss the point that this is in reference to GENDER not SEX. GENDER is a social construct aka how we perceive ourselves and others. You are not checking genitalia or chromosomes when you identify someone as a man/woman. Engaging in this discussion without knowing the difference between gender/sex is just dumb. The question IS idiotic because people like you use it as a way to simplify something that is actually complex IE how we use language.
_"someone who isn't a woman calling themselves a woman"_ But they *_are_* a woman according to the definition they're using. That's what the disagreement is - which definition of "woman" to use.
Destiny literally made the faush argument with water, where “water” didn’t exist until we named it water. Just because something doesn’t have the same name or a name in general doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, male and female exist regardless of whatever you want to call it
That doesnt change how we use language. Things exist in the world without humans but the categories we give them through our definitions is simply based on the way we use language to convey concepts to each other. Whatever we call "water" existed before but "water" also refers to a lot of different things, including "h20" which is what most people think the definition is. We just came up with this category called "water" though for all these clear liquids with a certain range of taste, usually tasteless, etc. etc.
@@SenatorDodo09 This is true, but trans activists would need provide their alternative (non-circular) definition for the category of "woman" so that everyone knows what they're referring to when they use that word. They still haven't done that yet.
@@SenatorDodo09 The natural world orders itself along categories that we discover. The language itself is arbitrary, the content being communicated is not. My cat has a developed understanding of the category of "dogs". Trees prioritize relatives for nutrient sharing. Water is not an abstracted idea, it is _the_ tie that binds all living things on Earth. You can do all the philosophical navel gazing you want, but that's all it is. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, it can be entertaining, but in reality these things are so self-evident they literally don't even require sentience to recognize
Male Dogs actually can detect a female especially in heat. Scent is a lot of it. Yes horny dogs will hump your leg just like we will masturbate. Chimps masturbate too, they also have displayed a remarkable ability to distinguish females in the group. It’s not just dumb luck like they run around sticking it in everything and sometimes get lucky. lol. Damn, Destiny. I’m a big fan but you’re getting overwhelmed here. Adult human female is not just a meaningless tautology. It’s telling us it ain’t a child and it ain’t a male and it ain’t a cow. lol. Jesus. We say things like you act like a child and you run like a child and you cry like a baby. Does this mean the fundamental definition of what child is and how it differs from adult is too difficult to answer? I guess we can’t actually answer that question .
0:40 I mean like right here in the intro… do you think people who argue it that way, “Trans people don’t exist”last for very long on a platform? I feel like that’s a reason to not use that angle, and I wouldn’t even blame them. My friend you got banned for arguing that trans woman and cis women aren’t the same in sports.
yeah, I feel like the question is not so much about them not existing, as it is about the fact that the pre-fix is necessary context in almost all situations. A "cis-woman" and a "t-woman" are not the exact same thing and that context matters. They want to drop the qualifier as a whole, or only add it for the cis ones. Which is not gucci.
No one says that trans people don't exist though, that's a strawman argument. Clearly they do exist, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them, left OR right. The issue is: what do they exist as? Conservatives would say that they exist as men who identify as women, meaning adult human males who identify as adult human females. The "don't exist" is in relation not existing as adult human females, which is, without doubt, correct.
@@roymarshall_ Exactly. And it’s a problem to me imo. I don’t like that attacking one political side is way way more likely to get you labeled as hateful. It’s troubling regardless of which side you’re on if you believe in free speech.
It’s kinda ironic how (strongly) destiny criticizes Jordan Peterson for turning simple concepts into complicated ones, yet he does the same thing when he is asked what a „women“ is. No brother, it’s absolutely not complicated, YOU made it complicated, everybody exactly understands what is meant when those words are uttered This is just unnecessarily overthinking already „sophisticated“ thoughts, if you go down that rabbit hole you could start to question every f*ing word because language is so complex, but where would that lead us?
"Adult human female" is not a bad definition and it's not tautological. There are females of other species, there are female dogs, female whales, female cats whatever, but the name we give to human females who are also adults is "women." Why do you think that we haven't thought about this issue before? Maybe we have and we just came to the conclusion that "adult human female" is the only defintion that works.
If you went back in time and asked for water, but they didnt know water was H2O would they not know what you were asking for? Saying that ancient people wouldn't know what a woman was because they didnt know what chromosomes were is ridiculous.
yes exactly, thats why defining it as "adult human female" or "H20" doesnt actually encompass everything we think of when we say "water" or "woman" and people have been using the words without that definition for centuries
@@SenatorDodo09 When people used woman in the past, they were referring to adult human females, even if they didn’t know about gametes. They observed that mammals had two reproductive classes and one type gave birth, they understood this of humans as well as cows and chickens.
@@jimgold2550 "Females" often also were seen and referred to as "women" but that wasnt because they could see the vagina or knew of the other person's ability to reproduce but rather they saw a schema of different aspects that together meant "woman"
@@SenatorDodo09 Right, because we’re able to accurately tell what sex people are usually based off their traits. Similarly we can tell whether an animal is an elephant or an ant based off their appearance, even if we don’t analyse their DNA.
@@dylane1891 A surface which is recognized by humans to be a place used to place things. Though if you would rather go all the way with the philosophy of words, we could say that any definition leads to a vicious circle because all words are defined by words that are defined by words. Calling a tree a tree isn't correct because the reality of what a tree is could never be captured by words, in which case any attempt at communication is doomed including this one. edit: I just wanted to add that it's potentially possible to create a language that would allow us to communicate pattern recognition more effectively than English. English is impossibly caught up with Catholic views of the world where everything is seen as individual things crafted by a creator, and not patterns of events. In Physics terms, English thinks the world is particles, but a language like Chinese sees it more as waves.
@@Puzzlesocks So firstly according to your definition a shelf is a table. And secondly, i'm not trying to say that definitions are useless. But when someone uses phrases like ''if you cant define woman you shouldn't talk about woman's issues'' in this context, it shows a misunderstanding on how, we as humans, use words and concepts. That's why the table question is good. A table is a simple enough thing to know one when we see one, but we can't find a definition that doesn't lead to ridiculous conclusions for it. Witch helps to show that the 'definition' discourse around this topic is just dumb.
@@spinosaurusstriker You just said a table BUT on a wall (implying a table wouldn't be on a wall by definition) witch makes a shelf witch IS on a wall NOT a table. do you not hear yourself? also if someone tells me to go to eat at the table and I start to eat from a fucking shelf, do you think I understood the meaning of the word there? yall are too funny
Woman = adult human female is not circular unless you are saying that there is the same ambiguity around the word female as there now seems to be around the word woman. Otherwise it is a descriptive definition that you can use to tie woman to something concrete, which seems so hard for many to do.
@@michaeltaberner4079 You technically can't tell if someone is a female, you just guess. An adult by law is someone who is 18. I'm not sure where the circle is.
what is a women is a relevant question and the fact trans ideologues cant answer it is a problem. if we cant answer what a women is then why do we have women only spaces? if being a man is an option that anyone can identify out of then what are these women only spaces excluding, an idea/feeling?
Destiny is confused here. Words can change meaning. So we can make any word mean anything. But that doesnt mean the phenomenon behind the meaning changes.
I think you are confused here. Literally nobody argued about phenomenon changing. Everyone is in agreement about the facts of the matter, the question is, what the word "woman" refers to. Smugly saying it's simply "adult human female" is nothing short of intellectual capitulation.
@@skylerblumenthal7003 100 years ago if two powerful men sat down and said "I have a daughter, you have a son lets combine our families and stop this conflict between them" could the man be referring to anything but daughter as a description of a biological woman? could the man be referring to anything but son as a description of a biological man? the point of language is to make communication possible. but what is being communicated by calling a biological woman a man? are different rights being invoked?
@@jasonu3741this is a pointless thing to bring up. It doesn't have to be 100 years ago, if someone today refers to their daughter, mother, sister, wife, etc. then 99+% of the time we know they mean they are referring to a cis female, because the reality is that trans and intersex people are a tiny minority of the population. The debate is not around what the most common understanding of a woman is, it's about the edge cases. This is like trying to debate the exact medical definition of when death occurs and using what some person means when they say their dad died as the the definition, while also ignoring the fact that 100+ years ago, the less sophisticated understanding of death meant people were sometimes buried alive.
Words do have meaning but if you genuinely believe every word is as clear-cut as the concept of “1”, you’ve been too lazy or uninterested to think about language your entire life. Which, as Destiny has pointed out, is fair, but you shouldn’t ask philosophical questions then. Most words aren’t physically exact; most words aren’t chemically exact; most words aren’t biologically exact. Do you think languages with grammatical gender use that gender to describe sex? Then never sit down on a German chair if you’re straight - because he’s masculine.
@@MensHominis I believe he continuously misspoke. That's an option. No matter how many times I call a tortoise a turtle it's still a tortoise. I'm just wrong/misspeaking.
@MensHominis you realise saying a word doesn't make it objective reality? I can say a blue blanket is green every day for the rest of my life. Does it make it green?
@@MensHominis *"So you do think Ben mistook her sex in that video in which he was continuously talking about her being trans? That’s ridiculous."* - I dont think that's ridiculous. He even corrected himself a few times. - Ben has also stated that he refers to people how they want to be referred to in his personal life [indulges their delusions] out of politeness, so it wouldnt be unreasonable for him to make this mistake. Human Female = Human with XX Chromosomes. Woman = Adult Human Female. She/Her = Pronouns used to describe Women.
@@user-ui5bo5um7n No, you can’t mistake a sex if you already know it. Except if you want to claim Benniboy has dementia. It was her social role, her gender, that was constantly overwriting his teeth-grinding attempt at artificially referring only to her biological sex. _That’s_ why he kept correcting himself. That’s also what he has said about using chosen pronouns: you’re wrong, at least to Blaire White he admitted that it would be _impractical_ to refer to a female-looking person in public as “him”. Then, too, he gave in to social utility because of a social role. He didn’t indulge trans folks’ wishes.
The thing is, for the majority of the people nothing of this matters, having any trouble defining a woman or saying its complicated makes you look like an insane person.
The thing is, the majority of people are dumbfucks that dont want to spend extra brain power thinking a little deeper into subjects (or just pretend they do), that doesnt mean those deeper ideas are wrong or shouldnt be used
Did Destiny actually give his definition of woman? He yapped about it for an hour but never said what his definition is, only why he thinks adult human female is wrong.
7:19 LMAO stay mad. Adult human female is the answer. For starters, arguing that the word "female" is the same thing as saying "woman" flies in the face of every lefty argument about there being a difference between biological sex and gender. "Woman" is the word used to differentiate physically mature females of the species from those that are not yet physically mature, referred to as "girls." Same thing with men and boys. The fact that anyone over the age of 4 needs these differences explained or is in any way unsure or unconvinced about what the word "woman" means has had their brain melted by the kool aid; they've gone out of their way to try and complicate a word that is about as elemental and basic as it gets. I guarantee the word "woman" has been universally understood to mean adult human female for all of human history up until a couple years ago. It's wild to watch how the manner in which he argues swings so drastically from topic to topic. Sometimes he argues from a purely logical, rational position which is the version of Destiny I actually appreciate. But then sometimes I swear to god its like he decided his position on a given topic ahead of time and will then just doggedly, stubbornly keep fighting in that direction no matter what, like the truth takes a back seat to "winning" or feeling correct.
18:04 I really enjoyed the absolute irony in his statements as he malds overs the meathead smelling his own farts for expressing the simple truth, yet destiny spends an hour pontificating over why he's more intelligent than everyone else for being unable to accept it as such.
I don't think "Evoke is external and invoke is internal" is necessarily true. I don't think "evoke" is wrong here. Actually, I think it fits as well or better than "invoke" for this usage (conjuring an image in someone's mind). But googling "evoke vs invoke" doesn't yield results relating to this "external/internal" distinction, and I've not personally heard the words used that way.
That’s not a correct definition. But yes, it should be “evoke” when referencing bringing an image, thought, or feeling into your own mind or someone else’s mind. “Invoke” is used when someone calls upon something specific, often by name. Like a person, a book, a citation, etc.
Woman isn’t just “adult female”…that can be any other animal as well. Woman is an ‘adult HUMAN female’. It’s a description used to differentiate the females of our species from other female animals. It ain’t hard to understand.
So why aren’t we having this conversation about literally EVERYTHING? Why can’t people change their race based on perception? Sorry, not buying it. It’s just not that complicated.
Because it isn’t a biological thing. The reason why people discuss transgender people is because they exist, therefore there needs to be a social structure where they can exist comfortably. There’s nothing to “buy.”
@@kims4333 *"Superman is a made up story. Women actually exist"* - What relevance does that have to the analogy? If I said 'my coffee cup was blue like the sky' and you responded by saying 'no the sky isnt ceramic' it would be equally as braindead as your current response.
@@Gohanian2 he said anyone asking what is a woman is bad faith and then totally handwaved the utility asking that question has. Obviously a lot of people try and say it as an own but my god has it exposed so many ideologies are built on sand. I feel like Destiny’s floundering here was a display of that.
@@zdubzz1280 So once again you have zero actual critique of anything he said. And are once again ironically doing exactly what you condemn, by 'hand waving' everything in his explanation. The fact that people who are honest struggle to answer philosophical questions with a single sentence does not make their 'ideology' build on sand, and the fact that you can't see the difference should be a serious concern, since it seems to be showing how easy it is to manipulate you with bad arguments. What does your floundering here represent?
7:31 based on the entire argument on this topic, I'm unsure if you're confused or being dishonest here. Woman being the "social construction" and female being the biological marker, this is the concise answer based on that nonsense frame of thinking where woman and girl are social constructions, distinct from being biologically female, trying so hard to create a new distinction from femaninity because it doesn't comport with their worldview. So you are wrong Destiny, and a concise description of a woman for those who do not subscribe to that ridiculous ideology would describe as an adult human female which, based on gender ideology, is not a tautology as they do not describe the same things, which is how someone who doesn't subscribe to this worldview would try to convey this idea to someone who does
So I’m curious - “parent” and “child” are words that have clear biological meanings. They can refer to progenitors and progeny. However, the words also have a clear social meaning - they refer to a specific type of relationship. Ever since there have been humans, children have been adopted, and adoptive families very often refer to their family remain the same way - these are my parents, these are my children, etc. When people do this they aren’t lying, they aren’t wrong - they’re using the word in a *social* sense, not a biological one. Being someone’s biological child is probably the most bedrock biological feature that we have, even deeper than male and female - not everyone fits neatly into male and female (ie intersex individuals exist), but *everyone* is someone’s biological child. Despite the absolutely foundational nature of this biological reality, the categories of child and parent can be used in a completely non-biological context. Man and woman are the same. Generally, trans people are talking about changing the social category they fall into, not their actual biological background. If we can change something as utterly foundational as our familial relationships *in a social sense*, it seems to follow that we could change something less fundamentally like our genders *in a social sense* as well.
