Brilliant Lecture on S*x & Gender w/ Spicy Q&A | Dr. Tomas Bogardus
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- In this video, Dr. Tomas Bogardus gives a lecture on s*x and gender and why this topic matters. At the end, students came up and asked questions. It got a bit spicy.
💸 Want to support CC? capturingchris...
✨ Free books! tinyurl.com/CC...
📱 Business inquiry? capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
He did a wildly good job on this talk. Never trying to make a name for himself or prove something beyond the intended goal
You should do a live call-in show with Dr Bogardus!
Seconded!
100%
Yes!
Yes!
If he does, I would love to participate !
Bogardus, IMO, is the most underrated guest Cameron has ever had on the show. Ended up reading one of Bogardus' papers and it was extremely enlightening.
He’s consistently one of my favorite guests. Check out our other videos!
@@CapturingChristianity Seem em all
Where did you get those papers? I'd like to read them.
@@CatherineKarena I just googled them. I think he has his own site, if I recall correctly
30:19 to 32:22 - Objection of being male/female when they can't produce the gametes.
32:22 to 35:20 - A language usage for sexes of other animals argument.
35:20 to 38:19 - Dictionary argument.
38:19 to 41:53 - The fact that it's the traditional view, and some want to change it.
41:53 to 44:06 - The biological determinist objection.
44:06 to 45:04 - The essentialist definition objection.
45:16 to 47:33 - Biological essentialist objections.
47:33 to 1:04:07 - The slogans and why even trans inclusive philosophers have moved away from them.
1:08:06 - Q & A.
Thanks!
It really is like watching someone explain why 2 + 2 = 4…and then having to defend it.
Funny you would say that, since many philosophers would say that there is nothing in _"capital R reality"_ (1:05:40) that corresponds to *"2+2=4"...*
@@MrGustavierfunny you should say that, since there are even more who say there is.
@@MrDantheNobody Oh... Do you think it's a contest about who has the biggest one ?
Mathematicians have proven 1+1 = 2 but it's hard
@@tomasrocha6139 It's hard from a set theoretical basis, but at some point we have to put faith in axiomatic truths (and Godels incompleteness theorem shows that there will never be "enough" axioms. The further we go, the more we will need). One could easily have a system of mathematics that has axioms closer to the proposition that 2+2=4 thus putting fewer steps between the axioms and the proposition and giving an easier time proving this fact from them. If you start with the Peano axioms, it's a long slog to first grade.
I don't "identify" as any gender and reject the whole concept of it being a separate thing from sex, which I see as nothing more than a physical thing that has nothing to do with my inner sense of self. I'm my individual mind/soul and my body feels like nothing more than a vessel that allows me to interact with the physical world. What I am physically doesn't define my internal sense of who I am at all. My sex is just another physical aspect of my body that simply determines my role in the reproductive process, that's it. It doesn't matter outside of the physical world and certainly isn't a defining aspect of who I am internally/spiritually.
Except it does define you. Youre different to a man beyknd physically
You say you understand your sex as a physical thing, but what does it mean to say you have no gender? What qualitative difference does it make in your life? Just curious.
@@ponygirl6258 I believe there is only sex and I don't believe in the concept of social gender. The clothes you wear or how you cut your hair have nothing to do with being a man or woman. The idea that a woman who wants to wear a suit with short hair should be identifying as a man, because that's "masculine" according to some people is just wrong. A woman is someone who's sex is female. What she wears doesn't change that no matter how many people in society may claim she "looks like a man" or whatever. People should be able to wear whatever they want without what sex they are coming into question.
@@jyllianrainbow7371 So true. The entire concept of "gender" is strange and superfluous. You are what you are and that's OK.
@@jyllianrainbow7371 well ur OBJECTEVLY WRONG im sorry but ur just OBJECTIVELY WRONG ur just went ´í believe in fire but its not hot´ ur bullshitting and have NO idea actually i wanna know did u got to a school for ´special´kids
Tomas Bogardus and Alex Bryne are the GOATS in this topic. Just ordered Alex's book, looking forward to Tomas' new book later on this year.
Do you know when is his book coming out?
This was extremely clear and well done. I have read other Christian philosophers on gender before, and found them helpful. But this seemed to me maybe the best overall presentation of the relevant issues I've seen.
At 1:25:50… that was very interesting on why we have both sex and gender. I’ve never really thought of that.. For instance, if I say “tonight, I’m gonna bake a fresh female”.. Someone may say what? What do you mean? And I would say “oh, I’m baking a hen. “. Makes so much sense now
Ask him if Agua means water or something totally different😂
No entiendo. 😞
@@tbogardus1 Can you debate @rationalityrules on sex and gender? He recently debated Colin Wright on the topic.
@kahner93 I had a conversation slash civil disagreement with him recently for like 3 hours. He plans to publish it soon.
No shot😂😂 what a moment of clarity
I see the first questioner brought up the "brain sex" argument - which is kind of a new, strange argument bandied about in online debate a lot.
Here's the thing - if you read the brain sex studies, almost all of them conclude that (via statistical analysis using TRAINED ml algorithms) that trans people have a brain sex closer to their natal observed sex (legal biological sex) and with a higher confidence.
And this is highly dependent on what part of the brain is studied, and how much of the brain is studied, and whether you're also using behavioural cues. i.e. if you study one particular part of the brain, the algorithm predicts observed sex more poorly, if you study the entire brain the algorithm will overwhelmingly predict observed biological sex and with an extreme confidence.
