Atheist Experience 23.22 with Matt Dillahunty & Don Baker
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 дек 2024
- 32:55 Fred: MI: How Can We Dismiss the Bible as Evidence for God?
46:55 Ryan: San Jose, CA: Bad Reasons for Atheism, Mental Health, Bigoted Street Preachers
1:02:00 Murri: IN: Times God Could Have Intervened in My Life, Struggling with Reframing Life
1:16:16 Frank: Dallas, TX: Critical Thinking is All Powerful and a Cult
1:23:06 Daniel: WI: Believing in No God is Extraordinary, Probability of God, Genocide
1:37:00 Tom: Liverpool, UK: Jesus and Lazarus, Bible Contradictions
The Atheist Experience episode 23.22 for May 26, 2019, with Matt Dillahunty and Don Baker. Controversial Video. Matt talks about a controversial video Rationality Rules made and the fallout from it.
Call the show on Sundays 4-6pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use our green call the show button to save on long-distance charges: www.atheist-exp...
Don't like commercials? Become a Patron and enjoy ad-free content: / theatheistexperience
Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
We welcome your comments on the open blog thread for this show.
► freethoughtblog...
The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting atheist-experie...
Subscribe to the ACA monthly newsletter here to get an advance copy delivered to your inbox every month, as well as access to the Thinking Allowed archive: aca.activehost...
To read the latest issue without signing-up, go here: www.flipsnack....
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
► www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
► www.atheist-exp...
DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
► www.atheist-com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 1996 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
28:31
Libor Tinka
Thank you.
you're my favorite person today.
I wsnt to know where I can find stevens original video
Gods bless you!
@@terrybrooks597 RR says he pulled it, I haven't looked lately
Steven! Do not apologize. I watched your video and there may have been small details that were inaccurate, but the main message is absolutely correct.
He already did...twice! :/ I wish he hadn’t. The only reason the ACA withdrew their statement was because of the community backlash, otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue and Steven would still be blacklisted.
When making an intellectual argument, not only does a person NOT have an obligation to care abut how the argument affects a community, but also, that's the LAST thing we should want. We do NOT want scientists and philosophers to be sensitive. On the contrary, we want them to seek truth and express that truth without caring if someone is offended. Period. If we care if someone is offended, then that will serve only to HINDER free thought, inquiry, the scientific process, debate, intellectual honesty, etc.
Skip to 32:40 to crack on with the show.
Thank you. Half an hour. Fornicate me.
Good lord. Thank you. On to some shit that matters.
Lumping "The Trans Community" together as 'offended' does no service to anyone, considering Steven has also received support from Trans individuals, regarding these events
Exactly. I've seen trans people say they agreed and had no issue with his first video. They must be transphobic too. Only possibility.
@@siLence-84 "RATIONALITY RULES " easy enough to find ....
I was called transphobic on one of the reply videos for asking questions where making clear I want to learn. Did not get a actual conversation, but was a learning experience for when I feel attacked in my own minority experience on how to react myself for being most effective in combating the persons ignorance. Still learning. Never will be an expert in the trans persons experience because I am not one. Willing to hear and learn.
I saw a Trump 2020 ad before this video started. I let it run so that the Trump campaign had to give money to the ACA.
You've finally found a reason to suffer through a Trump ad - and reminded me why I love RUclips Premium.
Do you have any idea how many conservative atheists there are?
@@roadtonever According to a quick Google search the Pew Forum (which I trust) says 15% conservative, 17% unaffiliated and 69% liberal. Sounds about right as before I was a critical thinker I considered myself a republican - fortunately the good of the Obama administration and the bad of Trump made me rethink that party affiliation (I've stayed an atheist since birth as my parents didn't indoctrinate me)
@RebelFred Well, it's the crazy right that's pandering to religious extremism and taking us back to the dark ages. Please keep that in mind in 2020, and help us vote them all out.
@RebelFred Trust me, the religious right hates liberty even more than you love it.
Thank 'god' for Matt's cool head and clear thinking.
The board definitely overreacted and side swiped Steven.
Did they even re-read the statement before releasing it?
They acted hastily, without sufficient information and with less than one page of text managed to turn a relatively minor issue into a massive multi-week controversy that has damaged the ACA's reputation.
This was not, and should not have become an ACA or an Atheist Experience issue.
Noone with even half a brain could ever think that Matt, the Atheist Experience or the ACA is transphobic, supports transphobia, or promotes transphobic people.
Yes, it would have been better if they had asked Steven to apologise/address it on his second appearance but as Matt said, and I agree, it wasn't strictly warranted.
That wasn't done so at most, a one or two minute apology and explanation from Matt the week following Steven's appearance, along with a brief statement from the ACA would have been sufficient.
I hope the ACA has improved it's communication streams and has a decent PR firm/person in place to handle anything like this in future.
I also hope the ACA is able to rebuild its reputation fairly quickly.
EDIT: I have revised my view of the ACA's handling of this issue and I think having RR on ANY show, knowing like they did before his appearances, that his video existed and the extremely transphobic things he said in it, was a colossal mistake and should not have been allowed to happen.
I still stand by what I said about the handling of the affair and the now enormous fallout that occurred because of it.
@@logicmonkey1034 it's hilarious because organizations want to look good, but they can't have it both ways, you're either pro-trans or anti-feminist (or pro-violence against women) when it comes to trans women in fighting sports
Its public knowledge that even during American slavery roughly only 14% committed suicide. Surely trans people cant have it THAT bad right? so 40% suicide rate for trans is pretty crazy.
Btw the suicide rate for slaves back then was in fact a economic priority to record. If anything 14% is inflated due to slave masters overbeating and killing their slaves and claiming it was suicide for economic reasons. Yes slave economics was a very weird thing but it was profitable in a sense for slaves to commit suicide so it was meticulously recorded. I wont go into full detail, if you want to know more on that you can google the reasons.
Just saying the %14 isn't a number pulled out of thin air.
So these trans people are so stressed out in their heads WAAAY more than FREAKING SLAVES.... So yes it probably is best not to go too deep on memeing the fuck outa them yknow?
But that doesnt mean we should withhold truth and fair treatment.
You know nothing of slavery that's very clear. Many slaves that wrote of their experiences nearly every single one speak of not believing they were human or that they were "something else".
Just going to go ahead and type that because....anyone who's ever done a damn sliver of research knows that....
Furthermore the entire idea that slaves only had external enemies and not intermal issues is beyond ridiculous. dude... you liked your own comment.... dislike it...delete it...reword it... w/e just make it go away. x]
@@T2Darlantan Is that a False Trichotomy?
Why should the ACA ask Stephen to apologize? This has nothing to do with atheism. This is a political issue. Apparently the ACA is a far left political organization and you have to apologize for any heterodox political opinion.
Can someone, hopefully someone in the trans community tell me SPECIFICALLY what stephen said that was so horribly wrong? Im sincere, im a liberal, i’m pro lgbt+ rights, and i happen to PARTLY agree with stephen/rogan on this. I cant figure out how letting a person with a male’s body structure become a female boxer, or MMA fighter, or sprinter, etc.. i don’t know the right answer to this but i don’t see how pushing for that could ever be ok?
I've posted this a few times in this comment section (sorry if I'm spamming) but Essence of Thought's video "Refuting The Anti-Trans Pseudoscience On Trans Athletes RE: Rationality Rules" gives a good overview of where he went wrong in his video. Their follow up videos about it are helpful as well to get their side.
Thx for the response. I’ll check out the vid. Hoping for dialogue however with someone in the community, tho i understand it can’t be easy...
Cheers! I am, but EoT puts it better than I could, tbh. Thanks for not immediately writing us off, regardless!
Oh hell no! No dismissing here. Will watch the vid after axp. Whats ur quick view on it if ur comfortable saying? I so want to just say “everyone should play where, what, and when they want” But so far i just can not see past my human physiology courses i took in college. It’s incredible how different m/f bodies are structurally..
Basically, the treatment trans people undergo (hormone replacement therapy) massively affects people's physiology to the point where any advantage they may have had is rendered basically null and void; any lasting effects would fall within the natural female ranges anyway (elite athletes, women or not, are going to be biologically unusual freaks by the nature of the thing).
