TOTAS: The trans debate - A clash of ideological lenses, with Bill Reel
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- An edited version of an "Almost Awakened" podcast with Bill Reel, where we examine the debate around transgender issues. Rather than argue about women's sports, affirmative care or other battles, we step back and look at the fundamental philosophical differences underlying these contests.
It's not a battle about gender - its a clash of ideologies, and depending on which ideological lens you look at the issues through, you can see yourself fighting for what you feel is right.
The discussion has been edited for clarity and focus.
See the full, unedited discussion here: • The Gender Dysphoria &...
Great discussion, but it would appear that you both have only started looking at this now that word is really getting out about the medical harm to children, and so are missing some important points.
You describe the sex realist side as being heavily influenced by the religious right, and if we got some of that rhetoric out of the way everyone could sit down and talk. You don’t seem to be aware that the original push back against gender was from left-wing feminists, even in the United States. They just had no influence or platform within left-wing circles. They were shouted down as bigots. I would say that your supposition that if we get rid of the right-wing influence misses the fact that they were actually late to the party and no one was listening before they turned up.
The other thing that shows you’ve not really engaged with discussions that women’s rights activists have been having over this is that you didn’t seem to mention the effect of sexual motivations for transition. You talked about stereotypes and people thinking they were more comfortable with one set or the other. You didn’t discuss how those stereotypes play into, predominately, male sexual fetishes and how that is a significant motivation for many to adopt, what is in their mind, the stereotypical behaviour of the opposite sex. Gender identity theories have been co-opted by this group as a justification for their behaviour. It is one of the main issues with allowing gender identities to take precedence over sex. That’s the elephant in the room with any discussion of gender identities.
Brilliant, Betty! That's exactly the point I tried to make in my comments on the original video as well as in the email I sent to Bill.
Problem: self-id makes the whole "postmodern" interpretation seem totally circular, and therefore meaningless.
If you see gender as a social construct but developed from biological influences, then self-ID works on the individual level very well.
It is better for society, I think, to accept all sincere self-identifications.
@@someonesomeone25 I guess I would have a problem with using it as a legal label. I do recognized what is called "gender identity" as related to personality dispositions or temperaments (Paul Rosenfels, lesser known than Judith Butler, called these "polarities") as useful "unofficially" in conversation or in writing when talking about personal psychological growth. Look up the Paul Rosenfels Community online.
@@someonesomeone25 Right because words construct reality, which is one of the points made in the video that differentiates it from the scientific/rational worldview. If words construct reality and everyone has "their truth", then mutually exclusive beliefs should be able to coexist. I don't see that happening in the world.
But also, if truth is relative, what grounds does anyone have to oppose any religious truth claim?
@@ThomasJDavis I don't think truth is relative. But social constructs are intrasubjective.
I think we've AWAYS done "self-ID" . When you're in pubic interacting with random strangers, you have NO IDEA what their chromosomes, genitals, nor bio sex is, all you have to go on is how they are presenting their GENDER to you. If someone tells me they are a man *or a woman* I'm just gonna take them at their word, I'm not going to be like, "Well, I'm not going to be referring to you by She/Her pronouns or treating you as a woman until you show me aa BIRTH CERTIFICATE or SOME SORT OF PROOF that you ARE who you SAY you are!" That would be ABSURD! If someone tells you they're a woman *or a man* then for as much as it concerns YOU, they are whoever they say they are
Much like with a NAME, if you tell me your name is Bob, I'll be just be like, "Eh ok cool, I'll just call ya Bob!" We do this all the time
I am soooooo torn! Great discussion. I see more, now, despite also being more confused.
Jonathan does well in explaining the issues here
2:04:09 What in the world is Jon talking about saying that "you can draw the line between the T and Q" in LGBTQ is whether or not a trans person that wants to "up end society" are in the "Q domain". He clearly does not understand what being queer means and shows his Ideological lens. I also don't think he understands that the pushback that the trans community has towards exploring the causes is that many of us have already gone down that road and are tired of people who only have a passing interest assuming we have not put in the work to explore those things.