@@ecta9604 I can certainly agree with all of your points, but quite simply, it's "adoptive parents" which are indeed distinct but no one says the "adooptive" can't be dropped in the common speech of the family unit. I believe you are simply nitpicking the social role as parent people use colloquially, as we have never socially identified paternity in the biological sense as we always have with sex. This is true of many things in the English language we use inprecisely
@@mikedoherty7224not nitpicking at all imo. Why is it that saying there’s both a social and a biological context for the words parent and child is ok (despite the absolutely fundamental nature of biological reproduction) but saying that there’s both a social and a biological context for the words man and woman is “ridiculous ideology”?
@@ecta9604 because you are trying to make an additional social connotation beyond masculine vs femanine, no one denies there a femanine men, there is no such thing as a man with a vag
@@ecta9604 the problem is people like you want to shame masculine women and femanine men into thinking they have biological mistakes on thier body, rather than just being what they are
7:23 Holy shit, I have never heard Destiny say something as stupid as this. Female: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes." It's not tautological, any animal can be female, not just humans. So, by that definition, a woman is a human of a certain age, and of the sex that can bear offspring and produce eggs. You can argue whether that is a fitting definition, but it's literally not tautological.
Yeah, that was really strange, because the whole point of the ‘trans women are women’ side’s claim is that women aren’t necessarily female. Since trans women are male, but perhaps they can still be women. But I’m surprised if Destiny doesn’t grasp that.
I mean... Its just simple semantics. I define: Boy = Young Male = XY Chromosome Human Man = Adult Male = XY Chromosome Human Girl = Young Male = XX Chromosome Human Woman = Adult Female = XX Chromosome Human XX and XY chromosome humans tend to act specific ways. They act those ways because they were taught to act that way since birth, or they were programmed that way biologically. in response to 7:50: "When you say woman today, are you referring to the same thing that somebody meant when they said woman at year 1000 because they didn't about XX chromosome." Biologically to reproduce, it is important for a "Man" (human male) to be able to identify a "Woman" (human female) and vice versa. They had to have some idea that "this other human is different from me, I can make babies with them." They didn't know exactly how or why this other person is different, they just know that they are. This idea of the "male/female" has always existed, thousands of years. We are just able to give a more solid definition for these these things than simply "vagina and boobs". Ofc, the way we identify them is not perfect. I sometimes confuse a moth for a butterfly or a fly for a bee or a wasp all the time. That doesn't necessarily change the idea that i am referring to, when i scream WASP! As I run the other way when i spot a fly buzzing around.
boy can be used to describe a fully grown adult man, usually derogatory. bro and sis can be used to address people with whom one shares no blood or familial ties. the point is that language is not a precise science, and these words are almost never used in a scientific context.
@sorenkair sure, that's why definitions matter. In my head, I define a man as an adult human male and a woman as an adult human female. I define a boy as a young male and a girl as a young female. From my definition, it's wrong to call a someone that is born as a male a woman. Someone else can have a different definition of those same words in their head. Using that definition, it could be correct to use the word man or woman to describe a transgender person. Like I said initially, at the end of the day, it's just semantics. People are just using the same word describe two distinct concept/idea and asserting that their "definition" is the correct one instead of actually talking about the underlying concept/idea that the word represents to them.
Destiny is confused. The information required to recognize an instance of a type need not be the information that defines the type. We can define woman as a person with XX chromosomes while acknowledging that the information we use to recognize instances of the type "Woman" is something like long hair, breasts etc. There's no contradiction with this model of how we use language.
Agreed. If a man dressed as a cop and carried a fake badge around. Just because people think and call him an officer, even if he isn't actually one, doesn't mean the definition of an officer is wrong. It just means he presents himself as what we would assume an officer would present themselves as
You are confused. This is not how language works in any way shape or form. You don't start out with a rigid definition and the approach it in real world usage with shorthands. It's literally the other way around. You use terms as shorthands for concepts all the time and we retroactively try and find some kind of definition for these concepts, by observing the usage. This is way the definition if "literally" have changed for example, because the usage changed. This is how any new word finds it's way into the dictionaries. We use it and retroactively try to build the definitions from there. So the question now is, what you are actually saying, if you say "this is a woman"? What is the information you are trying to communicate? Don't tell me you are literally ONLY talking about chromosomes and that it would be the EXACT same sentence if you said "this person has XX-chromosomes". These are different sentences and are understood extremely different in social settings . If you say "Don't act like a woman", what are you saying? Are you telling someone they shouldn't act like they have a specific set of chromosomes, or is there a whole set of things attached to the category "woman"?
@@maxwellsdemon10 I didn't claim that language worked by defining words first and then using them to interface with the world. My only claim was that Destiny is not acknowledging a distinction between the information required to recognize an instance of a type versus the information that defines the type. He claimed that Ben slipping up and calling someone "her" is evidence that Ben defines a woman as someone who has long hair, breasts, etc. When it doesn't necessarily imply that. It only implies that he uses that information to recognize instances of the type "Woman" but he can explicitly define woman as something more rigid. There's no contradiction.
@@parse.thoughtspace there is a contradiction though. His USAGE of the word is what is important, because it determines the definition. What do you believe happened in this clip? Do you think Ben Shapiro had a moment, where he confused the chromosomes of the person he was talking about, or did the person he was talking about simply fit his mental image of a woman so well, that he had to make an effort to use different pronouns? He USES the word woman to refer to a person with long hair, breats, etc. This is his mental image of a woman, the way he actually uses the word and it shows. That's why I don't think the information we use to recognise something and the information that defines it are different at all. The definition comes directly from the usage and the mental image we have, which is simply the thing we use to recognise them. If we found out tomorrow, that chromosomes don't in fact exist, my mental image of a woman wouldn't change one bit and neither would Ben Shapiros. It would however change if the usage would change and the characteristics we use to determine them.
Destiny, you are answering this question in the exact way in which you complain about how Jordan Peterson answers questions. It just shows me where you stand on this issue, and you just fear the implications of answering truthfully.
I think you right that Destiny is achieving a Petersonesque word salad. But to be fair, this actually is more complicated than the things Jordan does this with. And I think Destiny is legitimately just doesn't know how to explain it, so we get this bullshit.
He's right that it's more complicated than conservatives can understand. They want common-sense black and white answers and refuse to dig any deeper. It's also not what the trans activists want. A "woman," as we define it implicitly through our use, is simultaneously an adult female human and everything culturally associated with them. A woman in the first sense can fail to be a woman in many of the aspects of the second sense. One might not say in that case they are not womanly. A trans woman is sort of like the reverse. They may be like a woman in the second sense. They may look and dress like a woman and their behavior may be more like a woman's. Some of their biology will begin to resemble a females through hormones and surgery, while other features remain biologically male.
I'm not really invested in whether or not a trans woman is defined as a woman. Obviously they are not the same thing as biological females, and that is a valid objection by conservatives to the insistence that trans women are women. I think everyone knows what a trans woman is at this point. I think pronouns play to the second part of the definition. If someone looks like a woman your instinct is to use she and her, which is why conservatives have to actively try to do the opposite. But that's a spectrum, and some trans women really don't look like women. Still, anybody refusing to use a trans person's desired pronouns to their face is going to seem like an asshole to everyone around them. They are fighting a losing battle in that regard.
...also, I work at a hospital and am quite familiar with, and friendly with the staff. There are two things that are happening when a Trans patient arrives for treatment; what most who argue the "medical premise" might not be privy to is, 1.) All staff are notified ahead of time behind closed doors that such a patient is present in the facility, and 2.) many special exceptions are made for the patient to make them comfortable enough to receive care (similar to a psych patient), because that's the priority. If for one second there's a misconception that the nurses, paramedics, doctors, receptionists and psych staff actually believe, or buy-into these new-age concepts about sex and gender, you'd be mistaken! That's corporate courtesy stuff, no different than an employee saying "my pleasure" when working at Chik-Fil-A! 🤷♀
I actually disagree heavily with Destiny on this one. Definitions of words are descriptive, not prescriptive, which is why they are almost universally accurate across cultural barriers. The argument that really seems weak to me is where he claims that, without humans, the concept of [insert any word] wouldn't exist. Because the fact that a word is descriptive of the properties of a thing that exists, those properties will still exist regardless of a human's interaction with it. Perhaps the literal word we use to describe those properties wouldn't exist any longer, but the descriptive properties of that objective piece of matter will still exist. If a tree falls down in the woods with nobody to hear it, the tree still fell down, it's just that nobody saw it. It doesn't mean that the tree doesn't exist. It feels to me more that Destiny here is trying everything he can to make this conservative point seem stupid and with no philosophical backing, but his arguments are so poor that I can't even begin to try backing him up on this one.
Its funny how he says things like sex are essentially a human categorization concept. They are not. The words themselves are a descriptive term for an underlying reality. Changing the terms doesn’t change the reality.
‘Sex’ is literally a category that humans created to help us describe our biology. All categories are created by humans, they can’t be found in nature. We HOPE that our categories match up to some underlying reality, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they do, because the world does not conform itself to the limits of the words we use to describe it. Sometimes, as is the case with trans people, we discover that our definitions are incorrect and incomplete, and we update our understanding of the world accordingly.
@@Clueman778 Most braindead comment ive ever seen. They cant be found in nature because words dont exist in nature. The thing they signify definitely can be found in nature. How does expanding our category of these terms give us more HOPE about matching to this underlying reality which has everything to do with reproduction?
@@sheridan891 biology is not some rigid thing you think it is. Females can be born with XY despite that being an abnormality. We do indeed construct language based off of the biological reality we observe. Which for most people is just going to be things like "woman has breasts, vagina typically has x body type, has softer voice usually etc" yet even that observation does not account for all biological truths. That is because most of those things I listed are caused by hormones/genetic code and whatnot. It just so happens to be that we are already capable of changing hormones. If someone's grows breasts, it doesn't matter if that is caused by taking hormones or just naturally having those hormones, their body still grew breasts and we say that is a biologically woman kind of feature
@@sheridan891 ‘Biology’ didn’t create the category; ‘biology’ doesn’t create categories. Again, ALL CATEGORIES are created by humans. Nothing in nature tells us where one thing ends and another begins; these are lines that human beings draw in order to help us communicate and understand the world better.
Destiny cant tell us what a woman is because he doesn't want to deal with more trans drama instead of says "yeah trans people exist but that doesn't change biology"
@@JakeStarz. You're trapping yourself propositionally. Remember the word woman a reference to a concept trying to map onto the world. We developed the language and concepts through perception and layering metaphor through evolution. We then developed tools like science to investigate biology. But woman, the concept, is not just referencing biology after all these millinea. It's also referencing the other related concepts that got bundled it. Like femininity, the experience of *being* a woman, the social identity, the biological entity, are all wrapped up and dynamically tied, constantly growing and feeding eachother. How can the phrase "be a man" exist? "that's so girly"? What are these pointing at? Investigate
@@JakeStarz. Yeah, so at some context it seems like you can underperforme "Manness" even though you ARE biologically a man. So what is being perceived as less than? I hope you noticed in your sentence 'feminine man' ? If feminine is womanlyness(across age), and woman is female adult human. Then how come a man can be feminine ?
@@JakeStarz. Okay. So to help you connect. Know that what you call feminity and masculinity, these acts that people do, these performances. That are what is called "gender" by the people you are fighting against. And sex is biology. XX XY etc. Makes sense to give the words different purposes. Generally when people say "woman" they refer to that concept that you act out, exactly as you put it. Since we cant actually see chromosomes naturally. I know you used the word "act" but obviously it's not deceiving. We do it naturally. A male acts masculine naturally. Now imagine if there was a male human who acted feminine naturally since he was a kid. Who's "gender" was feminine. Who likes and prefers moving their body in that way, without any intention to trap others. Purely about how they naturally decide to move their body.
Here's my observation: There are men, there are women, there are trans-men and there are trans-women. Each of these is different and we can all identify the different categories even if there are times when we don't know where to situate people when we see them. Acknowledging this would help us to decide how we should intelligently segregate for sports. changing rooms etc.
@@heat.death_999 adult: a person who is fully grown or developed, female (copy pasting another comment from connormullin4547): female is a very specific well defined biological concept in science. It is well established that human females always have 2 X chromosomes, and barring some kind of illness, birth defect, or injury/mutilation, have breasts/vaginas/are capable of birth, etc. In most species female mammals have two X chromosomes, and have the same traits as human females. The more general definition is the sex that creates the ovum (for mammals, for other categories it may be different), while males produce sperm. If you have an abnormality where these aren't created properly, and you were somehow born with no genitals, had no secondary sex characteristics, penis, vagina, or other identifying factor, you can always look at DNA to find out which sex an animal/person is since it is specifically coded in a very black/white way where there are only 2 possibilities (besides intersex as I stated which I think has a couple different types that are possible, we don't currently define those groups as a different sex because it is an abnormality that happens when things go wrong and is extremely rare. Just like humans have 2 arms and 2 legs but we don't defined thalidomide babies who are born without arms as another species, they are just humans who didn't develop correctly). Sometimes primary and secondary sex characteristics can be warped by disorders and genetic abnormalities but the part of your DNA that decides whether you will develop physically as a male or female is well known to be the XX or XY chromosome, or XXY sometimes in the case of people who are intersex who are neither male or female. It is very simple and clearly defined. Much more clearly defined than something like a phone and a tablet where there are millions of potential factors you could consider and not 2 variables with about 4-5 potential outcomes, and where only 2 outcomes happen over 99% of the time.
@@heat.death_999 An adult is a person or animal that has reached sexual maturity. In humans we tend to use 18 years as a default for adulthood. A female is the egg-producing half of a sexually reproducing species. Adult and female are two of the three categorical necessities for a person to be considered a 'woman'.
This is one of the topics Destiny is most stupid on. Dude seriously asked “what is a female” as if there’s no way to scientifically differentiate male and female humans. How can any of his fans listen to this rant and not be embarrassed?
You can intuitively know what something is without being able to define it precisely. Like Destiny said, language comes from experience, not the other way around. Without the experience to attach to the word, it is just gibberish.
@@viysnjor4811 Further though, is that it can't be comprehended as a language without common experience. As in I could never explain what "Red" is to a blind person. Without the common experience the word will always remain gibberish. If you use a personal definition for your gender, what you are actually doing is speaking gibberish, but because they use enough common words between the definitions then confusion arises. If I started calling every car a horse, people might be able to learn what I am referring to, but as the Zen saying goes, I would be raising waves when no wind is blowing.
@@viysnjor4811 Really? What experience do you have with Dark Matter? I’ll wait. Destiny is an idiot that wants to skirt reality by pretending you can not define things. It is funny he knows he has a son…. A boy. Pretending you do not know what a woman is to satisfy the wokes is just dishonest. Let me help you. Woman= adult, human, female…….Simple, age, sex and species all in one word.