What people tend to do (whether through ignorance or out of malice) is find specific instances where trans women have won, ignore all instances where trans women lose (often the same people against the same opponent) and claim that proves all trans women are at an advantage, and make emotional arguments about the downfall of women's sports. The reality trans women winning sometimes is what you'd expect if they're on an even playing field, and there haven't been any examples of them dominating consistently - it's a non issue.
More broadly, trans people's rights are under threat in a lot of places at the moment (for example, I believe in the US the government is currently trying to get rid of protections against medical discrimination, meaning doctors could flat out refuse to give trans people whatever medical care they need because they don't want to treat a transgender person, and not just transition related care but physically life-threatening problems), so misinformation scaremongering about how much of a threat we are really isn't something we need right now; a lot of us are pretty on edge as you might imagine.
I can't believe this was all 5 years ago now. I miss Don and a lot of the OGs
I'm about as liberal as you can get and I'm completely for gay and Trans rights, but this whole jumping to calling someone a Trans-phobe or homophobe just because someone is trying to see both sides of an argument is complete and utter bullshit that just ends up hurting the cause.
Well I'll be. Matt made it through an entire show without bringing up Exodus 21.
MoverAndA Shaker why would there be a problem if he brought it up every time? If the Bible is perfect there shouldn’t be a problematic verse to bring up every week in the first place
My favorite is 1 timothy 2:12. It appears the republican party is a fan of this one too!
@@pianoman2245 pretty sure he's being facetious bruh. I found it quite humorous
@@seanjones2456 Timothy is quite underrated when it comes to: how fucked up is christianity really? And it doesn't really matter from which angle you view it, be it that you look at it from the biblical side or from the view of christians who, like the good hypocrites they are, cherry pick nicely around the shit to pretend that the bible says what they want to believe.
@@pianoman2245 Not that I have a problem with it - but I think maybe....MoverAndA Shaker is referring to heavy repetition. Example, I cannot handle Rap or Techno or the Orange Ex-President because his speech patters are so redundant he's not worth listening to and I have a quick fuse against more than low repetition UNLESS there is clear context being used. The 3 examples there...1) Aren't music, and 2) He doesn't say anything worth hearing since he hates America and is a scumbag of humanity. Matt, has a whole lot of content in other ways, so the Bible references aren't really a big deal TO ME. Again, I THINK that's what this person means. It's part of the show, part of the conversation, intermixed with content. So I'm able to tolerate it. However, not in big doses.
Thank you for the in depth explanation of entire situation over Stephen's post. Well done, Matt.
Agreed, this was a great statement from Matt. This clear everything up, I think, and is fair to each party involved. Kudos!
Hippie Dachshunds You are obviously joking right ?
@@jasonantigua6825 No.
joshTheGoods Cleared everything up? Can you explain? Like what was transphobic about what RR said?
@@jasonantigua6825 Plenty of people have made videos explaining what was transphobic about what RR said. If you're truly interested in empathizing with the trans crowd, and understanding what happened here, then you'll go and get that readily available and accessible information. Even RR has said he made a mistake, so I hope that it happened isn't in question, and you're just looking to better understand.
I loved Matt's intro, but I still must object that I do not believe anything in RR's original video was "transphobic" and the continued use of that word in inappropriate situations weakens it and hurts victims of actual transphobia.
I concur. At worst, he made claims that were not factual. This calls for a counter-argument, not throwing him under the bus.
This quote might explain:
Shayna Lynn
1 day ago
It should be, but unfortunately, it is instead being used to further marginalize an already extremely marginalized group. I was watching Secular Talk today and Kyle played a clip of Newt Gingwich quoting Stephen's "Transgenders are taking over woman's sports" rhetoric. Kyle's topic had nothing to do with any of this Stephen thing, it was just a part of a larger clip that was the topic. The fact that this video made it up the chain to someone like Newt, a man who helped to impeach a sitting President, just demonstrates just how far-reaching the damage goes.
The original video and clips from it has been and are still being passed around alt-right and neo-nazi sites and online groups and forums like 4chan and various other hate-based groups with the implied authority of scientific rigor. The video is being used to bolster the ranks of these hate groups and increase morale. No matter what Stephen changes at this point, the damage is done. Even after Stephen deletes the video, it's already been DL'd and archived by these groups. As a result, real people are going to suffer real harm as a result of that original video. Regardless of how one defines transphobic, there's no denying the potentiality of harm that video will and can propagate.
Having said this, I was very active on the ACA discord for about a week during this and did have some productive discussions on the topic that changed minds, so it's not a total loss, but there's no denying that the wins are vastly outweighed by the loses here. Sadly, overall, it's a net loss :(
@@antediluvianatheist5262 If it was enough to change minds, I think there were some wins and lessons learned. We've gone one step further to better defining morality.
@@bfont Was it worth it?
The much abused trans community says: no.
@@RaveyDavey And yet Hitler and the Nazi party were creationist.
And the ones handing out the books and propaganda were the bad ones.
Which is the point here.
As a mother, I can't imagine disowning my child. Love and support goes such a long, long way.
I’m a pretty far left liberal and always have been. Even if someone says something terrible, suck it up, it’s their opinion. Have a tougher skin, it makes you look stronger. I realize the trans community is the most vilified community, but not by everyone - usually by the people on the religious right. I don’t live in the USA so I’m sure it’s worse there, but in most other civilized countries in the world, it’s not that big an issue. Matt’s comment that “people will believe what’s said about trans people” is true. But you can’t go around life taking responsibility for other people’s beliefs. These are opinions. Matt shouldn’t have to spend 30 minutes apologizing and cleaning up. Trans people need to keep resisting and creating allies, correcting misperceptions etc. But we should not be shutting down and vilifying people for mistakes or just having a different opinion. Let’s not become PC. The best way to debunk a holocaust denier or Nazi is to educate them with facts.
Facts? Can a man become a woman? What is a woman?
@@oggyoggy1299 I'm glad you can parrot, cut and paste a single question with an easy answer from MW. Easy answers to complex situations usually won't get the truth. "The horizon looks flat, therefore the earth is flat and not a sphere." Or "if evolution were true, then why are there still monkeys if humans evolved from monkeys? Therefore evolution isn't true". Yeah...Quick, single phrase definitions don't get to the facts of the situation. What is the definition of a chair, a dolphin, an atom?, ... You need to read what the experts in psychology, biologic development in humans, rather than listening to people who are plumbers and janitors.
Daniel: bibles are NOT History books!
Exactly.
Well then let's see you explain how Israel came into existence without Moses exidus from Egypt
@ray salmon Moses did that in 1948?
You’d think there’d be pictures...
@@barkYdarkATFB
Ancient Israel existed before that
That's why the Jews claim it is their land today
@@raysalmon6566 You still don't know that The Exodus is a myth? Apart from that, what you say is like asking someone how they explain that languages came into existence without the Tower of Babel.
I wish everyone would stop talking about 'the trans community' as though it is some monolithic Borg hive mind.
It is interesting how the word "community" is used to divide us.
I wish they'd just shut up about it, full stop.
bnipmnaa
Is that why you’re talking about it?
Well considering how much everyone bends over backwards and is cowering in fear of upsetting someone in it it fits the narrative. Someone merely asking questions about it gets dragged through the coals.
I think the best response to any transphobia would be education without anger so that people like me (I have a hard time understanding emotions) could understand the trans experience a bit better and we could be better for it.
The only mistake Stephen made was to apologize. Never apologize to the mob.
Never apologize for being wrong about something? You and Ray Comfort would get along really well.
@@brifoxThat's exactly why you shouldn't apologize to those peddling identity politics. You disagree with trans women competing with women in sports and suddenly you are likened to Ray Comfort.
@@brifox BTW Look at what happened to Megyn Kelly when she apologized. She got thrown under the bus. What happened Rosanne Barr when she apologized?
@@roadtonever One of these things is not even remotely like the others. Slight factual errors and a misguided framing of the topic is incomparable to repeatedly making blatantly and intentionally racist comments.
Steven made a few honest mistakes, acknowledged and attempted to correct them for the purpose of undoing the harm, and moved on. The two people you named were both uncompromisingly racist, repeatedly, and only apologized to save face. The situations are comparable by no stretch of the imagination.
@@brifox You just proved how apologizing makes it worse. Just like how Matt went on for 30 mins about how Stephen was bad.
I don't think Stephen was being transphobic at all. Is there a good video that rebuttles all of his points against transgender athletes in a rational way? Because I actually agreed with him before and if he changed his stance on the issue I would like to know what convinced him otherwise.
