A better definition is, "gender is the cultural expression of biological sex". It's a fair enough argument that different cultures throughout time have had different expectations of men and women, but they still all had the same general idea. So gender is malleable, but it's inextricably linked to biological sex.
Gender, historically, means the same thing as sex. The _only_ reason these words have diverged is for the sake of propagandizing. The whole "gender ideology" debate is _confused_ by these synonymous terms being conflated by the average person who has always correctly known them to be synonymous, which is convenient for the people who want to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about as you stumble through their broken path of logical fallacies.
@Selrisitai it is true that they were once used synonymously but it is pointless to argue they are the same thing now. It is also pointless to pretend that there are not social and cultural expressions of sex. If you don't want to call it gender, you will need another term, but that would be also silly given that gender is often used as the term to debate this. The word sex has no ambiguity and it is frankly just fucking irritating these days when people won't just say sex when they mean sex. It instantly removes any doubt.
“Cisgender lifestyles” wtf does that even mean? I’m “cisgender” and reject gender roles, I don’t have to consider myself trans or not a woman to do that. That in itself is more liberating and less confusing.
If you live in US or Europe, Gender roles are not enforced into you anyways so there is nothing you are rejecting, gender roles are a result of voluntary action. And they are not a law or an order, but an observation.
Same here. I have always been gender-non-conforming but I never considered myself being trans. Not did I want to become a male, being biological female. I just wanted the society to stop discriminating against women and forcing them into certain behaviour against their will. 55 y o now.
What is Jesse's argument? Genuinely. Is Jesse saying that observing genitals is not a reliable way to determine sex? Even though intersexism is rare and not at all relevant in this conversation? Most trans women have functional penises, they have experienced normal male puberty. Many of them having fathered children. Even some DSD conditions can be determined by genitals. CAH and PAIS, since that is an enlarged clitoris and an underdeveloped penis, respectively. Jesse needs to argue that a trans woman, who fathered multiple children, is somehow not a male. DSD are not relevant, and they all have symptoms - Some with very severe health problems.
And most of the trans women who do not have functional penises still lack natural female attributes- Md have damaged or outright removed their penises from themselves through surgery.
He also needs to explain how it is valuable for anyone or any thing-even the transsexual himself-to be regarded as the thing he says he is instead of what he demonstrably, biologically, medically and physically is. How does it afford any value to me, you, society at large or the transsexual for a person with denser bones, denser muscle, thicker skin, greater stature and the ability to produce and inject sperm to be labeled "female"? The word is being used as a pacifier. "Well, I might kill myself otherwise." Well, you better go out and start giving drugs to junkies, because if they can't get their fix. . . .
DSD presents differemtly in males and females. We've stopped calling calling it intersex, because DSD sufferers were uncomfortable with them being labeled an exception to male and female.
Well, if you are going by that, that Albanian boxer that made all the Olympic headlines would be female. But she still should never have been in the ring with those women, but due to sex based rules women can not fight men.
Lol, "Europeans enforced the binary gender upon the colonized countries." And what exactly was there before that? Never heard such unsubstantiated nonsense before. Who in the whole world takes that circus seriously??
Overcomplicating the subject again. This person is arguing that intersex people are in an in-between state. However Even if this were true it would have no bearing on T identified peoples. It's a false equivalent, the powers of imagination and cosmetic procedures don't an intersex make.
What they're trying to do is sort of a "Gish Gallop." Throw out all of these confounding factors in order to pretend that things are just a whirlwind of confusion and nonsense and no one actually knows anything. "So we might as well just be allowed to say we are what we wanna be, right?" But the WHOLE argument boils down to this: "If I cut off my arm, I only have one arm; therefore, humans do not have two arms."
@@Selrisitai I truly dislike the "gender and sex are different" argument. I'd be fine with it if they stuck to it but they seem only to be different when it's convenient. I also have no respect for philosophy, it's always used to justify some terrible argument. "If you look at it like this" followed by nonsensical rambling.
A biological mutation does not prove anything in regard to the norms of the human species There are humans born without legs such does not prove that humans normally are born with no legs Besides a genetic mutation is nothing like trans, One is caused by natural factors and the other is caused by purposeful changes to the body such like surgery
The point didn't even stand anyway cause Hermione did choose gryfindor just not in the way harry did she literally says as such in the order of the Phoenix
In this new generation/era . The LGBTQ keep adding on,putting categories in categories,rearranging categories and changing meanings, come up to people saying every pronoun they are not their name, and not acting like a normal person.
Why does he make a distinction between action figures and dolls when action figures ARE dolls. The only difference between an action figure and a doll is to whom they are marketed.
If an ideology is completely incoherent and dishonest then it is somewhat unlikely that anyone who supports the ideology is able to be coherent and hones whilst pushing the ideology.
The problem is that the people, calling out an incoherent ideology by correctly defining how it behaves, are themselves called incoherent because it's pushed that they propose the ideology rather than opposing it.
They would say that it's literally just a matter of what they were "assigned" at birth. Transwomen are women who were "assigned male at birth". Ciswomen are women who were "assigned female at birth". That's literally it. That's the difference. It's shallow on purpose.
Some advocates say it's just gonna take time like acceptance of gay people but that's a bad comparison. Before the internet people thought being gay was a choice and were simply ignorant. There's no ignorance about trans people that's keeping the majority from getting on board with the ideology.
@@swampsprite9 Also gay people weren't asking for anything... they wanted 'tolerance', the right to be left alone. The 'trans' want everybody to go along with their metaphysical belief system, and the right to trample on everyone else's rights
I find it insane. "Gender" wasn't a thing a few decades ago, and men and women used to refer to the biological sex of an individual. But activists said "male" and "female" alreaady exist to refer to sex, so we should leave them man and woman. Now even male and female can't be used for biological sex? What words should we use? The whole discussion is insane.
I'm on the left and have tried having debates with other lefties in groups I go to online. They either insult me quickly and leave or start talking in circles without answering my questions. They clearly have a denial problem and many are as dogmatic as the religious right. Most people seriously lack critical thinking skills; it's scary.
I really despise the term "assigned at birth". It sets up really regarded assumptions. The doctor doesn't "assign" your sex, it's observed. Nobody gets to decide, not even you.
@@tekrit3249 The trans activists appropriated the term "sex assigned at birth" from people with DSDs. In their case, sex was sometimes _literally_ assigned because the genitals were so ambiguous that doctors would consult with the parents, decide which gender they would raise the child as and then do sex reassignment surgery to make the genitals resemble those of the gender they assigned. It is both inaccurate and unfair to describe it as the sex "assigned" at birth when the person has unambiguous genitalia and doesn't have a DSD.
If I said to you "Hi King Critical, I would like to debate with you whether we ought to bring back the death penalty. When I use the words "I believe" I may mean "I do not believe". When I say "we should" I may mean "we should not". When I say death I may mean life. And I am going to change my position between pro and anti at random times during our conversation" would you be up for having that debate or would you regard it as a complete waste of time? It seems to me that trying to extrapolate meaningful coherent messaging from TRAs is even less worthwhile an endeavour.
Even back when I was more of less on board with a lot of the trans stuff (I hadn’t looked into it super deeply until the past year or so) people would recommend me Jessie Gender. SO much of their videos are pointless meaningless guff. I don’t understand how anyone can unironically think they’re good videos even if they agree.
Your nightmarish and exhaustive disassembly of what is *just a guy stuck in his own Monty Python sketch* should make for an interesting listen, but strangely enough... it doesn't.