What would you say queer means? Personally, I've just figured it's a catch-all term to just mean "not straight/cis". Sort of like POC means "not white".
Interesting segregatory language if you ask me.
1:09:40 Bill's answer here perfectly demonstrates that he is not well-equipped to speak to the empirical side of the argument. Notice how his main concern is that he use "the right language." He likely would admit that he is on the Post-Modern side of the argument here, but he should not claim to understand the actual established science behind sexually reproducing, anisogamous species like humans. He supports a meta-physical faith-based ideology that just so happens to be doing great harm to children and adults in the west.
But isn't that true of most lay people? The only reason that I understand the issue as thoroughly as I do is because I have a background in "gender studies." I had to learn about what sexes are and anisogamous reproduction, etc., because people were making nonsense about gender identity being a) real, and b) somehow relevant to what sex a person is.
@@marzipankrabapoulus6371 I would say that the layman does not necessarily distinguish between sex and gender. Most adults in the US remember a time when those terms were used synonymously. The modern coerced distinction between these two terms is exacted by zealots who hope to force a linguistic change that helps them escape a biological reality.
@@derktheterk You’re exactly right. I only make the distinction because it allows me to speak to the zealots in their own language, while pointing out the incoherence of their arguments.
@@marzipankrabapoulus6371 Totally agree with you. I used to make that distinction myself, but have found myself not wanting to allow even the gaslighting anymore. Kudos to you for still wanting to have a dialogue :D
@@derktheterk I’m happy to have a dialogue with anyone about anything as long as they are intellectually honest. TRAs frequently aren’t, but I don’t have much choice as there are so many institutions caught up in this.
My employer just recongnized “women in engineering” including at least one male who “identified” himself into that category. What’s the point of recognizing “women” in engineering if women doesn’t mean women anymore. But I can’t say anything if the males are legally recognized as women.
John, I’ve listened to people talk about this topic, but I have never once heard someone talk about it with a basis in as sound of reason as you have. It’s so frustrating when I’m living in a world trying to utilize critical thinking, empathy, logic, and reason and I look around and see everyone else talking about it dogmatically, logic goes out the window, and it’s almost cult-like behavior. It’s genuinely scary to me to think of the social repercussions of discussing it at all. It’s also scary to think of my own children getting caught up in the social media aspects of all of this. I hope that you keep having these discussions with people across the aisle and really hope that people will be more willing to discuss this and listen.
We should all be on the side of the aisle that protects children from barbaric cultists. In the future, trans surgeries on kids are absolutely going to be viewed like lobotomy is viewed now.
John misses the boat, however, because gender is really about feminism. Gender is a social construct that feminists weaponized to co-opt the social roles of men. Gender ideology is really the idea that men and women are interchangeable widgets, which they are not, and this is the foundation upon which transgender ideology is built. Transgenderism is a logical extension of feminism, which is where all of the social decay stems from. People like John will not “go there” and therefore they never quite reach the correct conclusions. Women brought us modern transgenderism, as you will note that when you see a trans kid it’s always the mother who is the offending parent. It’s always female doctors who are the face of transgender medicine, or female teachers pushing the agenda in the curriculum, or female politicians who stand before Congress making complete fools of themselves. We will never be able to restore sanity to society until we correctly identify and speak openly about the source of the problem, and in no uncertain terms that problem is women.
And yes I am actually blaming women for something. I know they are allergic to accountability and we refuse to blame them for anything but this is actually their fault and in the name of equality, if we can blame men for things than we ought to be able to blame women for things-that’s only fair.
The comments on Almost Awakened channel's video are...... telling.
Yeah, the folks demanding trans representation in this discussion clearly don't understanding that screetching isn't a form of debate.
Finally something that approximates something like a conversation between these two perspectives…thank you for this - hopefully this is the beginning of more such attempts by other people too
This is it. This is the one I’ve been waiting for
I think both people in this discussion are coming at it with good faith. I do think there are some blind spots that aren't being acknowledged.
