If you enjoyed this episode please remember to like and subscribe! Also visit our Substack here www.widerlenspod.com/ and sign up for a Paid Subscription for Bonus Content with Peter Boghossian and other guests. It is the best way to support this show. Thank you so much!
It's a religious belief that compassion is the only way , it's like trying to tell them their Narcissistic toxic empathetic God is harmful , you're beyond talking to at that point , trans is just one element of it
Keep up the excellent work Peter, I particularly enjoyed your discussions with Luana Maroja, Tabia Lee, Andrew Doyle, Helen Joyce and many more. Your unwavering commitment to truth and open debate is much appreciated. Hopefully one day your critics will be willing to openly discuss their issues with you in a public forum. Until they do we can only assume that they're deadly scared of wrongspeak and their ideology falling to pieces like the house of cards it is. I also particularly like your continued efforts to understand the opposite viewpoint in the face of personal attacks. We need more of that personal integrity.
Thanks Peter. You're potentializing zones in space that resonate. I find the street epistemology is a good way to attune and develop structure from nowhere into a thrown position to make sense of this place... Any place on hand with anyone else in good faith 🙏 Reminds me of Socrats, toward an examined life as a social organizational requisite. Certainly an energy people are begging for!
I wish I found your work and took notes before conversing with my daughter about this when she decided she is first pan sexual at 12 and then Trans at 13.....all developing from joining an online Harry potter fan group initially. I may have been able to be more helpful! Thank you for your work.
Love it when my favorite podcasters collide! I think Peter’s street epistemology is great. His goal is not to change minds, but to plant the seeds of doubt for people who have never had to question their beliefs. I think everyone who is here on the GC side can relate to that. You don’t wake up GC, the seeds of doubt are planted, and through numerous encounters that cause you to question your beliefs, they grow. And after lots of questioning, you finally come to the truth.
Having recently watched and listened to a Portland State piece with Boghossian I realized he is intelligent and insightful with the patience of a saint. Hopefully as he helps people better understand how to utilize specific strategies to discuss gender issues we as a culture can move past this insanity. As usual thank you so much Sasha and Stella for the work you do.
I knew this was going to be a great episode. Those of us willing to seek the truth have had to endure the loss of people we once held dear. In my case, this includes the social worker who helped me finalize the adoption of my daughter many years ago. We kept in touch as my child reached adulthood only to be cut off suddenly when I stated that human beings cannot change their sex and that I have grave concerns for how this gender ideology is harming women and children. That one really hurt. The CA foster care system appears to be throughly captured. If this is the case, Who is going to protect these troubled and vulnerable children?
I heard somewhere that children in the foster system make up a significant percentage of children claiming to be "TG" or "NB" it is tragic that they are recieving "help" from people who are inflicting harm on them.
I'm sorry to read of that loss. I have heard speakers from Canada talk about how this ideological cult targets children in the foster care system. Where are you? This pernicious belief system, with its True Believers & the cowards pandering to them, harms so many of the most vulnerable people! It's maddening that people defend this as progressive! I call it a multi-national secular cult because only a cult could control people's thinking to the degree this ideology does. I hate that we all have to stop important work on other causes to deal with this wildfire. What a colossal waste of time. But this monster must be slain.
I worked in a job that requires me to attend a customer helpdesk. We were given the acronym LASSI. Listen Acknowledge Separate Sit down Instruct. So an irate customer wants their pound of flesh from you. You listen to their complaint. Repeat back what their complaint is to check you've got it right and to demonstrate you've listened. Then you separate them from their audience. Then you sit them down. Then you instruct them about what you can do, what you can't do, and what you will do. Sasha's point about an audience is answered by this technique. It is the inability of social media to perform LASSI that boils people's bum
Interesting. In a more private setting (friend, relative etc) the "Separate" could also be separating out the different parts of the complaint. Often there is a muddle with many different things mixed up together, where you have one (or two) more tangible complaints, but then one (or five) much more emotionally salient intangible "she smirked at me!" or "he never calls me back" type of things.
What you 3 are missing here is an honest assessment of the collateral damage to society, to family members, through the extreme emotional and financial drain that every cross-sex identifying person is causing, through demands for wardrobe, accessories, make-up, injections, patches, surgeries, emergency room visits for post-surgery disasters and suicidal ideation events. There has never been any kind of estimate of the congregate cost of the ex-wives' therapy and anxiety prescriptions, as well as siblings of, children of, parents of. Life already includes the difficulties of childhood cancer, terrible accidents, good old diabetes and grief when someone dies after reaching old age. Your "pioneers' never thought to include these societal ramifications.
You make some good points. Dr. Miriam Grossman just wrote a book called Lost in Trans Nation and in this book, she addresses some of these exact points. She was recently on Triggernometry and at the end of the interview, she spoke about the effects on families.
Exactly. And in my data on 34 offspring of men who ideate a female persona, 7 expressed suicidal ideation. Reported one place in the world, YT channel, Trans Widow Ute Heggen. 4 of those had to be hospitalized after a serious attempt. Crossdressing father nowhere to be seen in the follow up therapy sessions. @@transitionsnc
You make a very valid point. It is not at all wrong to say these trans kids are extremely high maintenance and a drain on society, taxpayer dollars paying for their surgeries and everything in between. It's as if their parents never socialized them properly. I can go further saying these kids will never be well-adjusted to society. Transgender is the new Social Rebellion.
I think they have touched on these points in other episodes, but, even if I tend to agree with you that sometimes they don’t go hard enough, their main focus, being adolescent & family counselors, is how parents can defuse the bomb that transgenderism drops into a family, without it blowing up in the process, which requires a gentler approach. Your own story, as well as the work of Bilek, Exulansic, Lindsay, Joyce, Shrier, and others tell us what happens after the explosion.
Correct. But our stories clarify what's going on with the children. We've been there as adults, while our husband's therapists sanction fetish behavior and abdication of responsibility to dependent children. @@zimzob
I love Peter's Street Epistemology when students try to explain how they learnt about Gender and ask him if he is aware of the concept of 'non-binary' with no idea who it is they are talking to. They genuinely think they are the clever ones.
@@liberality They crack me up. I do wonder at what point they will go 'Oh. I made a right flump of myself there'. I know I'd hate it if all my incredibly ridiculous claims were on the internet forever but they are so evangelical. I bet at some point some of them contact Peter to discuss how they were radicalised into the cult.
From your description I know exactly the video you're talking about. You can feel the girl's complete desperation to prove she is "on the right side of history" throughout and how she resorts to any dirty tactic to do so. She reeked of fear.
I'm amazed seeing how many people in the comment section seemingly just can't relate to Peter on the grounds of a perceived lack of empathy on his part, all the while agreeing with the points he's making. Hate to break it to you, but empathy doesn't equal compassion, in fact, sometimes, I'd say more often than not and especially with this topic, a surplus of uncritical empathy is the problem.
Peter is primarily an academic and has that orientation. He's not a therapist who needs to make their points to clients in a manner that is easier to digest. Academics are (or at they least used to be) more used to a robust exchange of ideas and have a tendency toward push back when they are in disagreement with each other. We rarely took such discussions and disagreements personally and weren't offended when challenged. We used to ask clarification questions (this is now viewed as challenging) and offered rebuttal (now viewed as a personal attack). Also, if you've seen any older videos of Peter from several years ago compared to his newer ones he's gotten much less confrontational in his approach.
Uncritical empathy...what a great way of saying just nod and go along with it. Dont question, dont debate. Such a closed rigid mindset. This ideology culture is basically a cult that has many leaders, not just one. Very scary world we are having created for us.Love Peters sense, fabulous site to hop onto also. Great listening ladies and gentleman. ❤
39:06 Critical thinking is not allowed in gender studies because postmoderism is not an academic movement. It's a political movement within academia. It's made up of leaders and followers, not free thinkers. The only criteria for becoming a leader is the number of followers you can attract, and the rigour of your argument has nothing to do with that. In that world, it's more important to be convincing than it is to be right.
It's not allowed in the humanities at all. I had to take a humanities class for my masters and got kicked out because I was using science to make my points. The proffesor warned me that I would get kicked out because 'no one understands what you are saying and it is upsetting the other students '. But I don't know any other way of reasoning. So I kept doing it Last year I was diagnosed with autism .
Yes, managing our own emotions as parents, especially when we have our own mental issues, is key and so difficult to master, but I'm practicing, practicing, practicing!!!