Humanity is doomed. Listen to first 5 minutes of this video. There are hundreds of brilliant brains now relegated to pondering the nuances of “what’s a bloke and what’s a bird??”. It’s souls destroying when I think about how cool it was when philosophers and intellectuals alike would speak on fascinating topics.
The worst part of the analogy with Hogwarts house assignments (besides the fact it's fictional) is that nobody has ever successfully been moved from one house to a different one. We didn't see a single Slytherin learn to be brave who was then moved into Gryffindor, or a Hufflepuff who became such a nerd they got moved to Ravenclaw, and that's the sort of thing that would be analogous to a sex change. The decision is final, made once, and that's the end of the story. If you're trying to argue that sex can be changed but that it's like Hogwarts houses, you've already failed at the first step. It's also completely unknown whether anyone else's preference for which house in which they would be placed would be taken into account, and it's a convenient assumption to make that it's not, given we don't see any students or former students who expressed displeasure with their assignments. We don't see that even in cases where you would expect it, like when twins wind up in different houses. I would also venture to guess the reason for putting Hermione in Gryffindor and not Ravenclaw and Ginny in Slytherin and not Gryffindor was to make it clear that it WAS actually about one dominant trait, not a collection of things. It's not a matter of what's the main thing other people notice about you, but what's the main thing that's most important to you, and you could say that's analogous to biological sex not being about what other people think when they look at you but about your essential biological makeup that has nothing to do with their perception. If you're going to make a long-winded analogy, the least you could do is be right about the essential thing.
Unless I misunderstood the books, the house assignments were made based on some immutable characteristic within one's essence, determined by the hat thing and not primarily dictated by the rules of the school. Which does work as an analogy to one's sex. Even though there are more than two houses obviously 😂
Ask JG to go to the US National Institutes of Health website and read the universally accepted stages of child development originated by Jean Piaget. 1. Sensory-Motor (birth - 2) 2. Pre-Operational (3-5) 3. Concrete Operational (6 - 11) 4. Formal Operational (11- 14) "Since birth" cannot be, as Sensory-Motor phase does not have the language development to express such a dissatisfaction with baby's body. Telling a teen that props, that is wardrobe, accessories, make-up and haircuts "prove" the unprovable, is sending this patient into regression to Concrete Operational stage, ages 6 - 11. Remember the ball of clay the child thinks is more when it's rolled into a snake? As well object permanence, acquired ages 3-5, does not comport with "wrong body" self identification. I was literally told by my now ex husband's therapist that he was going to "regress" and go through a "second adolescence" in his transition and it was my job to help him grown up all over again. I stepped away from that thankless task. You rock as always, King Critical!
Wow, same thing happened to me. My now ex-husband suddenly, at 30 years old, is under the delusion that he wants to be a woman. I also was not going to stick around to raise an adult. Good on you!!
22:40 Here is a better analogy: A police officer is defined as an agent of the government authorized to enforce the law. You generally cannot tell if a person is a police officer or not by simply looking at them, because the thing that makes them a police officer is their legitimate employment with a police force. However, there are secondary characteristics we associate with police officers, such as wearing a uniform, having a badge, driving a squad car, and carrying a gun. These are the things we use to identify police officers. It is possible to fake all of these identifiers, which is why the crime of impersonating an officer exists. If Jesse's argument was true, then we would have to say that any person we think is a police officer _is_ a police officer and that it is impossible to _impersonate_ a police officer.
"B-BUH GENDER ISNT POLICE MAN!!! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT (I have no argument) TRANSPHOBE HOMOPHOBE RACIST SEXIST WOMANIZING BIGOTED NAZI MAGA RETARD!!!! (damn I showed him!)" - Some trans person, probably
@@HellCatt0770 Good analogy ! To make this even more fool proof, lets assume that we see outside that the ground is wet... now 99% this would have been caused by "raining" therefore we can assume that it has been raining (even though maybe 1% of the time this could have been caused by accident such as water leakage).... This is the same thing with chromosones, as doctors and researchers within medicine, all come to the consensus that chromosones are CAUSALLY effecting secondary sex characteristics. It is ridicolous to completley ignore this and point to "outliers"
@@pickupmygroceriespeasantTRAS argue that you can't do that. They think that just by engaging with Harry Potter you're genociding zillions of trans people every second
Why is it controversial for trans women to be called trans-identified biological men? Furthermore, if gender is merely a social construct, why do trans people care what people believe their gender is? If someone believed that I, 6'2 ,200+ and fit, was a woman, I'd assume they were insane, joking or gay. Either way, it wouldn't bother me
@@blacksocrates1 Because it's a standard that cisgender people aren't held to. Cisgender people's subjective/nonsense games with gender as set as granted and ovelooked, where trans people 'break the illusion' and thereby draw the attention of bigots. Because it has material affect on their lives, including their access to healthcare.
Exactly. It’s not a trans problem, it’s a man problem. How much of this issue revolves around trans-men? Very little because women aren’t the threat that men are.
It's definitely a trans problem, trans ideology perpetuates and reinforces sexist and regressive sex stereotypes that hurt everyone. As an effeminate gay man, I don't appreciate Buck Angel and Jammidodger equating their lumberjack/soyboy cosplay with my decades of lived experience as a male.
@@АлексейТабаков-ы8в they may be not a physical threat to men but they are still a part of the overall problem of the ideology that sugests sex is less important than "gender".
Given that its more difficult for women to go back after having their bodies mutilated, I think "trans men" should be discussed more often. Its kind of wild, a "trans woman" literally has to put on a voice constantly, some can pull it off, but most just sound annoying, but the cross sex hormones in a woman actually will lower her voice, and after that there's no going back. And obviously slicing things off, youre not getting that back. If she has kids later she wont be able to breast feed them. Its very unfortunate.
The idea that you can't know what an object or phenomena is, without having a rigorous scientific explanation of it, is such a reach that I'm surprised this Gender gentleman even made it. It doesn't take a thorough understanding of chemistry or atomic physics to know what water is, in terms of it's utility to us, or our ability to identify it. Humans have done this for our entire esistence, long before physics or chemistry even existed. In a similar vein, there is no real scientific description of what a living organism is and what differentiates living and non living things, (viruses expecially complicate this argument). Yet even a small child knows the difference between living and non living things in a practical and, for most purposes, sufficient sense. To say that one needs specialist knowledge to identify everyday phenomena, which heretofore most people had a commonly agreed, although to a degree provisonal understanding of, is the sort of thinking that leads a prospective judge to avoid the question of what a woman is since they are not a biologist. When one's entire ideology is built upon such unsupported sophistry maybe it's time to abandon it.
@@KC_Streams not in my neck of the woods (West Country). It's thoroughly American from my perspective. Then again, Brits are becoming more Americanised (Americanized?)
@@eneedham789 I’m in my late 40s and British… counting seconds in Mississippis seems perfectly normal to me. I think I learned to count seconds that way as a small child before Elephants or other words. Never really considered it an American thing despite it being a US place name.
Yeah, I've had trans activists try to argue that I'm somehow "no longer biologically female" for taking testosterone and having had my breasts removed (I'm a detransitioner so I kinda regret that, but that's beside the point as my biology has zero to do with how I feel about my body) even though I still produce ova and have the capacity to be pregnant. It's just completely nonsensical the way they view taking taking cross-sex hormones and getting breast surgery as a sex change, when it demonstrably isn't. A male with tits has not stopped being male, and a female without tits has not stopped being female. You don't even need a science lab to prove that. But they're just shutting their ears to it at this point, I think. I don't think they care about the actual truth, unless it benefits their feelings.