It's not only philosophically a failure, but an empirical non starter. And this is all even assuming that we believe the neurochemistry for the brain can produce a category of this nature - I don't think it can since the neurochemistry of the brain is also highly correlated to many maladies.
Yeah the brain sex argument as you put it, or the true scum position that being trans is fundamentally physical, just doesn't work philosophically or in the real world
I always ask: "psychopaths have their own neurochemistry, don't they get a sex category all for themselves?" Never heared an answer...
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Yes indeed, I've used that example too.
I found it interesting that Forrest Valkai pointed out how "trans peoples brains tend to match the opposite of the sex they were assigned at birth" but then immediately goes on to say that "homosexuals also have brains that differ from heterosexuals".
It seems the irony was lost of him, because he didn't even realize that his logic implies that homosexuals are a different gender.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescriptionin which case you’d likely have to include every condition with neurochemical elements (like schizophrenia).
Questions I would ask Dr. Bogardus,
1) When the trans community uses nomenclature like "male to female" and "female to male", is this language simply mistaken?
2) If yes, then should their language (for their view) change to "male woman" and "female man"?
3) Given the biological view of man/woman, is it wrong to transition? Or can transitioning be justified in some cases (such as intersex cases)? (Or is transitioning wrong for other reasons?)
4) If yes, then what do we do about gender dysphoria?
5) There are pressures in society to look a certain way, dress a certain way, etc, based on your perceived status as male or female. We might call these "gendered social pressures". These are also referred to as gender norms, which are beliefs about what is _right_ or _wrong_ for men and women to do _as men and women._ For example, it's wrong for a woman to marry a woman, it's wrong for a woman to fight in war, it's wrong for a man to be a stay at home dad, etc. Being a man or a woman is a performance in society. Someone can "fail" to be masculine or feminine enough.
a) Are these gendered social pressures grounded in reality, or are they, to be blunt, stupid?
b) Do you believe in gender abolitionism, the view that we would be better off without gendered social pressures?
c) Does the biological view (W = AFH) help or hurt the cause of gender abolitionism?
d) If gendered social pressures are harmful, then what can we do to eliminate them, or are they unavoidable?
e) If gendered social pressures are unavoidable, then doesn’t it make sense why someone might want to identify as non-binary or trans to escape those pressures?
I'm not Tomas Bogardus, but here's my take on it:
1) My understanding is that the trans community is in practice mostly using gender terms in senses 2-3, while claiming they were using them in senses 4-5. In other words: trans people are in practice saying they are or want to be (perceived) like the opposite sex. Understood in that way they are not mistaken. Problems start when claims are made that trans people were not just like the opposite sex in certain ways, but were _of_ the opposite _gender_ in senses 1, 4 or 5.
2) Terms like "male woman", "female man" and even "trans man" and "trans woman" are confusing and indeed often misunderstood, because they assume a certain (not commonly shared) meaning of "male", "female", "man" and "woman". The terms male-to-female and female-to-male are well established and easily understood even by persons not familiar with more specialised terms.
3) The biological view describes reality. It does not prescribe morals. You cannot get an ought from an is. Transitioning is justified in some cases. Certainly in intersex cases like 5α-Reductase deficiency. This moral fact is neither justified nor contradicted by the biological view.
4) There are many ways to treat a dysphoria with or without transitioning. How a certain medical condition is best treated is something physicians are exploring and applying in practise. The biological view does not prescribe treatments (neither does it give contraindications). Tomas Bogardus is a philosopher trained in biology, not a physician. I happen to be a physician. It seems strange to me that you want to ask a philosopher or biologist about how to treat a psychological symptom like dysphoria. Better ask a specialized physician or psychiatrist.
5a) gendered social norms are a reality. I'm not sure what you mean by "grounded in reality". Some of them are stupid, some are sensible.
5b) I believe your definition of gender abolitionism is too weak. Gender abolitionism seeks to abolish all sexed behaviours, expressions, expections. Not just "pressures". In my mind sexed behaviour, expressions, expectations, … shouldn't be abolished nor do I believe they can be abolished. Certainly, the more stupid expectations should be worked against.
5c) I'd say the biological view it is helpful in discriminating sexed norms that are helpful (to some further goal like equal rights or equal opportunities) from sexed norms that are arbitrary or even harmful.
5d) They are unavoidable. We can teach our kids that (1) women and men are different in few and similar in many other ways (2) there are differing expectations towards women and men (3) nobody needs not comply with those (sexed or unisex) expectations in order to be human, woman or man.
5e) I suspect most non-binary people identify in such a way to escape social norms, which brings me back to 1): Most of the trans issues seem to be about sexed social roles and not about any deeper meaning or essence of gender.
Thanks for the replies 👍
The point of addressing dysphoria is because Bogardus’ views might be seen as invalidating the trans identity and thus invalidating transitioning. But curing / treating gender dysphoria validates transitioning. So if Bogardus wants his case to be complete he will have to address that.
Analogy: It’s not very satisfying to say “There is no God” and leave it at that. But if you can say “There is no God and here’s how the universe began without a God”, then you have a much stronger case.
@@BenStowell I'm afraid you are mistaken on multiple levels, depending on what you mean by (in)validate:
You seem to presuppose that validating identities was intrinsically good / invalidating them was intrinsically bad. This is wrong. Whatever you mean by "invalidate", there are plenty of examples where validating an identity is obviously wrong: The identity of being Arian; identifying as a competent physician, when you are not; identifying as worthless …
An identity could be "invalidated", if it is plainly false. Like a person without a degree identifying as surgeon. On a strictly biological view, most transgender identities are false in that sense. But an identity could also be "invalidated", if it is just incomprehensible. This happens when people say things like "a mowan is someone who identifies as a mowan."