Yes, the intentional mangling of sexual language is incredibly destructive on many levels, especially for women. It truly isn't a right/ left, and that's important to keep established.
When talking about predictions for the future, I think two separate things are going on here that need to be considered: 1. The ideology, specifically as it pertains to gender, is unappealing to most of the population. I wouldn’t be surprised if the type activism that depends on the demonization of dissenting views is in practice highly ineffective. For example, most people understand that Lia/Will Thomas has a biological advantage in swimming when compared to females. Support for trans women in women’s sports has decreased significantly, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Thomas is to blame for this; people are aware of the lies that are at play here. I believe Helen Joyce when she talks about “operation let them speak” and in this regard, the ideology works as a trend that will pass mostly because of this fundamental lack of appeal. 2. We should not disregard how the ideology also manifests as a religion and how there are individuals in high places of power who operate like religious zealots for this ideology. The biggest concern is the institutional capture of schools of education because of the susceptibility of young children to indoctrination. In that regard, the ideology will continue to unfairly propagate until it is treated as a religious belief system (albeit a secular one) in the context of public schools. Do not underestimate zealots’ sense of entitlement when it comes to indoctrinating other people’s children.
The daughter's argument was circular. She kept saying that she wanted to be a boy, but not why. I'd ask her "what is it about being a boy that is better for you than being a girl?" There is a need to get to the core of the problem. It could be that she hates the sexual attention she's getting from men and boys. Or she is scared of the physical changes of going through puberty. Knowing the cause of her desire to be a boy is fundamental to proceeding with the conversation.
I think the response DOES generally tend to be: "I feel like a boy! I'm actually a boy. A boy is my actual authentic self, and I am trans, I was born trans, you need to accept the real me." And then anything to do with discomfort about the body or the societal stereotypes applied to girls/women is just dismissed as: "I hate my b/ rests because I'm a boy! I hate the social role of 'girl' just the same as a boy would hate being treated like a girl!"
@@L_Martin Your first paragraph is still a circular argument. How would you know that what you feel is what a boy feels? You would only be guessing. No, there is always a concrete reason why the daughter does not want to be a girl. And in many cases when girls are asked, the reasons that I highlighted emerge. I just wish that Peter in this demonstration had gently probed in that direction more.
@@TheSimCaptain Of course it's circular! They're a teenager convinced they were born in the wrong body. Their discovered identity of "I'm trans" insulates them from thinking through how paradoxical this all is. How do I know I'm actually a boy? Because I feel like a boy. What does a boy feel like? Me, because I'm a boy so this is what a boy feels like... I'm sure you're right that perhaps with careful probing, you'd eventually get some admissions about underlying reasons for why she hates her body and hates the "gender" stereotypes forced on females, and maybe even an acknowledgement that she only knows what being a "trans boy" feels like, not what being a "cis boy" feels like. But that could potentially take years to arrive at, assuming they get there at all. There is such a brick wall up in the face of thinking beyond identity: "I am trans because I identify as trans."
I'm so glad that Dr. Boghossian brought up Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. I could write an entire essay about how this entire situation is what Arendt theorized. And as Dr. Boghossian states in the interview, the mindless denial will be so rampant among so many groups and so many people just as it was during the Nuremberg trials. No one will win in this situation and a lot of people will suffer.
Peter's interviews are great, I love how calm and thoughtful he is while trying to think of or trigger new thought angles! That 'roleplay' was very sweet! Hopefully it, and if you produce more such material, will be useful to deconstruct and analyze for some parents.
I have always been sceptical of 'Truth and Reconciliation Commissions'. To get off with total impunity, after committing appalling crimes, or having been criminally negligent, just because you admit to these crimes (or at least to some of them), has always seemed to me to be an insult to justice. My instinct is that if a person has been horribly treated - Chilean and Argentinian Fascist tortures, for example, or under Apartheid in South Africa - and there appears to be impunity for this, then it would be natural for that person - or their family or friends, if they are dead - to want to see justice. This is how vendettas begin. They start as people hand-kniting what they see as *indispensible* justice, where the State has failed even to attempt to provide it. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions offend me morally and aesthetically. I also think they are extremely dangerous.
Same thing has happened in Northern Ireland. Murderers are now lauded as men of peace. It might be the only way to stop the violence, but it's a bitter pill to swallow for the victims. A very different process to the Nuremberg trials.
I found myself vigorously nodding to many things said this episode but especially the analogy between sharks going into a feeding frenzy when they smell blood - in my hard one experience (online elsewhere) this is a general online phenomenon that can happen in online political discussion forums and isn’t just one that occurs over gender disagreements. But anyway, this is one of my favourite conversations you have had - and that’s saying something 🙂
Wait 10 years for the lawsuits over ruined lives. I think people should be able to live as they choose, but I think some will feel later in life that they weren’t protected.
Not pertinent to the episode (although I did surprisingly enjoy it), but I really wish you'd bring Dr Cantor back to speak specifically about gender, and also I think I've heard Sasha mention her interest in cults and indoctrination a few times? I dearly wish to hear more about that, even if not directly related to this channel (and who's to say it ain't).
From my understanding, the AAP's hope of a systematic review is that they'll be able to get the state governments on their side, so they're gonna do anything they have to do to make it seem appealing. I'd like to be hopeful but poor quality evidence is used all the time to support agendas. Our dietary recommendations are a perfect example of that.
Me during the Daddy Boghossian segment: "ABORT! ABORT!" lol no it was a good modelling of how to have those conversations, I thought the point about looking at both sides of an argument and studying the topic together was a great one. Actually being challenged to adopt the viewpoint of your opponent in a debate is a really great tool for figuring out the strengths of the arguments.
I was on my high school and later college debate teams. We had to be prepared to argue both the pros and the cons of the question we were to debate. The side each team drew was selected strictly by chance and you usually went multiple rounds per event. So you had to know both the arguments supporting and opposing a proposed question, as well as the counters to various arguments and the counters to those counters. It was very good preparation for learning to think logically and doing research and developing arguments.
Truth and Reconciliation has a much different meaning up here in Canada. I sincerely hope the gender ideology version of your T&R is a lot more truthful than ours.
@AndyJarman “Puberty” is a perfectly good word, meaning attaining physical maturity, being physically able to reproduce. “Puberty” is specific; “late bloomer” is vague, subject to interpretation, and doesn’t say, specifically, what “bloomer” might mean (I can think of several very different ways to interpret that word without even trying). Down with euphemisms. Up with clarity.
Honestly I just want to find a real professional who can help and support in getting my teen out of this madness. All so far took their side and brushed me off as the unsupportive parent.
Would love to know what the inappropriate joke was. And of course he's smart not to have told it as it would have been taken out of context. Wasn't so convinced by his father child interaction. Still really appreciate what Peter is doing in the world.
These videoa are the frontline of a battle for people's SOULS! Their very existence is at risk. Some of the most creative and brightest people are being destroyed by ideology. Stella, Peter and Sacha present this calmly, but in reality, they should be wearing suits of armour to accurately depict the war that we are all in.
I have to wonder how much hormones (hormone imbalance maybe) and the like have anything to do with this phenomenon? Has any research professional done any studies with the artificial hormones added to foods and pre/pubescent kids consuming said food possibly contributing to this?
That interaction/role play was a good enough starter for a model alright. Mind you, I have to say the adolescent was very rational, unemotional, not particularly childish in attitude and displayed no observable autistic traits in either speech or cues or reactions. This is not a judgement. I have raised an autistic son who is in his forties now. So the conversation with him would be more likely to be scholarly and overly pedantic, full of statements of information, lists and lists, such that it would bamboozle any adult trying to bring about a conversation, even with good intention and great care. A back and forth conversation is extremely difficult to achieve unless the child with autistic traits had already had “Theory of Mind” therapy, such that they could conduct such an exercise and that was never even a thought back then because children were not being diagnosed until they were nearly 18. However it should be immediately made available now to any child with autistic traits because studies have shown that not only do children with autistic traits not have “Theory of Mind “ for others they cannot exercise it for their own selves. So interpreting their “feelings” about being something other than their biological sex emanates as much from that as anything else. I can say that once a stance was taken it was nearly impossible to shift. Luckily, the only computer access then was Atari for Mario Cart gaming. My “normie” daughter, on the other hand would have been more defiant, and very likely to pile on the emotion, because she felt it. She would also decline to “study together” because “I’m not talking to you about sex. You’re my mother and that’s embarrassing. Anyway, this is about me, not you” would have been her response. And again, no internet access for her either so lucky them. All I can say is thank goodness they’re reared. I think the approach the parents and teachers have adopted in Greystones County Wicklow for children attending Primary schools - no smart phones whatsoever - is the best answer. I would even extend it to Secondary schools up to 4th year to keep them away from anime and from porn because those are also huge contributors to the Contagion. Contagion would not contaige! And by the way, we’re not out of the woods yet, my twenty five year old is gay with ADHD and body dysmorphia and currently in a major conflict with his oldest friends who are doing the same to him as Peter’s did to him because as someone who studies anatomy, biology, sports, he’s not about to deny reality and is utterly against transing children. Ireland of today. Who knew?