Also, for the entirety of human history, eunuchs have been viewed as males. Men do not magically become women just because they lose sexual function or reproductive capacity through either accident or willful malice. Least of all do men become women by simply uttering the magical words "I am a (trans) woman".
That's like someone saying that Dennis Avner, known as "Cat Man," a man who won the Ripley's Believe It Or Not! record for body modifications, must be a real tiger. He just had surgery to look like a cat, but he was still a human. Or there's Richard Hernandez (Tiamat Legion Medusa), who made himself look like a snake dragon.
Hey all! This is the first time this year I believe that I failed to get a video up on wednesday and instead it's going up on friday. I do have the very good excuse for this though that... I just put it off. Anyway, it's here now! But since I usually have such a consistent schedule I just thought I'd explain the irregularity
@@KC_Streams Can you tell me what t rights are. You do alot of reacting to reactions and subsequent debunking. I'd love to hear your opinion on what t rights are and the ramifications of enacting such rights would be. I disagree with virtually all of your political views but this topic is something i find your views valuable.
Jesse in my experience will never actually address issues clearly and directly, but will just kind of go on radical gender ideology monologues and pretend that it addressed anything.
14:32 And as far as I understand this is also completely historically inaccurate. The ideal female body has changed countless times over the course of history, depending on what was considered important. In the Renaissance era for instance, a voluptuous body was a sign of wealth and good health. It meant to others that you were able to afford as much food as you could possibly need. Saying "europeans tried to frame voluptuousness as inhuman" makes very little sense.
22:03 - 34:20 From the two examples you gave, I think the comparison to planets is more convincing - and you touched upon what I'm about to say. Here are my thoughts: Those definitions changed for different reasons. In the past, even when the International System of Units was already adopted, the measurement for a kilogram, a second, or any other unit was necessarily based on tuning your measuring tool with a standard value. In and of itself, this meant that, if for some reason the standard changed, then every tool would be inaccurate. This happened multiple times with the kilogram: not only did the replicas of the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK for short) used in different countries deviate from the actual mass of the IPK, but all of them including the original also changed in mass over time because of different factors, such as air contamination. To remedy this the ISU gradually changed the definitions of the units to rely on precise, unchanging constants (nice pleonasm). As it was meant to be the language of the universe, it was necessary to be defined by the universe itself. The kilogram, along with three other units that were still based on comparative values, was therefore redefined in 2019 to be based on natural constants. Now the kilogram depends on three constants, a specific transition of a caesium-133 isotope, the speed of light, which you both mentioned, as well as the Planck's constant. The actual units themselves had the same values before and after the change in definition, however. For example the meter is defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in one 299,792,458th of a second. That should ring a bell immediately since this number is exactly the value of the speed of light. It seems like a circular definition, but this is necessary to make sure that the values don't get changed for every calculation ever made. The goal here was to set in stone the way we describe, write and discuss the universe. A long winded explanation, but necessary in my opinion. Now for the planets. Spotting rocky celestial bodies is very tricky. It took humanity thousands of years and the evolution of relatively modern astronomy to go from spotting planets up to Saturn with the naked eye, to the full(er) picture of the Solar System that we have today. Pluto was discovered in 1930. Charon, the largest moon of Pluto, was discovered almost 50 years later. It took 20 more years to discover a third body in the Kuiper belt. I personally find myself in awe that humanity could even discover such far away bodies. Anyway, as more bodies were discovered in the conjectured Kuiper belt, astronomers realised that Pluto was way different from the other bodies considered to be planets. The same thing had happened in the past with Ceres and a few other bodies once astronomers discovered more and more of the asteroid belt. The definition of planet was later changed in the 2000's to include three criteria: the body orbits a star, its mass must be great enough that it has warped into a spherical shape, and it must be the dominant object in its orbit (new). This did exclude objects that were previously considered planets. And it makes sense, since planets, asteroids, dwarf-planets are and were fairly arbitrary classifiers. Situations will arise in the future where a definition must be altered to keep the original spirit. What was interesting with the "demotion" of Pluto was that it was met with backlash from not only some astronomers, but also the general population. People saw one of the nine planets they were taught about in school be "reduced" to a dwarf planet. It was like people turned this change into a moral debate, that calling Pluto a dwarf planet was diminishing its status, even though the change did not affect Pluto's essence, so to say. The definition of planet is descriptive, not prescriptive. It was only refined to be more precise. I think this fits your point way better. Changing the definition to be clearer doesn't and shouldn't affect its original "spirit". And like you expressed multiple times in other videos, definitions need to be exclusionary to have any use. In short, I think the two examples correspond to two different types of definitions; one is description of a concept we are observing in the world that gets progressively stricter the more situations we come across, whereas the other is the basis for the most abstract and most pure measure of natural phenomena. I might be a bit too caught up in the details, but I thought this might be interesting.
He, that is Jessie, reminds me of my ex husband, The crossdresser who lied to me about where he was, where the money went. Then later claimed he is 'mother' of the sons I gave birth to.
That was disturbing to read. Mentally I am trying to wrap my head around the mental gymnastics a person needs to do to delusion themselves to get to this point. I hate blaming Tik tok or social media but it's been the bane of existence of the modern world in promoting false ideas and mis truths. Remember the days when people said "Do you believe every thing you read on the internet", this meant something different back then. NOTHING on the internet today is based on facts or truth which is no longer the "sum of human knowledge" I really hope not.
If gender and sex are different why do they use the same categories and labels? Types of genders: male, female and intersex. Types of sexes: male, female and intersex. It’s like claiming race and ethnicity are different. They are not. This is just simple logic and shouldn’t offend anyone.
up until recently nobody in everyday life distinguished between the two, it's only recently that words have become weaponised and manipulated in order to drive a wedge within society.
This might be the best summation and refutation of these types of arguments that I've seen. Well articulated and scientific without sneaking in politics. Thanks.
Just found your videos and I LOVE your channel. Jessie Gender actually peaked me about two years ago with a hot take about TIMs in women's sports and it's so satisfying to watch someone intelligent analyze his views. Thank you!!
Jessie is an intelligent individual. I believe these videos are a window into the thought process, possibly rumination of someone struggling to alleviate the stress caused by gender dysphoria.
As a detransitioner who did all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to justify my position that I was actually a man, that's exactly what this is. Jessie is struggling with the deep distress that is characteristic of gender dysphoria. We should try to have compassion for them.
Basically, she says there’s is no good way to distinguish man from woman other than stereotypes, but the stereotypes are constructed so we can’t use those, but the genitals aren’t really an adequate factor to consider either, so if you feel like a like a woman which isn’t defined you should transition to a man which isn’t defined and change some of your cluster traits which are stereotypes and there you have it. But also, maybe you don’t change your traits or behaviors and basically live the way you live but now you are something different, which isn’t defined. My worry is that this started out as something more understandable. I’ve known or been around trans folks my whole life. Then a lot of people jumped on out of no ill will because their struggles truly seemed to align with being trans and then we all got in too deep and it would be really challenging to bounce back and everything is totally out of hand. I apologize for the brain dump and lack of grammar.
There is no such thing as "biological" male, there is just male. Calling it "biological" is redundant or tries to create separation where there is none.
It might be redundant, but I think the clarification can help shut down equivocation when someone is legally registered as female despite actually being male.