@@Puzzlesocks And yet somehow cultures that have never met all over the world managed to figure it out, even before languages, and even animals figure it out…..amazing 🙄
@@blondeenosauce9935 tbf destinys' arguments in this video are FUCKING DOGSHIT lmao the "waht is a woman" argument is moronic but destiny's reasoning and explanations in this video are legit fucking retarded
I blame the redpill and post Oct 7 waves... Don't get me wrong, the Finklestein/Benny Morris/Israel trip are still the best content we've ever had. But the community has turned into dogwater for the past few months. I smell a purge incoming. Maybe after the next US elections? :copium:
@@castorcarvi it does because nobody is contesting that. Whenever someone has to specify this is if they hate trans people or hate lgbq (because i doubt they know about xxx women and xyy men and understand "sex" is an evolving spectrum/range of outcomes etc). Men are 50% women according to your simplistic equation/definition of XX and XY and frankly I don't get this obession with defining our conglomeration of cells as being womanly or manly.
It really feels like Destiny is just mad that people who truly are not worthy of having an audience were able to come up with such a simple test that made an entire ideology look foolish. It's like going into a seminar that's 3 hours long on why a piece of art is what it is and means what it means etc and someone just yells "Seems kinda gay" and everyone laughs and no longer takes it seriously. But that is truly what it is, it is a simple absurd argument against an overly complex absurd position. And I think it makes him upset that he needs 19 layers of nuance to try to argue against a simple sentence. People, most people, 99% of people, don't care about 19 layers of nuance. No one has time for that. That is probably Destiny's biggest issue is the intellectual masturbation. It's great he does all this Israel research, goes to Israel, etc but still some random chick at a college can just yell "stop genociding babies!" and more people will just blindly listen to that. You have to market to the masses or you are failing yourself if your desire is to change peoples minds.
The problem is not everything is and can be explained simply. for trans stuff I feel like the closest thing would be visually. Show pictures to people of folks like Buck Angel and other individuals who easily pass for the opposite sex. "Well your definition was boobs and a vagina. Would you be ok with him going into the women's bathroom? No? Oh why not?" then delve down that rabbit hole of questioning.
Yes, he tends to have a very personal and immature reaction to idelogical opposition. Often plays the frustrated man of intellect having to endure the foolish and un-novel opinions of charlatans.
@@randomyoutubecommenterr To an extent that is fair but the rabbit hole isn't where people want to go. Most people aren't going into the 9 layers of nuance to decide an opinion on something that is done automatically the instant you see someone. The visual aspect is correct, when someone sees someone they have already gendered them and that is about as far as most people care to go with it. I think if people would just be honest and say it comes down to passing. If you can't tell, you can't tell and you'll never know and it's not your business to know. It's the obvious ones that people have the issue with and the simple truth is they have the issue because they are aware of it. There is no hiding it or pretending otherwise.
You are speaking philosophically. The people your are speaking to are not. Male and female are the labels we created but we didn't create male and female. If we now say that the word female includes trans women it would just mean we no longer have a word for humans we currently refer to as female. It doesn't change the physical reality. Male and female exist outside of language. Humans, like other animals, are skilled at recognizing the opposite sex.
LOL The comments. I don't blame people for wanting to look at things essentially. It's hard to abstract things if it doesn't come to you naturally. No example you give will convince the people who don't want to get it. I often bring up colors and how the same color is identified differently over time and cross-culturally. (blue and green particularly) The essential elements of the colors are generally the same regardless of the viewer, but the line where the name is delineated varies.
Nope, it's just needlessly obtuse for no reason other than to fellate yourself into thinking you're intelligent, or to hold water for those who have constructed delusions about their identity. The reality is that nobody has really struggled to understand this simple concept since the beginning of time, but the attempt to complicate it in the modern age or concede ideological ground over things that are easily measured in the natural world, has not particularly done any good to anyone. Quite the opposite.
@@nitrorkpeople have struggled to give precise definitions of simple concepts, including man and woman, since philosophy has existed. Not being to give a definition isn’t lack of understanding for a concept, since in the real world definitions come after the concepts, or before as in formal languages.
@@pookz3067 I'm not talking about "precise" definitions or semantical arguments, I'm talking about the colloquial understanding of the entire concept itself. The concept of a "woman" has not been strongly contested throughout time, and is not defined by any individual aspect or trait, but the amalgamation of ALL the known criteria that formulate the concept. Pointing out that some women don't have breasts, or contain genetic mutations/variations within this dichotomy does NOT diminish the concept itself.
I never understood how the "biological essentialist definition" being "exclusioanary" towards trans people, is supposed to be a "bad thing". The act of defining something, is inherently exclusionary. You can't define any word in the language, unless you narrow it down to a very small and specific set of descriptors. The more you try to stretch that list to accomodate any microscopic exception, the more vague and meaningless the definition becomes. Lacking the biological descriptors of age, species and sex, it's functionally impossible to define "woman".
It's not a bad thing, no one said it was a bad thing. The problem is that people don't agree that the word woman is biologically exclusive. This is why doctors will ask for sex, or sex assigned at birth, as sex is a biologically exclusionary definition while gender is not.
@@Jankyito As far as I'm aware, one of the main arguments that transgenders use AGAINST the biological defintion of woman, is that it's "bad" because it excludes them. No?
@@Jankyito But isn't that one of the main arguments that transgenders use against the canonical defintion of "woman"? That it's bad because it excludes them?
@@shaggygoatboy1125 not all cis women are women by the 'biological essentialist' definition. So why discriminate against trans women when you bend the rules for cis women? That's the crux of the matter.
I have to be honest I am not a Maga supporter. I have always hated the Republican Party ever since George W. Bush but this is the one topic that confuses the shit out of me I think this whole identity politics thing kind of hurt the Democratic Party and I believe all humans deserve to be treated equally it just seems like every time someone from the left tries to answer this question it comes off like gaslighting there needs to be a stronger explanation like both sides are still trying to figure this out, but if you could just settle it by answering the question, like a woman is a woman a trans woman is a trans woman that’s what they want a simple answer or they will never STFU
@@NoodliestWhatever doctors classify as a female at birth. There’s multiple identifying factors- a vagina/uterus, XX chromosomes, gametes, muscular and bone makeup.
The “what is a woman” question is used to determine whether someone believes that gender can be absolutely defined as opposed to being some obscure concept.
This is so annoying. It's not about definitions or meaning. If a man with a beard and a bald head says "I'm a woman" should he be treated as a woman? That's the point of the question. Duh.
The point of the question has nothing to do with if you "pass". Destiny bringing up Blaire and Buck always annoys me because you don't have to pass to be trans. Buck was still trans before surgery. Should trans people be able to occupy the space of the gender they identify as, surgery or not? And if not, why? Where is the line? That's what "what is a woman" is asking. Do you have to look like a woman or just feel like one? And what does feeling like a woman even mean?
My job says "yes", social media says "yes", even our current president of the states says "yes", so unfortunately, we must ALL play the Emperor's New Clothing game for the foreseeable future, and I think they will get increasingly smug about their higher position over us as time goes on.
@@daisy291 yea he's basically claiming that if I carve a rock into the shape of a tree I've actually changed the nature of the rock into a plant, or in the least, we must all go along with its new Tree Nature outwardly, lest we be harrassed for saying its a Rock, or less aggressively, not enthusastically endorsing its new Tree nature enough.
@@daisy291 Realistically you have to pass. Unfortunately this is the ugly truth that everyone on the left will never confront. Why is it that every single trans person that is popular looks like a biological woman or man? Because deep down people are wired to notice these things. If these morons actually believed in helping destigmatized the trans community then every "man with a beard" on tiktok would be put on pedestal for millions of people to see.
The reason we don't call everyone male and female and the words man and woman exist is to distinguish between men and boys and women and girls. We do this for all animals. That's why the definition is ADULT human male/female it let you know someone is not of reproductive age. Man and women aren't gendered terms, we have gendered terms, it's called masculine and feminine. You can have a masculine man/boy or a feminine man/boy and vice versa for girls/women. But all women and girls are all female, and boys and men are all males. Wearing jeans instead of a dress doesn't change if you're a woman or a man.
@@speakaboutdestructionGender now seems to refer to characteristics that we attribute to men or to women that we consider "socially constructed/conditioned" rather than innate or intrinsic (due to biology) However the way it is used now doesn't make a whole lot of sense obviously, regardless of how you express/present you cannot divorce "gender" from sex, because sex is literally what gender is using as a foundation
@@speakaboutdestruction yeah, I agree with the main view that gender is a social construct. My point is the terms man and woman aren't gendered. Hence you can be a masculine man or a feminine man. Masculine or feminine would be gender, but man would be a description of biological sex and reproductive maturity. So if you have a man wearing a dress that would be a more feminine presenting man, but still a man aka adult human male.
I always mention when I get into a good discussion, I’m not trying to figure WHO is right but more about WHAT is right. As a result I find agreeing with what I can then going from there, only to find we’re usually on the same page “Words are funny” or “language is a funny thing” is what I conclude when I found out we been on the same page the whole time
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Shader Basics, Blending & Textures • Shaders for Game Devs [Part 1]](/img/1.gif)
Sneako Gets Superman Punched | AE #11
►ruclips.net/video/wpwm5eElvY4/видео.html
you are so full of shite here dude holy crap, you are like Vaush pandering to a group of viewers.
it's not even subtle
22:18 but according to some studies something like 30% of gen z identifies as lgbtq so he might have been going of that
23:24 according to the data 30% of gen z identify as lgbtq so idk
@@IstandwithIsrael236 100% of Boro Park residents voted for support of Israel
Destiny argues like a tree, so he must be one, so make like a tree and F OFF
Jordan Peterson was like 1.5% of this video lol
Yeah, August is clickbaiting hard.
@@sathrielsatanson666 he is just doing his job
@@MotiMota15 I thought August was a woman's name.
The JP spirit was definitely strong here though xD
It’s hard for him to talk a lot about someone he agrees with. The rest is him sifting through garbage.
“All you have to do is cross the Mexican border, and it’s Aqua”
- Vaush
"All I have to do is remove Adult and Human, then it's tautological" -Destiny
El Vaush strikes again
@@Mant111and replace female with woman! Conservatives destroyed with facts and logic.
@Mant111 yeah if you removed the parts that don't give us meaningful information sure.
Bro 100% destiny sounded just like Vaush at 28:00
Woman here, I am a destiny.
name drop??!?!!?!??!
fascts
Perfect answer. Anything else you wanna answer to?
That sounds about right.
Hi woman, I'm destiny
This "words don't have meanings" charade is tiresome. It's been accepted for WELL over 30 years that a "woman" is a featherless biped.
That's a man. Women are actually defective men according to Aristotle because they can't even produce seed and are merely a vessel for life creation. Virgin modern semantics vs based ancient empiricism.
Im currently plucking a chicken
Or a woman? @@JamieD1233
Keep that same eregy when someone uses the "R or N word", or makes a transphobic joke like our fellow woman Destiny here.
All of the sudden those "words" have very solid grounded non nuanced meanings, but the ones that make out the lefties to look like delusional "R-word" are magically complex to hard to define mysterious terms for the unintelligent masses.
@@JamieD1233 Diogenes is proud.
Destiny: I want to have a conversation with an intelligent person
Also Destiny: *shows up on Hodge Twins*
That’s more of a publicity move
@@UltraEgoMc Well he has. As he did on the podcast
I actually respect that. It may seem crazy to you, but people on that side of Politics are just as firm in their beliefs/ ideology as you are in yours. So cross-over matters because in those situations only the truly intelligent position can win the majority. Of course, there will always be the minority that won't care about reason.
Because there arent many intelligent and honest persons on the internet for that discussion.
Theyre there in real life, but most normal people dont want to engage on it online because theres nutcases everywhere. Heck, just look at the comment section. So many people wanting to control other peoples life/identity because theyre afraid it would somehow harm them later.
The Hodge twins had decent energy with Destiny though. You cant deny that it was a nice watch, and refreshing to see him in a less serious environment.
Destiny tries to rationalize his way out of having a girls name
LMAO
But isn’t Betty a woman’s name
@@Womp084 black queen name
Male and female are reproductive strategies. Everything past that is a secondary trait to accomplish the main reproductive goal.
@@bhf39Chosen one!!! 😂😂😂😂😂
This whole video is just Destiny denying that he's a strong black woman.
😭
These kinds of comments were banned sir.
@@Levi_OP um, you're chinese
And also a high value woman at that too.
Lol, smh.
I'm pretty sure I've heard Ben Shapiro say that in private he uses preferred pronouns, but in public he has to use biological pronouns because otherwise people try to use it to invalidate all his other trans-related political stances for example that biological men shouldn't be able to compete against biological women in segregated sports leagues. If you want an infallible answer to what a woman is where people don't retort with "well actually some women don't have-" it's just a human with large gametes. There's no female creature on the planet that doesn't have large gametes relative to male creatures who have small gametes.
Tf is a biological pronoun lol
@cayladodd9216 Your original pronouns based off your biological sex.
*I don't think Destiny was making a good point here* I think some people use the preferred pronouns, of people in the media, and then say the biological sex to correct themselves, because they've heard that person be referred to as their non biological sex, so many times, so it's stuck in their head.
*It would be like if the whole media kept referring to a famous transgender Crocodile as she* when it was in fact male, the same people would slip up, and call it she, not because they think the crocodile actually looks or exhibits as a female in anyway, but just because the way so many other people refer to the crocodile has got stuck in their head.
@@Light-lp8rn As a staunch anti LGBTQ I have preferred pronouns but do I force people to call me by them or legislate for it? No I do not cause THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE ME UNDERSTANDING nor should people be canceled and or banned or fired cause a cis man called another cis man at work a girl's name or a cis woman called another cis woman butch etc. Hell when is cis on cis language policing ever been a thing? At work an older man called me a girl cause I have no bicep muscle and he has instead of getting butthurt about it I laugheed and started doing pushups daily now I can do 100 a day
@@Kyotosomo Pronouns are social no matter what you base them on, there's no such thing as "biological pronouns". That would be like if i called you fat and stupid it wouldn't be a "biological insult", just because being fat and stupid has to do with your biology. You could say it's an insult about your biology, but calling it a "biological insult" is nonsense. That's not how the word "biological" is used.
"Marry one and find out"
This is fallacious. You can't know who you're marrying is a woman without knowing what a woman is
I'm glad someone said it.
15:30 As destiny becomes more frustrated with the content he's reacting to, he starts sounding more and more sarcastic when thanking donors in chat
@@whatoh3407bro if u get paid by each one u wouldn't hate it
destiny: what is a woman = Jordan peterson: do you believe in god
True XD
lol
LITERALLY
The transes are changing language but also all athiests believe in God and all art vibes from god
lmao
Society didn't see chromosomes a thousand years ago, but they say penises, vaginas, breast, birth, differences in physical strength, periods, ect. Things that they associated with man or women, male or female.
Over 1000s of years more and more stuff got built on.
Why don't you wear dresses now when the men in the past did?
Why don't you wear make up and heels when men used to do it?
Aren't you further away from them from the original source?
@@Jay-kx4jf They didn't.
@@Jay-kx4jf Did those things change the man or woman? Did men stop being men once they used dresses of makeup? Did women change as a group once they became housekeepers? This Talk about social cues doesnt Matter because through history men werent treated like women or women like men just because they changed what they socially did. The natural groups of man or woman have Never been mixed. In fact, when you use the fact that men used makeup you are reinforcing the basic classification that men, people born with a penis, used makeup in a point of time.