But when someone says, he was of feminine gender (2. meaning of gender) or is applying stereotypical female norms to himself (3. meaning of gender), then the biological view won't object in any way.
In this general area there are loud, but meaningless discussions going on. Because mostly people are talking past each other: Some are talking about gender in senses 2-3, while others are talking about biological sex. When you talk about different things, you will certainly disagree on the properties of those things and how to treat them. That's why Bogardus recommends to avoid gender terms and instead explicitely say what you are talking about. The problem is, many people adhering to trans ideology (that's not the same as being trans), refuse to make that explicit, but insist, that someone just "is a man" or "is a woman", without saying what that's actually supposed to mean.
As a cultural Christian atheist I think Thomas’ philosopher colleagues would benefit from reading Peter 3:15. How rude to call him stupid for his beliefs.
As much as i loved Dr. Bogardus' showing how the revisionist definitions don't work, i'd like to see a more rigourous defense of keeping the traditional definitions of man and woman. I understand it would be hard to argue that we should keep these terms as organized around reproduction in a culture that downplays the social impact of reproduction. However, we need to get people to see through that blind spot. Even so, i do appreciate the talk for what it did do. Thanks professor Bogardus!
„Every definition is circular.“
Wow 😮
❤ Dr. Bogardus is such a treasure in this debate.
I've reviewed Dr. Bogardus' debate with Vaush. I even created a logic tree chart based on Dr. Bogardus' PowerPoint. What's fascinating is how Vaush completely ignores Bogardus' opening remarks, which preemptively refuted any possible position Vaush could assume. It demonstrated how logical rigor is not enough to shut down bad faith arguments.
I thought Vaush clearly accepted and refuted Bogardus' stance on his last category in his powerpoint : the one he called "nihilism".
Bogardus admitted as much in his debate review with "perspective philosophy".
The Reverend Doctor Bogardus exudes spice
I don't know if you'll ever see this comment, Dr. Bogardus, but I'll pose the question anyway. I'll borrow a term often used by Othodox Christians here to attempt to illustrate a difference in the way people appear to view this topic; that term being "Essence and Energies". It seems to me that many people view a thing's essence as synonymous with the definition of the thing, but that others view the thing's energies as synonymous with the definition of the thing. For example, you might say that the essence of a man is his adultness his, humanness, and his maleness; while the energies of a man may include interest in sports, a beard, or certain modes of dress.
I suppose what I'm actually describing here is just the biological view versus the social role view. Are there any that hold to the social role view that would apply this to other definitions? For example, a suitcase is actually a chair if you sit on it often enough. Or a boy who spends most of his time immitating his dad, and telling everyone he is his dad, is actually his dad.
Similarly, do you think that the social role view suffers from the failure to recognize that qualities/performance/social position are energies and not essence?
If we have to this convo - to clarify things for people 😢 as a society we are done already 😢
Bogardus would probably be the first to admit that gender philosophy is a difficult and complicated field.
If you think that complex questions are resolved through coloring book comprehension, you belong to the sector of society that is already done.
@@Nitroade24 No, it’s mostly just common sense. People just make careers out of it, because they can.
You obviously don't have to, most people the vast majority of people use the words men and women to refer to adult male and female humans the vast majority of the time
@@tomasrocha6139 The vast majority of people don't speak English, so no.
Let’s goooo
Bogardus 🎉
I'd disagree on the concession around hour 1:00:00
that is not a definition. it can be a true statement about males, but it is not a definition. Definitions tell you what a word means. It's a failed attempt at a definition. Or if you want to define "definition" as "a statement meant to tell you what a word means", then it's a flawed definition because it doesn't do what it's trying to do.
I cannot consider anyone that doesn't see a problem with non-definitions as someone arguing in good faith AND that has the intellectual ability to actually understand what's being talked about.
Hello Dr.B, how would you deal with the subject of directed acyclical graphs?
where all words are defined such as with A AND B are defined by E, E has its own definition meaning that all words are secular by nature, does this pose a problem for defining men and women if all word are defined by other words, meaning its secular by nature?
Do you mean to raise the objection the young woman rose about the intrinsic circularity of definitions that use words on account of those words being defined by other words?
How is a directed acyclical graph circular? It is in fact acyclic, which I think is specifically defined by being non-circular. This would end up amounting to a kind of foundationalism, I think, as some words would end up not being analyzable in other terms, i.e., are primitives. This way there are no circular definitions. Some words are primitives. "Good" is one such example, following GE Moore
Romans 1:22-25 LSB
[22] Professing to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the likeness of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. [24] Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. [25] For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Jesus lives ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Would love to know Dr. Bogardus’s thoughts on defining woman as: someone who identifies with the social roles and expectations commonly associated with adult human females
This definition seems to tie the self id view and social role view but avoids circularity. It benefits from the power of someone self identifying being necessary and sufficient (and thus all trans women would be women)
I have my own objections to this but I’d rather hear a more educated opinion
It sounds like the proposal is, roughly: x is a woman if and only if x is pro-femininity? As a description of how the word is actually used, it doesn't seem right. Some women are not pro-feminity (e.g. radical feminists, butch lesbians). As a revisionary proposal, it won't respect everyone's self-ID. Trans femme non-binary folks are pro-femininity, but don't identify as women. Butch trans women are not feminine, but identify as women.