Essence of Thought's video "Refuting The Anti-Trans Pseudoscience On Trans Athletes RE: Rationality Rules" is a good primer.
@@PedanticPig I'll check it out, thanks
No problem. :)
Check out Noel Plum aka Noel Hand Grenade. He gives a really good break down from a fairness in sports viewpoint. He shows where Steven and EoT both went off the rails. It is not a black and white issue and really there is very little research available.
Eot refuses to respond to noel's video, even though he brings up many good points.
Poor Don sitting there off camera like "I just wanna take a call"
Brenden Varty Lmao he kinda talked today... and for once, his interventions were not pointless. He actually did make points. So let’s give him that.
How do you know he was sitting there all the time? He might got out fore a beer 🤩
he takes plenty :P
Barely covers Matt sitting through Don’s cavalcade of failures of Christianity thru the years.
@@mattgunderson7370 very true! Although I always find Matt is good at playing devil's advocate during those
I'm really glad you addressed the Steven issue. Thank you.
Except Matt did it while butchering his own integrity in the process.
Those bigoted, hateful, spiteful, dishonest, hypocritical members of the trans community (like EssenseOfThought) who baselessly and viciousy attacked and slandered Stephen never apologized. Stephen is just way too polite. What's next? Make him apologize to the Taliban?
Those vile bigots like EoT for the trans community are roughly same as child-raping priests for Catholic Church. They did more damage to the trans community than all the real transphobes ever could.
What Stephen did stating an *irrefutable fact* that trans-women have an unfair advantage in sports is less controversial than Dutch cartoonists drawing pictures of Mohammed.
Trans people are extra sensitive? Taliban is extra sensitive too, or so I hear, so what?
To pretend that this is a "trans rights" issue is a travesty of the highest order. Labeling RR "transphobic" is just as disingenuous as labeling people like Sam Harris "islamophobic" and no reasonable and honest person should condone that, ever!
Saying "Stephen screwed up" is same as saying "she got raped because she wore a short skirt".
Conser pov how is the trans community who’s offended by the a comment someone made about them comparable to the taliban?
@@darkqueen9134
_> how is the trans community who’s offended by the a comment someone made about them comparable to the taliban_
Directly comparable. Totalitarian cult mentality, bigotry, intolerance to wrongthink, getting "offended" by reason and attacking the "infidel".
@@Conserpov Citation needed
I'm a 65 year old trans woman. Thank you Matt. Tears in my eyes that you support me. I've lost my entire family because I'm trans.
62 yo trans person here. Matt does not support you. Matt claims the only thing that counts is what trans people think, then proceeds to discuss what is transphobic with a bunch of cis people and decide what is transphobic.
@@pjaypender1009 that doesn’t mean he doesn’t support trans because you are Butt hurt about a specific
@@pjaypender1009 He has had multiple trans guest hosts with whom he's spoken to on air about it, and it makes sense that he's spoken to more off air, & is relaying what they've expressed to him. Of course everyone is an individual, and I think his intentions are in the right place, even if he's ever accidentally misrepresented in someway, he does actually support trans rights, & is making the effort. I wish you could offer more constructive criticism that cis people could learn from rather than just assert a cis person doesn't support you.
I support you too Lynn! ❤️❤️❤️
@@pjaypender1009
His girlfriend has a dick.
I still don’t know how Steve fucked up and what he’s apologizing for, specifically.
His original video was a reasoned argument. Even if the argument was wrong, that’s no reason to apologize.
Because nowadays it's up to reasonable people to manage the feelings of unreasonable people.
Apparently the feelings of a few people are more important than facts.
His original video was not a good reasoned argument that’s the issue. Sorry that fact hurts your feelings
CAM _ oh my feelings aren’t hurt; I really was asking a dispassionate question.
So are you saying that when you make an argument for something and it turns out the argument is flawed, you should be apologizing as if you wronged the other side of this discussion?
Also, you still haven’t said what specifically RR said that he should be apologizing for.
Hooknosed Jack if you watch essenceofthought’s videos he made in response to RR’s video you would understand. I can see how it was insensitive and I can see why many trans were upset about his video. I don’t agree to the same extent of essence, but he does have many points about how it was transphobic. Like showing the Joe rogan clip at the end of the video with joe being so insensitive to transpeople.
Skip to 32:40 if you’re only here for the calls, although I’d recommend watching the first part.
I think Matt articulated his thoughts and the outline of events very well. I did have a lot of issues with RR's video, but I didn't see it as transphobic, I saw it as lacking information, some of which he could never actually obtain. I see no reason to label someone as a transphobe for making an admitted mistake, especially when showing willingness to dialogue and learning. Maybe it's also a cultural/language expression barrier, as most of the trans community that said it was transphobic are american, where as those that say he made big mistakes, but he's not a transphobe are british... Just look at the perception of the word "cunt" for example!!
This is a mess that has just gotten bigger and bigger, and eventhough, from my perspective as a transwoman myself, it will probably contain errors or perception issues, I do look forward to RR's follow up video on the inotial subject, and still support both RR and the ACA. I don't expect non trans people to get everything right on trans issues, there are things that cannot be understood properly unless you are a transperson and have lived it, but the openness and willingness to be corrected and to learn from it is what makes a trans ally... A real transphobe would not.
Now... Back to atheism!!
Largely everything you said was spot on, but there is one important distinction that I think needs to be made. There is a massive difference between calling RR's VIDEO (or the points that he made) transphobic and calling HIM transphobic. The former debatably is/was, while the latter certainly isn't.
Also, RR's follow-up video is fantastic, and it appears there will be a second follow-up where he specifically digs in to the relevant science and data.
@@brifox Unfortunately we live in an outrage culture that easily conflates the two. They just call it "enabling" now and vilify people calling them "enablers" or "ableist". There's essentially no difference anymore.
@@tatern3923 I don't know what ableism has to do with anything, although the charge of enabling isn't exactly false. Ever since that video, both RR's videos and pretty much every video/forum remotely related to the topic has been swarmed by actually transphobic idiots claiming that he got nothing wrong and that him apologizing and rectifying his position was the real mistake.
It's one of the most annoying things about modern politics. If a left-leaning individual says anything remotely resembling support for a right-leaning position, the following months/years of their life will be filled with the left aggressively denouncing them and the right aggressively jacking off to them.
@@brifox No one gives a shit about nuance or context anymore.
@@brifox I am one of those people, I saw near nothing wrong in his video and the outrage very concerning and irrational. So, I'm a transphobe am I?
What he said was NOT transphobic...
Don't worry, Stephen is in the Gulag now.
How long will it be until the ACA demands that everybody should have the same Political Views and vote as per their direction?
Why
The board was voted out and replaced with new members. So hopefully that won't happen.
Never? as demonstrated by the board change?
I really don't think Matt has thought too deeply about his suggestion of removing gender from sports. That would completely destroy all sports that females participate in which have an athletic component. On average, a biological male is about 30% bigger/stronger/faster than a biological female.
This is the first time I've been disappointed in the ACA.
Saying that a from-birth male frame gives an advantage in women's sports is not transphobic, it's just a biological point of fact. No-one's being 'hated'...
Well, if they have transitioned and used the hormones, it does not appear to give them an advantage... in some studies, the findings suggest it is actually the opposite. Some, at the least, appear to transition and end up weaker than women in sports... sometimes, even if they were an athlete before the transition.
I mean, if nothing else, it is telling that no transwoman has ever won a gold in the Olympics in the years since they were allowed to compete.
@@Diviance "Some studies somewhere suggest some trans women are actually weaker than some other women" is a little (for want of a better word) 'graspy' when the subject is the competition for who is the strongest.
@@DougieJR
If they actually had a competitive advantage, it would show in the competitions. It doesn't.
Which is telling.
@@Diviance I don't think you clicked on my link.
@@DougieJR
Probably because there is no comment containing a link.
Atheism starts about 33:00 before that is just a church Wednesday night meeting
Ty
How many times is he going to say "atheist community" or "trans community" like they are one thing or speak with one voice.
Never?
Because there is no implication of those things, but if you ARE one of those people, when laws are made affecting them, you are still a target.
@@antediluvianatheist5262The word community does imply a community and I find it quite annoying as well because there are a lot of communities and most likely much more people who are not a part of any of them and all of them are not part of most of them.