I always get confused when Peter says he lost 'so many friends' due to all of this. I'm his age and I have like 6 or 7 people who I'd call a real friend. He's making it out to be that he lost many tens of friends. Obviously those were never his friends to begin with?
Peter collects a lot of friends, that's one thing I gathered from listening to him. He reminds me a little of Hitchens in the sense that he seems to just enjoy people.
Evidence is what we need. And we need to show orientation of the ontic beings and the directions. Imminent potential of spaces. And also take development a whole lot more seriously. If we are transparent and include people in on the make, then the complexity can be tucked into middle ground. So like this process could be mapped out and a way of showing narratives to people who have different developmental capacities.
The doctor that created the lobotomy committed suicide after visiting many of the patients he had harmed and seeing what he had done to them. It was either the doctor that created the lobotomy, or a doctor that performed most of them. There are exponentially more people involved in this, and exponentially more people harmed. So, yeah, they won't be able to let it go. They'll have to gaslight, or keep holding on to it.
1:03:56 Wow, Sasha should be a method actress because she sounded so convincing as a young teen when she made that objection! What she said & the way she said it was totally believable.
The child in the role play would have walked out in real frustration, hurt and dismay and rage. The father was being manipulative, and was trying to score points, not helpful at all. A CBT approach would allow the premise of the decision to transition to be challenged without undermining the child.
How was he trying to score points? The main thing he kept saying was that in order to properly research a contentious topic, you should look at both sides, at least have a basic grasp of the subject that isn't all exclusively from one perspective. How is that manipulative? He didn't at any point even say "You're wrong in how you think about yourself" or even much engage with the identity issue. A concrete plan to engage in the topic together, exchanging things to read and watch. At what point did he undermine the kid?
As I was listening to your conversation, I realized you could remove gender affirming care focus with COVID19, early treatment with inexpensive safe repurposed drugs , etc. versus waiting for the shot. Including the origins of the virus and the government regulating public health interventions. I discovered your your RUclips channel. Thank you. 😢🧠💜☮️💪🏼
i'm a long-term transitioner and i've read a lot of anti-trans content from the beginning of my transition. i think i do have my own 'apologetics' defending mtf transitions, but my arguments are routinely deleted or ignored by both trans and anti-trans activists. it's so frustrating to see how trans activists sabotage their own cause, and make right-wing populists look good. (when they're certainly not.) something that's also happening with other, much more important political issues
I’m curious about Peters experience working with transgender youth and which literature he refers to, to ground his disdain about de transitioning. I’m familiar with the literature. He does that emotive ‘Jordan Peterson’ moral outrage / thorns are going to get so bad thing.
I get frustrated with Peter because he doesn’t finish lots of topics. He puts an interesting point aside on the basis of getting back to it but never does! I want closure! Lol
Respectfully, this is not an impossible conversation, it's not even hard... It's only hard because we don't want to hurt people's feelings or be seen as bigots. However, it IS hard, if not impossible, to make a logical sane person/parent/child, believe in other people's delusional disorder, and say it's correct and reasonable, all in the name of "political correctness"🤦♀️🤷♀️
Good conversation...what saddens me is that channels like these are in the 1000s of subscribers and views...and instead those of "influencers" that promotes how beautiful it is to take Xsx hormones at 14yo play with millions...
They haven’t opted out of the rules of engagement you have. You are not playing by the rules of rationality. You’re playing by the rules of rhetoric. Everything your going is nasty and slanderous. You’re not the victim.
19:10 What? It's "easy" to get tenure? Maybe in the USA. Absolutely not in North/West Europe! Many excellent scientists with great publication records do not manage to get a professorship. At least not in the natural/physical sciences (my field).
The same AAP that still endorses circumcision, a practice far more insidious and engrained than any other. Imagine the battle us intactivists are waging. Anti gender affirming care activists cannot fail to make the connection to circumcision and 'surgery' on intersex babies, ala Billboard Chris.
The circumcision horse left the barn thousands of years ago. It’s part of the Jewish faith and many men who have been circumcised want their sons to look like them. I am personally against it. But I don’t think it’s going away anytime soon.
He seems very intellectual, but without access to emotions and empathy. His actions in the role play at the end support my point. In the role play he is speaking to his 13 yr old gender questioning daughter and presses them to name 3 detransitioners and if they can't, then he is not convinced they have researched thoroughly. This demonstrates (to me) a real lack of ability to see through the eyes of another person and near argumentative/hostility toward them, in this case his pretend 13 yr old gender questioning daughter. He can barely stop himself from repeatedly interrupting the person, and at one point says that if the daughter decides to transition then he will fully support them. This statement is either a lie, or simply a bad approach to dealing with the situation. I can see the young person latching onto that, and then trying to hold him to it- how would he get out of that without immense disappointment to the child and loss of trust? I can't say that he demonstrates lack of empathy, but he is also not demonstrating the presence of empathy. My interpretation, is that he is not able to understand the perspective of the persons in these situations, and has only a grip on the logic. Like I wrote before, he seems to see people and reality as Rubik's cubes, objectively and detached. I don't think his arguments are wrong, but if he can't connect, then even if he is right, he will only be right in an echo chamber. The people for whom it really matters, perhaps that need an off ramp, will keep him at arms reach, because they can tell he doesn't understand them and he seems hostile towards them. Thanks for the video-
Peter comes from the world of academic philosophy. (I did, as well.) That's pretty much what you find in philosophy discourse. It's about reasoning and argumentation. It evaluates reasons and evidence in an impersonal way. It is what you want in philosophy, sciences, engineering, law, and maybe some other areas. Modern gender discourse completely rejects impersonal and objective analysis -- you can't evaluate ideas without being called a bigot. As a conversational style, it may not connect with everyone. Helen Joyce is very empathetic, and she obviously has challenges connecting the gender ideologues. It's probably correct that not every style will connect with everybody. I believe Peter has a place to fill in the world of philosophy, scepticism, atheism, along with other people like Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Colin Wright.
@richarddoan9172 thank you for writing. I have worked as a scientist (botany related), I understand the objective pursuit of truth. Im trying to say i dont think that is the appropriate approach when dealing with people. The problem I see, is that people are composed of more than that, emotions and experiences affect our interpretation of reality. It is understandable to what to interpret reality objectively, but people don't live that way. There are never good analogies for gender issues, but for the sake of argument, would you say it is possible to convince two sides in a conflict of war- to simply logic their way to a peace deal? It's not possible, one must address the emotional, historical and other factors that have lead to the conflict. The lack of addressal of those subjective components make it difficult or impossible for someone with Peter's approach to have any real affect other what can be found in an echo chamber of people who are already on his side of the debate or who are leaning his way, perhaps that is his goal. But for the people most affected, those that need an off ramp, this is simply going to push them further out of reach. This is my opinion. I'm sure there are arguments both ways, and I'm open-minded to hear them and be convinced otherwise.
@@jeng3609 I don't disagree that there are people, perhaps yourself included, that are put off by Peter's communication style or personality. And you may have accurately assessed why. But I think it's wrong to assume that everybody responds to it in the same way. I also would not want to read too much into the role playing exercise. That's an artificial example. I agree he seemed aggressive in that. But really, it was kind of a weird situation for him to be in. For real world interaction, the street epistemology is more representative. But more importantly, we need to get clear on what Peter actually does in his conversations, both in street epistemology and in the role playing here. Peter is not trying to argue for a position. He is not debating. So it is off the mark to say that he won't succeed in convincing anybody, because he's not trying to. He is probing people about their views and assumptions so that they can understand and refine their position. That may or may not result in people changing their minds. It very well can, but that's not the goal. This kind of Socratic dialog is standard for college-level philosophy classes, and which I have done myself in philosophy instruction. Granted, not everyone likes participating in that, and some of them may choose other fields of study because of that. There's always a lot of people who don't engage in the classroom. Indeed, most philosophy students are male, which suggests that personality type may play a strong factor in determining who goes into the field, and who are receptive this kind of interaction. In terms of personality, Peter is very much like any other philosophy professor you find in the classroom.