Through all of human history, you could and can see sex. The social characteristics of men and women have changed, but the natural group of men and women have never changed.
Yes, but there have always been people who are much more ambiguous for human comfort. Men who have fat deposits and dispositions that are are typically feminine and vice versa. Even before hormones and surgery, there is something very different going on. Take a brain scan and the brain has the appearance of the gender the person identifies with. It's clearly not just chromosomal sex that creates a man or a woman. It doesn't even guarantee a male or female.
@@-Skratch- It was quite common in the past for male nobles to wear makeup during court appearances.
A woman is a female human. Have we really fallen this far?
Mind you Destiny is still expecting us take him seriously.
If i walk down the street and see a human with specific features, traits and characteristics, im going to say "hey, look at that woman over there" despite not being able to see their genitalia or their chromosomes. How do i know that its a "woman" without knowing that its an "adult human female"?
@@SenatorDodo09 the fact that it is possible to misidentify something because of limited information doesn’t mean that the thing itself is changed or the category has a new definition. You’re observing aesthetic characteristics of a clothed person, which can be fairly accurate at deducing their gender, but far less so than maybe a whole physical evaluation or genetic testing would be. Your accuracy might not really matter on a normal interaction with a stranger, but it would be more important based on the relationship. Presenting as a woman in public might be different from being one in private, which is the difference between needing to clarify further than “woman” to a random on the streets and to a straight guy you’d like to date or hook up with. There are different levels to “passing” but ultimately trans women are going to have to clarify things that contradict what is simply assumed of women
Are female kids women?
@@asargentb they're girls who will grow up to be women. But you know that. This is not a legitimate debate. Even Destiny is pulling a Vanish here and acting like he's retarded on this issue. He's not.
I genuinely don't understand this. Our perceptions don't make someone a man or a woman. If I dress up as a woman, I might look like a woman and people might accidentally call me a woman, but I'm not a woman, right?
I will still be nice enough to call someone who likes a woman a she or a her, but at the end, she's not a woman.
I think the best way to understand this, is to genuinely ask yourself socratically,
"What is a chair?"
Without the social dancing, just by yourself, curiously.
You'll likely not reach a conclusion. But you'll gain the insight that helps this understanding
Or if you're lazy watch a cogsci lecture series.
That's the distinction between sex and gender.
But it kinda does. If every single person in the world looked at someone, and agreed that they are a woman, then why wouldn't they be a woman. The exact meaning of words in a public setting is decided by how people use that word.
@@Jay-kx4jf or not, because it isn't that complicated
The category "women" would just come to include that person and people who are similar.
If you take her over the border of Mexico she becomes Senora..
Destiny seething about the what is a woman question is peak cope. The whole point of the question is that transgender ideology is reliant on taking basic concepts and making them convoluted because the underlying premises can't be derived from pure logic or observation. Is sex the best descriptor for womanhood? No, but it's something. The trans-position is reliant on simultaneously undermining and reaffirming traditional definitions of gender and that's shown when someone has to answer what a woman is. Destiny yapping about how complex language is while completely missing this only proves the point.
@@Alibastard807 exactly, you can actually see how convoluted the language is by Destiny’s own strategy here. He’s obfuscating concepts, which previously he’s argued are obvious. He talks about the transgender sports debate or Vaush’s “aqua” quote as if he can clearly identify boys/girls and the way they grow, but now suddenly saying “female” to help define women is circular and language is muddled and impossible to pin down? The “using female to define woman is circular” point is actually sort of ironic because it assumes the traditional definition of woman, in that it’s essentially the same as biological sex and is synonymous with “woman.”
Destiny here sounds like Jordan Peterson when he’s asked if he’s a Christian lol
No, the trans position is reliant on people being so stupid, or scared of getting cancelled, that they would agree with OBVIOUS BS!
Trans debate aside neither of you understand how language works at all if you think you can take practically any word and attach it to a completely objective and stringent category with no issue. Tell me what is a Castle, what is a Chair, what is an Adult, what is a Cake?
@@UnisusMC Can you rephrase what you're saying cause I don't understand what point you're trying to make
Destiny's right that there COULD be a valid alternative definition of "woman" based on social characteristics. The problem is trans activists always retreat from that definition back to the self-ID definition, which is circular and therefore meaningless.
That actually is a fundamental problem with trans ideology, considering literally the whole point of language is to convey meaning.
Not familiar with trans ideology, but how do you personally define a man or woman? Do you think it's something we just intuit or do you think there's like a hard set of defining characteristics? (biologically, socially, etc)
We use social and physical characteristics to determine whether someone is a man or a woman every single day. The chromosomal definition doesn't work because if you look into how chromosomes work, you'd understand that it's extremely complex. You might have XY chromosomes, but you then present as a female phenotypically. For instance, an experiment was done in 1953 where a scientist removed the gonads on rabbit fetuses and, regardless of whether they had the XX or XY chromosome, they all presented with the female phenotype. That means that they all had a vagina and a uterus.
@adlernelson285 No one with an understanding of biology defines sex by chromosomes.
It's based on which of the (2) reproductive systems an organism has.
@@adlernelson285You could use a gamete definition: A man is an adult human male. Further, a male is someone who, after puberty, would normally have the reproductive anatomy that would produce small gametes.
@johnny4062 But these people don't want a definition that covers things most of the time; they want one that covers every possible situation. If a definition only applies some of the time, but not all, then there must be exceptions. Which is what a trans person is. I have no problem defining a man or woman as generally having XX or XY chromosomes, as well as generally presenting with a male or female phenotype, because then we could still have exceptions on the fringes. That's generally how biology works because nature does not care for categories. That is why a platypus is a mammal. That's why we don't really have an exact moment for when a certain species of ape became a different species of ape that we would call human.
oak trees exist. And maple trees are something different. If you decided that oak trees can be maple trees if you paint the leaves, that doesn’t change the fact that they’re oak trees.
That’s the point.
Your point is demonstrates that the precision of your definition depends on the relevance of the differences. The whole Trans argument is that outside of some narrow contexts, biological sex is not very relevant, and that carving out exceptions for those contexts doesn’t cause untenable amounts of confusion. Your reductionism to formal definitions is not doable for most words in the English language (and, if linguists and philosophy/historians of language are to be trusted about why natural languages are like that, then this is a netadvantage for the language.
@@pookz3067 So does that mean you think that the Trans argument holds water? To use a colloquialism that I hope you understand.
@@pookz3067 I wasn’t talking about language.. that’s the point. I didn’t mention any definitions.
This is the dumbest take I've ever read, I'm pretty sure I've got cancer from this idiocy.
Congrats on showing you stopped taking biology in 8th grade holy shit
Chatter: "You can still say a woman is xx chromosomes and admit that appearance can deceieve somone."
Destiny: "Just admit you think trans people aren't real and should not have access to any healthcare"
Now I see where vaush came from.
but that is the point they were making was it not? If they believe trans people are real then they already agree with destiny, the issue is that people don't think trans people are real.
"Just admit you think trans ppl aren't real,and don't deserve healthcare..."
I'd have so much more respect for Destiny, if he just removed the words "you think" from that sentence...
But the idea that (chemically OR surgically) mutilating 100% healthy body parts, using ZERO evidence-based diagnostic criteria, is somehow "healthcare" (ONLY in this one case, but no other) is utterly bizarre.
@@LiiRAE. What do you mean by 'real' in this case? Also just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the replication crisis in psychology?
@@LiiRAE.
*" the issue is that people don't think trans people are real."*
- Asking 'are trans people real' makes you sound stupid. They're real human beings that hold a belief about themselves that is incorrect.
If 5 people get into a giraffe costume that's so real looking people think they're actually a giraffe, is it a giraffe or just 5 people in a costume?
U sure gottem champ 🏆
@@gaat_chris4960 I mean it makes sense. Things appearing different from what they are doesn't change the essence of what the thing is, only that you're not perceiving it correctly. We put way too much emphasis on changing definitions entirely rather simply adding extra information. Instead of saying "a trans woman is a woman" we could just say "a trans woman is a man, but due to social convenience and empathy for their condition we can refer to them as women when appropriate."
to the people who see it they're going to categorize it as a giraffe, yes. If it's *that* realistic then the difference is functionally meaningless. You could go "well akshually" to them and explain how this giraffe is composed, but you know the saying.. if it walks like a giraffe, and talks like a giraffe.. then it doesnt matter if it's actually 5 people inside to any observer.
@@viysnjor4811 yeah but you are wrong, you just don't know it. Essentially the question is whether there's an inherent truth that exists outside of your perception
@@DynamicDandalf well no, the question is what do *people* mean when they use language for everyday social interactions. We're not talking about writing textbooks or filling factoid blurbs.
Destiny married twice and still dosnt know what a woman is
"Two time divorce champion" lol
@@Hadoichi Divorstiny
Hates destiny but watches all his videos 😭
BIG Destiny L here. This sounds like Vaush’s aqua nonsense.
Also Female is well defined in biology, there’s nothing vague about that definition. If we were to communicate telepathically without languages, we all know exactly the idea we’re communicating when referring to women. Forget about all the sophistry and focus on the concept being referred to.
Just like how water aka H2O existed way before language and way before we could create sounds with our mouths to say it. The idea being expressed already existed, just like the idea being expressed by the words “adult human female” exist even without language. THAT idea is what we mean by Woman
What about xxy people?
Destiny is dealing with the all too common problem of one of the most fundamental concepts of stupidity:
An idiot can always prove you wrong even if everything you say is both true and supports your belief. Them lacking either the intellectual capability or intellectual honesty to understand it allows them to use it to reinforce their belief, even if it’s verifiably wrong.
"Marry one and find out"
Destiny marries a woman.
"Its a difficult question"
Removing body parts don’t make you the opposite sex
Did you come up with that all on your own?
@@KsandrPanndo you borrow all your opinions from other people? How is coming up with something yourself negative in any way?
@@sentinals4440 he was being sarcastic I believe...
@@DootyDuck if you say so... I just can't see it, maybe it went over my head or something idk
you're right, you don't have to remove body parts to become the opposite sex =)
I’m gonna push back a bit on the woman = female argument being tautological. It’s not. Because you can define the words adult, human, and female. So it’s not tautological.
define female... and how could you identify a woman without testing her chromosomes?
@@justsomedude77 A female is “denoting the sex that CAN bear offspring/produces ova to be fertilized by male gametes”. We have been able to identify women without “testing” their chromosomes. I’m not making the argument about chromosomes. Though they are a part of the human genome sex.
@@Malik_Maverickso a woman that is infertile from birth is a different sex? As she does not have the potential to bear children. how does that process of identification work? We do not know someone is a woman, we assume they are a woman based off secondary sexual characteristics and societal expectations of what a woman ought to do.
@@justsomedude77sex isn’t defined by chromosomes, it’s defined by proclivity to produce gamete. How do you think we recognise that some bovines are cows and some are bulls, ie female and male? We do the same with humans.
@@justsomedude77Nobody ever assumes someone is a woman based off what women do. If that were the case we’d consider gay men or sissies women
Humans have 10 fingers but we don’t say otherwise simply because some humans are missing some
Just how we say women bare children despite there being some that cant.
We ONLY identify women from their biological characteristics. If you were to freeze a naked woman and put her in a museum you wouldnt go “Maybe she acted and presented as a man” you’d assume its a woman based off her biological features
We don’t need chromosomes to figure this out because we do it all the time
- Peterson, do you believe in God?
- Destiny, what is a woman?
(sorry, I'm not a native speaker and I don't know English, but I think Destiny's answer about women is like answering Peterson about God: "What do you mean? Do you want to know which team I'm on?)
As much as I love Dr. Peterson, this is extremely accurate
Very accurate
There were 42,000 children diagnosed with gender disphoria is 2021 (3x the amount since 2017). Since then, the number of children who have been diagnosed with gender disphoria, and identify as trans is 300,000, over a 7x increase.
2% are on, specifically categorized as, "hormone blockers", 11% of children are on hormone therapy, which might have close to the same effects.
thats 13% of 300,000 (39,000) children who might have detrimental life long effects.
Matt was wrong, but in as little as 4 years, it might not be the case.
I HAVE TO SAY THIS:
Destiny: "why would nature create a category?" *acts belwildered*
Well destiny, before humans were ever here, animals DID categorize other animals. as mates, rivals, prey, and predator, to list just a few. You're acting like without people there to witness and assess the things, that they arent anything. The concept of gravity existed long before man conceptualized it for ourselves. Those concepts are real and have actions, reactions, etc, even if people don't acknowledge them. Yes, i understand youre not saying those don't exist, but we are using words to communicate those real life things. I can't go around calling leaves rocks and expect anyone to either
A) understand what i am talking about
B) take me seriously
C) be understanding when i try to shame them because theyre not holding my same view, and I find that harmful to my emotions (which i might categorize as assault)
The "what is a woman" question is a simile/metaphor to "if you didn't eat breakfast this morning". Yes, dumb people can use both questions, and not grasp them, but that doesn't mean they arent a good way to gauge another person's ability to think logically, before trying to engage in an honest discussion. I don't feel like wasting time with someone that feels emotions are the end all be all. I see them as people who watch too much anime and think that if they just get upset enough, they can go supernova, and everyone around them will just except it, because, main character(syndrome).
Destiny: "who is to distinguish a leaf from a branch"
The people who use the language. that is why this trans issue is such a big deal for so many people. they feel its the deconstruction of our very basis of communication. As a liberal, i think the Left is awful about this. They constantly repurpose words, or use language to incite emotion, to complete goals. Youre making the perfect point for me, who is to say who says what is what, everyone, not the people trying to use peoples way to communicate with others as a weapon against them, while also trying to make them sound like the "better-than-thou" authority. BLM is the epitome of this.
I think more children should be on hormone therapy
Gravity isn’t a good example because its not socially constructed to fit into the human beings way of life. It is considered an “Absolute true”. Something we discover, or learn.
And like most things that get social accepted later on in society like being left handed or being gay first have a huge rise then then plateau out eventually.
@@michaeltaberner4079being left handed didn't have a "huge rise" once it was socially acceptable, there where always the same amount, just some societies forced left handed people to use their right hand.
@@sentinals4440 yeah the same way people don't just become gay...
@@DootyDuck I would disagree there since I have seen it happen, but each person believes what they want since there is no physical proof
I feel a bit like we're confusing two things, one how we use language, and what a thing actually are.
Except here, most of what we care about what the thing "actually is" is directly tied to how we use language.
Destiny is saying you should just come out and say you don't think trans people should be treated as women. That's an arguable position, and you should argue it if you believe that, rather than hiding behind ambiguous language.
Except we don’t really know, what most of things actually are, on a fundamental level. Whatever you try to describe, might change the next day, based on our deeper understanding of the field in question.
It really is a language question, not scientifical one.
@@jeffwells641 "Except here, most of what we care about what the thing "actually is" is directly tied to how we use language."