And I'm not just talking about the trans community but also about the gay and the lesbian and the LTgbETC. (I will probably also never get that right XD I fail to grasp the logic of grouping trans with gay people and naming gay and lesbians separately as if lesbians aren't gay) and the atheist communities and the whatnot communities and the who the fuck cares communities.
It's annoying that the word community is used as if there is only one and everyone concerned is a part of it. It makes about 99.9% of the actual people who are referred to feel as if they are excluded because they're not activists and just want to live a normal life and making people feel they are _not_ excluded was kind of the point of using the word _community._
I also don't have a better word for it but I think it would be awesome if we did.
@@stylis666 The word you are looking for is 'Demographic.'
Community is usually used, because usually, an oppressed minority wants some community. Some place they can go that they won't be hassled, can decompress and talk with people who get it.
They are all lumped together for several reasons: minorities together are less minor, and have a greater voice. As far as the mainstream society is concerned, we are all the same. People who deviate from the norm, with regards to sexuality.
The fact that you don't want community, does not mean that damn near everyone else, does want community.
And feeling like you are doing it wrong because you are NOT an activist, might be your own problem.
So now there’s no such thing as a community?
You SJWs sicken me.
He DID do his research. He even addressed counter-arguments. And it seems like his point of view has more merit than the opposing point of view. IF we decide to have separate sports for men and women, THEN it is unfair to allow men to compete in women's sports. Period.
He didn't even compare biological women to transgender women. Only bio-Men to bio-women. He didn't really go into the hormonal therapy and chemical reconfiguration that trans women go through. He should have and then compared THAT to a natural woman. He should've gone over the science that would have been crucial to this argument. Love RR anyways.
@@isaac7846 And PCOS is over-represented in women's sport as are some forms of Intersex so actually those would surely be the appropriate benchmarks surely?
@demigodzilla you are the problem.
@@baynemacgregor8441 Yes. More data comparing types of female physicalities would be useful. Trans women, intersex, and women with PCOS have been competing for years and it's not been a real issue. Until they start winning a few.
@@isaac7846 Of course having them competing is one of the best ways to get data. And it'll need to be a lot more wins before Trans women reach demographic parity let alone show advantage.
I still don't see what Stephen/R.R. did wrong.. Then Matt said an apology isn't good enough, then follows it with an apology. This show used to be about atheism... What happened?
Far left SJWs.
Humanism IS atheism. Also RR has said a great number, more than just the one vid, transphobic things over the years. That's what he did wrong.
@@tyrongkojy Humanism is separate from Atheism. Also, I can't find anything that R.R. said that was transphobic.
Well wait for his reply later today maybe?
Yeah, I'm sure you looked REAL hard. Best I can give you is a vid done recently by Cult Of Dusty that gathers several together. There. A gimme.
I have so long without watching the show and came back today and found out Matt loses lots of weight, looking good man
watch Matt's you tube channel videos to see what he really look like up close
i'm pretty sure Dillahunty is no transperson... therefore,
it is reasonable to conclude that you two are very likely,
a couple of transphobes! offical statement tomorrow.
Remember when this show was all about logic? Sure miss that
@@markmacdonald3260
I mean more that politics and social issues are not simply science, and if they are, then these guys have thus far failed to scientifically demonstrate the validity of their political and social views, even though they sickeningly seem to smugly think they have.
More importantly, I don't care about their views outside of religion because it's a show about logically arriving at atheism...which I still like, but used to love, and am currently getting chronically more annoyed by. I would just like them to stay on topic
When was that ?????
Words can kill. Remember the thing about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre? Ok so have you seen what anti-Trans words have caused in bloodshed? 1 in 2 Trans women assaulted, 1 in 3 assaulted with a weapon, 1 in 2 raped, 1 in 2 Trans youth attempting suicide with multiple studies showing transphobic violence and harassment is a primary cause of those suicide attempts. The most recent murder involved a Trans woman at a family gathering, gunmen attacked that gathering after the Trans woman, massacred 14 people forcing people to watch as they bashed and repeatedly shot those who were killed. 1 of the people they shot repeatedly and killed was a 1 year old baby. Other murders have involved filming the torturing to death of Trans women. Even low-murder count countries like Australia have unsolved murders of Trans rights Activists. The Pope and the Pope before the current one both described Trans people as a greater threat to humanity than Nuclear Weapons.
Had you heard of any of that?
Or had you only been encountering the anti-Trans stuff? Because if you only heard the anti-Trans stuff when all that is happening you should be asking why.
@@baynemacgregor8441
Sorry but I don't agree that words do that. Sticks and stones...
Don't get me wrong, it's not that people don't get their feelings hurt, it's just that they were supposed to be taught how to deal with it when they were 5.
And although it is unfortunate that they were not, creating a nation of snowflakes is hardly the answer
Bayne MacGregor
Go start a trans rights Chanel then. Stop trying to destroy the atheist community.
I sincerely didn't see any problem with Steven's video. It was factual, and followed a logical path. I don't get the problem.
@Bruce Wayne Iz ur name rlly Bruce Wayne?
RR uses questionable transphobic rhetoric and got facts wrong. That should be the objective problem. The trans community is upset because the video pretty much says that transwomen are not women or at least don't deserve to be treated as women in athletics. I personally understand both sides of the problem, if we want to be fair to trans, we should include them, but if they have an advantage in athletics it becomes unfair to the cis-women. Overall it's a complicated matter that i think we need to be able to talk about, but RR could have been a lot more sensitive, he is talking about a minority that still faces a lot of discrimination and violence even today, and fights every day to be accepted.
@@essiekat8532 What specifically did he say? It sincerely didn't seem like anything was over the line...
Crass Businessman It really wasn’t, but some people need to take offense at everything on behalf of others who don’t really care.
@Bruce Wayne only on the weekends
I think it's a shame that an open, honest discussion about trans issues is seemingly labeled "trans-phobic" by default. In NO WAY was Steven's video "phobic" about anything, it addressed real issues in a kind, open and honest way with ZERO intent to do harm. And that's what "phobic" really gets to - the person's intent. This "it could have been worded better" bullshit is just that - words are their meanings and CLEARLY Steven had zero negative intent - which he stated many times. First time I've felt Matt got something 100% dead wrong. Steven should be applauded for discussing such issues in an open, inviting and inclusive way.
It's like that time Sam Harris was talking about on Joe rogan podcast how intent matter which people seem to ignore nowadays.
I love RR. I also think that a discussion of the topic in Steven's video is valuable. But the main point of his statements being trans-PHOBIC, is the hyperbolic phrases like "Trans athletes will dominate all competitions and kill women's sports" or whatever. That's the kinda stuff that empowers actual trans-phobes and hurts Transgender folks. I definitely believe that Steven has good intentions but he definitely made some ignorant mistakes. And the ACA and other atheists really get upset when they see people on the same team making bad arguments.
Phobia is involuntary. You don't get to choose what you fear. As people, we don't usually intend for our bias to manifest in our words and actions, but it does. Just because he is ignorant of his transphobia doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
He might not have intended his video to be transphobic but it certainly was. If Stephen said something insensitive and ill-communicated about black people or women, no matter how much he did not intend to, it would still be racist or misogynistic. The video he made painted transfemale as threats, cheats, and exploitative athletes. He even went as far as to claim that they will ruin female sports if they are left to compete which is hyperbolic.
Should he have been shunned for trying to candidly talk about his views? No. Did the ACA overreacted? No. They just distanced themselves from Stephen's views. They did not call him transphobic and ignorant, they called his opinion transphobic and ignorant which is fair.
If you were with a friend and called them a name out of pure humor, and this hurt your friend for reasons unrelated to you, would you not be responsible for this hurt? Would you not apologize for the hurt your words caused, even if unintentional? It’s the same thing with RR. I am 100% certain Stephen is not a bigot and does not have some subtle hatred towards trans people. However, what he said in that video hurt the trans community.
@demigodzilla Wow, with arguments like that you must be a theist as simply declaring I'm wrong doesn't make you right. So now I'm transphobic too, huh? And you know me from one comment where I state I'm NOT in any way transphobic and argue for equal rights for all, constantly. Nice assertion with zero evidence, just like a theist.
The problem was created by keeping silent and not addressing the situation immediately. I don't think Stephen is transphobic - he basically said that trans women have an advantage in sport. His information was not thoroughly researched and so facts were wrong. Open communication immediately would have resulted in less drama. But this too will pass. Instead of taking offense, it's way better to explain why you would feel offended!