That parent/daughter discussion wouldn't happen with our brilliant autistic PDA kid, anymore that the same approach did when discussing the choice to use drugs. And these days the 'facts' available online cater to whatever 'side' one wants to justify. If these kids are not open to any other perspective all that does is cause them to ridicule and dig in harder. Nice try, but rationalizing this argument with facts is pointless.
Boghossian seems like a strange bedfellow for the show, but I suppose needs must in difficult times. I agree with lots of things that he says but really don't agree with most of his fundamental ideas about the origins of all of this stuff. He seems almost as ideologically captured by his own niche explanation for the origins of this phenomenon as any Foucault quoting leftie. I don't know how he squares the fact that the push back against this ideology started with old school "leftist", often Marxist, feminists and that an alliance of hyper-individualist "you can be what you want to be!" young feminists and virtually every organ of our modern Capitalist states (particularly healthcare) have fallen in line within a few years. Apparently a successful coup by deluded Marxist academics that, for most of the post-war period, were content to debate similar ideas behind closed seminar room doors. If only they'd have known how easy would have been back in the 70s, they could have already taken over the world! Also, he doesn't seem to understand that the people that will most likely slow, or derail, the attempts to end the ideology are the knee jerk right that have grabbed on to it for their own ends. You can bet they are not going to to stop with just getting rid of Gender Ideology. I don't know much about Boghossian but from the little I have read, and observed, of Lindsey he seems like a man with incredibly fixed ideas about things that has ideas about the left, and the world in general, that border on paranoid. The Great Reset, Trump, corrupt world government, COVID fantasies. There is an essay on his website that takes the "corruption" of universities back to the invention of Women's Studies. Neither of them seem to take into account how this huge epistemological crisis has come about within a dominant culture in which lies and half truths are allowed, and encouraged to flourish, by both old media and new, and in which statements about human nature and "the way things work" seem to have absolutely no truth to them in the lives of average people. Lots of people are completely adrift, they don't know what is true anymore. In these conditions obvious nonsense thrives. It's much simpler to blame, among other things, "Post Modernism", as if this was invented by a communist intellectual cabal in some lab, in order to corrupt the youth of The West, but, of course, it arrived as an explaination for a process of collapse similar to today, that started when the "Grand Narratives" of progress and the rational human, was eviscerated by 2 world wars. I'm not sure what sort of intellectual tradition they want to reinstate, they seem to strongly represent a kind of tradition in which people do, and think what they are told by those that know better. People like him, I assume.
I appreciate your reference to Lyotard and the other intellectuals of the 20th century, especially because they are very important. I can't give your post a proper response, but from someone who took a LOT of queer theory and WGS courses, I get the impression that the breakdown came in the 80s and 90s especially with writers like Judith Butler, Eve Sedgwick, Deleuze, Badiou, Donna Haraway, and others. I actually really enjoy a lot of these writers, but for instance, many of these writers do not have much empirical evidence and write in an aphoristic style (a criticism of the 80s). The difficulty with teaching these scholars now is distinguishing between critical theory (applying essentially a philosophical text to a literary text for interpretation, for example) and a scientific theory. Most students don't see the difference and take the above writers literally and at face value. I taught Butler many years ago and my students took her writing very literally. It was hard to scale them back.
Excellent point. I was doing my work in the early 1980s in Political Science. We read a lot of post modernist and neo-marxist writers in addition to more traditional social contract prescriptions such as Rawls Theory of Justice. Much of the writing was in that style, especially that of political philosophers. I originally read much of their writing as aphorisric and utopian in nature but didn't feel it was practical to implement in American society. I had also done a fair amount of work on millenarian movements and their impact on politics on societies. One of the things that always struck me was the essentially gnostic underpinnings of postmodernist critical theory and how much alike they were to gnostic beliefs and the Catholic doctrine of trans-substantiation. Specifically if you go into the whole trans debate the parallels between the two are striking.
Not the brightest guy...Clearly has A LOT of biases and blind spots... Utterly ignorant on many topics... BUT I absolutely agree with him about gender specifically
I get his general approach with discussing transgenderism with his pretend daughter - gently and innocently getting her to examine her own thoughts, feelings, influences and examining the meanings of the words she is using (like "study"), but it's still somewhat confrontational in tone and delivery. It still comes off as dismissive, not completely sincere, and (at least to a young girl) as being agenda driven by his own immutable opinions. And at one point he incorrectly mirrors her words back to her - the part where he says, "So you'd feel better if you could get people to see you as male" when her key point is that she IS male. It seems that this whole process could be shortcutted simply by putting the information in front of her about the hazards of transition therapy, drugs, surgery, etc. and how this stuff is being done irresponsibly ..... and then make that required reading/viewing in order for him to agree to help her move forward with transitioning. Then if this hypothetical daughter doesn't want to look into this side of it - in order to get what she thinks she wants - then it should become evident that she doesn't really want it that bad anyway.... and eventually this would dawn on her and she'd look for other healthier ways to get her needs met. You could even start off the whole dialog with, "Hey, I am going to fully support whatever it is you want to do," which is totally disarming, with the caveat, "..... as soon as you can demonstrate to me that you have been well informed" (and talking to other random trans teenagers online does not constitute being well informed in the real world - however that idea can be respectfully conveyed.)
Waynebollman - this, your comment, is the most helpful thing I have read in the last three weeks, (after devouring three books, countless RUclips videos, and a million articles), ever since finding out that my 21-year-old, high functioning autistic daughter told us she changed her name and pronouns, and wants to cut off her breasts 3 years from now. NOW I know how to start the conversation (slightly modified for a 21-year-old). Thank you!
Oh look. No Trans representative or a representative of good peer reviewed consensus research. This is not an impossible conversation. This is a stupid an non compassionate conversation.
If you enjoyed this episode please remember to like and subscribe! Also visit our Substack here www.widerlenspod.com/ and sign up for a Paid Subscription for Bonus Content with Peter Boghossian and other guests. It is the best way to support this show. Thank you so much!
It's a religious belief that compassion is the only way , it's like trying to tell them their Narcissistic toxic empathetic God is harmful , you're beyond talking to at that point , trans is just one element of it
Thank you for having this difficult conversation with me. I genuinely enjoyed it!
Keep up the excellent work Peter, I particularly enjoyed your discussions with Luana Maroja, Tabia Lee, Andrew Doyle, Helen Joyce and many more. Your unwavering commitment to truth and open debate is much appreciated. Hopefully one day your critics will be willing to openly discuss their issues with you in a public forum. Until they do we can only assume that they're deadly scared of wrongspeak and their ideology falling to pieces like the house of cards it is. I also particularly like your continued efforts to understand the opposite viewpoint in the face of personal attacks. We need more of that personal integrity.
Peter your role play was amazing.
Thanks Peter. You're potentializing zones in space that resonate.
I find the street epistemology is a good way to attune and develop structure from nowhere into a thrown position to make sense of this place... Any place on hand with anyone else in good faith 🙏
Reminds me of Socrats, toward an examined life as a social organizational requisite.
Certainly an energy people are begging for!
Thanks so much for coming on the show, Peter. It was a real pleasure!
I wish I found your work and took notes before conversing with my daughter about this when she decided she is first pan sexual at 12 and then Trans at 13.....all developing from joining an online Harry potter fan group initially.
I may have been able to be more helpful!
Thank you for your work.
Love it when my favorite podcasters collide! I think Peter’s street epistemology is great. His goal is not to change minds, but to plant the seeds of doubt for people who have never had to question their beliefs.
I think everyone who is here on the GC side can relate to that. You don’t wake up GC, the seeds of doubt are planted, and through numerous encounters that cause you to question your beliefs, they grow. And after lots of questioning, you finally come to the truth.
Having recently watched and listened to a Portland State piece with Boghossian I realized he is intelligent and insightful with the patience of a saint. Hopefully as he helps people better understand how to utilize specific strategies to discuss gender issues we as a culture can move past this insanity. As usual thank you so much Sasha and Stella for the work you do.