I disagree with one point you made. Stereotypical gender expectations and characteristics are not plain "sexist" and irrelevant, they are behaviors that came about from the difference in biology and how men and women adapt to live together, now i believe these should never be enforced on everyone but i makes sense they should at least be encouraged because these gender roles still fit the majority of the population like they have for most of human history. Now, i do find it rich that trans activists have such a binary view of men and women that they will fit right in with the views of my great grand parents.
Gender is a social construct but also if ur son likes pink we have to enforce the social construction of what it means to be a woman on to him he can't just be a boy who likes pink
😂 I dunno why the "Have at you" made me laugh so hard! Probably because the rest I read with an American accent in my head, but reading that last part it instantly and subconsciously flipped to British.
That man did not present any actual argument for his point. He just made a bunch of claims and assertions without an ounce of logic to back up a single thing said.
KC I just want to say that you are my favorite Marxist. I'm not one myself, and I've only been a watcher for not very long, but I appreciate everything you have to say. You speak truth with actual philosophical substance. You are articulate, witty, and stalwart against the GIE crowd. Despite our differences in moral intuitions, I can agree with you on most things you discuss. I wish you the best, and hope to hear more from you. What you have to say is valuable and appreciated. ❤
Lies! Male and female are called genders and have nothing to do with biology. Gender has no DNA marker. Male or female is determined by gender located in the soul not sex characteristics. JESUS was TRANSGENDER 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️, a female man returning as a female woman in a lesbian relationship with a male woman. I am Elijah of Malachi 4 the forerunner to the return of Jesus. And fake ministers all know Malachi 3 8 is telling THEM to return the money.
Woah he's a marxist? But he's not woke, and insane, and advocating for the destruction of the government, and actively engaging with the arguments of his opponents. How is this guy a marxist?
@@Creativeusername617Yeah, GC comes directly from marxist scientific materialism, and KC mentioned a handful of times that prominent GCs were actual radical activists who pushed for the same kind of emancipation as the rest of the left. Also, KC is also looking at the same kind of ideal outcomes based in the ethics of marxism. Based on his policies video, he advocates for a form of gender abolition, which is essentially complete emancipation from gender.
@@RaRd8zagreed…Marxism can be destroyed with simple common sense or logical reasoning…that’s how weak of an idea it is. All real world examples are nightmare fuel…not even including the universe sized amount of research, books, articles etc that definitively obliterated any argument of the ideology having a single ounce of rational thought…
There is no intersex condition in which a biological female can have a penis. However, they may have a macroclitoris, which is an enlarged clitoris. On the other hand, there are intersex conditions where a genetic male can have a vagina. One such condition is Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), in which genetic males cannot respond to androgens. This lack of response interferes with typical sex development, resulting in nonfunctional undescended testes and the presence of either a fully developed or underdeveloped vagina. If the vagina is underdeveloped, a functioning vagina can be created through non-surgical interventions, such as dilation and sexual activity.
On the first part of your video regarding the composition of the video, and arguments made, if you look at the videos more as vanity projects rather actual good faith thesis statements they make more sense. Most of these videos don't actually make points directly from the authors mouth, as they hide behind what people have said before, quoting Marx, Hegel etc. so that if they get something wrong or someone challenges them, they can fall back on, "Well I'm not making that argument, I'm just educating you on what they said", when in fact, they were making that argument. This is because they don't want to be seen as being incorrect, they want to make you believe that they are smart, and that they are educating you. They want to inflate their own importance, and be seen as an intellectual. This is why a lot of the video is admin, they want to talk about themselves, show everyone how much work they put into the video etc. when in reality if they really wanted to get their point across in a concise way they could easily cut down the video, and remove specific parts, they could even just get out of the way entirely, and not "star" in the video to begin with. But Contrapoints started this trend off, people have seen it works, and now people follow the same trend, to such a degree that there's obvious skin walking clones like philosophy tube.
Lies. Male or female is determined by gender located in the soul not sex characteristics. Gender has no DNA marker. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with biology. Anyone saying otherwise won't be here much longer. Matthew 19 12 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ says God prefers same-sex marriage and confirms transgender people are born that way. I am Elijah of Malachi 4 the forerunner to the return of Jesus. JESUS was TRANSGENDER 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️, a female man returning as a female woman in a lesbian relationship with a male woman. And fake ministers all know Malachi 3 8 is telling THEM to return the money.
@@Scratchy8644 Male or female is determined by gender located in the soul not sex characteristics. Gender has no DNA marker. The soul enters the body at birth when a baby takes its first breath. That's how a set of identical twins can have the same DNA, the same sex, but be opposite in gender.
What would you call someone who is XY who menstruates, has ovaries, and gives birth? They're rare, but people do exist like that. I'm not twisting myself into a pretzel to dispute anything, I'm asking how you've arrived at making this all so simple.
I feel like this video sums up the fact that activists are so used to quippy arguments to other responses that they have no good argument at all and its just a machine gun of garbage. Like alot of the counterpoints to Jesse takes some thinking and nuance but its not that much that anyone can counter these points but none of these are catchy enough to use verbally and take too long to respond in a live setting, so most points go uncountered and Jesse's video is a result of talking those points as truth
0:08 I have found there are two general schools of thought when it comes to transgenderism, but of course, the group as a whole essentially has to hold to simultaneously, despite their contradiction. And I tend to call these biological essentialist, and social essentialist. Both of these however would say that trans women are *not always* biologically male. To a biological essentialist, they essentially believe (with no evidence mind you) that somehow the mind of a woman can end up in a man, and vice versa. Despite basic biology and genetics making such a thing impossible, this is what they believe. They would say that's why there's a significant overlap with transgender and autism, because its all in the brain wiring. I'd say the overlap is because cults go for the socially vulnerable, but I digress. Point is a biological essentialist would say that a trans woman is biologically a woman, but purely in their brain, not the rest of their biology. These are the types to point out intersex and all that. Now a social essentialist is the type to claim that gender is just a social construct, a costume to put on, and that sex doesnt really determine gender, rather than gender is self-determined. Usually having a very stereotypical view of interests innate to either gender. The thing is these people would not always say that a trans woman is biologically male, as a woman could identify as nonbinary, but still be called a "trans woman" which is of course, confusing, but there's a very real sense in which that is the point. Cults are meant to be confusing. I havnt watched the video yet but given the chapters in the video I would say that this Jessie Gender guy is a social essentialist. 6:08 GOSH it drives me insane when I see this type of thing. Like, ok just analyse how this man is thinking about these things, if you look at the thought process itself... This is an extremely masculine way of presenting an argument. This is just how a man's brain works. You can see it. 7:20 gender can change? 100% a social essentialist. Mind you, they tend to flipflop when its convenient for the argument. 21:57 its almost like your DNA determines the plan for your body or something. Like, this is nonsense, like the chromosomes where discovered to match with the physical observation before. That doesnt mean that they dont mean anything. 45:23 that's exactly what he is saying... because its a cult. It applies to everyone, but is also innate. They need both to set the trap properly. Anyone can join, but once youre in you cant leave. 51:45 the argument that's often made here is on the "comfort level" this is what makes them "comfortable" but is that really an argument? People on drugs can be pretty comfortable when they are getting shot up, and become rather uncomfortable when they try to get off those drugs. Does that mean we should supply drug addicts with drugs? That's where this logic goes.
Have you ever considered responding/reacting to the GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic ? I used to follow him due to his debunking of all things theistic (being a non-believer myself). However, he seems to be completely captured and is now putting out nonsense about AMAB and AFAB statistics in support of trans identification (how this is linked to his original modus operandi I don't know). Maybe he has caught on to the fact that 'queer ideology' garners more likes in YT?