What he would say is that it is not an inclusive definition. Even the main proponents of this definition now recognize it as a failed definition. Not every trans woman can be included in your definition of what a woman is.
There arebiological women who would n't fit your definition, and same for some transwomen
This isn't an argument, just an observation from my perspective, but I didn't find his arguments convincing. Relatively consistent philosophically but that doesn't make the conclusions true.
I still enjoyed watching though. It's interesting if nothing else.
Do you find arguments for self-id definitions for gender convincing?
@@Goblin-Nixon no lol
That's why I appreciate the discussion.
@@jessewinn5563 interesting, so you disagree with the professor and self-id. Out of curiosity, what definition of gender do you hold to?
@MyEnemiesLoveDeath honestly, I'm living in the tension right now. I know that's not really am answer but it's all I got right now. I do appreciate the more civil approach in this lecture. Both by him and those who disagree.
@jessewinn5563 that's a more honest and humble answer than I'm used to seeing in RUclips comments
Hey, that was a nice talk. So, given that these terms are used the way you describe, I gather you are against revision. If that's right, why?
Not to speak on Dr. Bogardus' behalf but I imagine he would say that a precondition for revision is having a coherent definition with which to replace the current definition. I imagine he would further say that the benefit of any new terminology should outweigh whatever cons there are including the introduction of confusion and ambiguity.
Can you share, if possible, the pdf of this lecture. Thanks!
The url is at the bottom of the first slide. RUclips is very uncool about letting me share urls here in the comments.
@@tbogardus1thank you for all you have done on this topic; it’s really helped me firm up my view and strengthen my arguments. I have read your paper evaluating sex/gender distinctions several times. I’ve also watched all your discussions with Vaush, Destiny, TJump, Dr. Avi and Ask Yourself, as well as those on this channel, multiple times. I just wanted to say I really appreciate you and your work.
@murderparker7968 Very glad to hear it's been useful. 🙏
If you ever have to say "I identify as a..." it means you are involving someone else's opinion.
Why can't you say 'sex' on RUclips? This seems a part of this discussion and what activism has achieved. It makes certain terms offensive, that speaking becomes too arduous. It's all about controlling the narrative.
how can students that are so uninformed on a topic be so invested in it? surely if you care enough to make posters and protest, you also do enough research that you dont ask questions that dumb?
It seems that Bogardus has cauliflower ears. Is he doing wrestling or bjj ?
Keen eye, my friend. I wrestled in high school, a little more in grad school, and no gi bjj for the last 9 years.
In this talk, acknowledging the dictionary definition is fair. Appealing to it is insane.
This talk is highlighting the failure of language to clarify the problem but isn't offering terms to provide that clarity and so is betraying his motivation to speak on the topic.
What do you have in mind as the problem that language fails to clarify?
@@tbogardus1 have you watched the video? He repeatedly says "the dictionary says this and isn't clear, so we can't determine anything," and so throwing up his hands in feigned dismay.
@@derekschmidt5705 Yes, I watched the video. In fact, I was there in person for the event. I don't recall that quotation. Can you provide a timestamp?
Great talk! As a left-wing atheist who's opposed to the trans movement, I only have one serious disagreement with it, which is that I don't think the belief that philosophers should try to change the world for the better is necessary a bad thing, nor does it necessarily lead to conceptual engineering.
I oppose trans movement's conceptual engineering in part because it makes the world worse for women, by eliminating the ability to accurately document women's oppression. The pursuit of an accurate understanding of reality (i.e. truth) is not generally at odds with the goal of making the world better. In fact, if your goal is to make the world better, you should start with an accurate understanding of reality.
Note that Marx said philosophers have "only" interpreted the world, implying that he probably didn't interpreting the world was a bad thing. He just didn't think it should be the end of the process. First you gain an accurate understanding of reality, then you work with that understanding to make the world better. This is very different from the post-modernist belief that we shouldn't care about objective reality.
I don't mean this as a defence of Marxism generally. I just think we should be careful not to lump together viewpoints that are very different. In fact implying that post-modernists were building off ideas like Marxism and feminism, when post-modernism is really all about smashing everything down (including old school leftist ideas about how to make the world better), gives them more credit than they deserve.
This is an interesting thought piece! I am not a left-wing atheist, I’m a not-anything (maybe liberal) theist but I have many atheist friends who share the exact position that you do and feel very dismayed by the transmovement for the reason you state, the oppression of women. I would tend to agree that the transmovement doesn’t help women per se, but it’s a stretch to suggest that it degrades or endangers women due only to the number of transpersons reporting such a condition, even if they are deceptive about that condition. I would be more on your side if say the numbers of transpersons were 30 to 40% of the population say.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on some left wings arguments that suggest the transmovement is a kind of corrupted religious movement, and all rational atheists should be wary of the movement because of its fundamental religious nature. I believe the example that’s often bandied about the Catholic conception of transubstantiation where Catholics believe that bread and wine that have all the appearances of and bread and wine are in essence the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Some atheists argue that transgender ideology makes the same claim that the appearance of the human may be one sex, but in reality the human has a true essence of the opposite sex. And because Catholicism is irrational (so argues the atheist) and it holds this transubstantiation view, then transgender ideology by comparison likewise is irrational.
I personally find that argument a bit defeating as religions are very clear that there are two sexes, male and female. Those sexes may be the result of divine creation and biology has revealed that material truth but there are only two sexes by default of creation.