I knew this was going to be a great episode. Those of us willing to seek the truth have had to endure the loss of people we once held dear. In my case, this includes the social worker who helped me finalize the adoption of my daughter many years ago. We kept in touch as my child reached adulthood only to be cut off suddenly when I stated that human beings cannot change their sex and that I have grave concerns for how this gender ideology is harming women and children. That one really hurt. The CA foster care system appears to be throughly captured. If this is the case, Who is going to protect these troubled and vulnerable children?
No-one.
nobody 😞
I heard somewhere that children in the foster system make up a significant percentage of children claiming to be "TG" or "NB" it is tragic that they are recieving "help" from people who are inflicting harm on them.
I'm sorry to read of that loss. I have heard speakers from Canada talk about how this ideological cult targets children in the foster care system. Where are you? This pernicious belief system, with its True Believers & the cowards pandering to them, harms so many of the most vulnerable people! It's maddening that people defend this as progressive! I call it a multi-national secular cult because only a cult could control people's thinking to the degree this ideology does. I hate that we all have to stop important work on other causes to deal with this wildfire. What a colossal waste of time. But this monster must be slain.
I was heading to bed and got hooked after 5 minutes, which kept me up till 2am!
It was worth it.. oh yeah😊
I worked in a job that requires me to attend a customer helpdesk.
We were given the acronym LASSI.
Listen
Acknowledge
Separate
Sit down
Instruct.
So an irate customer wants their pound of flesh from you.
You listen to their complaint.
Repeat back what their complaint is to check you've got it right and to demonstrate you've listened.
Then you separate them from their audience.
Then you sit them down.
Then you instruct them about what you can do, what you can't do, and what you will do.
Sasha's point about an audience is answered by this technique. It is the inability of social media to perform LASSI that boils people's bum
Interesting.
In a more private setting (friend, relative etc) the "Separate" could also be separating out the different parts of the complaint. Often there is a muddle with many different things mixed up together, where you have one (or two) more tangible complaints, but then one (or five) much more emotionally salient intangible "she smirked at me!" or "he never calls me back" type of things.
Wow, no one taupe anything when I had to handle public complaints. I has to figure it all out myself.
What you 3 are missing here is an honest assessment of the collateral damage to society, to family members, through the extreme emotional and financial drain that every cross-sex identifying person is causing, through demands for wardrobe, accessories, make-up, injections, patches, surgeries, emergency room visits for post-surgery disasters and suicidal ideation events. There has never been any kind of estimate of the congregate cost of the ex-wives' therapy and anxiety prescriptions, as well as siblings of, children of, parents of. Life already includes the difficulties of childhood cancer, terrible accidents, good old diabetes and grief when someone dies after reaching old age. Your "pioneers' never thought to include these societal ramifications.
You make some good points. Dr. Miriam Grossman just wrote a book called Lost in Trans Nation and in this book, she addresses some of these exact points. She was recently on Triggernometry and at the end of the interview, she spoke about the effects on families.
Exactly. And in my data on 34 offspring of men who ideate a female persona, 7 expressed suicidal ideation. Reported one place in the world, YT channel, Trans Widow Ute Heggen. 4 of those had to be hospitalized after a serious attempt. Crossdressing father nowhere to be seen in the follow up therapy sessions. @@transitionsnc
You make a very valid point. It is not at all wrong to say these trans kids are extremely high maintenance and a drain on society, taxpayer dollars paying for their surgeries and everything in between. It's as if their parents never socialized them properly. I can go further saying these kids will never be well-adjusted to society. Transgender is the new Social Rebellion.
I think they have touched on these points in other episodes, but, even if I tend to agree with you that sometimes they don’t go hard enough, their main focus, being adolescent & family counselors, is how parents can defuse the bomb that transgenderism drops into a family, without it blowing up in the process, which requires a gentler approach. Your own story, as well as the work of Bilek, Exulansic, Lindsay, Joyce, Shrier, and others tell us what happens after the explosion.
Correct. But our stories clarify what's going on with the children. We've been there as adults, while our husband's therapists sanction fetish behavior and abdication of responsibility to dependent children. @@zimzob
I love Peter's Street Epistemology when students try to explain how they learnt about Gender and ask him if he is aware of the concept of 'non-binary' with no idea who it is they are talking to. They genuinely think they are the clever ones.
He has the patience of Job.
The students’ arguments are so profoundly convoluted and confused.
Even after he tells them he is a gender studies scholar, they carry on enbysplaining.
@@liberality They crack me up. I do wonder at what point they will go 'Oh. I made a right flump of myself there'. I know I'd hate it if all my incredibly ridiculous claims were on the internet forever but they are so evangelical. I bet at some point some of them contact Peter to discuss how they were radicalised into the cult.
From your description I know exactly the video you're talking about.
You can feel the girl's complete desperation to prove she is "on the right side of history" throughout and how she resorts to any dirty tactic to do so. She reeked of fear.
Ok. I get it. So this is how to do "show, don't tell". Bravo, this was a very enjoyable episode. Thanks to the three of you. ❤
I'm amazed seeing how many people in the comment section seemingly just can't relate to Peter on the grounds of a perceived lack of empathy on his part, all the while agreeing with the points he's making.
Hate to break it to you, but empathy doesn't equal compassion, in fact, sometimes, I'd say more often than not and especially with this topic, a surplus of uncritical empathy is the problem.
Peter is primarily an academic and has that orientation. He's not a therapist who needs to make their points to clients in a manner that is easier to digest. Academics are (or at they least used to be) more used to a robust exchange of ideas and have a tendency toward push back when they are in disagreement with each other. We rarely took such discussions and disagreements personally and weren't offended when challenged. We used to ask clarification questions (this is now viewed as challenging) and offered rebuttal (now viewed as a personal attack). Also, if you've seen any older videos of Peter from several years ago compared to his newer ones he's gotten much less confrontational in his approach.
Uncritical empathy...what a great way of saying just nod and go along with it. Dont question, dont debate. Such a closed rigid mindset. This ideology culture is basically a cult that has many leaders, not just one. Very scary world we are having created for us.Love Peters sense, fabulous site to hop onto also. Great listening ladies and gentleman. ❤
39:06 Critical thinking is not allowed in gender studies because postmoderism is not an academic movement. It's a political movement within academia. It's made up of leaders and followers, not free thinkers.
The only criteria for becoming a leader is the number of followers you can attract, and the rigour of your argument has nothing to do with that. In that world, it's more important to be convincing than it is to be right.
It's not allowed in the humanities at all. I had to take a humanities class for my masters and got kicked out because I was using science to make my points. The proffesor warned me that I would get kicked out because 'no one understands what you are saying and it is upsetting the other students '. But I don't know any other way of reasoning. So I kept doing it
Last year I was diagnosed with autism .
@@ruthhorowitz7625all us critical folks have a pinch of tism
The role play was just about the best thing I've ever watched
Stella's a bit too reasonable for a teenager. Where are the eye-rolls, the sighs, the not-so-subtle hints that dad is a dinosaur and is clueless 😁?
Yes, managing our own emotions as parents, especially when we have our own mental issues, is key and so difficult to master, but I'm practicing, practicing, practicing!!!
Good on you! I mean that sincerely.😊
Yes, the intentional mangling of sexual language is incredibly destructive on many levels, especially for women. It truly isn't a right/ left, and that's important to keep established.
When talking about predictions for the future, I think two separate things are going on here that need to be considered:
1. The ideology, specifically as it pertains to gender, is unappealing to most of the population. I wouldn’t be surprised if the type activism that depends on the demonization of dissenting views is in practice highly ineffective. For example, most people understand that Lia/Will Thomas has a biological advantage in swimming when compared to females. Support for trans women in women’s sports has decreased significantly, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Thomas is to blame for this; people are aware of the lies that are at play here. I believe Helen Joyce when she talks about “operation let them speak” and in this regard, the ideology works as a trend that will pass mostly because of this fundamental lack of appeal.
2. We should not disregard how the ideology also manifests as a religion and how there are individuals in high places of power who operate like religious zealots for this ideology. The biggest concern is the institutional capture of schools of education because of the susceptibility of young children to indoctrination. In that regard, the ideology will continue to unfairly propagate until it is treated as a religious belief system (albeit a secular one) in the context of public schools. Do not underestimate zealots’ sense of entitlement when it comes to indoctrinating other people’s children.