The ACA committed some basic blunders of 1. Attaching the person to the arguments and 2. Misconstruing said arguments as bigoted rather than based in reason, as Stephen intended.
It seems like this was really about not alienating an audience rather than having philosophical integrity 🙄
@@tallgirl195 as Matt said, 1.- the ACA statement didn't attach the person to the argument (they only said that the arguments were transphobic, not RR); 2.- RR's argument were not based in reason,and even though he might have intended that, that is besides the point.
And as Matt said, RR fell over very common misconceptions and errors, so acknowledging that was part of the philosophical integrity 🙄
Don: "Let's get back to atheism. Whaddya say?"😃 Best statement of the episode.🤓
Poor Don just wants to take calls!
I don't know. I think atheism is a bit of a tapped out subject. It's not like they're getting new and interesting questions with new or interesting insights.
@@dmc8092 Only so many times you can say 'yep. Still no evidence for god.'
@@dmc8092 I really appreciate your articulating this because I've been feeling this way for a while. I've grown bored with the show because I think its all been said already.
@@dmc8092 But every day there are more new atheists or people questioning their faith, and many of them likely have heard little or any of this before, or maybe have never thought about it before but then see TAE or TH or GB or one of their other shows. Like someone with a Ph.D. sitting in on a freshman 101 class. They might not hear anything new, but the rest of the class certainly will.
Thanks Matt a great 30 mins addressing your position. Very welcome and much needed. ACA Board.. please learn from this.
Not likely. The ACA is an atheists org NOT a gay rights org. I always cared to join as an atheist but that desire is now gone. Like Groucho Marx once said " I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." I'm so so happy I never joined now. The ACA will be far better off without me. Fuck this noise!
All he said was that he doesn't know or care about the subject, but some guy said something wrong and should feel bad about himself.
Matt, you didn't make a mistake. You had no obligation to bring it up. You were the main host. You had every right to make that call, and it was a reasonable call to make.
I still would like someone from the ACA to state specifically what is wrong in the video.
@@Thedoctorjosh You could probably find that out with a little research instead of just assuming you know the truth of the matter. That would be the real skeptical approach.
@@Thedoctorjosh Start with EOT's vid.
Ignore the hyperbole, and look at the critique.
10:17 "from the standpoint of the trans community..."
That's like saying "from the standpoint of the atheist community". Neither community has a set of agreed upon opinions that all members hold to ( other than all atheists do not have a belief that a god exists).
Some trans people agree with some of the points RR raised. Others disagree with what he said. Other people ( trans & non) look for something to be offended by and always find it.
Yes, this is true.
Thank you for handing it in a mature responsible and its amazing that people can change there mind.
*I want a "your god can rim me after tacos" shirt*
PizzaPersonPeppers 😂
it's great because it applies no matter what their religion is
Faith is the worst attempt at understanding the Universe, its workings, and just what is the truth.
You can take faith,just like you can use a pen to demonstrate gravity. What you don't get is the true explanation of gravity and you simply believe you know what it is. What if I told you,you don't understand gravity or what's happening..then I taught you the truth. You will have had sufficient reason or faith in your understanding then it is demonstrated you were wrong. Taking the scientific communitys consensus of gravity is relying on faith.
@RDE Lutherie you are correct..are you familiar with the work of Walter Russell? Really, brilliant man who demonstrated interworking mechanics of reality.
@RDE Lutherie I'd just encourage you to reevaluate how you examine evidence and start with no presuppositions for or against the proposition.
@RDE Lutherie wasn't reverse psychology..but ok. Just trying to lead ppl to the truth..you'll hopefully understand in time.
@RDE Lutherie wouldnt you say scientists amd college professors lead people to knowledge? We all need leading in some form or another and all throughout history people have learned from others which is leading. No offence to you or your intellgence but to claim that intelegent people dont need leading is quite arrogant to say coming from someone who claim to be an intellegent sort. We learn from someone else. Just look at all the self help youtube videos. Thats leading. We all go through it
Can Matt & the ACA post their Ten Commandments of what is acceptable & permissable for its followers to believe?
I'm new, but apparently we should all be oddly obsessed with trans stuff, or is it just the generic socially popular outrage of the month?
Thanks.
C H - I think he's saying it's fine to differ on that recent controversy. He wanted to explain how it came about: it was a mess that quickly spiraled out of control from a real lack of communication. But he is mainly advocating that we don't keep up the mob mentality demonizing anyone on whichever side because it does look like it's good people who made mistakes in communication, including those who said things, and those who perceive things to be said in a way. He's not even saying his opinions on the topic are necessarily right, people can disagree with him, he isn't trying to assert them here or now. He's just defusing the situation, acknowledging there have been a lot of fuck-ups including on his part.
@@jaidev777 I think he did rather well, but it's horrifying to see he needs to spend 20 minutes staking out that "we need to understand each others PoV, trans people are horribly oppressed and should have special treatment as we get to understand them".
It seem very inconsistent with how we atheist usually deal with ideas, this sin and heresy bs got to stop.
hey, Matt...
why did that take
30 minutes?
It takes 30 minutes to waffle apparently.
When someone is too scared to say "identity politics sucks" in fear of losing their reputation, they make a really, really long speech about how identity politics sucks whilst attempting to please everybody at the exact same time. Welcome to 2019!
As such, things shall continue to get worse. But it's good to see it being addressed at least.
You were brilliant, Matt!
Finally a balanced viewpoint that was privy to all the information. Well done.
All the information? I don't know what he did wrong, after all this.
I just know that he's a sinner, so to say.
MikeTall88 not sure how you missed it. People including myself have pointed it out continuously.
Fred, finally an honourable caller with a brain. Sounds like he’s well on the way to being an atheist.
I'm honored by your compliment, lol. (I'm not the caller, btw) I actually did just become an atheist about a year and a half ago. I also have a brain.
@Bayonne Blasphemer I'm telling you, it comes from his name. 😂😂
Just want to say thanks to the ACA for 1st apologizing for being WAY over the top in their letter.
And thanks to Matt for giving a 1/2 hour, like a show on its own, regarding his views.
It boggles the mind why Matt is just not President forever. Obviously he doesn't want it due to so many commitments. The fact remains if Matt was in charge none of this would have happened!
I’m so happy that Murri from Indiana called and talked about going to the convention. Her previous phone call to yall broke my heart, it was so kind of y’all to invite her and pay for her ticket. She needed to see she is welcomed and no one is going to force her to believe anything. Thank you for being such great human beings!🖤
I really really really hate it when people tell someone suffering from depression and/or anxiety to just pray or "cheer up you gloomy bugger" depression is bad enough without being ignored by your imaginary friend on top of everything else.
25:48 seriously Matt ? i think this is the problem nobody here knows anything about sport.
I gotta say I've been watching the Atheist Experience for over a decade and have become very fond of Matt Dillahunty's ability to apply skeptical
thinking and rationality when addressing virtually any issue. He is truly one of the great minds of our time. That being said I think we have just experienced him display a monumental lapse of critical thinking while committing or allowing the kind of hypocrisy we generally only expect from the ones he speaks out against.
In his disclaimer in this very video at 4:07 Dillahunty states, "I am not the ACA. I don't speak on behalf of the ACA. Anything I say should not be construed as the position of the ACA..... I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone but me.". So here we have the host of the show making it clear that his views and opinions should not be mistaken with that of the organization which he works for or represents. Essentially it is understood that he could in fact say things that his working partners may not agree with. Then he proceeds to explain why his guest was wrong for saying things that his working partners didn't agree with, holding Stephen Woodford to a completely different standard than himself or any other guest they have ever had on their show.
To further illustrate the hypocrisy, several times during the history of the Atheist Experience they have had religious guests such as Baptist Pastor
Kyle Miller and Evangelical Fundamentalist Ray Comfort who are as LGBT-phobic as people get and known to have made statements to that effect, yet were never publicly denounced or humiliated by the ACA for their radically disparate views, which they actually voiced during the shows (which Woodford did not).
Its very disappointing to see the master of critical thinking not be able to clearly see, or make a stand against the ACA for their hypocrisy,
whichever the case may be. Balls need growing.....
Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy here. When a man says there is a god, they say can you prove it? Then he says no, I just know there is because my feelings tell me its true. They then tear into him about how feelings do not equal truth. This kind of conversation has happened many times on the show.