What’s your take on that? Is this a helpful argument in the atheist world or does it just serve to incite more emotion than necessary?
@@emiliawisniewski3947 I think if trans-ideology results in a single woman is harmed by trans ideology (e.g. has to deal with a dude in her bathroom / changing room / domestic violence shelter / lesbian dating app / sporting competitions / prison or unnecessarily alters her body because of the ideology) that counts as a harm to women. It shouldn't have to happen to massive numbers of women before it becomes a problem worth taking seriously.
Also small problems can turn into large problems if you don't address them straight away. The number of people identifying as trans is way larger than it used to be and it's largely the result of the ideology, so when that gets taught in schools (and generally spreads throughout society) the number of people identifying as trans increases massively. I don't know what the numbers are right now, but it could easily get to 30% - 40% if we don't challenge it.
As for the comparison to religion, I don't think it's motivated by the Catholic belief in trans-substantiation. Helen Joyce has made that comparison, but I don't think most atheist opponents of trans ideology do. The comparison largely comes from the fact that we see both trans ideology and religion as irrational beliefs that are socially mandated in various ways (meaning you get punished for disbelieving in them). You might not think this is true of religion if you're an atheist, but we do so the comparison makes sense to us.
We reject to the imposition of irrational beliefs and yes, I think this is worth objecting to on its own independent of the harm done to women, cos it's harmful to people who like to think critically.
Interesting! Thanks for your reply!
I take your point on harm to any single woman as being a motivator to opposing transideology. I don’t necessarily disagree per se, I would say use a similar argument in arguing against abortion (any harm to human life…etc.).
Here I was thinking of the standard objection that opponents present to this argument namely “do you think all transpersons are evil?!”And some will demand statistical proof of that claim which there’s very little evidence of (as there is very few transpersons, let alone transpersons engaging in crime). And that also leaves no room for those persons who genuinely wish to alleviate their suffering through life as a transperson (how irrational or immoral I think the concept is, or uncomfortable I feel about this personally) and will occupy spaces deemed for women and cause no physical or mental harm to women.
In conjunction we do in fact have far more spaces where men and women are not sex segregated where opportunities for harm to women exist and occur by the opposite sex that we have limited desire to police (e.g. homes, schools, bars and clubs, workplaces). So for those reasons I think the idea that preventing harm to every single woman (although very laudible) is a bit too unrealistic. There could indeed be some space for a transperson to occupy a space reserved for women without their being any harm caused to any women.
So therefore I think arguments on the grounds of rationality are typically stronger that arguments on the basis of feminism. Although, I’m not here to dissuade you of course, you appear to argue the point well.
I do sometimes find my atheists feminist friends sometimes find themselves slipping up when it comes to trans ideology especially if they have family members that are undergoing a process of transition (which is understandable, that is very emotive and challenging) or some that make concessions say for women who would call themselves non-binary by acknowledging these women may not be women but are indeed female and therefore different to men/males (who should be entirely excluded) but as a consequence this means that women must give up their woman-identifying traits and adopt non-sex specific terms like “person who menstruates, person who births”. There is in fact a non-binary (so-called) woman in a social group mine who argued we dispose of all female identifying attributes of the group (e.g. remove “ladies” from group title) in order to allow for non-binary persons (presumably only female ones) to feel included.
So in some ways, the problem of trans-ideology transcends men who identify as women and is perpetuated by feminism (or rather trans inclusive feminists).
Anyhow, I shall cease my pontification. Thanks for engaging!
@@emiliawisniewski3947 For the record, I think arguing that abortion doesn't happen very often would be a weak defence of abortion too. Unlike most defenders of abortion, I agree that the morality of it does hinge on whether fetuses are persons.
I think males can cause harm to women just by being in a female-only space cos women go to those spaces expecting there to only be women there, so if they walk in and see a man that's inherently confronting, particularly for women who've experienced rape / domestic violence.
The morally good thing for biological males to do is to recognise that women are scared of their larger more physically powerful bodies and just stay out, regardless of how non-evil they think they are. My hubby's the sweetest guy ever, but I don't expect other women to let him into female-only spaces and as a good guy he doesn't object to being asked to stay out. I think all males should be held to that standard and given psychological help (which includes educating them on the importance of respecting women's boundaries) if they say they can't handle it.
That said, any arguments about whether various spaces need to be women-only in the first place is no longer a discussion about trans ideology, since trans ideology only claims that males with a certain mystical gender identity feeling should be let into women's spaces. If you think there's no need to have spaces just for women in the first place you're arguing against women's rights more generally. I think a lot of trans ideologues have this position but won't come out and say it cos they know the public would oppose it.
Aww thanks!
I don't think there's any conflict between the "rationalist" arguments against trans ideology and feminist arguments against trans ideology. You can make both, especially since all arguments use reason. Also, they go hand in hand with each other. When I tell people I oppose trans ideology, people generally agree that it's irrational, but wanna know why they should care. That's when it's useful to bring up the harms to women (and various other groups). Other times you start off talking about the harms to women and they say "but transwomen are women" and that's when you have to counter that by pointing out how irrational that belief is. So it's all connected.
Yeah, avoiding the use sexed-language with terms like "person who menstruates" is obnoxiously de-humanising.
And yes, I think the problem is the ideology and not just the actions of trans-identified males, though they cause they most harm directly.
@@pamelaglickman1216 Thanks! You have definitely made me think of the feminist position more broadly than I have been thinking previously.