The daughter's argument was circular. She kept saying that she wanted to be a boy, but not why.
I'd ask her "what is it about being a boy that is better for you than being a girl?" There is a need to get to the core of the problem.
It could be that she hates the sexual attention she's getting from men and boys. Or she is scared of the physical changes of going through puberty. Knowing the cause of her desire to be a boy is fundamental to proceeding with the conversation.
I think the response DOES generally tend to be: "I feel like a boy! I'm actually a boy. A boy is my actual authentic self, and I am trans, I was born trans, you need to accept the real me."
And then anything to do with discomfort about the body or the societal stereotypes applied to girls/women is just dismissed as: "I hate my b/ rests because I'm a boy! I hate the social role of 'girl' just the same as a boy would hate being treated like a girl!"
@@L_Martin Your first paragraph is still a circular argument. How would you know that what you feel is what a boy feels? You would only be guessing.
No, there is always a concrete reason why the daughter does not want to be a girl. And in many cases when girls are asked, the reasons that I highlighted emerge. I just wish that Peter in this demonstration had gently probed in that direction more.
@@TheSimCaptain Of course it's circular! They're a teenager convinced they were born in the wrong body. Their discovered identity of "I'm trans" insulates them from thinking through how paradoxical this all is.
How do I know I'm actually a boy? Because I feel like a boy. What does a boy feel like? Me, because I'm a boy so this is what a boy feels like...
I'm sure you're right that perhaps with careful probing, you'd eventually get some admissions about underlying reasons for why she hates her body and hates the "gender" stereotypes forced on females, and maybe even an acknowledgement that she only knows what being a "trans boy" feels like, not what being a "cis boy" feels like.
But that could potentially take years to arrive at, assuming they get there at all. There is such a brick wall up in the face of thinking beyond identity: "I am trans because I identify as trans."
Awesome conversation! Thank you all so very much. More please…🤗
When these kids consider transition do they consider how it will be in middle or old age?
“Gender is irrelevant. Sex matters. Bye”.
That is how to have a conversation about gender.
I'm so glad that Dr. Boghossian brought up Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. I could write an entire essay about how this entire situation is what Arendt theorized. And as Dr. Boghossian states in the interview, the mindless denial will be so rampant among so many groups and so many people just as it was during the Nuremberg trials. No one will win in this situation and a lot of people will suffer.
We been beating round the bush. It’s more about the parents than the kids. Very very sad
Peter's interviews are great, I love how calm and thoughtful he is while trying to think of or trigger new thought angles!
That 'roleplay' was very sweet! Hopefully it, and if you produce more such material, will be useful to deconstruct and analyze for some parents.
I have always been sceptical of 'Truth and Reconciliation Commissions'. To get off with total impunity, after committing appalling crimes, or having been criminally negligent, just because you admit to these crimes (or at least to some of them), has always seemed to me to be an insult to justice.
My instinct is that if a person has been horribly treated - Chilean and Argentinian Fascist tortures, for example, or under Apartheid in South Africa - and there appears to be impunity for this, then it would be natural for that person - or their family or friends, if they are dead - to want to see justice. This is how vendettas begin. They start as people hand-kniting what they see as *indispensible* justice, where the State has failed even to attempt to provide it. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions offend me morally and aesthetically. I also think they are extremely dangerous.
Same thing has happened in Northern Ireland. Murderers are now lauded as men of peace. It might be the only way to stop the violence, but it's a bitter pill to swallow for the victims.
A very different process to the Nuremberg trials.
Pride denies Truth. So do psychopaths
Thank you all.
I'm really enjoying this channel. Thank you
"It's patina of high concept abstractness" writes Nussbaum about Butler's writing style.
This was one of THE best conversations I’ve heard on this subject. Fascinating.
40:00 Peter is refering to a nomological network to present ideas after having explored counter arguments
Thank you for this great conversation.
I found myself vigorously nodding to many things said this episode but especially the analogy between sharks going into a feeding frenzy when they smell blood - in my hard one experience (online elsewhere) this is a general online phenomenon that can happen in online political discussion forums and isn’t just one that occurs over gender disagreements.
But anyway, this is one of my favourite conversations you have had - and that’s saying something 🙂
Brilliant and vulnerable exchange at the end of the broadcast. Inspiring.
Thank you, three. 🙏
Wait 10 years for the lawsuits over ruined lives. I think people should be able to live as they choose, but I think some will feel later in life that they weren’t protected.
Not pertinent to the episode (although I did surprisingly enjoy it), but I really wish you'd bring Dr Cantor back to speak specifically about gender, and also I think I've heard Sasha mention her interest in cults and indoctrination a few times? I dearly wish to hear more about that, even if not directly related to this channel (and who's to say it ain't).
That was very helpful! Thanks!
It's so nice to see three of my favourite RUclips awesome-people doing a nice friendly chat.
From my understanding, the AAP's hope of a systematic review is that they'll be able to get the state governments on their side, so they're gonna do anything they have to do to make it seem appealing. I'd like to be hopeful but poor quality evidence is used all the time to support agendas. Our dietary recommendations are a perfect example of that.
I've lost many, many friends for speaking against extreme trans ideology.
Me during the Daddy Boghossian segment: "ABORT! ABORT!"
lol no it was a good modelling of how to have those conversations, I thought the point about looking at both sides of an argument and studying the topic together was a great one. Actually being challenged to adopt the viewpoint of your opponent in a debate is a really great tool for figuring out the strengths of the arguments.
I was on my high school and later college debate teams. We had to be prepared to argue both the pros and the cons of the question we were to debate. The side each team drew was selected strictly by chance and you usually went multiple rounds per event. So you had to know both the arguments supporting and opposing a proposed question, as well as the counters to various arguments and the counters to those counters. It was very good preparation for learning to think logically and doing research and developing arguments.
Truth and Reconciliation has a much different meaning up here in Canada. I sincerely hope the gender ideology version of your T&R is a lot more truthful than ours.
@AndyJarman “Puberty” is a perfectly good word, meaning attaining physical maturity, being physically able to reproduce. “Puberty” is specific; “late bloomer” is vague, subject to interpretation, and doesn’t say, specifically, what “bloomer” might mean (I can think of several very different ways to interpret that word without even trying). Down with euphemisms. Up with clarity.
Thank you Peter ❤
Brilliant!
Honestly I just want to find a real professional who can help and support in getting my teen out of this madness. All so far took their side and brushed me off as the unsupportive parent.
Would love to know what the inappropriate joke was. And of course he's smart not to have told it as it would have been taken out of context. Wasn't so convinced by his father child interaction. Still really appreciate what Peter is doing in the world.
These videoa are the frontline of a battle for people's SOULS! Their very existence is at risk. Some of the most creative and brightest people are being destroyed by ideology. Stella, Peter and Sacha present this calmly, but in reality, they should be wearing suits of armour to accurately depict the war that we are all in.
Good interview.
Peter's point about the tools of philosophy helping philosophers make poor judgments was made by Hannah Arendt as well.
Lol, the "Aiden" meme
Hey! You got your peanut butter on my chocolate! My two favorite podcasts get together!! (GenX reference 😂)
I have to wonder how much hormones (hormone imbalance maybe) and the like have anything to do with this phenomenon? Has any research professional done any studies with the artificial hormones added to foods and pre/pubescent kids consuming said food possibly contributing to this?
Excellent question. Bet it is not being studied.
@@pathacker4963 probably not.
Envy is a major trait of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. So what does that tell us.
Oh my goodness!!! I loved the role play!!
That was great, very practical in how to deal with the hard /delicate issues.
It is so sad how his friends turned their back on him without even accepting a rational conversation 😓
Yesssss!!!!! Peter!