That's not true. The shorthand is a crude but necessary substitution for knowledge of the thing in itself. We cannot exist in a world where we need to constantly test our perceptions against reality, so the shorthand is substituted for knowledge of the things we perceive. In MOST social situations, the shorthand is substituted FOR PRACTICAL REASONS, but in principle the actual truth of the matter trumps the pragmatic shorthand.
Want proof? Ask every lesbian who's confused a man for a butch woman about how her attraction suddenly vanishes when she learns the truth.
@@doomhand6360 yes it will probably always be a language question, but wouldn't we want it to refer to something that is as close as possible to the fundamental level? and I kind of feel like that's what people are asking about
continental philosophists will argue they are the same thing
A better question to ask would be " If someone had never encountered a woman. How would you describe one?" You are playing the word salad game Destiny. Those who are losing the argument loose their composure.
It’s really as simple as distinguishing between “biological females” and “women”. Yes, a biological female has two X chromosomes, a vagina, a uterus, etc. But we have a vocabulary for a reason, and “woman” is not meant to be mean exactly the same thing as “biological female”.
The terms “man” and “woman” are social constructs that exist separate from mere genetics, they moreso describe a set of characteristics commonly associated with biological sex, but they don’t inherently require someone to be a particular biological sex to qualify.
Which is why some women are labeled “masculine” when clearly they are biologically female - if man/woman is as simple as binary biological sex, how the fuck could a woman be perceived as “masculine”, because in that context man/woman is a purely binary concept and it makes no sense to describe people as differing in their manliness/womanhood. But that’s not how the language has ever worked, this very fact alone solidifies the concept that gender is a spectrum and not a binary.
@@lukegpb177 sorry, but using the term "masculine " to describe certain characteristics of a woman who exhibits some traits that are presumed to be a general characteristic of most men. The same is true when using the term "feminine " for a man. The words used for men and women since we developed the spoken language until 5 years ago was understood that we didn't have to explain when describing the sexes their biological makeup. I have no animus towards trans people they should live as they wish and be accepted. When you cross the line of biology for feelings you have to suspend reality. In Asia where they have many trans people they are accepted but called "ladyboys". If you want to fight any backlash towards the trans community let's just accept the three classifications of gender.
32:50 Destiny, you are literally acting like Vaush in his aqua debate against that professor guy. Words, (such as "woman" or "sex" or "gravity" or "genocide" refer to real physically existing things that are there regardless of how we describe them, or what words we use to name them, what that guy in your chat said was saying is that there are material differences between what we categorize as "the two sexes", and these are real regardless of how humans call it, he is not saying that dogs know that there are female dogs and want to have sex them in order to make little dogggies, he is saying that a certain kind of dogs get horny for a diferent kind of dogs due to hormonal reasons, this happens regardless of whether humans exist or not, it just so happens that we humans call the dogs who penetrate "males" and the ones who are penetrated "females," It might be the case that all humans died one day, thiswould not change how these dogs are. There is a difference between "male," the word we use to talk about… well, males, and MALES, the physically existing creatures, ok? It's like how "Male" has four letters, but MALE has no letters, male is not a thing that can have letters, male is just a certain type of organism. So the issue is that we have this word "woman," and we're asking "what is it describing in the actual material world?" People think it describes females of the human species, if yo have a different idea you must elaborate and explain why this definition you are proposing is better
Holly crap , he really is. LOL
Destiny is not talking about changing the definition, he is talking about how the definition currently is.
If i walk down the street and see a human with specific features, traits and characteristics, im going to say "hey, look at that woman over there" despite not being able to see their genitalia or their chromosomes. How do i know that its a "woman" without knowing that its an "adult human female"?
This simple test shows that the definition "adult human female" does not cover all the ways that we (all of us included as a people with a common language) use the word "woman".
This is NOT changing the definition, this is how we use the word today, all of us.
@@SenatorDodo09
Incorrect, Destiney is infact talking about changing the definition. See below.
If I walk down the street and see 'a cat that looks like a dog', I'm going to say 'hey look at that dog over there'. How do i know that its a 'dog' without knowing that its a member of species "Canis Lupus Familiaris"?
This simple example shows that you have committed an equivocation fallacy by conflating 'readily observable attributes used to INFER a classification' with 'the actual definition of the classification that is based on genetics (which arnt readily observable)'.
Your position DOES attempt to change the definition because based on the current definition if you identify 'a cat that looks like a dog as a dog' or a 'a man[male] that looks like a woman[female] as a woman' then you are simply mistaken.
@@user-ui5bo5um7n if tomorrow everyone started calling things that traditionally were thought of as cats "dogs", then our classification would change the names.
The cats wont literally become the same as dogs, our definitions would just update with our use of words.
There are plenty of animals that are commonly referred to with names despite not belong to the group that name belongs to.
Crabs are a very common example of this, most things we call "crabs" arent actually part of the crab family.
Again, that doesnt literally make them a part of that group, they just have a bunch of characteristics that we associate with crabs so we call them crabs.
Right now, we often use "woman" to describe people without actually knowing what group they are a part of. That DOESNT literally make them the exact same as what we traditionally think of as women, we still refer to them as such though therefor our definition includes that.
Definitions are just attempts to keep up with how we use language
@@SenatorDodo09
*"if tomorrow everyone started calling things that traditionally were thought of as cats 'dogs', then our classification would change the names. "*
- The fact word definitions CAN change organically over time does not provide a logical basis for disregarding the meaning those words DO have in the present.
*"There are plenty of animals that are commonly referred to with names despite not belong to the group that name belongs to. "*
- What you are describing here are DIFFERING CONTEXTUAL USAGES of a given word. eg. Biologists may have a SPECIALIZED DEFINITION of the word 'dog' that is used within the SPECIALIZED CONTEXT OF biological classification to refer to any Canine, however the word 'dog' when used within a colloquial context [a normal every day context] typically refers to domestic dogs (Canis Lupus familiaris).
- This has no relevance to the word woman because in the case of the word 'woman', the biological definition and colloquial definition are exactly the same ; adult human female. It also does not justify having non-cogent definitions that lack logical consistency. 🙂
*"Right now, we often use 'woman' to describe people without actually knowing what group they are a part of. "*
- What you are describing is the usage of readily observable characteristics to INFER a classification.
- I reiterate: based on the current definition if you identify 'a cat that looks like a dog as a dog' or a 'a man[male] that looks like a woman[female] as a woman' then you are simply mistaken.
*"Definitions are just attempts to keep up with how we use language"*
- The attempts to redefine the word woman and deny it's contingency on biological-sex are not an organic change that has occurred over time. It's an ideologically motivated, far-left partisan talking-point that has come to prominence within the last 15 years.
Destiny: I want to have a conversation with an intelligent person
Also Destiny: asks chat what a tree is
Destiny definitely knows what is a woman
I've never seen someone defend a weird position for an hour because they wont accept the answer is simple.
What is the simple answer?
@@SenatorDodo09A woman is a an adult human with XX chromosomes(female).
@@stakahz4513 how did people know to refer to a woman as a woman before they understood the concept of what a "female" is?
@@SenatorDodo09 If you have a penis you are a man, if you have a vagina you are a women is typically how it would have gone down. Or you can look at any of the other 100 features that differentiate them. You don’t need to have an understanding of chromosomes to make that observation. The genitals or masculine/feminine physical features you present are still ultimately dependent on your chromosomes. That’s why when someone transitions into a woman they are ultimately trying to replicate the natural form of someone with XX chromosomes, whether they even know it or not.
@stakahz4513 OK so a person can identify a woman without looking at a woman's chromosomes.
So chromosomes arent actually necessary in the normal persons definition of woman. In fact a person can identify a woman in a single glance in miliseconds.
A person has no ability to look at a womans chromosomes or whether they have a vagina. But they can still identify a woman in a single glance.
And if a man is small and more feminine looking and puts on womans clothes a person can mistake him for a woman, BUT the man does not become a woman just because a person percieves him as such.
Hold on. A woman exists as a concept with features like xx chromosomes but that is not the definition of woman most people are using.
People can just tell on a glance. So what if the definition of woman people use is not the same as the actual definition of woman.
So there is a concept in peoples mind of what a woman is and then there is what a woman actually is(xx chromosomes)
So hypothetically(for the sake of the argument) lets say we named the concept of what a woman or man is in peoples minds as "gender" and what if we named the actual definition of woman as "sex".
Do you understand?
The 'what is a woman?' question is asked to challenge the lie of 'transwomen are women'. That is exactly why women like me started asking the question.
Sexual reproduction - where there are 2 sexes - is responsible for the evolution of complex life on earth. It has nothing whatsoever to do with language of humans. Just because you create words for the 2 sexes doesn't make them a social construct, which is up for debate on meaning.
Sex is binary & immutable. It doesn't matter in most areas of life, but in the few areas where it does matter, pretending it doesn't harms women & girls.
No serious group of people is arguing that the modern social construct of woman should override the definition or essence of biological women. There's some overlap, but they're clearly distinct concepts. When you say "biological woman" or "biological female", it's completely clear that you're referring to sex, XX chromosomes, and so on. Trans people themselves are very accepting of the fact that they're distinct from biological women.
So when you can’t reproduce, your no longer a women. My wife had her uterus removed, do you wanna tell her the news she not a women?
What is a woman, then? Clear concise explanation for the class, please.
what is a strawberry?
-aw shit man let me explain you the concept of language
Seriously this was such an L video from Destiny Im afraid 💀
Well if the argument was about literal classification of berries then the language is suddenly fucking important isn't it? It's laymen asking a complicated question without realising it. Thinking about "female" and asking about "woman" as if they are the same. You can think they are, but then you aren't actually asking the question. It's just supposed do be a dunk because "me understand easy answer good"
it's a type of vegetable, you see everyone in my social circle says its a vegetable so it is, what it really is outside of my social construct of a social circle doesn't matter you see.
P.S. if anyone takes this comment seriously we all know you don't want a white house but a RAINBOW HOUSE
A strawberry is that red fruit we like to eat, plus the single floating oxygen molecule at the 75th angle from the center. Period. Anyone who disagrees with this definition is a moron because I say so.
the joke is on you, you probably think its a fruit, but by botanic definition it isnt.
I'm starting to lose the thread here... is Destiny a woman's name or not?
yes
Just asked my sassy black friend. She said yes.
Undoubtedly
What is a woman's name?
@@doooofusWhat is a woman?
It all comes back around.
A woman is a biological female who has the potential to give life.
Post-menopause exists.
@@AJ-lm5dlso a grandma is not female
and a toddler is neither male or female
understood, where you smoke the crack at?
It perplexes me that Steven is so muddle-headed on this topic. Language can be complicated, yes, but the things that the words "man" and "woman" were created to refer to are not. The answer to "what is a woman", as a statement of fact, is not complicated.
A woman is an an adult human female. A human is a species of primate. An adult is (at minimum) a member of a species that can reproduce. And a female is any member of a species whose biology is organised around the reproductive strategy that utilises large gametes.
Whenever we use "woman" in any other context we are engaging in figurative and creative use of language, not statements of fact. I would have thought that Steven, of all people, would unerstand this.
Thank you
What a way to miss the point...
You just say "men" and "woman" mean "adult human male/female" and declare victory.
The whole fucking point is, that we simply do not use language like that and your post-hoc definition doesn't change that.
The definitions of words come AFTER a word is being used. If we all collective decide that a woman is everyone with long hair, then this is what a woman is.
A definition has no truth value.
The only thing we can use to determine the definition of a word is to observe it's real world usage and the concepts that are being invoked.
The idea that words were created with a factual definition in mind and that any change of the meaning is now wrong or just "creative use of language", betrays a very childish understanding of language.
Languages change, definitions change and the concepts in people's minds change. I'm sorry that I had to be the one to tell you, but you have to deal with that knowledge now.
@@maxwellsdemon10 "What a way to miss the point" -- The irony is painful.
@@onepartyroule oh please tell me, how did I miss your point. I'm actually curious.
@@maxwellsdemon10 If any person or people want to redefine a word it is incombant upon them to justify it. It is deceptive and unreasonable to require people to start using a word or term (particularly one that has profound implications for truth statements and peoples lived experiences) in ways that obfuscate rather than clarify.
To appropriate a word used to refer to a specific sex (in its literal application) for another sex is doing just that, and obviously has profound implications, in this case, specifically for females.
If people were simply advocating for new terms for males who want to pretend theyre female or females who want to pretend theyre male ( transwoman/trans-woman and transman/trans-man, for instance) it would be a different conversation, but that is nt what people are doing.
So according to Destiny, the definition of a woman would be someone who presents as an adult human female, since the word is actually used to describe what we perceive rather than what is objectively true. If that’s the case, wouldn’t only passing trans people count as trans? So even if we grant the argument, it still doesn’t justify the conclusion that as long as someone identifies as a woman then they actually are a woman.
There’s women and then there’s transwomen. It’s completaly unarguable. The distinction is pretty clear. Anything other than that is beating around the bush regardless of what you feel to be true yourself.
I agree in the sense that trans women are women but not all women are trans women.
@@idontgetthejoke4813 yeah but there’s a reason there has to be a distinction between them. Let’s say i wanna go on a date and a friend says he’s found a potential woman for me, and then i meet up and it turns out she has a d*ck 😳 I mean c’mon, you could have said she was a transwoman, you know what i mean?
If the difference is so obvious and unarguable, you would be fine with letting the adult human female who goes by the name of Buck Angel to be alone with your daughter in a restroom, right? The distinction is pretty clear, after all.
@@TheElitedeath huh? That’s exactly what i’m indirectly saying tho lmao😂 That’s the reason transwomen should be called transwomen and not women. And also should not be able to share restrooms with women. You misunderstood everything i said lol, or am i missing something? Seems like you’re just arguing for my argument
@@TheElitedeathThis reminds me of when Blair white was kicked out of the men's bathroom because she made the male customers uncomfortable lol.
The categories exist. They just arent named or categorized. The male lion is the male lion. It just wouldnt be called a male lion.
The way you're wording it would mean without humans everything would be the same.
The universe would just be a giant blob.
We simply name and categorize universal matter based on distingishable differences.
What? You completely misunderstand his point
@FirstLast-kv1iq not my fault he's explaining it wrong
No Destiny, the reason "what is a woman" is asked because Trans women, are BIOLOGICAL MEN. So when we say "Womens Sports" we aren't talking about a group of things we associate with females, we are talking about BIOLOGICAL differences between the sexes. So while in the abstract you are 100% correct, this notion that we can't define the term woman in today's society when we are specifically talking about the differences between a female and a male, it should be easy to define.
Then they should ask what is a women biologically, not what is a women. None walks around and determines someones gender based off DNA, its off visual cues.
It seems like it should be easy to define, but women's sports has been trying to do this for decades, long before the word "transgender" entered the public discourse.
At first they did genital inspections, and no one was a fan of that. Then they switched to doing chromosome testing, which seemed like an improvement, but that's when they learned about androgen insensitivity: some women go their entire lives without realizing that they have XY chromosomes. More recently, they switched to measuring testosterone levels, which also has a surprising amount of overlap between the two sexes, meaning that it's impossible to set a level that includes all biological women but excludes all biological men. All of this predates the transgender discussion.