If I reflect on it more, I think we do agree on the issue of protection of women. If I could force all transpersons to remain adherents to their natal sex in appearance, and demand sex-segregated spaces maintain their distinction, then I personally think the world would be a much better place. I inherently believe that to be true. So where you say that a woman should be able to enter a space that is reserved for females because she feels safe there (to say undress or swim or pray etc.) then I in principle agree.
The squishiness in the principle for me comes from my Christian beliefs that not only grants that women have dignity and are made in the image and likeliness of God but so too all persons. So my concern now extends to these male persons who identify as women. My internal thinking on this matter is usually “this person has a mental illness, they deserve my compassion”. Are transpersons mentally ill? I don’t know, to me it seems they must have some psychological issue that is causing them such distress that only appears to (albeit in very small cases) to subside when they are perceived by the outside world as the opposite sex, even if they know they are the sex they are. To me this seems like a body dysmorphic condition, and should carry no shame. But because I’m an engineer and not a psychologist my opinions on these matters are of limited value.
So what are we to do with these transpersons? Is usually my question. Sure there are those who are male that are deliberately intending to harm women by gaining access to female only spaces by claiming to be women. But there will some cases of males identifying as women who now by perhaps by pernicious forces outside their control (i.e. transaffirming medical practioners) now are visually indistinguishable from the opposite sex. For a transman in that case to use a female bathroom (that corresponds to their natal sex) would likely put females in perceived danger (in the way you describe) and I personally would feel extremely uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a transman man as I can’t tell a transman man from a man in some cases. But to ask these same transmen to enter a male bathroom defeats the principle we are arguing for (i.e. sex separation).
But I can appreciate that neither of us are arguing for policing of change rooms and toilets, and no one is going to be checking a person’s sex at the door to either. I think we’re both saying that the larger concept of woman defined as adult human female is now under attack. Instead of making specific exceptions for specific cases we’re now trying to say broadly that women (and men) as a concept cease to exist because a statistically insignificant proportion of humanity would maybe feel more comfortable if this were true.
Anyhow, I’m pontificating again. I did appreciate you pointing out that the feminism provides the motivation for your attitude to this ideology. And you need more than simply rational arguments in your arsenal to be convincing. So perhaps I need to go away and work out what my motivational arguments!
Thanks for helping me broaden my view!
This really feels like a massive waste of time. It’s mostly just stupidity that forces over complicating for clarification.
Conservatives and Christian’s will keep calling it a “waste of time” and “why are we even asking this question” while the revisionists continue to destroy the country and win the public over to their definitions
The whole topic of gender is rife with confusion. Do you think careful clarification of definitions is not important?
@@sunblaze8931 I think the whole thing is just silly, and the people causing the confusion ought not be given any attention at all. It’s a waste of time, and making things worse, because we could be spending that time on things that actually matter.
@@brando3342 "the people causing the confusion ought not be given any attention" in my experience, ignoring areas of disagreement doesn't lead to peace, it only leads to more disagreement.
What the hell is going on with this guys microphone?
What also seems strange to me is that according to the statistics of my home country for completed gender reassignment operations, the proportion of female to male changes is less than 25% of the conversions and the proportion of all conversions* is around 0.08% of the population. * calculated from the latest statistical data and the decades in which people have undergone this procedure. You also have to remember that in my home country at least 2 psychological + various medical examinations are required. An operation can only be carried out after the age of adulthood, the assessment by doctors and psychologists and possible preparations do not start before the age of 14.
Why do more biologically male people seem to feel the desire for the other biological sex?
Do they really feel "more feminine" or are they being talked into it by derogatory comments (crybaby, wimp, "you're acting like a girl" etc.)?
His repeated use of the phrases “we’re told” and “so called” are genuine distractions and forms of rhetorical manipulation that turn me off from taking his presentation seriously.
Would you recommend different phrasing to make the same points he was attempting to make?
@@davidr1620 yes! Instead of saying “we’re told” he could use neutral phrases like “some argue” or “the claim is…”
@@GlovesOff_jc just a tad over-sensitive on your part; don’t you think?
@@davidr1620 I am“sensitive” to rhetorical strategies that I see employed by people who want to frame the conversation so as to position themselves as brave dissenters. It annoys me. It seems they can’t help but smuggle in their persecution complex.
@@GlovesOff_jc something tells me that you’re most offended by the fact that he doesn’t agree with you.
How much of this mess is a result of insane lie that everyone should and can go to University? This is la ow-iq problem. These people should have done other things in life. Everyone looses.
I would like first to make a point spanning epistemology (more particularly theories of truth) and the philosophy of language. Bogardus says at 12:00 that he is _"interested in the truth",_ and at 1:05:40 he says :
_"Another picture of philosophy is that at its core it's just the project of understanding. That's the purpose of philosophy, to try to understand reality, Capital R reality, understand how everything fits together, that's the purpose of philosophy. It's not primarily an ethical project it's primarily an epistemic project we're just trying to learn more truths about reality"._
And at 1:07:56 he confirms : _"I'm on the understanding side"_
There you go. Here Bogardus presupposes that an _"epistemic project"_ must have something to do with _"reality"..._ Which begs the question of anti-realist theories of truth : truth doesn't need to have anything to do with _"reality"._
Around 33:00 Bogardus gives the example of the distinction that is introduced into language between males and females of domesticated species whose _"reproduction"_ humans are _"interested"_ in...
An instrumentalist approach of language will argue that words are validated by the utility they provide for the locutors of a language. According to that view, words don't need to have anything to do with _"capital R reality",_ they just need to relevantly respond to an _"interest"_ that the locutors have.