That interaction/role play was a good enough starter for a model alright. Mind you, I have to say the adolescent was very rational, unemotional, not particularly childish in attitude and displayed no observable autistic traits in either speech or cues or reactions. This is not a judgement. I have raised an autistic son who is in his forties now. So the conversation with him would be more likely to be scholarly and overly pedantic, full of statements of information, lists and lists, such that it would bamboozle any adult trying to bring about a conversation, even with good intention and great care. A back and forth conversation is extremely difficult to achieve unless the child with autistic traits had already had “Theory of Mind” therapy, such that they could conduct such an exercise and that was never even a thought back then because children were not being diagnosed until they were nearly 18. However it should be immediately made available now to any child with autistic traits because studies have shown that not only do children with autistic traits not have “Theory of Mind “ for others they cannot exercise it for their own selves. So interpreting their “feelings” about being something other than their biological sex emanates as much from that as anything else. I can say that once a stance was taken it was nearly impossible to shift. Luckily, the only computer access then was Atari for Mario Cart gaming. My “normie” daughter, on the other hand would have been more defiant, and very likely to pile on the emotion, because she felt it. She would also decline to “study together” because “I’m not talking to you about sex. You’re my mother and that’s embarrassing. Anyway, this is about me, not you” would have been her response. And again, no internet access for her either so lucky them. All I can say is thank goodness they’re reared. I think the approach the parents and teachers have adopted in Greystones County Wicklow for children attending Primary schools - no smart phones whatsoever - is the best answer. I would even extend it to Secondary schools up to 4th year to keep them away from anime and from porn because those are also huge contributors to the Contagion. Contagion would not contaige! And by the way, we’re not out of the woods yet, my twenty five year old is gay with ADHD and body dysmorphia and currently in a major conflict with his oldest friends who are doing the same to him as Peter’s did to him because as someone who studies anatomy, biology, sports, he’s not about to deny reality and is utterly against transing children. Ireland of today. Who knew?
You want to conserve classical liberalism, that means you’re a conservative. You yourself are afraid of being called a conservative
I want Peter Boghossian to be my dad 😅
I always get confused when Peter says he lost 'so many friends' due to all of this. I'm his age and I have like 6 or 7 people who I'd call a real friend. He's making it out to be that he lost many tens of friends. Obviously those were never his friends to begin with?
Peter collects a lot of friends, that's one thing I gathered from listening to him. He reminds me a little of Hitchens in the sense that he seems to just enjoy people.
@@L_Martin I sure get that. I just can't imagine losing a friend over some bullshit like this. They wouldn't truly have been friends to begin with.
Evidence is what we need. And we need to show orientation of the ontic beings and the directions.
Imminent potential of spaces. And also take development a whole lot more seriously.
If we are transparent and include people in on the make, then the complexity can be tucked into middle ground. So like this process could be mapped out and a way of showing narratives to people who have different developmental capacities.
The doctor that created the lobotomy committed suicide after visiting many of the patients he had harmed and seeing what he had done to them. It was either the doctor that created the lobotomy, or a doctor that performed most of them.
There are exponentially more people involved in this, and exponentially more people harmed. So, yeah, they won't be able to let it go. They'll have to gaslight, or keep holding on to it.
Excellent
Great role play at the end. SOOOO familiar. D.A., NYC
1:03:56 Wow, Sasha should be a method actress because she sounded so convincing as a young teen when she made that objection! What she said & the way she said it was totally believable.
It’s been proven false that parents know their children better than anyone. It’s unfortunate but it’s true.
The child in the role play would have walked out in real frustration, hurt and dismay and rage. The father was being manipulative, and was trying to score points, not helpful at all. A CBT approach would allow the premise of the decision to transition to be challenged without undermining the child.
How was he trying to score points? The main thing he kept saying was that in order to properly research a contentious topic, you should look at both sides, at least have a basic grasp of the subject that isn't all exclusively from one perspective. How is that manipulative?
He didn't at any point even say "You're wrong in how you think about yourself" or even much engage with the identity issue. A concrete plan to engage in the topic together, exchanging things to read and watch. At what point did he undermine the kid?
As I was listening to your conversation, I realized you could remove gender affirming care focus with COVID19, early treatment with inexpensive safe repurposed drugs , etc. versus waiting for the shot. Including the origins of the virus and the government regulating public health interventions. I discovered your your RUclips channel. Thank you. 😢🧠💜☮️💪🏼
Peter, then these people have never been friends, from what you say , a time for a rethink.
i'm a long-term transitioner and i've read a lot of anti-trans content from the beginning of my transition. i think i do have my own 'apologetics' defending mtf transitions, but my arguments are routinely deleted or ignored by both trans and anti-trans activists. it's so frustrating to see how trans activists sabotage their own cause, and make right-wing populists look good. (when they're certainly not.) something that's also happening with other, much more important political issues
I thought he was amazing but a real teen is way more manipulative and also would be freaking out about the time this would take
>”Do they watch anime”
Damn Pete honed in on that quick
I’m curious about Peters experience working with transgender youth and which literature he refers to, to ground his disdain about de transitioning.
I’m familiar with the literature.
He does that emotive ‘Jordan Peterson’ moral outrage / thorns are going to get so bad thing.
I get frustrated with Peter because he doesn’t finish lots of topics. He puts an interesting point aside on the basis of getting back to it but never does! I want closure! Lol
Lol.
You should call him ‘dad’ and ask him for pocket money. If you identify as his child , we should respect your true identity and affirm it.
Peter gives the resigned air of an older and wiser man.
How he has been treated is abominable.
its not on the decline. genz women are growing in voter power.
Respectfully, this is not an impossible conversation, it's not even hard... It's only hard because we don't want to hurt people's feelings or be seen as bigots. However, it IS hard, if not impossible, to make a logical sane person/parent/child, believe in other people's delusional disorder, and say it's correct and reasonable, all in the name of "political correctness"🤦♀️🤷♀️
I knew she was going to say Aiden.
Good conversation...what saddens me is that channels like these are in the 1000s of subscribers and views...and instead those of "influencers" that promotes how beautiful it is to take Xsx hormones at 14yo play with millions...
They haven’t opted out of the rules of engagement you have. You are not playing by the rules of rationality. You’re playing by the rules of rhetoric. Everything your going is nasty and slanderous. You’re not the victim.
9:39 how many of these people do you think are following the Rules for Radicals - iRL
47:00 role play
19:10 What? It's "easy" to get tenure? Maybe in the USA. Absolutely not in North/West Europe! Many excellent scientists with great publication records do not manage to get a professorship. At least not in the natural/physical sciences (my field).
yeah, people will keep gaslighting.....
The same AAP that still endorses circumcision, a practice far more insidious and engrained than any other. Imagine the battle us intactivists are waging. Anti gender affirming care activists cannot fail to make the connection to circumcision and 'surgery' on intersex babies, ala Billboard Chris.
The circumcision horse left the barn thousands of years ago. It’s part of the Jewish faith and many men who have been circumcised want their sons to look like them. I am personally against it. But I don’t think it’s going away anytime soon.
First!
🏆
He seems very intellectual, but without access to emotions and empathy. His actions in the role play at the end support my point. In the role play he is speaking to his 13 yr old gender questioning daughter and presses them to name 3 detransitioners and if they can't, then he is not convinced they have researched thoroughly. This demonstrates (to me) a real lack of ability to see through the eyes of another person and near argumentative/hostility toward them, in this case his pretend 13 yr old gender questioning daughter. He can barely stop himself from repeatedly interrupting the person, and at one point says that if the daughter decides to transition then he will fully support them. This statement is either a lie, or simply a bad approach to dealing with the situation. I can see the young person latching onto that, and then trying to hold him to it- how would he get out of that without immense disappointment to the child and loss of trust?
I can't say that he demonstrates lack of empathy, but he is also not demonstrating the presence of empathy. My interpretation, is that he is not able to understand the perspective of the persons in these situations, and has only a grip on the logic. Like I wrote before, he seems to see people and reality as Rubik's cubes, objectively and detached. I don't think his arguments are wrong, but if he can't connect, then even if he is right, he will only be right in an echo chamber. The people for whom it really matters, perhaps that need an off ramp, will keep him at arms reach, because they can tell he doesn't understand them and he seems hostile towards them. Thanks for the video-
Peter comes from the world of academic philosophy. (I did, as well.) That's pretty much what you find in philosophy discourse. It's about reasoning and argumentation. It evaluates reasons and evidence in an impersonal way. It is what you want in philosophy, sciences, engineering, law, and maybe some other areas. Modern gender discourse completely rejects impersonal and objective analysis -- you can't evaluate ideas without being called a bigot.
As a conversational style, it may not connect with everyone. Helen Joyce is very empathetic, and she obviously has challenges connecting the gender ideologues. It's probably correct that not every style will connect with everybody. I believe Peter has a place to fill in the world of philosophy, scepticism, atheism, along with other people like Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Colin Wright.