@@SillyPutty125 I mean the real answer is probably to stop subsidizing women's sports and let it support itself to see just how long it lasts. I have nothing against people dividing themselves up into divisions and categories at their leisure, but I don't understand why I have to pay for someone else's privilege to play sports. If the government is not involved in funding it, it really becomes a non-issue outside of patrons/fans of the teams.
Most of the reason all of this is even argued about in sports is because the rules exist and people will always try to find clever ways to get around or break the rules. Eventually the rulebook becomes so thick that no one knows all the rules with all the caveats, amendments and additions.
Curious. What makes a woman a bio woman? Is a tiny petite 5' 100lb female the same as a 6'5 230 basketball basketball player? Hormones can make a woman incredibly masculine or estrogen a make incredibly feminine.
If someone says something as utterly asinine as "One is two" the question 'What is one' isn't asinine, or semantic.
The entire point of 'what is a woman' isn't to ponder the actual meaning of 'woman' but to point out the idiocy of someone who isn't a woman calling themselves a woman. It's not so we can have a better definition in the dictionary.
This is really disappointing from Destiny. Probably one of the only times I've really disagreed with him.
For literally hundreds of thousands of years no one has EVER struggled with what 'man' or 'woman' has meant. You can go to any culture, at any point in history and their words/understanding of what woman is, in relation to a man, will be as unambiguous as ANY concept in their entire language.
Sex is literally, scientifically, logically a binary, so it has literally NEVER been "complex", no matter how complex language gets in other areas.
Language being complex doesn't mean all words or the concepts they describe are similarly complex.
This REEEALLY feels like Destiny wanting to trash the question because of its ubiquity or because of who it came from. Matt Walsh is idiotic; the question 'what is a woman' absolutely is not.
You still completely miss the point that this is in reference to GENDER not SEX. GENDER is a social construct aka how we perceive ourselves and others. You are not checking genitalia or chromosomes when you identify someone as a man/woman. Engaging in this discussion without knowing the difference between gender/sex is just dumb.
The question IS idiotic because people like you use it as a way to simplify something that is actually complex IE how we use language.
_"someone who isn't a woman calling themselves a woman"_
But they *_are_* a woman according to the definition they're using. That's what the disagreement is - which definition of "woman" to use.
Destiny literally made the faush argument with water, where “water” didn’t exist until we named it water. Just because something doesn’t have the same name or a name in general doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, male and female exist regardless of whatever you want to call it
That doesnt change how we use language. Things exist in the world without humans but the categories we give them through our definitions is simply based on the way we use language to convey concepts to each other.
Whatever we call "water" existed before but "water" also refers to a lot of different things, including "h20" which is what most people think the definition is.
We just came up with this category called "water" though for all these clear liquids with a certain range of taste, usually tasteless, etc. etc.
@@SenatorDodo09 This is true, but trans activists would need provide their alternative (non-circular) definition for the category of "woman" so that everyone knows what they're referring to when they use that word. They still haven't done that yet.
@@SenatorDodo09 The natural world orders itself along categories that we discover. The language itself is arbitrary, the content being communicated is not. My cat has a developed understanding of the category of "dogs". Trees prioritize relatives for nutrient sharing. Water is not an abstracted idea, it is _the_ tie that binds all living things on Earth. You can do all the philosophical navel gazing you want, but that's all it is. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, it can be entertaining, but in reality these things are so self-evident they literally don't even require sentience to recognize
Male Dogs actually can detect a female especially in heat. Scent is a lot of it. Yes horny dogs will hump your leg just like we will masturbate. Chimps masturbate too, they also have displayed a remarkable ability to distinguish females in the group. It’s not just dumb luck like they run around sticking it in everything and sometimes get lucky. lol.
Damn, Destiny. I’m a big fan but you’re getting overwhelmed here.
Adult human female is not just a meaningless tautology. It’s telling us it ain’t a child and it ain’t a male and it ain’t a cow. lol. Jesus.
We say things like you act like a child and you run like a child and you cry like a baby. Does this mean the fundamental definition of what child is and how it differs from adult is too difficult to answer? I guess we can’t actually answer that question .
@@NocturnalNick very nice
Your explanation on what is woman is the same as what Jordan Peterson did with the Exodus question that drove him so wild. Oh the irony
0:40 I mean like right here in the intro… do you think people who argue it that way, “Trans people don’t exist”last for very long on a platform? I feel like that’s a reason to not use that angle, and I wouldn’t even blame them. My friend you got banned for arguing that trans woman and cis women aren’t the same in sports.
Most conservative media has that opinion tho and a lot are not banned from youtube. As long as you arent being hateful
@@mancho1691the whole problem is that "being hateful" is an extremely subjective concept
yeah, I feel like the question is not so much about them not existing, as it is about the fact that the pre-fix is necessary context in almost all situations. A "cis-woman" and a "t-woman" are not the exact same thing and that context matters. They want to drop the qualifier as a whole, or only add it for the cis ones. Which is not gucci.
No one says that trans people don't exist though, that's a strawman argument. Clearly they do exist, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them, left OR right.
The issue is: what do they exist as? Conservatives would say that they exist as men who identify as women, meaning adult human males who identify as adult human females.
The "don't exist" is in relation not existing as adult human females, which is, without doubt, correct.
@@roymarshall_ Exactly. And it’s a problem to me imo. I don’t like that attacking one political side is way way more likely to get you labeled as hateful. It’s troubling regardless of which side you’re on if you believe in free speech.
It’s kinda ironic how (strongly) destiny criticizes Jordan Peterson for turning simple concepts into complicated ones, yet he does the same thing when he is asked what a „women“ is. No brother, it’s absolutely not complicated, YOU made it complicated, everybody exactly understands what is meant when those words are uttered
This is just unnecessarily overthinking already „sophisticated“ thoughts, if you go down that rabbit hole you could start to question every f*ing word because language is so complex, but where would that lead us?
The "XX Chromosome Human Mammal" comment instantly derailed his whole spiel lmfao.
"Adult human female" is not a bad definition and it's not tautological. There are females of other species, there are female dogs, female whales, female cats whatever, but the name we give to human females who are also adults is "women." Why do you think that we haven't thought about this issue before? Maybe we have and we just came to the conclusion that "adult human female" is the only defintion that works.
If you went back in time and asked for water, but they didnt know water was H2O would they not know what you were asking for? Saying that ancient people wouldn't know what a woman was because they didnt know what chromosomes were is ridiculous.
yes exactly, thats why defining it as "adult human female" or "H20" doesnt actually encompass everything we think of when we say "water" or "woman" and people have been using the words without that definition for centuries
@@SenatorDodo09 When people used woman in the past, they were referring to adult human females, even if they didn’t know about gametes. They observed that mammals had two reproductive classes and one type gave birth, they understood this of humans as well as cows and chickens.
@@jimgold2550 "Females" often also were seen and referred to as "women" but that wasnt because they could see the vagina or knew of the other person's ability to reproduce but rather they saw a schema of different aspects that together meant "woman"
@@SenatorDodo09 Right, because we’re able to accurately tell what sex people are usually based off their traits. Similarly we can tell whether an animal is an elephant or an ant based off their appearance, even if we don’t analyse their DNA.
@@jimgold2550 Exactly, thats why "woman" as purely the biological definition isnt satisfactory
If you cannot provide a cogent and logically consistent definition of the word woman.
Then you have no business talking about womens issues.
define a table
@@dylane1891 A surface which is recognized by humans to be a place used to place things. Though if you would rather go all the way with the philosophy of words, we could say that any definition leads to a vicious circle because all words are defined by words that are defined by words. Calling a tree a tree isn't correct because the reality of what a tree is could never be captured by words, in which case any attempt at communication is doomed including this one.
edit: I just wanted to add that it's potentially possible to create a language that would allow us to communicate pattern recognition more effectively than English. English is impossibly caught up with Catholic views of the world where everything is seen as individual things crafted by a creator, and not patterns of events. In Physics terms, English thinks the world is particles, but a language like Chinese sees it more as waves.
@@Puzzlesocks So firstly according to your definition a shelf is a table.
And secondly, i'm not trying to say that definitions are useless. But when someone uses phrases like ''if you cant define woman you shouldn't talk about woman's issues'' in this context, it shows a misunderstanding on how, we as humans, use words and concepts. That's why the table question is good. A table is a simple enough thing to know one when we see one, but we can't find a definition that doesn't lead to ridiculous conclusions for it. Witch helps to show that the 'definition' discourse around this topic is just dumb.
@@dylane1891 Shelf is a table but on a wall mf you tried to do something here
@@spinosaurusstriker You just said a table BUT on a wall (implying a table wouldn't be on a wall by definition) witch makes a shelf witch IS on a wall NOT a table. do you not hear yourself? also if someone tells me to go to eat at the table and I start to eat from a fucking shelf, do you think I understood the meaning of the word there? yall are too funny
Woman = adult human female is not circular unless you are saying that there is the same ambiguity around the word female as there now seems to be around the word woman. Otherwise it is a descriptive definition that you can use to tie woman to something concrete, which seems so hard for many to do.
There is the same ambiguity though. At least you see 'women' as ambiguous at all, which is a notion that 'what is a women' is trying to deny
@@jamrollz There's literally zero ambiguity, unless you're claiming that you don't know what the word "female" refers to.
How have we gotten so smart and yet so stupid at the same time. It’s just hilarious that this is what people are talking about today.
What is an “adult”? And how am i to tell if they are female?
The circle will go unbroken
@@michaeltaberner4079 You technically can't tell if someone is a female, you just guess.
An adult by law is someone who is 18.
I'm not sure where the circle is.
what is a women is a relevant question and the fact trans ideologues cant answer it is a problem. if we cant answer what a women is then why do we have women only spaces? if being a man is an option that anyone can identify out of then what are these women only spaces excluding, an idea/feeling?
Destiny is confused here. Words can change meaning. So we can make any word mean anything. But that doesnt mean the phenomenon behind the meaning changes.
I think you are confused here.
Literally nobody argued about phenomenon changing. Everyone is in agreement about the facts of the matter, the question is, what the word "woman" refers to.
Smugly saying it's simply "adult human female" is nothing short of intellectual capitulation.
"words can change meaning" so why don't you think the meaning of the word "woman" can change?
@@skylerblumenthal7003 100 years ago if two powerful men sat down and said
"I have a daughter, you have a son lets combine our families and stop this conflict between them"
could the man be referring to anything but daughter as a description of a biological woman? could the man be referring to anything but son as a description of a biological man?
the point of language is to make communication possible. but what is being communicated by calling a biological woman a man? are different rights being invoked?
@@jasonu3741this is a pointless thing to bring up. It doesn't have to be 100 years ago, if someone today refers to their daughter, mother, sister, wife, etc. then 99+% of the time we know they mean they are referring to a cis female, because the reality is that trans and intersex people are a tiny minority of the population.
The debate is not around what the most common understanding of a woman is, it's about the edge cases. This is like trying to debate the exact medical definition of when death occurs and using what some person means when they say their dad died as the the definition, while also ignoring the fact that 100+ years ago, the less sophisticated understanding of death meant people were sometimes buried alive.
Words do have meaning but if you genuinely believe every word is as clear-cut as the concept of “1”, you’ve been too lazy or uninterested to think about language your entire life. Which, as Destiny has pointed out, is fair, but you shouldn’t ask philosophical questions then.
Most words aren’t physically exact; most words aren’t chemically exact; most words aren’t biologically exact.
Do you think languages with grammatical gender use that gender to describe sex? Then never sit down on a German chair if you’re straight - because he’s masculine.
Nah even if I mistake a trans persons sex doesn’t mean they are that sex.
So you do think Ben mistook her sex in that video in which he was continuously talking about her being trans? That’s ridiculous.
@@MensHominis I believe he continuously misspoke. That's an option. No matter how many times I call a tortoise a turtle it's still a tortoise. I'm just wrong/misspeaking.
@MensHominis you realise saying a word doesn't make it objective reality? I can say a blue blanket is green every day for the rest of my life. Does it make it green?
@@MensHominis *"So you do think Ben mistook her sex in that video in which he was continuously talking about her being trans? That’s ridiculous."*
- I dont think that's ridiculous. He even corrected himself a few times.
- Ben has also stated that he refers to people how they want to be referred to in his personal life [indulges their delusions] out of politeness, so it wouldnt be unreasonable for him to make this mistake.
Human Female = Human with XX Chromosomes.
Woman = Adult Human Female.
She/Her = Pronouns used to describe Women.
@@user-ui5bo5um7n No, you can’t mistake a sex if you already know it. Except if you want to claim Benniboy has dementia. It was her social role, her gender, that was constantly overwriting his teeth-grinding attempt at artificially referring only to her biological sex. _That’s_ why he kept correcting himself. That’s also what he has said about using chosen pronouns: you’re wrong, at least to Blaire White he admitted that it would be _impractical_ to refer to a female-looking person in public as “him”. Then, too, he gave in to social utility because of a social role. He didn’t indulge trans folks’ wishes.
The thing is, for the majority of the people nothing of this matters, having any trouble defining a woman or saying its complicated makes you look like an insane person.
The thing is, the majority of people are dumbfucks that dont want to spend extra brain power thinking a little deeper into subjects (or just pretend they do), that doesnt mean those deeper ideas are wrong or shouldnt be used
No. You're just too stupid to want to engage in the nuance of language lol
People really arguing for Platonic forms like its 400BC
Did Destiny actually give his definition of woman? He yapped about it for an hour but never said what his definition is, only why he thinks adult human female is wrong.
7:19 LMAO stay mad. Adult human female is the answer. For starters, arguing that the word "female" is the same thing as saying "woman" flies in the face of every lefty argument about there being a difference between biological sex and gender. "Woman" is the word used to differentiate physically mature females of the species from those that are not yet physically mature, referred to as "girls." Same thing with men and boys. The fact that anyone over the age of 4 needs these differences explained or is in any way unsure or unconvinced about what the word "woman" means has had their brain melted by the kool aid; they've gone out of their way to try and complicate a word that is about as elemental and basic as it gets. I guarantee the word "woman" has been universally understood to mean adult human female for all of human history up until a couple years ago.
It's wild to watch how the manner in which he argues swings so drastically from topic to topic. Sometimes he argues from a purely logical, rational position which is the version of Destiny I actually appreciate. But then sometimes I swear to god its like he decided his position on a given topic ahead of time and will then just doggedly, stubbornly keep fighting in that direction no matter what, like the truth takes a back seat to "winning" or feeling correct.
18:04 I really enjoyed the absolute irony in his statements as he malds overs the meathead smelling his own farts for expressing the simple truth, yet destiny spends an hour pontificating over why he's more intelligent than everyone else for being unable to accept it as such.
Shouldn’t the word be “evoke” not “invoke”? Evoke is external and invoke is internal so if it’s in someone else’s mind then it would be evoke?
I don't think "Evoke is external and invoke is internal" is necessarily true. I don't think "evoke" is wrong here. Actually, I think it fits as well or better than "invoke" for this usage (conjuring an image in someone's mind). But googling "evoke vs invoke" doesn't yield results relating to this "external/internal" distinction, and I've not personally heard the words used that way.