When a man says he is a woman, they just accept it. If he feels like a woman then he must be one.
NAMI is such a great organization. Glad to hear them getting a plug.
LIMIT BREAK!! :D
Regarding RR I don't fully agree with Matt but I actually feel like he is being sincere and that is something I admire and respect. Matt and Aron are two people whom I respect and admire. I am happy with this video and I still respect Matt and wish no I'll will towards him or the ACA.
Neil Stone, you seem full of yourself. I this and I that, you sound wrapped up in your selfrightious nonesense.
7 times "I"
@@nihilisticnut9916 ok?
@@neilstone7513 I congratulate you on your good grammar. (except for the I'll will -> ill will)
Nihilistic Nut welcome to humanity and the english language. we use the word i to refer to ourselves. now you know.
@@nihilisticnut9916 Irony much?
I am concerned that this whole thing is just an extension of the "no platforming" nonsense that happens all to often these days. My understanding is that Matt is not a fan of this approach and I certainly am not. The show is called the Atheist experience not the Trans experience. The only thing we agree on as atheist is our lack of belief in God. Although the line has to drawn some where when having guests on, it seems to me that this is a case of "you agree with me on 100% of the issues or you are (insert name to call person, i.e. transphobic, racist etc, here). I can understand that a particular community can be offended when someone puts forward bad, unthought out ideas but this name calling has got out of hand. I found a video of a guy who was claiming this whole episode is evidence of the ACA being controlled by the "hard left." This sort of attack is a ridiculous assertion and I pointed that out to this so-called Libertarian atheist but it goes to show how people just throw labels around instead of engaging on the actual subject and eveidence.
Great to see you back Matt, your explanation spoke volumes about everything that was going on with RR, am glad we can continue the fight against nonsensical arguments for god.
Please give a point by point as to what was wrong Stephen's video, I can't even get people from the Trans community to allow me to ask them questions about it.
This is a good example of equity being more important than equality.
I'm still trying to figure that out. I think Stephen was spot on. No apology needed whatsoever.
@@rowantree2881 There are other members of the community who disagree with him.
I leave you three videos on the subject that I find very relevant.
"A Transgender's Perspective on Rationality Rules' supposed transphobia"
"Critique of Essence of Thought's video on Trans-women in Sport"
"Trans-Women in Sport: Reviewing the Science"
Please don't let the ACA turn into Atheism+ Part 2..
Too late.
Thanks for addressing this Matt, I was hoping that there was some mistake made and it wasn't as bad as the internet made it out to be. I don't have any stakes in either side so I keep out of it. But I was concerned about how it was handled.
I think the freethinking community needs to be mindful of the chilling nature of zealotry and tests of purity. “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” F.Niet.
When you have purity tests for those that you invite on your show - that skirts dangerously close to the way religion operates. People are either saints or they are sinners, the saved or the damned. Nobody is three dimensional. Everyone MUST have the same opinions, the same beliefs, the same political positions and everyone MUST prostrate themselves before the currently appointed sacred cows. The 'atheist community' has become a sad joke and the death of free thought is the punchline.
In a sense I'm grateful that this "kerfluffle" took place, if for no other reason than to show how ACA, Dillahunty, Rationality Rules and the "Trans Community" should be viewed with the same skeptical eye as everyone/everything else. For the first time I can truly see how horribly misguided even those I'm most sympatico with can be just as full of shit as any one else.
some humans prefer trans to participate with CIS gendered humans making it unfair for them or others instead of having their own branch of Olympics where it will be more fair for the rest of us
life is unfair and as humans we try to make things fair for us and others
@@coolstoryneedsmoredragons4336 cis is a prefix. like cis- & trans bonds in chemistry. cis- & transfats. cis meaning "on the same side as" and trans meaning "on the other side from." it is not an acronym.
@@coolstoryneedsmoredragons4336 has there even been a trans person who even won a medal. I feel like this is a whole lot of talk for a very small minority of people in sports that haven't had a tremendous impact on it.
overshot Kaitlyn Jenner is one. However besides Olympic events, many trans athletes have easily steamrolled competition, especially in sports like wrestling, track, and boxing. It has caused a big issue for women’s sports. I think a separate section of competition for trans people is one of the better options for solving the problem while there are others.
@@steggyweggy Caitlyn Jenner doesnt count lol, that was way before and in the Male league. Idk if I've seen any "steam roll".
Classic AE -- Matt kicking ass and Don Baker laughing his ass off. Very entertaining not to mention edifying. Please keep on keeping on guys and ladies.....
Is there any reason to use the phrase “lived experience” instead of just experience?
So, the ACA has arrived at the point where its members are worrying about who should be denounced for discussing forbidden subjects. Denunciation for failure to comply to the heterodoxy is now a thing in the "Community." It has been coming for a while, but still it is a sad to see the triumph of ideology over reason.
I am thankful for the ACA for its earlier efforts. I will always be thankful for that.
I really only came for the RR thing. Thanks again Matt I enjoyed your opinion on the topic
I like listening to Matt but sometimes his brusque manner will obscure the obvious fact that he is a sensitive, empathetic individual. I think he did well here. I’m tempted to say that RR addressed SPORT more than he addressed the trans aspect but as I pointed out to him at the time he unwisely chose to dip his toe into that particular pond.
@@jckensway2956 right - avoid race and avoid gender - or risk crucifixion
@@jckensway2956 I tend to agree about the pond. Unfortunately what it shows is that despite our supposed intelligence, being objective about such issues doesn't come easy to us.
Whatsisface 4 as I mentioned to RR almost all of my Facebook Friends are somewhere on the ‘trans spectrum’ and even there you will struggle for any uniformity of opinion. It’s a challenging topic I’m afraid.
Can we get to hear Don Baker deliver his 'failure of christianity' segment first before Matt takes over the rest of the show? I love listening to Mr. Baker's take on that religion.
I HATE those awkward segments.
Coincidence that she was picked up by a pastor in the bible belt. The standard of logic is just mind blowing.
Fairly accurately as potentially transphobic? No. It wasn't transphobic or "potnetially" transphobic in the slightest. It was a researched video that took a shitload of time to make. Now, if any of it turns out to be wrong, then that just means he was wrong -- honestly wrong, not transphobic.
I would agree, accept when you search for the definition of Transphobe, it seems to have been conveniently redefined to basically include anyone who doesn't agree with what a trans person says.
Kind of like when a religious person only sees black or white - if you're not with us, you're obviously of the devil, it couldn't possibly be that it's much more complicated than that.
"I don't want to see the day when women's athletics are dominated by Y Chromosomes, but without change in policy that is precisely what is going to happen." This is the example of a major hyperbole RR used for his argument that might have the intent to instill worry or urgency. Maybe even fear? And also "... And I am convinced that unless quickly rectified this will KILL women's sports."
@@isaac7846 It seems evident to me that taking offense to Stephens statements, at least partially requires misconstruing his intent or even willful dishonesty. I kind of see what you are getting at, but if I were to label him as a piece of shit, (Transphobic - let's be real what this word implys), I'd be feeling like a cunt for having done that, because it's so painfully obvious he's not.
@@isaac7846 what's wrong with that worry?
Isaac Graham
He’s right though.
Man I love Matt when it comes to God talk...but on any other issue Geeezus he's frustrating to listen to and comes across so sanctimonious. I'm 6'5"...no matter how many blockers I take I will be faster and strong and better at sports then most women on this planet. Matt please stick to God talk because that's why I love you.
Wait what does being 6’5 have to do with it?
Not a single girl in the high school I went to was even above 6’0” tall. My starting men’s basketball team was all over 6’0” tall.
Stevie Wee Basketball is like the only sport where height gives you a significant advantage.
Steve, do you want to compete against women? I must admit I find it an extremely complex issue and can't fully understand it. What if it was a man transgendered to female 5 feet 4 inches tall and lightly built, competing against Marita Koch? Slightly obscure and showing my age. Marita Koch was an east German athlete who held the 400 metres world record for about 40 years. Lets try against a really top notch Olympic swimmer (female), what then? As I say, I struggle to get my head round this problem. I don't want to be unfair to women and neither do I want to be unfair to transgender persons. I don't know if there are that many transgender people that want to partake in sport. My granddaughter, 12 years old, plays soccer in a very good mixed team (mainly boys) and she wins player of the season trophies.
happily eggs I definitely do not want to, not believe, that biologically born men should compete in sports against biologically born women. I couldn’t care less about what they do in their life, what they need to do with operations to make themselves happy, or who they sleep with. But when it comes to competing against my daughters when they’re biological men...nope. If I decided right at this moment that I was a women...I guarantee you I could play in the WNBA. Men are different than women and are generally faster, stronger, bigger, etc.