The discussion of rationalism vs. postmodernism and all the various gender theories was somewhat interesting but it only addressed the roots of modern thinking generally without addressing how these philosophical ideas have morphed over time. For example, it really is the case, that all these things are constructs. Gender is a construct, Sex is a construct. Science is a construct. This is not even disputed by people in the scientific field. The main issue with constructs is whether they provide the most value to those holding the constructs. So the construct of sex, the construct of gender, the construct of left and right handedness are more useful the more they represent reality. Reality exists, and our minds try and create boxes to be better understood but our constructs never fully reach reality because reality is much fuzzier than our language allows. The binary construct of gender exists because it does provide some usefulness, but it is still a construct. If new information arises that fine tunes our perceptions of reality, occasionally those constructs need to be adjusted. "Transgender" is a newer construct which arose from the recognition that many people feel like they belong to the opposite gender but don't fit squarely into the gay/lesbian/bisexual category. Because these constructs came to more fully represent the reality that exists, we could now see that it needed further fine tuning to include those we now call transgender.
Secondly, Jonathan poisons the well with this by claiming that early gender theorists also promoted pedophilia (I haven't checked this but I'll assume he's correct here). This of course is a value judgement, but it is correct to say that pedophilia is also a construct based on some objective reality. Our moral reasonings are still arbitrary that sex with children is wrong. I think this societal value judgement is a good one and superior to those which disagree, but it isn't a scientific question. So, it can be both true that our ideas of gender are constructs, our ideas of pedophilia are constructs while at the same time rejecting the idea that pedophilia should be allowed in the same way we may say people can transition and be accepted as a member of the gender they identify with. Where we draw the lines is a social question, hopefully based on reducing harm and increasing benefits. If we arrive at the idea that kids can be given gender affirming care, that does not mean we also have to arrive at the conclusion that adults should be allowed to have sex with children.
So, this leads to the crux of the issue, is it harmful or beneficial for people with gender dysphoria to transition? It seems like Streeter is generally open to the idea that it can be for certain people but the whole conversation leads up to a claim that children are being pushed into non-reversible medical procedures, starting with puberty blockers, followed by hormone therapy and eventually surgery. For Johnathan to start off with this dichotomy of rationalism vs. postmodernism and then to not include some empirical evidence that shows these things are occurring is frustrating. I'd even settle for links in the show notes. He's claiming that doctors are being shamed into just giving kids all these things without any rigorous vetting process and that there isn't tracking of the effectiveness/harms that can occur. Isn't this a circular argument? If it isn't being tracked, how do you know its not being tracked? (again, this is why a source for this claim would be helpful)
I'm not of the opinion that either of you should be "cancelled". I think more discussions like this should be had and I'm glad you at least made a good faith attempt at it. I hope you'll have someone with a different point of view on to provide some push back if you're interested in fairly covering this topic.
I commented on that post. Im a big fan of both of you gentlemen.
Any rational person would a great deal away from this presentation. I don't know if a post-modern would appreciate your approach and agree with it. It's worth it to seek common ground, and this video is the most non-biased and even-handed presentation I have watched on the subject.
From my personal perspective, I don't think God cares a whole lot about this subject one way or the other. And I also think these "stereotypes" and "social constructs" are way too narrow and rigidly defined, but like you say, they have been built up over millions of years. But, life on this planet has not changed appreciably for millions of years, except for the past couple of hundred. I saw this program about life on a farm in England during the Victorian Age, and I realized that in an agrarian society, traditional gender roles are very necessary for survival, but not so much today.
Do you want a non post modern view of transgender people?
Data shows some people with seemingly obvious biological sex markers actually have much more complex biological sex markers, so we shouldn’t be confident we understand biological sex completely yet.
How can you claim people with conservative view on gender are the ones who are scientific and rational when the whole idea is we already know everything we need to know?
We understand sex well enough to know that the male and female reproductive strategies are the only two sexes in anisogamous species, humans included. We don't have to know everything about sexual reproduction to know that the viewpoint of trans ideology is pseudoscientific and more akin to religion than empiricism.
The scientific, rational standard for determining the nature of human biological sex is based on how we have evolved to reproduce. We require two parents to an offspring, not one, not three. And both of each required participant plays a definite function. Exceptions don't falsify biological reality.