That’s not a correct definition. But yes, it should be “evoke” when referencing bringing an image, thought, or feeling into your own mind or someone else’s mind. “Invoke” is used when someone calls upon something specific, often by name. Like a person, a book, a citation, etc.
🤓☝️
@@connorp3030 begone. The entire video is about the nuances of language.
@@connorp3030 bro why are you here?
Woman isn’t just “adult female”…that can be any other animal as well. Woman is an ‘adult HUMAN female’. It’s a description used to differentiate the females of our species from other female animals. It ain’t hard to understand.
So why aren’t we having this conversation about literally EVERYTHING? Why can’t people change their race based on perception? Sorry, not buying it. It’s just not that complicated.
Because it isn’t a biological thing. The reason why people discuss transgender people is because they exist, therefore there needs to be a social structure where they can exist comfortably. There’s nothing to “buy.”
People literally change ethnicity. Some of the Tutsis in Rwanda would change their ethnicity to receive benefits from the state and gain power
When I dress up as Superman on Halloween I’m a real superhero fighting crime.
Superman is a made up story. Women actually exist. Crazy to grasp for those threatened by people just existing.
@@kims4333 Your guru destiny is arguing that woman is also a made up story.
@@Shad0wack You think a woman is "a made up story"? I rest my case.
@@kims4333 Youre not very bright
@@kims4333 *"Superman is a made up story. Women actually exist"*
- What relevance does that have to the analogy?
If I said 'my coffee cup was blue like the sky' and you responded by saying 'no the sky isnt ceramic' it would be equally as braindead as your current response.
It’s really never a good look when Destiny just says “anyone that disagrees with me is regarded”. Just actually engage without the bad faith.
He did both, so the fact that you chose to complain about his tone instead of respond to his position must mean you are being bad faith, right?
@@Gohanian2 he said anyone asking what is a woman is bad faith and then totally handwaved the utility asking that question has. Obviously a lot of people try and say it as an own but my god has it exposed so many ideologies are built on sand. I feel like Destiny’s floundering here was a display of that.
@@zdubzz1280 So once again you have zero actual critique of anything he said.
And are once again ironically doing exactly what you condemn, by 'hand waving' everything in his explanation.
The fact that people who are honest struggle to answer philosophical questions with a single sentence does not make their 'ideology' build on sand, and the fact that you can't see the difference should be a serious concern, since it seems to be showing how easy it is to manipulate you with bad arguments.
What does your floundering here represent?
Saying words are complex is a total cop out. Its blanket
"what is a destiny?"
Well, it depends what you mean by a 'destiny'.
A girls name
@@HighFlyinBird90won't matter. He won't answer
A black human female
@@a.b.coatingnah he'll answer, he'll just destroy the basis for his own political positions and not even realize it.
7:31 based on the entire argument on this topic, I'm unsure if you're confused or being dishonest here. Woman being the "social construction" and female being the biological marker, this is the concise answer based on that nonsense frame of thinking where woman and girl are social constructions, distinct from being biologically female, trying so hard to create a new distinction from femaninity because it doesn't comport with their worldview.
So you are wrong Destiny, and a concise description of a woman for those who do not subscribe to that ridiculous ideology would describe as an adult human female which, based on gender ideology, is not a tautology as they do not describe the same things, which is how someone who doesn't subscribe to this worldview would try to convey this idea to someone who does
So I’m curious - “parent” and “child” are words that have clear biological meanings. They can refer to progenitors and progeny.
However, the words also have a clear social meaning - they refer to a specific type of relationship. Ever since there have been humans, children have been adopted, and adoptive families very often refer to their family remain the same way - these are my parents, these are my children, etc. When people do this they aren’t lying, they aren’t wrong - they’re using the word in a *social* sense, not a biological one.
Being someone’s biological child is probably the most bedrock biological feature that we have, even deeper than male and female - not everyone fits neatly into male and female (ie intersex individuals exist), but *everyone* is someone’s biological child. Despite the absolutely foundational nature of this biological reality, the categories of child and parent can be used in a completely non-biological context.
Man and woman are the same. Generally, trans people are talking about changing the social category they fall into, not their actual biological background. If we can change something as utterly foundational as our familial relationships *in a social sense*, it seems to follow that we could change something less fundamentally like our genders *in a social sense* as well.
@@ecta9604 I can certainly agree with all of your points, but quite simply, it's "adoptive parents" which are indeed distinct but no one says the "adooptive" can't be dropped in the common speech of the family unit. I believe you are simply nitpicking the social role as parent people use colloquially, as we have never socially identified paternity in the biological sense as we always have with sex. This is true of many things in the English language we use inprecisely
@@mikedoherty7224not nitpicking at all imo. Why is it that saying there’s both a social and a biological context for the words parent and child is ok (despite the absolutely fundamental nature of biological reproduction) but saying that there’s both a social and a biological context for the words man and woman is “ridiculous ideology”?
@@ecta9604 because you are trying to make an additional social connotation beyond masculine vs femanine, no one denies there a femanine men, there is no such thing as a man with a vag
@@ecta9604 the problem is people like you want to shame masculine women and femanine men into thinking they have biological mistakes on thier body, rather than just being what they are
7:23 Holy shit, I have never heard Destiny say something as stupid as this.
Female: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes."
It's not tautological, any animal can be female, not just humans.
So, by that definition, a woman is a human of a certain age, and of the sex that can bear offspring and produce eggs.
You can argue whether that is a fitting definition, but it's literally not tautological.
Yeah, that was really strange, because the whole point of the ‘trans women are women’ side’s claim is that women aren’t necessarily female. Since trans women are male, but perhaps they can still be women. But I’m surprised if Destiny doesn’t grasp that.
I mean...
Its just simple semantics.
I define:
Boy = Young Male = XY Chromosome Human
Man = Adult Male = XY Chromosome Human
Girl = Young Male = XX Chromosome Human
Woman = Adult Female = XX Chromosome Human
XX and XY chromosome humans tend to act specific ways.
They act those ways because they were taught to act that way since birth, or they were programmed that way biologically.
in response to 7:50: "When you say woman today, are you referring to the same thing that somebody meant when they said woman at year 1000 because they didn't about XX chromosome."
Biologically to reproduce, it is important for a "Man" (human male) to be able to identify a "Woman" (human female) and vice versa. They had to have some idea that "this other human is different from me, I can make babies with them." They didn't know exactly how or why this other person is different, they just know that they are. This idea of the "male/female" has always existed, thousands of years. We are just able to give a more solid definition for these these things than simply "vagina and boobs".
Ofc, the way we identify them is not perfect. I sometimes confuse a moth for a butterfly or a fly for a bee or a wasp all the time.
That doesn't necessarily change the idea that i am referring to, when i scream WASP! As I run the other way when i spot a fly buzzing around.
boy can be used to describe a fully grown adult man, usually derogatory. bro and sis can be used to address people with whom one shares no blood or familial ties.
the point is that language is not a precise science, and these words are almost never used in a scientific context.
@sorenkair sure, that's why definitions matter.
In my head, I define a man as an adult human male and a woman as an adult human female. I define a boy as a young male and a girl as a young female.
From my definition, it's wrong to call a someone that is born as a male a woman.
Someone else can have a different definition of those same words in their head.
Using that definition, it could be correct to use the word man or woman to describe a transgender person.
Like I said initially, at the end of the day, it's just semantics.
People are just using the same word describe two distinct concept/idea and asserting that their "definition" is the correct one instead of actually talking about the underlying concept/idea that the word represents to them.
"Fool's gold is gold because it looks like gold. Do you check the attomic structure of fools gold when you look at it???" - Destiny
Destiny is confused. The information required to recognize an instance of a type need not be the information that defines the type. We can define woman as a person with XX chromosomes while acknowledging that the information we use to recognize instances of the type "Woman" is something like long hair, breasts etc. There's no contradiction with this model of how we use language.
Agreed. If a man dressed as a cop and carried a fake badge around. Just because people think and call him an officer, even if he isn't actually one, doesn't mean the definition of an officer is wrong. It just means he presents himself as what we would assume an officer would present themselves as
You are confused.
This is not how language works in any way shape or form.
You don't start out with a rigid definition and the approach it in real world usage with shorthands.
It's literally the other way around. You use terms as shorthands for concepts all the time and we retroactively try and find some kind of definition for these concepts, by observing the usage.
This is way the definition if "literally" have changed for example, because the usage changed. This is how any new word finds it's way into the dictionaries. We use it and retroactively try to build the definitions from there.
So the question now is, what you are actually saying, if you say "this is a woman"?
What is the information you are trying to communicate? Don't tell me you are literally ONLY talking about chromosomes and that it would be the EXACT same sentence if you said "this person has XX-chromosomes".
These are different sentences and are understood extremely different in social settings .
If you say "Don't act like a woman", what are you saying? Are you telling someone they shouldn't act like they have a specific set of chromosomes, or is there a whole set of things attached to the category "woman"?
@@maxwellsdemon10 I didn't claim that language worked by defining words first and then using them to interface with the world. My only claim was that Destiny is not acknowledging a distinction between the information required to recognize an instance of a type versus the information that defines the type. He claimed that Ben slipping up and calling someone "her" is evidence that Ben defines a woman as someone who has long hair, breasts, etc. When it doesn't necessarily imply that. It only implies that he uses that information to recognize instances of the type "Woman" but he can explicitly define woman as something more rigid. There's no contradiction.
@@parse.thoughtspace there is a contradiction though.
His USAGE of the word is what is important, because it determines the definition.
What do you believe happened in this clip? Do you think Ben Shapiro had a moment, where he confused the chromosomes of the person he was talking about, or did the person he was talking about simply fit his mental image of a woman so well, that he had to make an effort to use different pronouns?
He USES the word woman to refer to a person with long hair, breats, etc.
This is his mental image of a woman, the way he actually uses the word and it shows.
That's why I don't think the information we use to recognise something and the information that defines it are different at all.
The definition comes directly from the usage and the mental image we have, which is simply the thing we use to recognise them.
If we found out tomorrow, that chromosomes don't in fact exist, my mental image of a woman wouldn't change one bit and neither would Ben Shapiros. It would however change if the usage would change and the characteristics we use to determine them.
@@maxwellsdemon10 You aren't following what is being said. I'll debate you in a discord voice chat if you're willing and agree to let me record it
Destiny, you are answering this question in the exact way in which you complain about how Jordan Peterson answers questions. It just shows me where you stand on this issue, and you just fear the implications of answering truthfully.
I think you right that Destiny is achieving a Petersonesque word salad.
But to be fair, this actually is more complicated than the things Jordan does this with. And I think Destiny is legitimately just doesn't know how to explain it, so we get this bullshit.
He's right that it's more complicated than conservatives can understand. They want common-sense black and white answers and refuse to dig any deeper.
It's also not what the trans activists want.
A "woman," as we define it implicitly through our use, is simultaneously an adult female human and everything culturally associated with them.
A woman in the first sense can fail to be a woman in many of the aspects of the second sense. One might not say in that case they are not womanly.
A trans woman is sort of like the reverse. They may be like a woman in the second sense. They may look and dress like a woman and their behavior may be more like a woman's.
Some of their biology will begin to resemble a females through hormones and surgery, while other features remain biologically male.
I'm not really invested in whether or not a trans woman is defined as a woman. Obviously they are not the same thing as biological females, and that is a valid objection by conservatives to the insistence that trans women are women.
I think everyone knows what a trans woman is at this point. I think pronouns play to the second part of the definition. If someone looks like a woman your instinct is to use she and her, which is why conservatives have to actively try to do the opposite.
But that's a spectrum, and some trans women really don't look like women. Still, anybody refusing to use a trans person's desired pronouns to their face is going to seem like an asshole to everyone around them. They are fighting a losing battle in that regard.
...also, I work at a hospital and am quite familiar with, and friendly with the staff. There are two things that are happening when a Trans patient arrives for treatment; what most who argue the "medical premise" might not be privy to is, 1.) All staff are notified ahead of time behind closed doors that such a patient is present in the facility, and 2.) many special exceptions are made for the patient to make them comfortable enough to receive care (similar to a psych patient), because that's the priority.
If for one second there's a misconception that the nurses, paramedics, doctors, receptionists and psych staff actually believe, or buy-into these new-age concepts about sex and gender, you'd be mistaken! That's corporate courtesy stuff, no different than an employee saying "my pleasure" when working at Chik-Fil-A! 🤷♀
I actually disagree heavily with Destiny on this one. Definitions of words are descriptive, not prescriptive, which is why they are almost universally accurate across cultural barriers.
The argument that really seems weak to me is where he claims that, without humans, the concept of [insert any word] wouldn't exist. Because the fact that a word is descriptive of the properties of a thing that exists, those properties will still exist regardless of a human's interaction with it. Perhaps the literal word we use to describe those properties wouldn't exist any longer, but the descriptive properties of that objective piece of matter will still exist. If a tree falls down in the woods with nobody to hear it, the tree still fell down, it's just that nobody saw it. It doesn't mean that the tree doesn't exist.
It feels to me more that Destiny here is trying everything he can to make this conservative point seem stupid and with no philosophical backing, but his arguments are so poor that I can't even begin to try backing him up on this one.
Its funny how he says things like sex are essentially a human categorization concept. They are not. The words themselves are a descriptive term for an underlying reality. Changing the terms doesn’t change the reality.
‘Sex’ is literally a category that humans created to help us describe our biology. All categories are created by humans, they can’t be found in nature. We HOPE that our categories match up to some underlying reality, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they do, because the world does not conform itself to the limits of the words we use to describe it. Sometimes, as is the case with trans people, we discover that our definitions are incorrect and incomplete, and we update our understanding of the world accordingly.
@@Clueman778 biology created the category. We constructed language to describe the biological reality we observed.
@@Clueman778 Most braindead comment ive ever seen. They cant be found in nature because words dont exist in nature. The thing they signify definitely can be found in nature. How does expanding our category of these terms give us more HOPE about matching to this underlying reality which has everything to do with reproduction?
@@sheridan891 biology is not some rigid thing you think it is. Females can be born with XY despite that being an abnormality. We do indeed construct language based off of the biological reality we observe. Which for most people is just going to be things like "woman has breasts, vagina typically has x body type, has softer voice usually etc" yet even that observation does not account for all biological truths. That is because most of those things I listed are caused by hormones/genetic code and whatnot. It just so happens to be that we are already capable of changing hormones. If someone's grows breasts, it doesn't matter if that is caused by taking hormones or just naturally having those hormones, their body still grew breasts and we say that is a biologically woman kind of feature
@@sheridan891 ‘Biology’ didn’t create the category; ‘biology’ doesn’t create categories. Again, ALL CATEGORIES are created by humans. Nothing in nature tells us where one thing ends and another begins; these are lines that human beings draw in order to help us communicate and understand the world better.
Destiny cant tell us what a woman is because he doesn't want to deal with more trans drama instead of says "yeah trans people exist but that doesn't change biology"
"woman" isn't just biology.
@@JakeStarz. You're trapping yourself propositionally.