I had to do the same with that Dave guy who debunked flat earthers. all these leftist men falling in line to promote men living their women fantasy 24/7 is beyond disappointing.
Speaking of the start of the video 2:23 and how much of the argument is irrelevant, I have noticed that OFTEN Leftist videos start by asking a question, and then never answer it. For a few example, look up Tara Mooknee's Vanity video and Alexander Avila's "Did feminism FAIL men?". Tara for example does not even define vanity in the video, and Avila spends the whole video discussing the effects Patriarchy has on men. There are other such videos, but I have not memorized them. 5:38 When Jesse went to discuss Harry Potter houses, I had to sit down. Who could have imagined that a personality sorting for your peer group would be based on... character traits? P.S. I had to sit down because I already was sitting down. 10:00 The concern is only had about trans people doing it because only trans people attempt to normalize that boundary crossing and we're only supposed to accept it when trans people do it. 12:32 Quick someone tell... ah... I forgot her name... and her channel was deleted... that black gc woman who sang a lot on the piano. 15:39 Policemen swear to God... Ok, at the point where I went half an hour without making new notes, I'll end the comment.
Oh my goodness yes about the asking a question and never answering it. I don't know how they don't get called out all the time because I click on the videos because I want the question answered so obviously i'm going to notice that they don't do it!
@@KC_Streams I think they don't get called out because the audience isn't there to have the question answered. They're there to vibe, for aesthetics or for that creator's style and to laugh at the "obviously incorrect because it's bigoted or not Leftist" position that the essayist responds to.
I think that guy would have his face as the illustration on the cover of a non-existent / purely hypothetical book that I just invented, called “People Who Can’t Be Reached: The Non Peakable TRAs”. ;) Not only does he have EVERYTHING invested in this ideology being true, but he also clearly does not care whether or not it IS true! Because personal gain / its proliferation being extremely good for him. Which is clearly all he cares about. Just like with all the other AGP TIMs. ..Maybe some people in his AUDIENCE can still be reached, though!! I sure hope so. Some of them may just come here to hate watch, which was how the whole shift started for me, too. (Not this channel, specifically. But other totes evil, oh so deliciously “forbidden” GC stuff.) Funny how THAT works. 😜 Also..? You have the patient of a saint, 4 realz!!! I doubt I could bear listening to this guy for more than 5 minutes, personally. Not to even mention taking him SERIOUSLY! Argh. Hope you do reach some of his viewers, yes indeed. :)
Not an attack, and I assume the original video didn’t explain this, but Pratchett’s argument is essentially a jokey explanation of the “unprovable first principles with best results” problem of educating children. A child struggles with “fairness” because anything less than what it wants is less than what it wants and it can neither appreciate the happiness of another, nor imagine that anyone else is capable of holding a grudge, but we have to instill this idea in the child. Hogfather is one long treaties on the idea that having Santa knowing and judging your actions is necessary for the teaching of the idea of God, which he equates with a conscience, a sort of internalised parent, who determines if what you do to others would be “fair” if it were done to you. Amusingly, I’ve been hearing more materialist types complain about this part of his writings for years, in spite of his generally assumed left wing views.
I'd much rather children be made to understand the instrically valuable nature of conscious sensation and their rational obligation to concern themselves with the welfare of other beings just as sensitive as they are, than outsource their ethics to an uncountable, unexplained god. I don't have the skill to turn that into a parable fit for children, but I think it's likely we're doing children a disservice by raising them to defer their judgement to a deity that can't be evidenced.
@@dsm7014 Pratchett was supposed refuting that idea, which had been popular in schools around the time he was a journalist. Just to get the other side, should read Hogfather (you also need Mort and Soul Music for it to work), he lays it out well, and it’s both funny and poignant: the discussion comes up when Susan, death’s daughter and the epitome of The Nanny expresses basically what you just did. Death, who has to repeatedly take children who can’t grasp what’s happening into The Good Night makes it clear that you can’t do that for children in his experience. Even those you think have gotten it are just pretending until their teens. Pratchett was convinced by being a journalist that even scientists think in metaphysical terms first, an argument that my experience with people raised the way you are describing doesn’t little to refute.
@@Mulletmanalive It's a rationale I understood before I learned to read, I think you're underestimating the capabilities of children. Nor do I understand impinging it's utility on a necessity for instillation during early childhood. We don't give up teaching Algebra or civics because we can't teach it to Kindergarteners. At any rate, religion's continued love affair with all manner of hatefulness and bigotry, especially in the realm of public policy, would contend with it's alleged usefulness as a means of pacification. You certainly wouldn't wish to live in any of the world's currently existing theocracies.
@dsm7014 However, were hardwired fir with or dogma or whatever you want to call it. Something will come along to fill the hole where religion used to go and it may not be entirely preferable. You gotta serve somebody as my dude Bob said.
The point of words is to convey information. Under the traditional view of "man" and "woman" I could show you a room of 100 people, tell you there's only 1 woman, and you could pick her out in the majority of cases. Under the trans definition of woman, you would literally have no way of picking out the woman, because it's entirely possible that 50 of those "men" are feminine presenting females and the 1 "woman" could be a masculine presenting male
This was an absolutely excellent video with very cogent arguments that clearly answered what biological sex means and how it relates to our categorization of men and women. I also just want to say that I think it’s really gross when a grown man dressed up in women’s clothing makes a very long video with a white board trying to convince everyone that he likes playing with dolls and thus, ipso facto, he is a “girl”.
There seems to be one error in taking up this debate. You're trying to logic someone out of a position that they didn't logic themselves into in the first place.
@bepitan I don't mind roasting them or this video in general. All I'm saying is no amount of logic will convince themselves out of their position because they didn't use logic to get to their current position. They used feelings to get to their conclusion, and are using logic to justify their conclusions. Trans activists are like Flat Earthers, and like them, no amount of pointing out their logical failings will convince them otherwise. You might as well argue with a cat to not shit on the floor.
@@Tommy9834 ..well yes, the trans movement and the popular anti intellectual movement are closely intertwined, it's now all about feeling and emotions but ultimately it's all about not being able to accept the word no, a lesson that used to be taught early on in past generations.
The harry potter comparsion dont work as its titles of rank that are given not some self id view of yourself And its a analogy, Its not the biggest deal if its used The analogy has to make sense tho
Might not watch the video, but will spend my 2 cents. Yup, trans women are biologically male, and nothing short of an entire genetic rewrite can change that, and we currently don't have the tech for that. I'm entirely fine with people wanting to look feminine, but to claim a falsehood as a fact is just straight up wrong. You're not a woman. Feminine, sure, but you're not female. You just aren't. More importantly, sex shouldn't be subject to arbitrary changes at the whims of random people. Dividing people into male and female isn't, "offensive", it serves a lot of very important functions, especially in statistics using large amounts of data, and corrupting that data could lead to severe outcomes. Sure, act as feminine as you want (or vica vera), but don't tell lies. Personally if I had it my ideal way, I'd be indistinguishably feminine from actual women, but I'd never consider myself actually female, that'd just be a lie. I don't give a shit about what catagory I'm in biologically, it doesn't matter, all I care about is what I LOOK like. Kinda like how getting a tattoo wouldn't transform me into a comic book, and if I believed that it did, I'd be insane. At the end of the day, male and female have very important roles within the data that'w used in every field, and muddying that data, as I said before, can have disastrous consequences. Anyone trying to claim that they're the opposite sex of what they biologically are, is insane. It shouldn't even matter to you what you're *CATAGORIZED* as, as long as you *LOOK* the way you want to.