In particular, someone who has no _"interest in the reproduction of humans"_ will probably not try to fulfil the same goal with the use of the words "male" and "female" as Bogardus does, one would probably cease to use them, or "repurpose" them entirely to answer a different kind of goal (social, political, ethical, scientific, etc...).
For the religious man, _"being fruitful and multiplying"_ can be a commandment from god, and explain why he will be _"interested in the reproduction of humans"._ At 46:30 Bogardus says :
_"Some things are defined physically but are very socially significant they're really wonderful and interesting and great despite the fact that they're physical or chemical or biological"._
Here we have the religious view seeping through, and we can recognize the classical Aristotelian view defended by Koons, Horn, Feser and the likes, according to whom "frustrating" a natural function is immoral, which carries the controversial view that somehow the way nature works is _"great"_ or _"wonderful",_ since it is, according to them, created by an omnibenevolent god.
For the transhumanist, nature (including his own) is something from which he strives to emancipate himself. For a transhumanist, _"reproduction"_ itself can be something from which to free oneself... So he might not have any _"interest in the reproduction of humans"_ (same for the antinatalist).
If however that transhumanist has indeed an _"interest in the reproduction"_ of humans, that interest can be formed around the idea of liberating himself from reproduction, so if "male" and "female" are terms that are relevant for human reproduction, then they are terms from which that transhumanist will want to unshackle himself.
Notice that if the instrumentalist approach of language is the right one, if the _"true"_ definition of a word is determined by the utility they provide for the locutors of a language, then BOTH the religious man and the transhumanist can pretend that their definition is _"true",_ since they would both validate the criterion that determines which definition is _"true"_ according to their _"interest"._
The second point I would like to make is about sex realism. When Bogardus says in the beginning that he is _"interested in the truth"_ (12:00), and when he clarifies at the end that he wants to _"understand capital R reality"_ (1:05:40), in that case asserting that there is a _"truth"_ about sex would be akin to asserting that sex is real : sex realism. Which is begging the question of anti-realism about sex. If there is no such thing to which the words "sex", "male" and "female" correspond in reality (sex anti-realism), and if _"truth"_ is construed as what corresponds to reality, then there is no such thing as a _"true"_ proposition about sex. And Bogardus' _"interest in the truth"_ is vain.
On your first point. Define your terms and play a different game then. Suppose you take the pragmatic theory of truth, fine. You still understand, however, how he is using the word 'truth' in this context. Without dealing with his argument, you're just playing football while others are playing basketball. If that's what you want to do, it seems to me to not be a very pragmatic objection at all when you understand the meaning behind the utterances. ;^)
On the second point, I think that's just false. Consider the moral anti-realist. She asserts there is truth about morality. Truths like, 'There are no moral features in the world'. Consider the anti-realist about the external world. They have propositions with truth value as well. 'There is no external world'.
@@scroolagsquatamire8240 *-"On your first point. Define your terms and play a different game then. Suppose you take the pragmatic theory of truth, fine. You still understand, however, how he is using the word 'truth' in this context. Without dealing with his argument, you're just playing football while others are playing basketball. If that's what you want to do, it seems to me to not be a very pragmatic objection at all when you understand the meaning behind the utterances. ;^)"*
I'm not sure I understand...
If two interlocutors have different theories of truth, then they can both be _"interested in the truth"_ (and therefore both playing the same game), but would reach different conclusions.
They could both be correct in the sense that they comply with their own epistemic criterion, and both be wrong in the sense that they don't comply with the epistemic criterion of their interlocutor.
For your analogy about sports to be a good analogy, *"football"* would have to be a sport in which both teams could juge to have won the game and the opposing team to have lost.
*-"On the second point, I think that's just false. Consider the moral anti-realist. She asserts there is truth about morality. Truths like, 'There are no moral features in the world'. Consider the anti-realist about the external world. They have propositions with truth value as well. 'There is no external world'."*
Right, I see, I should have specified a bit more. Do you know the difference between meta ethics and normative ethics ? Meta ethic's goal is to make descriptive claims about what morality is. Normative ethic's goal is to make prescriptive claims about what one ought and ought not do.
To the extent that one is a moral anti-realist who accepts the correspondance theory of truth (CTOT), at the "meta" level, one might want to assert that *"there are no moral features in the world",* and defend that this is a true "meta" statement, but then all prescriptive claims would be "false" in the sense that if they try to capture something of reality, then they fail, since there are no such thing as real prescriptions (see _"error theory")._
You see what I mean ? So the same distinction could be used for sex realism. The anti-realist about sex who accepts the CTOT might want to make the "meta" claim that _"there is no such thing as sex in reality",_ and defend that this is a true "meta" statement, but then all claims trying to pick out properties of males and females would be "false" in the sense that if they try to capture something of reality, then they would fail, since there would be no such thing as males and females in reality. It would be a sort of error theory about sex. I hope this makes sense.
"This is a women only bathroom and this is what I mean by women" is the pragmatic example we can use to avoid multiplying definitions for the same word. If I'm building a women-only bathroom, it's my definition that becomes normative.
So on whay grounds can you hold to "sex anti-realism"? It sounds like a semantical position, not a philosophical one.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription *-"This is a women only bathroom and this is what I mean by women" is the pragmatic example we can use to avoid multiplying definitions for the same word. If I'm building a women-only bathroom, it's my definition that becomes normative."*
Sure, then I guess we would figure out what you mean by *"woman"* by seeing who you let in and who you keep out of your bathroom. But yeah, that would be a good example.