As far as faith as a test goes, if God were going to judge us on faith, then his judgement respects people in past times more than today because as we learn more and more about our world, more and more faith is required to block out/justify beliefs above reality. 1000 years ago it may easily have been more reasonable to have faith in God because our understanding of ourselves and our world was less. And even more so 10.000 years ago. Not a good "look" for God.
Only thing is, our ancient ancestors passed down true wisdom in the form of stories which stood for the wise to recognize they are analogys. If you think God is a being,or acts upon something,you don't understand and need to look deeper. God is still magnetic light. Jesus is the path of our sun..we are dipole chiral bifurcations of still magnetic light. We are god and God is within us. Do you know of the Tetragrammaton?the mozzaroth? The stories of God's that have plagued human history throughout the millennia? Don't you think and feel there's something you're missing? That one thing that will open the path to enlightenment?
@@paparoach8702 I was referring to the traditional christianic reference to God and the claim that faith in Him is a test for us. Now if you want to redefine God could be the apple I ate yesterday. Yes, I have looked at the Tetragrammaton and the page explaining it made no mention of Jesus being the path of our sun (the orbit of our sun in our own galaxy? or does it include the total path of the sun within the galaxy and the galaxy's movement within the universe?). Maybe my western dominated mind put me at a disadvantage when I briefly studied it but I found nothing presented that impressed me. As to if I feel I am missing something that will "open a path to enlightenment" - no.
But, I'm not from Michigan 😂😂😂
@@freddungan6320 My bad if you were the caller, I just looked at the banner. Just in case, my comments weren't meant to be confronting your points. I appreciate your directness on line. I referred to you just to use as an anchor of a question on faith and the idea of faith being a test for mankind (how I was raised) when things change over time. It was my mistake to attach it to your call (corrected). If you were near central TX I would invite you for a burger and apologize in person. I am jealous you got on the line. Have a good one!
@@rickskeptical I was just messing with you, honestly. I'm not the caller, I just don't see people with my name very often. So, whenever it does happen, I try to make some sort of joke about it. Like, "the rest of the Flintstones are on TV with me!" Technically, though, I'm not from Michigan. So, I didn't lie
I don't see what's wrong with talking about transgender woman in sports. If trans woman have an advantage over cis woman, that needs to be taken into account.
There are issues of fairness and inclusion for BOTH sides (trans and cis). For example, it's not fair to have trans woman take roster spots over cis woman in woman's sports, since that is a form of exclusion (trans woman replacing cis woman - 0 sum game).
There are real problems here. If you look up Fallon fox vs tamikka brents UFC, where a trans woman fights a cis woman, you will see what I'm talking about.
Fallon is both older, and less experienced than Tamikka, but totally dominated her, broke her skull and gave her a concussion.
Trans woman don't lose their height, they don't lose the size of their hands and feet, the only lose about 50% of their muscle mass and their bones are still more dense than cis woman. It's stupid to act like Trans woman don't have an advantage over Cis woman in any sports that place an importance on height, size of hands or feet, muscle strength and bone density. I gave the example of fighting because it's a sport in which all of these factors matter.
The studies that suggest Trans woman don't have an advantage over Cis woman focus on ENDURANCE running. There are no studies comparing cis and trans woman in other sports. The argument that there aren't a lot of trans woman in sports isn't a good one. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. For a very long time, it wasn't possible, or socially acceptable for them to come out, let alone participate in team sports where they'd have to endure the locker room harassment and general bullying common in middle and high school. However, from this point on, more and more people are willing to come out, especially at a young age. I think in 20 years, there will be a significantly larger percentage of trans woman in sports due to shifting societal norms and general progress against bigotry.
Some Liberals are arguing that trans woman shouldn't even need to have their testosterone tested. They think all that is necessary to compete against cis woman is identifying as a woman. That means that Connor McGreggor could fight in the woman's UFC. That means that LeBron James could be in the WNBA. Does anyone honestly think these people wouldn't have a significant advantage over cis woman?
If you think that's fair and inclusive, you're crazy. This was what Rationality Rules was debunking. I don't think he said it properly and I can absolutely see how it can be seen as an attack on trans woman. However, the underlying point regarding fairness and inclusivity of CIS woman is valid. Again, I don't know what the solution is, but I find it ridiculous that some people are saying there is no problem, that there is no advantage, or that it's trans-phobic just to talk about these concerns.
Can someone explain to me what were the points and stats that RR got wrong? I really want to know because I want to learn.
Nobody will ever mention them.
I recommend Esseence of Thought's videos on RR's mistakes and arguments. Super in depth.
I believe 1) he was making claims about athletic performance while citing research on non-athletes, as well as non-transgenders. For instance hemoglobin levels of transgender women on HRT are at the same level as normal females. 2) he included a clip of a very transphobic individual Rogan conflating sex and gender. I'm sure there are other valid criticisms but those are the two that stand out to me. His conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but the science is very inconclusive at the moment because there simply is no good research done.
@demigodzilla every time someone brings up a critique it's lazy bandwagoning. Eot was biased and cherry picked his work, which I commented and he never replied, nobody else says a goddamned thing other than virtue signal.
@demigodzilla why don't trans men compete in male sports?
I appreciated the explication on the issue I hadn't heard about, that this segment started out with. An interesting window on the issues.
Thanks Matt for your explanation for the RR "Kerfuffle." Before your words, I had given up on the ACA. Now that Matt has explained what happened, this all makes sense. I'm glad things are getting back to normal. We are stronger with all of us! I have since re-subscribed.
First phone call = 32:46
Thanks man
Thank YOU! SO MUCH MANSPLAINING FROM Matt
I'd like to point out RR amended his video and made a new one.
Thank you, gentlemen. Don, yes, ask questions! At around the age 6/7, I was ask not to return to VBS. Yep... believe it or not, kicked out of VBS. Just a bit of back-story; I grew up poor-as-dirt, and to add to the cash flow, my parents would seine for minnows. We owned a small flat bottom boat. so, one day, in VBS, we were read the story of Noah and the ark. I sat there and listened. Then I ask..."Didn't any body else have a boat?" I was told to be quite and sit still, that was a "silly question". I was broken-hearted. Cried all the way home, NEVER had I been told my questions were "silly". Mother went back and had a talk with them... I never did. So, please, Ask a bunch of questions!
I don't see anything that's absolutley terrible in Steven's video. Could I possibly be transphobic?
MrBOASTMAN32 no. You are just a reasonably thinking human being
Probably. Most people are at least a little transphobic, even trans people; we grow up in a transphobic society, as the legacy of bigoted religion over our culture is hard to shake off. The important thing is to be aware of one's potential biases and be open to learning, as Steven hopefully is.
Tweevle I think the better world for the general public is ignorant,not phobic to the community. You kinda have to expect that when the trans community is like 2% of the population if I remember correctly. This whole thing was about trans women being included into women’s sports and the unfair advantage they have which I think is pretty undeniable.
Ignorant prejudice is still prejudice. It doesn't make you a bad person inherently (pretty much everyone holds some kind of prejudice whether they know it or not, I'm sure I do), but it's still harmful.
And trans women having an unfair advantage in sport is deniable, because it's not true. People who say it is rely on junk science, selective reporting and faulty intuition. Whether that's though ignorance or malice is only really known to them.
@@PedanticPig depends on the sport
I thought the standard Christian response was that Jesus wept because he was empathizing with the women's sorrow.
Also, the claim that the other tribes that the Israelites wiped out were human/demon hybrids is something I've never really heard before, but if it were true, I would absolutely love to see the archaeological confirmation of this claim
Jesus wept because Mary Magdalene lost a foot race to a man.
Jesus wept so that in the future people would have another exclamation to use when they are frustrated.
There are many volunteers who quite because of what happened. Objectively subjective covered that and did an amazing job
People get upset, the aca have apologised, RR has apologised, move on...
@@unit0033 Can't. None of this actors have told me what the fuck was wrong.