It seems to me that transsexuals' are a category of males who are sexually attracted to straight men. The dissonance is caused by straight men being attracted to the female body, and it is typically either resolved by taking on the appearance of female to be treated as female by straight men. So the more one "passes" and attracts the sexual attention of straight males, the less the dissonance is, and the happier the trans person is.
It's that plus how society overall treats women better than men. So they want to basically be cared about and treated like "a person" Yet being trans is a bandaid to the bigger problem that society treats EVERYBODY badly and running to the other side doesn't make the grass greener. Since it isn't a true switch, it's a balancing act a lot of people can't uphold due to that need to pass. When they just look like a weirdo man in dress. They're cooked, especially when their fashion choices are HIGHLY dated and flags them so much.
i think that trans person could benefit a lot from being a scientist or a biologist it will make them understand better the body and many concepts, they could even discover something new that can help with their arguments, but that will require that put aside their ego and their activism to swallow all the raw science concepts and laws
If they just said the truth they would be far more accepted by the general populus. You can't change your sex, gender dysphoria is not a thing and being trans is just cosmetic procedures.
Trans people who are 'biologists' argue that sex is a spectrum because hormone levels aren't a binary. It doesn't matter where you are, the delusion follows.
I don't think women in the West historically were seen as "property" so much as a "responsibility" akin to children. Yes, I know this does not sound good, but I lack a word to make the distinction in the concept. Children are not property, but parents are responsible for raising them and attempting to give them as good a life as possible; which may have some undesired outcomes from the child's point of view: chores to instill responsibility and work ethic, arranged marriages to ensure a life off the streets or maintained affluence or just a source of perceived protection, punishments to instill the idea that actions have consequences, etc. It feels like people often take the rare, worst outcomes of the cultures of the past and blanket the entire culture and feel justified because the people of the past are no longer around to defend themselves. These are often the same people that would decry this behavior against current minority groups and foreign cultures.
I have seen some clips of that Sakar/Butler interview and I suppose at some point I'll try to force myself to watch the whole thing, but from this and other recent Butler clips, where for some reason she felt confident enough to venture out of the parapet of her abstruse writing, I do get the impression that she really isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
Why is this even a debate 🤦♂️??? They are. In most cases it isn’t necessary to point this out. Some of the people pointing this out are doing so to be deliberately mean. But it’s not untrue.
33:10 This whole tangent is kind of irrelevant because Male and Female are not defined by Chromosomes. They are defined by what Sex Cell is produced which we knew when we defined the terms
@@I_Gladly_Tell_You_My_Name The whole point he was going over was about how although we didn't know what chromosomes were when we came up with the terms Male and Female we knew we were describing something. Something that we later defined based on Chromosomes. My point is that we don't define male or female based on Chromosomes at all so both Jessie and King Critical are arguing about a point that doesn't matter because they are both accepting an incorrect premise. We define male as an adjective meaning "of or denoting the sex that produces small fast moving gametes, typically spermatozoa" And we define Female as "of or denoting the sex that produces large gametes, typically Ovum" This is also why when Trans activists bring up Intersex people it's irrelevant because Intersex people only ever produce one type of gamete, meaning although we call them intersex because of their genitalia, they are actually always one sex or the other not both. And since by the time we started using the term Male or Female we would know about Sperm and since Sperm needs an Ovum to reproduce that means we knew who was producing Ova and can define these terms based on that even before we define the terms for Sperm or Ova
@@I_Gladly_Tell_You_My_Name Kinda but it's a bit more complicated than that, especially when we start talking about other species. However yes in most cases your Chromosomes code your development so you produce Sperm with XY and Ova with XX in humans However we don't define Sex based on chromosomes specifically because of the reasons why Pro Trans people try to use against it. 1. There are exceptions to the XY and XX chromosomes like XXY or XYY or XXX etc where additional genetic material is present that can mess with development, it also would mean we couldn't define XYY as male even tho would present as very masculine. 2. You can't tell what chromosomes someone has without using very modern genetic testing, so when we created the distinction we did it using the Phenotype(Observable traits) instead of the Genotype(Genetic Makeup) 3. If you look at animals other than mammals, alot of them have the same Male/Female that we do however they don't have XX or XY chromosomes. However since they still produce Sperm or Eggs it means we can still easily classify Male from Female
What *is* a motorcycle? Are those bicycles with a 25cc engine motorcycles? What if I never turn on the engine and instead push the bike forward with my legs? Can I go 150 on a 80, press the clutch and turn off the engine just when I pass the radar? Can they prove I reached that speed using the engine and not my legs?
To think that humans have the ability to subvert or reverse a transformative process during gestation on a molecular level is wild to me, the absolute hubris.
I agree with you, but the 'second' analogy isn't great. A second was historically defined as 1/86400th of an hour, which was defined as 1/24th of a day. Definitions aren't discovered. They are agreed upon. If there was some disagreement about some fraction of a second historically, the length of a day could be appeald to.
I'm glad you did this. I made a comment to this video 7 months ago. I'm too lazy to make videos. ruclips.net/video/39uen84KnNg/видео.html&lc=UgzzHKKIMk4ICPfrhXh4AaABAg If you haven't already, would you make a response to the video "Is Biological Sex A Simple Binary?" by Zach B. Hancock?
Another analogy to this guy's nonsensical argument about chromosomes would be that we measure time by days. Days are now defined as the time it takes for the Earth to complete a full rotation on its axis, but we've been measuring time by days for far far longer than we've known about the Earth rotating on an axis. This does not negate days as a real thing that exist and are relevant to human life (and many other forms of life as well) and can be defined quite easily and concisely, regardless of the fact that we did not know WHY they happened when we first started using them as tools to describe reality. Either way, it's fucking baffling that TRAs think this is a good argument when you can come up with so many examples on the spot of other phenomena humans have been describing forever whose scientific explanation has only recently come to light. Side note: I don't want to be overly mean, but perhaps only people with good handwriting should do whiteboard bits. It's incredibly jarring in an otherwise semi-professional looking (not written!) video to see this guy's 8-year-old boy handwriting scrawled on a whiteboard.
"Every video is like watching the slow kid on the playground punching himself repeatedly and not knowing if you should look away or go tell a teacher, but somehow instinctively knowing that engaging directly with him would be a bad idea." - this was stolen from ovarit user sylviasmushrooms who was reacting to a different Jessie video over 2 years ago. I'm posting it here because it's still relevant today.
Hey KC, just wanted to say that I really value and appreciate your channel. You are able to construct immaculate counterpoints and legitimate arguments that really help me when tackling these topics myself, and manage to make said pounts while remaining respectful. Never change!
Hay I just want to ask since its clear you have some kind of script of some kind. Would it be possible for you to form some kind of blog like site where we can get written transcripts of these videos. It would be nice to use your work as a source with out the stigma of youtube.
14:11 Jesse's argument makes it seem like black women aren't real women because of their "voluptuous bodies" when the entire reason that the dehumanization was wrong was because they were just as much females as the white women. It's like she missed the actual point of the issue. 21:45 A problem with this argument is that most humans are not that ambiguous in their sex. 9 times out of 10, if the person looks like a man, they're a man, and we don't structure society around the outliers.