*-"So on whay grounds can you hold to "sex anti-realism"? It sounds like a semantical position, not a philosophical one."*
I'm not sure why you make the distinction here. A semantical position can be a philosophical one can it not ?
The *"grounds"* can be all the same philosophical arguments used for anti-realism in general. I recommend the video on youtube from Kane Baker titled _"Metaphysics - Ordinary Objects"_ on in his youtube channel called "Kane B". The very fact that people disagree on sex can be evidence for anti-realism (in a bayesian sense).
The *"grounds"* can also be scientific. Our best scientific theories (I'm thinking of neuroscience, cognitive sciences, connectionism) clearly indicate that anti-realism is true.
In your example above about a *"women only bathroom", "woman"* would be defined according to your personal preferences regarding who can use your bathroom and who cannot. In that case *"woman"* would not be real, that would be an example of anti-realism about *"woman".*
In general pragmatic theories are not realist theories.
@@MrGustavier I never studied this subject but to me it seems the difference between a semantical position and a philosophical one is that semantics is about defining words, while philosophy is about predicating.
If your semantic position is to define woman in some other sense, I'd explain the rules of my bathroom as "only for humans ordered towards producing ova". It would seem my philosophy stays the same while I concede your semantic position, which suggests they're different disciplines right?
Synonyms
yes that is the only meaning for gender a polite synonym and it should eliminated in law and society as a term. it creates needless confusion. some languages have multiple genders, animals have 2 sexes.
so dumb, he claims things cant be self identified, but that means anyone who claims to be a christian cant do that. if someone said they're a christian, i can just look at them and be like, you don't look like one from my perspective and that's that. how do i know you're not lying? i cant. this is silly, and shows that the person giving a lecture doesn't understand how people use words. basically, calling yourself a christian doesn't make you a christian.
Do you affirm or deny your last sentence? Calling yourself a Christian doesn't nessesarily entail that you are a Christian, right?
He's not claiming things cannot be self-identified. You can perfectly self-identify as a Californian, or as a Philosopher, or as a gamer. What he's actually saying is that you cannot be X only be virtue of identifying as X. You cannot be tall only by virtue of identifying as tall, you cannot be rich only by virtue of identifying as being rich. There's no feature X such that you are X if and only if you identify as X. If that's the case, then it follows that the definition "Someone is a woman if and only if she identifies as a woman" can't be true, it's necessarily false. That's his point.
Claiming to be a Christian doesn't make you a Christian, same with claiming to be a man or a woman
Us christians constantly tell Mormons and the Witnesses they are not christians, no matter if they identify as such. So I don't see the punch behind your argument
If a person who calls themselves a Christian doesn't look like a Christian from your perspective, then you would be lying if you continued to call them a Christian, because your internal belief is that they don't look like a Christian. How does a person's self-identification negate your perspective of who they appear to be?
Didn’t this guy get annihilated by, the albeit obnoxious, avi and ask yourself duo on this topic?
Did you actually watch the video? AY was very rude during the exchange and kept claiming that Bogardus was “dunking” on him when he merely restated back to him what he said. It was so hard to watch
@@jeremyluce4354 did you actually read my comment? I said they were obnoxious. Doesn’t mean they didn’t dunk on Bogardus, though.
@@Swifter315 Definitely did not dunk. Claiming to not understand what “proper function” means does not constitute an argument
@@jeremyluce4354 yes, it’s not an argument… because it’s not meant to be one.
It’s the burden of the normative realist to give an argument.
@Swifter315 You can read a response I typed up to AY at tìnƴůřl đọt ĉọm ṣłªsh AYresponse. I think he was confused about what "stance independent" means, and about how ostensive definitions work. Eventually, we three agreed that a standard naturalistic account of proper function was enough to move forward with.
"when we made these terms, this is what we meant, so that MUST be what we still mean regardless of any new information discovered since then" is just about as vapid of an argument for anything that I can imagine 🤦🏻♀️
But who made that argument? Whose words are in those quotation marks there? (Not mine.)
@@tbogardus1I'm assuming you're the one presenting in the video?
My quotation above was a rough summary of the points you had just made in that segment of the lecture. You provided, as justification for the biological view, that we have historically used those terms that way. That is completely irrelevant when deciding how a word should be used, given current knowledge.
I didn't make that last inference there, about how the words should be used. I was making a claim only about how they are used, what they in fact refer to. If you develop the practice of putting only your opponent's actual words into quotation marks, that might help you avoid misattributing views to them. 🤝
@@tbogardus1 what you're referring to is a distinction without a difference. Though you did not directly state that the existence of these particular definitions logically implies/necessitates that we continue using them as such, you DID use this language in the context of arguing for that view.
If you did not mean what I interpreted your meaning to be, then I can't see any other reason why you would have included these points at all in your speech. It seems to me like a pointless rhetorical tool if not meant to support your conclusion.
Yes, direct quotes are great. But sometimes the better option is to summarize and restate the position that you believe the other person is taking. For instance, in this case, I still believe that my summarization matches with what you said. If it doesn't, then I need some sort of explanation as to what you actually did mean, because I don't see how those collective words you actually used could mean anything other than an attempt to justify the biological view of defining gender.
@@tbogardus1 Dr. Bogardus, where will the book you mentioned in the intro be available for purchase? Also, what book would you recommend that makes the strongest case against your position? I greatly appreciate all the work you've done in this field!