One of the main points of the post-modern perspective is to eradicate any semblance of superiority/inferiority in the population based on immutable characteristics, to eliminate prejudice and bigotry. This is a _sociological_ goal and it has to face the reality of biological convention coupled with human cognition's employment of heuristics, of which both have simply evolved without human motive or agenda.
Judith Butler and Michel Foucault were fractally wrong bsers imo. The classically liberal side is entirely right and the postmodern side entirely wrong.
I admittedly have read much Foucault, but Judith Butler's writing is rambling and incoherent. She uses a lot of words to say nothing. She is basically a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.
Sex and gender were synonyms everywhere until the 60’s, some academic circles started to differentiate them at that time, but they were still synonyms for the general public until the early 2000’s. This is why it is so frustrating especially for people over the age of 30. It is a recent language and concept change that some people are pushing aggressively. I am 40, my generation worked hard to push against gender norms, the younger generation seems to be digging their heels into gender norms, exaggerating them, then saying if you don’t fall exactly into one extreme caricature of the genders it means you are trans to some degree. I think it’s annoying but that’s part of being older, we always find the younger generations ideals to be annoying. It is difficult to tell what is dangerous to society vs what is just different from what I am used to.
I'm 10 years older than you, so I am not just annoyed by the younger generation. I actually know that some of their ideas are harmful.
I am 20 years older than you and yes it is harming the younger people caught up in this ideology. I was always a Tom boy and didn’t follow the so called gender norms but that doesn’t make me trans or gay. I am happy in my skin and it’s probably something we just go through in puberty. We can do anything we want and don’t have to change to a certain gender just because it is something a certain gender or sex does. It does seem the younger generation are going back to what a male or female are supposed to be like. I think it’s more like women were taking more and more of men’s traditional roles and men were feeling they are lost unless they can change themselves into the opposite sex. Idk. Anyway I am still not a feminine girly girl. I don’t dress very girly and still do quite masculine things but I am a woman and it’s scary to think maybe I would have been caught up in this trans stuff. I feel for these trans that have been cut up and can no longer have a fulfilling life with the gender of their choice and kids. It is so sad what is happening. They are being cancelled out. What we need to look into is who started this and why. Is there a bigger picture here.
An irreversible or nearly irreversible decision/choice on or about someone under 18 should not be allowed if that decision/choice can still be made at or after age 18.
For example, no one should be force circumcised for non-medical reasons. The choice can be made at age 18 by the person themself.
Similarly, many interventions to change physical appearance for transgender needs may be able to be put off until age 18.
Jon seems to get this, but unfortunately has aligned himself with people who support that ideology incorrectly. For instance, an anti-LGBTQ person who hates them all at all ages also happens to be against irreversible sex-altering surgery at a young age. Streeter seems to give them a pass because they may be on the right side of one part of the issue. But they are wrong and evil on all other parts of the issue, and Jon needs to point that out so he doesn't appear to be siding with evil people. He needs to help pro-LGBTQ people be more practical about life-altering under age 18 choices and thus get the good guys on his side instead.
No surgery can alter your sex. hope this helps.
2 hours 40 minutes is the edited version?!
Too much philosophy and not enough about the real human experience. What about intersex people who are born with both male and female characteristics? You lost me trying to intellectualize innate identity. It’s not a choice boys.
Intersex is a misnomer. Although individuals with disorders of sex development may have androgynous secondary sex characteristics, they are not something in-between male and female or a third sex. Every human is either male or female. None are both or neither.
Also the existence of individuals with DSDs does not have anything to do with the assertion that some people have an inherent "gender" different from their biological sex.
This is such a difficult topic. If your opinion differs to the acceptable answers you will be "cast out into outer darkness". I have opinions and will NOT be sharing them!