I don't agree with Jessie Gender's conclusion here, I think this is the one and only time I agree with you, or at least your conclusion, but can you not misrepresent her argument? At one point of the video, you misrepresented her argument as her saying that because we didn't know about chromosomes when we first came out with the concept of gender then that isn't what we are referring to when we reference someones gender at birth, but what she ACTUALLY said was because we don't know someones chromosomes when they were born then that isn't and can't be what we are referring to when we talk about someones assigned gender at birth.
Funny that Terry Pratchett's name would be brought up in a quote. I recently watched a video on 'The Science of Discworld', Discworld being an absurdist representation of an unscientific understanding of the natural world, and one of the reasons things in Discworld work is because someone wanted it to. Sounds a lot like most of the arguments being put forward.
I don;'t think the word salad is accidental, that's just what gender theory actually says. It presumes that the sexual binary is purely and entirely arbitrary and that the native state of humans has no sexual differences that could be outwardly identifiable. To which I hope you would agree that even if men and women should be at liberty to defy norms, that due to the fact there are significant developmental differences between men and women, including by all scientific data, in commission there will still be natural expressions of sexed distinctions on average in the population in things like behavior. I guess to clarify, men and women are different in more ways than merely what gamete they are designed to produce, as the process of that biological specification obviously has greater effects than that, including on human behavior. These effects are not as universal, however, and individual men and women will conform to them more, or less, dependent on many complex factors, but that there still WILL be an identifiable bimodal distribution (and research consistently shows this, which the differences between male and female behaviors actually becoming MORE apparent the more liberal and open a society you are doing the measurements in). The queer theorist rejects, wholesale, that there is ANY natural distinction that could be made of any relevance whatsoever and that in a liberated society everyone WOULD be queer.
Gender is biological sex but with cartoon logic
A better definition is, "gender is the cultural expression of biological sex". It's a fair enough argument that different cultures throughout time have had different expectations of men and women, but they still all had the same general idea. So gender is malleable, but it's inextricably linked to biological sex.
Gender, historically, means the same thing as sex. The _only_ reason these words have diverged is for the sake of propagandizing. The whole "gender ideology" debate is _confused_ by these synonymous terms being conflated by the average person who has always correctly known them to be synonymous, which is convenient for the people who want to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about as you stumble through their broken path of logical fallacies.
Gender is the same idea
@Selrisitai it is true that they were once used synonymously but it is pointless to argue they are the same thing now.
It is also pointless to pretend that there are not social and cultural expressions of sex. If you don't want to call it gender, you will need another term, but that would be also silly given that gender is often used as the term to debate this.
The word sex has no ambiguity and it is frankly just fucking irritating these days when people won't just say sex when they mean sex. It instantly removes any doubt.
Lol. Cartoon logic 😅😅 GOLD!!
oh shit Newton is wrong about gravity because he didn't know what causes it: subsequently I can fly now
I think you meant _consequently._
@@Selrisitai you think I can fly just because I realised newton was wrong? Hah, I could always fly, I just never bothered to try😀
@@CreativeCache101😂😂😂
@@CreativeCache101 You said, effectively, "After that was the case, I can fly."
I'm sure you meant, "SINCE that's the case, I can fly."
“Cisgender lifestyles” wtf does that even mean? I’m “cisgender” and reject gender roles, I don’t have to consider myself trans or not a woman to do that. That in itself is more liberating and less confusing.
If you live in US or Europe, Gender roles are not enforced into you anyways so there is nothing you are rejecting, gender roles are a result of voluntary action. And they are not a law or an order, but an observation.
it’s only more liberating if you’re cis. you still live as a woman
Same here. I have always been gender-non-conforming but I never considered myself being trans. Not did I want to become a male, being biological female. I just wanted the society to stop discriminating against women and forcing them into certain behaviour against their will. 55 y o now.
@@KaiserX40 you know what I mean lol the social expectations of what a woman acts like.
hear hear
What is Jesse's argument?
Genuinely.
Is Jesse saying that observing genitals is not a reliable way to determine sex? Even though intersexism is rare and not at all relevant in this conversation?
Most trans women have functional penises, they have experienced normal male puberty.
Many of them having fathered children.
Even some DSD conditions can be determined by genitals.
CAH and PAIS, since that is an enlarged clitoris and an underdeveloped penis, respectively.
Jesse needs to argue that a trans woman, who fathered multiple children, is somehow not a male.
DSD are not relevant, and they all have symptoms - Some with very severe health problems.
And most of the trans women who do not have functional penises still lack natural female attributes- Md have damaged or outright removed their penises from themselves through surgery.
He also needs to explain how it is valuable for anyone or any thing-even the transsexual himself-to be regarded as the thing he says he is instead of what he demonstrably, biologically, medically and physically is.
How does it afford any value to me, you, society at large or the transsexual for a person with denser bones, denser muscle, thicker skin, greater stature and the ability to produce and inject sperm to be labeled "female"? The word is being used as a pacifier.
"Well, I might kill myself otherwise."
Well, you better go out and start giving drugs to junkies, because if they can't get their fix. . . .
DSD presents differemtly in males and females. We've stopped calling calling it intersex, because DSD sufferers were uncomfortable with them being labeled an exception to male and female.
Well, if you are going by that, that Albanian boxer that made all the Olympic headlines would be female. But she still should never have been in the ring with those women, but due to sex based rules women can not fight men.
@@pythosdegothos6181
That's because she's still a female with a Y chromosome.
I’ve not seen Jessie’s knees, but chances are he has them.
I heard they are the bees knees
How dare you. This is phobic to amputees.
Lol, "Europeans enforced the binary gender upon the colonized countries." And what exactly was there before that? Never heard such unsubstantiated nonsense before. Who in the whole world takes that circus seriously??
Too many people
It’s really leaning into the whole “noble savage” trope
Don't you understand?! the savages never noticed that some people have bobs and vagene and some have peen. I'm a great ally helper 😊
Clowns take the circus seriously. That helps explain a lot of it.
Unserious people
Overcomplicating the subject again. This person is arguing that intersex people are in an in-between state. However Even if this were true it would have no bearing on T identified peoples. It's a false equivalent, the powers of imagination and cosmetic procedures don't an intersex make.
It's a genetic mutation
Saying intersex proves gender is fake
Is like saying humans having 1 head is wrong cause some are born with 2
What they're trying to do is sort of a "Gish Gallop." Throw out all of these confounding factors in order to pretend that things are just a whirlwind of confusion and nonsense and no one actually knows anything.
"So we might as well just be allowed to say we are what we wanna be, right?"
But the WHOLE argument boils down to this: "If I cut off my arm, I only have one arm; therefore, humans do not have two arms."
@@Selrisitai I truly dislike the "gender and sex are different" argument. I'd be fine with it if they stuck to it but they seem only to be different when it's convenient.
I also have no respect for philosophy, it's always used to justify some terrible argument. "If you look at it like this" followed by nonsensical rambling.
A biological mutation does not prove anything in regard to the norms of the human species
There are humans born without legs such does not prove that humans normally are born with no legs
Besides a genetic mutation is nothing like trans, One is caused by natural factors and the other is caused by purposeful changes to the body such like surgery
The so-called inbetween state doesn't even relate to gamete production, so is basically a red herring in and of itself.
I swear they think men and women are hogwarts classes
Well clearly women are Hufflepuff and men are Slitherin.
A man can be like a women - talk like, act like, dress like, think like... it will never equate to actually being a women.
More like costumes you can just swap into whenever you want.
The point didn't even stand anyway cause Hermione did choose gryfindor just not in the way harry did she literally says as such in the order of the Phoenix
In this new generation/era . The LGBTQ keep adding on,putting categories in categories,rearranging categories and changing meanings, come up to people saying every pronoun they are not their name, and not acting like a normal person.