@richarddoan9172 thank you for writing. I have worked as a scientist (botany related), I understand the objective pursuit of truth. Im trying to say i dont think that is the appropriate approach when dealing with people. The problem I see, is that people are composed of more than that, emotions and experiences affect our interpretation of reality. It is understandable to what to interpret reality objectively, but people don't live that way. There are never good analogies for gender issues, but for the sake of argument, would you say it is possible to convince two sides in a conflict of war- to simply logic their way to a peace deal? It's not possible, one must address the emotional, historical and other factors that have lead to the conflict. The lack of addressal of those subjective components make it difficult or impossible for someone with Peter's approach to have any real affect other what can be found in an echo chamber of people who are already on his side of the debate or who are leaning his way, perhaps that is his goal. But for the people most affected, those that need an off ramp, this is simply going to push them further out of reach. This is my opinion. I'm sure there are arguments both ways, and I'm open-minded to hear them and be convinced otherwise.
@@jeng3609 I don't disagree that there are people, perhaps yourself included, that are put off by Peter's communication style or personality. And you may have accurately assessed why. But I think it's wrong to assume that everybody responds to it in the same way.
I also would not want to read too much into the role playing exercise. That's an artificial example. I agree he seemed aggressive in that. But really, it was kind of a weird situation for him to be in. For real world interaction, the street epistemology is more representative.
But more importantly, we need to get clear on what Peter actually does in his conversations, both in street epistemology and in the role playing here. Peter is not trying to argue for a position. He is not debating. So it is off the mark to say that he won't succeed in convincing anybody, because he's not trying to. He is probing people about their views and assumptions so that they can understand and refine their position. That may or may not result in people changing their minds. It very well can, but that's not the goal. This kind of Socratic dialog is standard for college-level philosophy classes, and which I have done myself in philosophy instruction. Granted, not everyone likes participating in that, and some of them may choose other fields of study because of that. There's always a lot of people who don't engage in the classroom. Indeed, most philosophy students are male, which suggests that personality type may play a strong factor in determining who goes into the field, and who are receptive this kind of interaction. In terms of personality, Peter is very much like any other philosophy professor you find in the classroom.
@richarddoan9172 thank you for writing. Very insightful.
@@jeng3609 , that's very nice of you to say. :) Have a good day!
This was good.
Willful ignorance is very fragile.
If he was Trans he wouldn’t have his job.
That parent/daughter discussion wouldn't happen with our brilliant autistic PDA kid, anymore that the same approach did when discussing the choice to use drugs. And these days the 'facts' available online cater to whatever 'side' one wants to justify. If these kids are not open to any other perspective all that does is cause them to ridicule and dig in harder. Nice try, but rationalizing this argument with facts is pointless.
Boghossian seems like a strange bedfellow for the show, but I suppose needs must in difficult times. I agree with lots of things that he says but really don't agree with most of his fundamental ideas about the origins of all of this stuff. He seems almost as ideologically captured by his own niche explanation for the origins of this phenomenon as any Foucault quoting leftie. I don't know how he squares the fact that the push back against this ideology started with old school "leftist", often Marxist, feminists and that an alliance of hyper-individualist "you can be what you want to be!" young feminists and virtually every organ of our modern Capitalist states (particularly healthcare) have fallen in line within a few years. Apparently a successful coup by deluded Marxist academics that, for most of the post-war period, were content to debate similar ideas behind closed seminar room doors. If only they'd have known how easy would have been back in the 70s, they could have already taken over the world! Also, he doesn't seem to understand that the people that will most likely slow, or derail, the attempts to end the ideology are the knee jerk right that have grabbed on to it for their own ends. You can bet they are not going to to stop with just getting rid of Gender Ideology.
I don't know much about Boghossian but from the little I have read, and observed, of Lindsey he seems like a man with incredibly fixed ideas about things that has ideas about the left, and the world in general, that border on paranoid. The Great Reset, Trump, corrupt world government, COVID fantasies. There is an essay on his website that takes the "corruption" of universities back to the invention of Women's Studies. Neither of them seem to take into account how this huge epistemological crisis has come about within a dominant culture in which lies and half truths are allowed, and encouraged to flourish, by both old media and new, and in which statements about human nature and "the way things work" seem to have absolutely no truth to them in the lives of average people. Lots of people are completely adrift, they don't know what is true anymore. In these conditions obvious nonsense thrives.
It's much simpler to blame, among other things, "Post Modernism", as if this was invented by a communist intellectual cabal in some lab, in order to corrupt the youth of The West, but, of course, it arrived as an explaination for a process of collapse similar to today, that started when the "Grand Narratives" of progress and the rational human, was eviscerated by 2 world wars. I'm not sure what sort of intellectual tradition they want to reinstate, they seem to strongly represent a kind of tradition in which people do, and think what they are told by those that know better. People like him, I assume.
really interesting take, thank you
@joce11 Yes I have, and my wife has been the head of Psychology at a university in the UK for 10 years, I've met a lot of academics.
@joce11 no problem at all
I appreciate your reference to Lyotard and the other intellectuals of the 20th century, especially because they are very important. I can't give your post a proper response, but from someone who took a LOT of queer theory and WGS courses, I get the impression that the breakdown came in the 80s and 90s especially with writers like Judith Butler, Eve Sedgwick, Deleuze, Badiou, Donna Haraway, and others. I actually really enjoy a lot of these writers, but for instance, many of these writers do not have much empirical evidence and write in an aphoristic style (a criticism of the 80s). The difficulty with teaching these scholars now is distinguishing between critical theory (applying essentially a philosophical text to a literary text for interpretation, for example) and a scientific theory. Most students don't see the difference and take the above writers literally and at face value. I taught Butler many years ago and my students took her writing very literally. It was hard to scale them back.
Excellent point. I was doing my work in the early 1980s in Political Science. We read a lot of post modernist and neo-marxist writers in addition to more traditional social contract prescriptions such as Rawls Theory of Justice. Much of the writing was in that style, especially that of political philosophers. I originally read much of their writing as aphorisric and utopian in nature but didn't feel it was practical to implement in American society. I had also done a fair amount of work on millenarian movements and their impact on politics on societies. One of the things that always struck me was the essentially gnostic underpinnings of postmodernist critical theory and how much alike they were to gnostic beliefs and the Catholic doctrine of trans-substantiation. Specifically if you go into the whole trans debate the parallels between the two are striking.
Not the brightest guy...Clearly has A LOT of biases and blind spots... Utterly ignorant on many topics... BUT I absolutely agree with him about gender specifically
Tactics as old as time. Tactics used in attacks and attempts to discredit Jesus... Truth
I get his general approach with discussing transgenderism with his pretend daughter - gently and innocently getting her to examine her own thoughts, feelings, influences and examining the meanings of the words she is using (like "study"), but it's still somewhat confrontational in tone and delivery. It still comes off as dismissive, not completely sincere, and (at least to a young girl) as being agenda driven by his own immutable opinions. And at one point he incorrectly mirrors her words back to her - the part where he says, "So you'd feel better if you could get people to see you as male" when her key point is that she IS male.
It seems that this whole process could be shortcutted simply by putting the information in front of her about the hazards of transition therapy, drugs, surgery, etc. and how this stuff is being done irresponsibly ..... and then make that required reading/viewing in order for him to agree to help her move forward with transitioning. Then if this hypothetical daughter doesn't want to look into this side of it - in order to get what she thinks she wants - then it should become evident that she doesn't really want it that bad anyway.... and eventually this would dawn on her and she'd look for other healthier ways to get her needs met.
You could even start off the whole dialog with, "Hey, I am going to fully support whatever it is you want to do," which is totally disarming, with the caveat, "..... as soon as you can demonstrate to me that you have been well informed" (and talking to other random trans teenagers online does not constitute being well informed in the real world - however that idea can be respectfully conveyed.)
Waynebollman - this, your comment, is the most helpful thing I have read in the last three weeks, (after devouring three books, countless RUclips videos, and a million articles), ever since finding out that my 21-year-old, high functioning autistic daughter told us she changed her name and pronouns, and wants to cut off her breasts 3 years from now. NOW I know how to start the conversation (slightly modified for a 21-year-old). Thank you!
@@goddessgirl5891 Excellent. So glad to have been of service. My heart totally goes out to you in this.
It all started with political correctness.
Oh look. No Trans representative or a representative of good peer reviewed consensus research.
This is not an impossible conversation. This is a stupid an non compassionate conversation.
Who's yer daddy?