There is nothing difficult about this topic. Biology is real, end of story. Now when you understand that billions of profits can be made by exploiting children then you understand what is really going on...
that was good! thanks for speaking up
❤🇬🇧
Great discussion, thanks❤ I think it’s helpful to define normal the way it is used in science to mean most frequent or most common - as in the normative curve. I think it’s helpful to replace the word normal with common or most common, and the word abnormal with uncommon or less common. Common can be good, like most other people. Uncommon can be good, special, not like most other people.
Neither queer or normal is inherently better.
I feel like we can then temper subjectivity and power grabs by trying to objectively answer the question: What purpose is this common or uncommon thing serving for Earth, humanity, the community, or the individual (including ourself)?
Too, we might ask: What purpose is this thing serving for God, our religion, or our ideology?
The analysis demonstrated in this episode feels rooted in Wittgenstein's Games
I remember the saying being "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" not "beauty is a social construct used to maintain power'. This is why anti-woke is picking up. People are tired of the joyless garbage.
Those of us who are transgender cannot afford the luxury of ideology around these issues. We just do what we gotta do to live.
That doesnt follow. A person does not have to derive their epistemic positions from survival. Many people have died for their beliefs.
You just do what you want to do. It's nothing to do with your survival. It's actually detrimental to that
That's just not true. How you understand being transgender can be very different depending on your ideology. There are transgender males who accept that they aren't literally women because they dress, alter their bodies and perform in a manner typical to social stereotypes of womanhood. There are transgender people who accept that its unfair for 'transwomen' to be involved in women's sports. Thinking that your identity is literally what makes you a women is not intrinsic to having gender discomfort, its an ideological assumption that you are imposing on top of your understandings, whether you recognise it or not. Changing your view perspective on these matters does not stop you living.
I used to enjoy Streeter. I don't know what happened. His categorization of two ideological camps - the woke and the rational for short - is utter garbage. For example, I daresay that many classified by Streeter as woke believe in global warming. I'll bet the venn diagram also shows good overlap between "the woke" and those that believed the science behind the vaccine. I'll also bet there's greater overlap between the woke and those that believe in evolution compared with the anti woke or whatever he wants to call them. Seems to me that many times the woke rely more on empiricism and statistics than the anti woke. Streeters categorization idea is a completely failed (and useless) construct.
Thanks for the feedback - I agree with much of what you say here. In my experience people will draw on aspects of each of these paradigms (others as well) when needed to support whatever perspective needed to defend some deeper core ideology they hold.
For example, a Mormon may draw upon rational empiric ideas when trying to prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon one day, and then draw upon post modern ideas when needed in apologetics to rationalize some scriptural passage by deconstructing the language used (such as a skin of blackness)
You may see people in other camps defend state policy based on science and evidence on one issue that bolsters something they favor, while rejecting science and evidence on another issue that harms a favored position.
The point of this discussion is to map out that these philosophies exist and may be drawn upon to color how one sees the issue and effects the resulting policies one may support.
@@thoughtsonthingsandstuff974 Ok. Maybe I need to listen a little farther. I just got to the point where it seemed like you were tying "woke" people (as labelled by conservatives) to a lack of rational thought. I'll give it another listen tomorrow.
@@thoughtsonthingsandstuff974 exactly this! There is a thought-stopping process that goes on when the social implications of being a skeptic are too dire. Being a skeptic, by definition, is someone who questions commonly held opinions or beliefs. Why should it stop here? Social contagion has played a massive role in getting to where we are today and people are suffering as a direct result of it. I’m glad you’re able to talk about it in such a rational way, while being understanding to the plight of the people with opposing beliefs. We all want the same thing.
@@DirtmopAZ It is ironic isn't it
Seems to me that the "woke" believe in the most mainstream propagandized theories, rather than actual imperical data. "Vaccine", "climate change," "right wing = nazi". Anything pushed by mainstream is factual through woke glasses. "Science is settled" is an absurd statement that the woke lap up as to not bother to analyze the opposing data.
John Dehlin is watching this and raging out
Define the terms to the exclusion of all else, especially the terms "man" and "woman", "male' and "female", which such exclusion is impossible for these terms as these terms are cultural and NOT scientific or legal.
1:13:23 is where he defines the terms.