Remember the word woman a reference to a concept trying to map onto the world.
We developed the language and concepts through perception and layering metaphor through evolution.
We then developed tools like science to investigate biology.
But woman, the concept, is not just referencing biology after all these millinea. It's also referencing the other related concepts that got bundled it. Like femininity, the experience of *being* a woman, the social identity, the biological entity, are all wrapped up and dynamically tied, constantly growing and feeding eachother.
How can the phrase "be a man" exist? "that's so girly"?
What are these pointing at? Investigate
@@JakeStarz. Yeah, so at some context it seems like you can underperforme "Manness" even though you ARE biologically a man.
So what is being perceived as less than?
I hope you noticed in your sentence 'feminine man' ?
If feminine is womanlyness(across age), and woman is female adult human. Then how come a man can be feminine ?
@@JakeStarz. Yeah, a man can act womanly. But what is it? What is the thing being acted? What is feminine ?
@@JakeStarz. Okay. So to help you connect.
Know that what you call feminity and masculinity, these acts that people do, these performances.
That are what is called "gender" by the people you are fighting against.
And sex is biology. XX XY etc.
Makes sense to give the words different purposes.
Generally when people say "woman" they refer to that concept that you act out, exactly as you put it. Since we cant actually see chromosomes naturally.
I know you used the word "act" but obviously it's not deceiving. We do it naturally. A male acts masculine naturally.
Now imagine if there was a male human who acted feminine naturally since he was a kid. Who's "gender" was feminine. Who likes and prefers moving their body in that way, without any intention to trap others. Purely about how they naturally decide to move their body.
Here's my observation: There are men, there are women, there are trans-men and there are trans-women. Each of these is different and we can all identify the different categories even if there are times when we don't know where to situate people when we see them. Acknowledging this would help us to decide how we should intelligently segregate for sports. changing rooms etc.
the whole conversation about the concept of a tree was truly next level regardation well done
How tf is it tautological to say a woman is an adult female?
What is an adult female
@@heat.death_999 Post-pubertal XX chromosome mammal.
@@heat.death_999A legal adult-aged biological creature with xx chromosomes
@@heat.death_999 adult: a person who is fully grown or developed, female (copy pasting another comment from connormullin4547): female is a very specific well defined biological concept in science. It is well established that human females always have 2 X chromosomes, and barring some kind of illness, birth defect, or injury/mutilation, have breasts/vaginas/are capable of birth, etc. In most species female mammals have two X chromosomes, and have the same traits as human females. The more general definition is the sex that creates the ovum (for mammals, for other categories it may be different), while males produce sperm. If you have an abnormality where these aren't created properly, and you were somehow born with no genitals, had no secondary sex characteristics, penis, vagina, or other identifying factor, you can always look at DNA to find out which sex an animal/person is since it is specifically coded in a very black/white way where there are only 2 possibilities (besides intersex as I stated which I think has a couple different types that are possible, we don't currently define those groups as a different sex because it is an abnormality that happens when things go wrong and is extremely rare. Just like humans have 2 arms and 2 legs but we don't defined thalidomide babies who are born without arms as another species, they are just humans who didn't develop correctly).
Sometimes primary and secondary sex characteristics can be warped by disorders and genetic abnormalities but the part of your DNA that decides whether you will develop physically as a male or female is well known to be the XX or XY chromosome, or XXY sometimes in the case of people who are intersex who are neither male or female. It is very simple and clearly defined. Much more clearly defined than something like a phone and a tablet where there are millions of potential factors you could consider and not 2 variables with about 4-5 potential outcomes, and where only 2 outcomes happen over 99% of the time.
@@heat.death_999 An adult is a person or animal that has reached sexual maturity. In humans we tend to use 18 years as a default for adulthood.
A female is the egg-producing half of a sexually reproducing species.
Adult and female are two of the three categorical necessities for a person to be considered a 'woman'.
This is one of the topics Destiny is most stupid on.
Dude seriously asked “what is a female” as if there’s no way to scientifically differentiate male and female humans.
How can any of his fans listen to this rant and not be embarrassed?
Destiny... doesn't know what a man is either.
It’s funny he knew what a woman was when he was talking about being bisexual.
You can intuitively know what something is without being able to define it precisely. Like Destiny said, language comes from experience, not the other way around. Without the experience to attach to the word, it is just gibberish.
@@viysnjor4811 Further though, is that it can't be comprehended as a language without common experience. As in I could never explain what "Red" is to a blind person. Without the common experience the word will always remain gibberish. If you use a personal definition for your gender, what you are actually doing is speaking gibberish, but because they use enough common words between the definitions then confusion arises. If I started calling every car a horse, people might be able to learn what I am referring to, but as the Zen saying goes, I would be raising waves when no wind is blowing.
@@viysnjor4811 Really? What experience do you have with Dark Matter? I’ll wait. Destiny is an idiot that wants to skirt reality by pretending you can not define things. It is funny he knows he has a son…. A boy. Pretending you do not know what a woman is to satisfy the wokes is just dishonest. Let me help you. Woman= adult, human, female…….Simple, age, sex and species all in one word.
@@Puzzlesocks And yet somehow cultures that have never met all over the world managed to figure it out, even before languages, and even animals figure it out…..amazing 🙄
Wtf is this comment section 💀
a lot of right of centre people discovering that destiny actually doesn’t agree with them on everything
@@blondeenosauce9935 tbf destinys' arguments in this video are FUCKING DOGSHIT lmao the "waht is a woman" argument is moronic but destiny's reasoning and explanations in this video are legit fucking retarded
I blame the redpill and post Oct 7 waves... Don't get me wrong, the Finklestein/Benny Morris/Israel trip are still the best content we've ever had. But the community has turned into dogwater for the past few months. I smell a purge incoming. Maybe after the next US elections? :copium:
Everyone realizing women are just sandwhich makers nothing more nothing less, finally some sense in DGG
@@castorcarvi it does because nobody is contesting that. Whenever someone has to specify this is if they hate trans people or hate lgbq (because i doubt they know about xxx women and xyy men and understand "sex" is an evolving spectrum/range of outcomes etc). Men are 50% women according to your simplistic equation/definition of XX and XY and frankly I don't get this obession with defining our conglomeration of cells as being womanly or manly.
It really feels like Destiny is just mad that people who truly are not worthy of having an audience were able to come up with such a simple test that made an entire ideology look foolish. It's like going into a seminar that's 3 hours long on why a piece of art is what it is and means what it means etc and someone just yells "Seems kinda gay" and everyone laughs and no longer takes it seriously. But that is truly what it is, it is a simple absurd argument against an overly complex absurd position. And I think it makes him upset that he needs 19 layers of nuance to try to argue against a simple sentence. People, most people, 99% of people, don't care about 19 layers of nuance. No one has time for that. That is probably Destiny's biggest issue is the intellectual masturbation. It's great he does all this Israel research, goes to Israel, etc but still some random chick at a college can just yell "stop genociding babies!" and more people will just blindly listen to that. You have to market to the masses or you are failing yourself if your desire is to change peoples minds.
The problem is not everything is and can be explained simply. for trans stuff I feel like the closest thing would be visually.
Show pictures to people of folks like Buck Angel and other individuals who easily pass for the opposite sex. "Well your definition was boobs and a vagina. Would you be ok with him going into the women's bathroom? No? Oh why not?" then delve down that rabbit hole of questioning.
Yes, he tends to have a very personal and immature reaction to idelogical opposition. Often plays the frustrated man of intellect having to endure the foolish and un-novel opinions of charlatans.
@@randomyoutubecommenterr To an extent that is fair but the rabbit hole isn't where people want to go. Most people aren't going into the 9 layers of nuance to decide an opinion on something that is done automatically the instant you see someone. The visual aspect is correct, when someone sees someone they have already gendered them and that is about as far as most people care to go with it. I think if people would just be honest and say it comes down to passing. If you can't tell, you can't tell and you'll never know and it's not your business to know. It's the obvious ones that people have the issue with and the simple truth is they have the issue because they are aware of it. There is no hiding it or pretending otherwise.
@@Not_CIA I don't appreciate the word "passing", how about we call it "tricking".
The mental gymnastics people perform on this subject will never cease to amaze me.
You are speaking philosophically. The people your are speaking to are not. Male and female are the labels we created but we didn't create male and female. If we now say that the word female includes trans women it would just mean we no longer have a word for humans we currently refer to as female. It doesn't change the physical reality. Male and female exist outside of language. Humans, like other animals, are skilled at recognizing the opposite sex.
No one would be ask what is a woman if activists didn’t proclaim trans woman are women.
wow this is a totally cringe cope.... its easy to define female too destiny hates this topic because he knows he has a poor point on this...
LOL The comments. I don't blame people for wanting to look at things essentially. It's hard to abstract things if it doesn't come to you naturally. No example you give will convince the people who don't want to get it. I often bring up colors and how the same color is identified differently over time and cross-culturally. (blue and green particularly) The essential elements of the colors are generally the same regardless of the viewer, but the line where the name is delineated varies.
Sounds like you are unable to logically justify your claims and are just 'calling it abstract' to avoid debate.
Nope, it's just needlessly obtuse for no reason other than to fellate yourself into thinking you're intelligent, or to hold water for those who have constructed delusions about their identity. The reality is that nobody has really struggled to understand this simple concept since the beginning of time, but the attempt to complicate it in the modern age or concede ideological ground over things that are easily measured in the natural world, has not particularly done any good to anyone. Quite the opposite.
@@nitrorkpeople have struggled to give precise definitions of simple concepts, including man and woman, since philosophy has existed. Not being to give a definition isn’t lack of understanding for a concept, since in the real world definitions come after the concepts, or before as in formal languages.
@@pookz3067 I'm not talking about "precise" definitions or semantical arguments, I'm talking about the colloquial understanding of the entire concept itself.
The concept of a "woman" has not been strongly contested throughout time, and is not defined by any individual aspect or trait, but the amalgamation of ALL the known criteria that formulate the concept. Pointing out that some women don't have breasts, or contain genetic mutations/variations within this dichotomy does NOT diminish the concept itself.
I never understood how the "biological essentialist definition" being "exclusioanary" towards trans people, is supposed to be a "bad thing".
The act of defining something, is inherently exclusionary. You can't define any word in the language, unless you narrow it down to a very small and specific set of descriptors. The more you try to stretch that list to accomodate any microscopic exception, the more vague and meaningless the definition becomes.
Lacking the biological descriptors of age, species and sex, it's functionally impossible to define "woman".
It's not a bad thing, no one said it was a bad thing. The problem is that people don't agree that the word woman is biologically exclusive. This is why doctors will ask for sex, or sex assigned at birth, as sex is a biologically exclusionary definition while gender is not.
@@Jankyito
As far as I'm aware, one of the main arguments that transgenders use AGAINST the biological defintion of woman, is that it's "bad" because it excludes them.
No?
@@Jankyito
But isn't that one of the main arguments that transgenders use against the canonical defintion of "woman"? That it's bad because it excludes them?
@@shaggygoatboy1125 not all cis women are women by the 'biological essentialist' definition. So why discriminate against trans women when you bend the rules for cis women? That's the crux of the matter.
I have to be honest I am not a Maga supporter. I have always hated the Republican Party ever since George W. Bush but this is the one topic that confuses the shit out of me I think this whole identity politics thing kind of hurt the Democratic Party and I believe all humans deserve to be treated equally it just seems like every time someone from the left tries to answer this question it comes off like gaslighting there needs to be a stronger explanation like both sides are still trying to figure this out, but if you could just settle it by answering the question, like a woman is a woman a trans woman is a trans woman that’s what they want a simple answer or they will never STFU
All they need to do is ask what is a biological women, that's literally it.
A woman is an adult female human.
@@Noodliest Something that can bear offspring or produce eggs.
@@NoodliestWhatever doctors classify as a female at birth. There’s multiple identifying factors- a vagina/uterus, XX chromosomes, gametes, muscular and bone makeup.
Or a Blaire White
@@kingdodgearcane White is a man.
The “what is a woman” question is used to determine whether someone believes that gender can be absolutely defined as opposed to being some obscure concept.
This is so annoying. It's not about definitions or meaning. If a man with a beard and a bald head says "I'm a woman" should he be treated as a woman? That's the point of the question. Duh.
The point of the question has nothing to do with if you "pass". Destiny bringing up Blaire and Buck always annoys me because you don't have to pass to be trans. Buck was still trans before surgery. Should trans people be able to occupy the space of the gender they identify as, surgery or not? And if not, why? Where is the line? That's what "what is a woman" is asking. Do you have to look like a woman or just feel like one? And what does feeling like a woman even mean?
My job says "yes", social media says "yes", even our current president of the states says "yes", so unfortunately, we must ALL play the Emperor's New Clothing game for the foreseeable future, and I think they will get increasingly smug about their higher position over us as time goes on.
@@daisy291 yea he's basically claiming that if I carve a rock into the shape of a tree I've actually changed the nature of the rock into a plant, or in the least, we must all go along with its new Tree Nature outwardly, lest we be harrassed for saying its a Rock, or less aggressively, not enthusastically endorsing its new Tree nature enough.
@@val22900 It appears to be a disingenuous question because the world became so insane as we even need to ask this question.
@@daisy291 Realistically you have to pass. Unfortunately this is the ugly truth that everyone on the left will never confront. Why is it that every single trans person that is popular looks like a biological woman or man? Because deep down people are wired to notice these things. If these morons actually believed in helping destigmatized the trans community then every "man with a beard" on tiktok would be put on pedestal for millions of people to see.
Destiny is a womans name.
Destiny is a woman.
Socrates: Yes.
Not all women are Destiny but all Destiny is woman
The reason we don't call everyone male and female and the words man and woman exist is to distinguish between men and boys and women and girls. We do this for all animals. That's why the definition is ADULT human male/female it let you know someone is not of reproductive age. Man and women aren't gendered terms, we have gendered terms, it's called masculine and feminine. You can have a masculine man/boy or a feminine man/boy and vice versa for girls/women. But all women and girls are all female, and boys and men are all males. Wearing jeans instead of a dress doesn't change if you're a woman or a man.
Can you explain the difference between biological sex and gender?
@@speakaboutdestructionGender now seems to refer to characteristics that we attribute to men or to women that we consider "socially constructed/conditioned" rather than innate or intrinsic (due to biology)
However the way it is used now doesn't make a whole lot of sense obviously, regardless of how you express/present you cannot divorce "gender" from sex, because sex is literally what gender is using as a foundation
@@speakaboutdestruction yeah, I agree with the main view that gender is a social construct. My point is the terms man and woman aren't gendered. Hence you can be a masculine man or a feminine man. Masculine or feminine would be gender, but man would be a description of biological sex and reproductive maturity. So if you have a man wearing a dress that would be a more feminine presenting man, but still a man aka adult human male.
I always mention when I get into a good discussion, I’m not trying to figure WHO is right but more about WHAT is right. As a result I find agreeing with what I can then going from there, only to find we’re usually on the same page
“Words are funny” or “language is a funny thing” is what I conclude when I found out we been on the same page the whole time