Sorry Matt but the ACA was totally wrong in their statement. I've watched the RR videos and Stephen states he supports all the LGBT community in regards to Human Rights. The issue of Trans males competing against biological women in sport is a seperate issue and someone who raises this issue is NOT being transphobic. The situation is rife for exploitation in professional sport where big money is involved. Yes, the entire world of women's professional sport is under threat. It needs to be discussed and examined. It is not a Human Rights issue. It's a fame and fortune ($) issue that also involves inter-sex people. (Hermapradites) and is very complex.
Except that he was wrong, he admitted such
@@Richard-jm3um Hi. SOME of his "facts" were wrong/incorrect but this is an area I've researched extensively. It is a complex issue. As a former competitive track athlete I understand the types of issues this raises. Including the even more complex inter-sex athletes who were born that way (hermaphredites) sp? But have NOT had any surgery nor artificial hormonal adjustments. Just being female with higher than normal levels of testosterine. An advantage yes but born that way. Just like male Basketball players who are 7'6" tall have a natural advantage over males who are 5'6" tall. Should the tall players be excluded? No.
I watched Bruce Jenner win a Gold medal at the 1976 Montreal Olympics Mens Decathlon. He had 25 years of building his muscle, bones , strength and stamina and was also the world record holder at that time. Imagine if, 4 years later as Catylyn Jenner, she competed in the women's pentathlon at the 1980 games! (Leaving out that USA boycotted those games) She would have DESTROYED the female field. Would that have been fair to the biological women in the field? A big, fat, NO.
@@johnwilson5743 Well that's where the fact that the facts were wrong affects the discussion, because in the process of transitioning the treatments that they take not only affects their hormones but their phisique as well, including their muscle mass and bone structure, and there's the fact that most competitive athletes keep about the same place in their respective disciplines, plus Bruce Jenner was already a world record holder, so why should it be any different after they transition?
@@johnwilson5743 Anything on your extensive research that? Or just your prejudices getting in the way?
@@Richard-jm3um Ha. Ha. Are you being deliberately ignorant or were you just born that way? As you stated, if Bruce Jenner was already a Men's world record holder, the question should be "would it be fair to biological women for him to compete as a trans male in the Women's event"? You obviously have no understanding of what is going on the the wider area of WOMEN'S sport. Recently there were some High School MALES who claimed they "related" as female and competed in the girls track sprint events. They were not adults, were not subject to Olympic criteria re Trans athlete controls, had not had gender reassignment surgery nor took hormones to restrict their male hormones. They were, as the Brits call it, "a cock in a frock". Was that fair? They blocked other biological females from a chance of gaining College scholorships when they destroyed the female race NOTE: As males in male races they were only average performers. As Trans females they were potential superstars, at least at High School level. This whole thing is a complex subject and, I repeat, is NOT a Human Rights issue. Often it is about fame and fortune ($).
At least the Olympic committee are attempting to create a level playing field. Other sports, particularly professional sports like Tennis, Martial arts, Cycling etc still have to formulate how they will deal with it. Many tennis people say that the top 500 males could defeat the top 3 women tennis players. How long before some male ranked around 400 decides he would do better as a Trans athlete and potentially make millions. The entire womens professional sport is open for exploitation and the sporting community is very concerned.
Hey, Murri found fellow atheists and groups, but in Ithaca, NY I just can't find one. Anyone have suggestions? I sent multiple messages to American Atheists asking if they knew of an Ithaca group and I heard nothing back.
Daniel, and others like him;
If you answer a question and someone asks about why you answered that way, DO NOT ask questions. Whatever information you had in your head when you answered is the ONLY thing the person is asking ,why, about.
If you say matt cheated and get asked why, you answer with whatever you were thinking when you said yes. Theists always ask more.
If you say yes, you made a decision. If you ask more questions in order to say why, you are getting new information which had NOTHING to do with your original answer.
"Nobody was telling me what to do or what to think." Well Murri, Stephen Rationality Rules obviously had a different experience with the ACA. LOL
Unfair comparison
Thank you the atheist experience show ,I have an open mind now because of you guys .
The RR/Trans issue is being a good chance to learn more about how trans people feel and to sharpen communication skills. It is good to have things out in the open. This can be an opportunity for education.
nancy white yeah..a lot of people aren’t interested in that, though. That’s been mad pretty clear
@@paymyrent7516 One can but try.
It should be, but unfortunately, it is instead being used to further marginalize an already extremely marginalized group. I was watching Secular Talk today and Kyle played a clip of Newt Gingwich quoting Stephen's "Transgenders are taking over woman's sports" rhetoric. Kyle's topic had nothing to do with any of this Stephen thing, it was just a part of a larger clip that was the topic. The fact that this video made it up the chain to someone like Newt, a man who helped to impeach a sitting President, just demonstrates just how far-reaching the damage goes.
The original video and clips from it has been and are still being passed around alt-right and neo-nazi sites and online groups and forums like 4chan and various other hate-based groups with the implied authority of scientific rigor. The video is being used to bolster the ranks of these hate groups and increase morale. No matter what Stephen changes at this point, the damage is done. Even after Stephen deletes the video, it's already been DL'd and archived by these groups. As a result, real people are going to suffer real harm as a result of that original video. Regardless of how one defines transphobic, there's no denying the potentiality of harm that video will and can propagate.
Having said this, I was very active on the ACA discord for about a week during this and did have some productive discussions on the topic that changed minds, so it's not a total loss, but there's no denying that the wins are vastly outweighed by the loses here. Sadly, overall, it's a net loss :(
Why does a trans athlete's feelings supersede that of a biological female athletes'?
Shayna Lynn shouldn’t the point be; is this Fair to all female athletes? It’s not, nor does someone asserting HRT reverses the benefits make it true. I understand the knee jerk reflex of wanting to show compassion, but that is best done in Legislature,,,science should rule the effort to make sports as fair as possible....
I’m glad Matt tried to explain the RR situation, but it didn’t need 30+ minutes. I only watched about 15 minutes and got enough info to have a ‘good enough’ basic understanding of what happened.
Matt brings up a great observation. Even when we have evidence we are often wrong. What’s the chance that faith is going to lead us to the truth?
Faith is as unreliable as a coin toss. It's been tested.
Matt, look up the word "pedantic" -- not at all what his video was. His video showed the real-life consequences of allowing men to take away athletic opportunities from women. He used science. He used clips from men and women. He researched. He gave good points. It was an intellectual argument. You might disagree with it, and maybe eventually I will think he's wrong, but it was not pedantic at all. It used a combination of story-telling and argument, and it was an obviously well-researched video. Now, he might have been wrong, but your description of the video is not fair.
I think Matt was talking about his personal conversations with Steven on the topic of his video when he called him pedantic.
Even RR admits he was wrong.
D Sab
No. He admits his research was faulty. That doesn’t mean the overall point was wrong.
@@powbobs Sure, but he said he has changed his "views" about trans women in sports in his apology video. I guess we won't find out until he does a video on his new views and what mistakes he admits to making.
Matt, whose FAULT is it that everything is being hashed out in public without the information? 100% is the ACA's fault. ZERO of the fault goes to RR.
Fook the ACA.....Bunch of drama Queens....like i say i am trans and i get shit on by people on a daily basis...matt is right about we have a exposed wire like a rabid dog that is mistreated all our lives.
Stephen made some public common sense comments about the transgenders. He should have expected the blow back.
Well, he made the video in the first place, and instead of taking it down he decided to pin a comment. So, RR had his own shit storm to deal with and the ACA is only fucken responsible for their contribution to it.
@@Uhlbelk So blame the victim...? No.
@demigodzilla He's not a bigot. He made a video in good faith. The ACA is the organization that began the actual problem.
Yaaaay! Love this show
45:35 Small Gods by Terry Pratchett.. Probably my favorite book of all time
Fairness in competition is a fundamental principle in sport. Fairness doesn't always mean equality. It means no one has an undue advantage. Being a biological male is an undue advantage in most women's sports for the same reasons we as a culture separated those sports by gender in the first place.
The god derived from superposition : read Small Gods by Terry Pratchett. Hilarious. Gods need believers or they cease to exist.
Strangely, it seams that way, not just with god, but with other gods and comic book characters that people no longer see on the mainstream.
God isn't cool anymore kids, he's not real.
@@dragonslayerornstein387No religion lasts forever, They all die out and are replaced by new religions.
@@happilyeggs4627 Eventually! 🙄
I'm cuttin me own hand off!