@@ThomasJDavis Those definitions are overly simplistic. Is he talking about the ability to produce zygotes, that rules out people who have had ovaries and testicles removed. Are we going with chromosomes? Because that rules out people with XXY, XXXY, X and various other chromosomal variations. Are we talking about people who are insensitive to testosterone and develop all other characteristics including genitaila a woman might have despite having an XY pair? Science is not settled on the binary either definition of just "male" and "female" either.
@@kaiyachidester8326 These highly, highly exceptional individuals have to be determined on a case by case basis for what they were most likely going to develop into if typical developmental processes were to take place.
Sure, biology isn't perfectly streamlined in its processes in every single iteration of human development. That doesn't nullify the fact that there has arisen a definite pattern of development for males and females throughout the course of time based on sexual reproduction (two parents to an offspring), and that this typical process of development is the most optimally conducive for human reproduction.
Should it need to be stated that it is rare for the cases that you cited to be able to reproduce?
You have a small group of rare exceptions, and in that group it is even more rare for them to have reproductive functionality.
@@ThomasJDavis yes its rare. So gender dysphoria. The science says there are rare instances, where the binary doesn't fit is exactly my point. Some go on for years without knowing. I know one personally. Saying science defines male and female into two distinct groups clearly is the myth and to say one side is logical based on biology is a bias.
@@kaiyachidester8326 The science is actually quite settled. Chromosomes are not sexes. There are two sexes. Individuals with disorders of sex development are either male or female and the conditions are sex specific.
1:52 Bill, you’re framing this (a phobia) in a way that lets homophobic and transphobic people off the hook. Your phrasing could be used by homophobic people trying to prop up their position regarding the homophobia and transphobia in the LDS doctrine… anyone who doesn’t like LGBTQ folks could twist your words. You asked “do you want as positive an outcome for these folks as possible and you simply have a different perspective about what accomplishes that?” I see folks rewriting that to say “I want as positive an outcome for these folks as possible and I simply have a different perspective about what accomplishes that”
So you’re words are making it such that everyone can excuse themselves from their homophobia and transphobia
I have looked at both sides which brought to the advocacy side for trans folks.
I’m going to keep listening to see if you actually present both side of the information fairly and objectively. Your introduction to this episode isn’t filling me with confidence about that though. You’ve spent a lot of time prefacing your episode with how if people don’t like what Jonathan has to say then they are being closed minded. I think it takes an open mind and a lot of learning to get through all the noise of transphobia to get to the supportive side so I would guess that a lot of trans allies have done their due diligence to learn about trans folks and what their needs are.
There's a difference. When you say gay or lesbian, we all understand that you mean same-sex attracted. When you say bisexual, we know you mean attracted to both males and females.
What do you mean when you say "transgender"? You probably don't even know. And if you try to define it, I can 100% show you how your definition of transgender is a) circular, b) inconsistent, c) inadequate, d) inaccurate, or 3) all of the above.
Many people who are skeptical of trans ideology are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and gender-nonconforming. We're not hateful and we're not homophobic or transphobic. A lot of "trans allies" think they are being helpful or understanding when they are actually the opposite. I have a lot more transgender friends than most "trans allies" and I have done a lot more "due diligence" than any person who claims to be a "trans ally."
Morality is dependent upon one's perspective. For example, two white men are pointing pistols at a black man, is this moral or immoral? Usually such a decision is based upon the perceived circumstances, perception based upon one's own individual perceptions of right and wrong. Assume the two men are dressed in white robes, then assume the two men are police officers, then assume the two men are military soldiers.
Then assume the black man is a pastor, then assume he's Nelson Mandela, then assume he r worded the daughter of one of the men. Golly gee, aren't thought experiments fun
18:32 Can’t bare to go listen to more. The ways of knowing. People in different cultures know things through experience and pass it down generations. Value of cultural philosophies is subjective. If a culture has a way of knowing that it can teach other cultures and that way of knowing is as fruitful and efficient as scientific method I’m want to hear about it.
This is true. And yet every culture knows that water is wet, things fall when you drop them, and who is male and who is female
Bill should just go ahead and transition. It will turn well