Why does he make a distinction between action figures and dolls when action figures ARE dolls. The only difference between an action figure and a doll is to whom they are marketed.
*she
@@Markunator he
He
@@markpostgate2551 sounds like the kinda person who would try to explain gender with Harry Potter (fictional) references
Action figure is a subset of doll.
"Elaborate" is a very generous description concerning trans activists.
If an ideology is completely incoherent and dishonest then it is somewhat unlikely that anyone who supports the ideology is able to be coherent and hones whilst pushing the ideology.
Bingo! If everything is built upon lies there's no truth to be had
This stuff needs to be more regularly called out as the Cult that it is.
We are giving way too much power to a cult with absurd beliefs
The problem is that the people, calling out an incoherent ideology by correctly defining how it behaves, are themselves called incoherent because it's pushed that they propose the ideology rather than opposing it.
Remember guys
Gender and sex are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
But also trans woman are not biologically male because of their gender identity.
- Laughs in p*nis -
Sure "Dan", sure.
But yeah, very well said haha
But also transwomen deserve to be called women because they underwent a *sex* change operation
And here I must note that gender identity is an identity, not a gender, that is, if English language still works the way it did yesterday.
@mariussielcken oh don't get me wrong I think gender identity as a concept is absolute nonsense I'm just going by intersectional feminists "logic"
Their worldview is full of contradictions. I can't honestly take TRAs seriously when they talk about people having an innate gender identity.
If they aren't males, what's the difference between cis and trans?
They would say that it's literally just a matter of what they were "assigned" at birth. Transwomen are women who were "assigned male at birth". Ciswomen are women who were "assigned female at birth".
That's literally it. That's the difference.
It's shallow on purpose.
Some advocates say it's just gonna take time like acceptance of gay people but that's a bad comparison. Before the internet people thought being gay was a choice and were simply ignorant. There's no ignorance about trans people that's keeping the majority from getting on board with the ideology.
@@swampsprite9 Also gay people weren't asking for anything... they wanted 'tolerance', the right to be left alone. The 'trans' want everybody to go along with their metaphysical belief system, and the right to trample on everyone else's rights
That doctor flipped a coin and ‘assigned’ them to the wrong gender.
@Zarqaa_ how can assigning any gender be wrong if cis and trans has nothing to with male and female?
I find it insane. "Gender" wasn't a thing a few decades ago, and men and women used to refer to the biological sex of an individual. But activists said "male" and "female" alreaady exist to refer to sex, so we should leave them man and woman. Now even male and female can't be used for biological sex? What words should we use? The whole discussion is insane.
I'm on the left and have tried having debates with other lefties in groups I go to online. They either insult me quickly and leave or start talking in circles without answering my questions. They clearly have a denial problem and many are as dogmatic as the religious right. Most people seriously lack critical thinking skills; it's scary.
This is the creep of Orwellian New Speak.
I really despise the term "assigned at birth". It sets up really regarded assumptions. The doctor doesn't "assign" your sex, it's observed. Nobody gets to decide, not even you.
@@tekrit3249 The trans activists appropriated the term "sex assigned at birth" from people with DSDs. In their case, sex was sometimes _literally_ assigned because the genitals were so ambiguous that doctors would consult with the parents, decide which gender they would raise the child as and then do sex reassignment surgery to make the genitals resemble those of the gender they assigned.
It is both inaccurate and unfair to describe it as the sex "assigned" at birth when the person has unambiguous genitalia and doesn't have a DSD.
Trickle down economics is also only a few decades old but I don't see u pushing communism.....
If I said to you "Hi King Critical, I would like to debate with you whether we ought to bring back the death penalty. When I use the words "I believe" I may mean "I do not believe". When I say "we should" I may mean "we should not". When I say death I may mean life. And I am going to change my position between pro and anti at random times during our conversation" would you be up for having that debate or would you regard it as a complete waste of time?
It seems to me that trying to extrapolate meaningful coherent messaging from TRAs is even less worthwhile an endeavour.
Even back when I was more of less on board with a lot of the trans stuff (I hadn’t looked into it super deeply until the past year or so) people would recommend me Jessie Gender. SO much of their videos are pointless meaningless guff. I don’t understand how anyone can unironically think they’re good videos even if they agree.
Same, always found Jessie boring
Your nightmarish and exhaustive disassembly of what is *just a guy stuck in his own Monty Python sketch* should make for an interesting listen, but strangely enough... it doesn't.
Humanity is doomed. Listen to first 5 minutes of this video. There are hundreds of brilliant brains now relegated to pondering the nuances of “what’s a bloke and what’s a bird??”. It’s souls destroying when I think about how cool it was when philosophers and intellectuals alike would speak on fascinating topics.
The worst part of the analogy with Hogwarts house assignments (besides the fact it's fictional) is that nobody has ever successfully been moved from one house to a different one. We didn't see a single Slytherin learn to be brave who was then moved into Gryffindor, or a Hufflepuff who became such a nerd they got moved to Ravenclaw, and that's the sort of thing that would be analogous to a sex change. The decision is final, made once, and that's the end of the story. If you're trying to argue that sex can be changed but that it's like Hogwarts houses, you've already failed at the first step. It's also completely unknown whether anyone else's preference for which house in which they would be placed would be taken into account, and it's a convenient assumption to make that it's not, given we don't see any students or former students who expressed displeasure with their assignments. We don't see that even in cases where you would expect it, like when twins wind up in different houses. I would also venture to guess the reason for putting Hermione in Gryffindor and not Ravenclaw and Ginny in Slytherin and not Gryffindor was to make it clear that it WAS actually about one dominant trait, not a collection of things. It's not a matter of what's the main thing other people notice about you, but what's the main thing that's most important to you, and you could say that's analogous to biological sex not being about what other people think when they look at you but about your essential biological makeup that has nothing to do with their perception. If you're going to make a long-winded analogy, the least you could do is be right about the essential thing.
Unless I misunderstood the books, the house assignments were made based on some immutable characteristic within one's essence, determined by the hat thing and not primarily dictated by the rules of the school. Which does work as an analogy to one's sex. Even though there are more than two houses obviously 😂
Look at all those words. Too bad I ain't readin em
Ask JG to go to the US National Institutes of Health website and read the universally accepted stages of child development originated by Jean Piaget. 1. Sensory-Motor (birth - 2) 2. Pre-Operational (3-5) 3. Concrete Operational (6 - 11) 4. Formal Operational (11- 14) "Since birth" cannot be, as Sensory-Motor phase does not have the language development to express such a dissatisfaction with baby's body. Telling a teen that props, that is wardrobe, accessories, make-up and haircuts "prove" the unprovable, is sending this patient into regression to Concrete Operational stage, ages 6 - 11. Remember the ball of clay the child thinks is more when it's rolled into a snake? As well object permanence, acquired ages 3-5, does not comport with "wrong body" self identification. I was literally told by my now ex husband's therapist that he was going to "regress" and go through a "second adolescence" in his transition and it was my job to help him grown up all over again. I stepped away from that thankless task. You rock as always, King Critical!
I'm so glad you didn't indulge that narcissist. What a thing to expect of another adult.😂
@@shannonyates5551 The far Left doesn't just expect it, they demand~
Well-said, Ute. Listen to you channel a lot.
@@sarral2008 Thanks! And thanks to KC for wading through this bubble soap!
Wow, same thing happened to me. My now ex-husband suddenly, at 30 years old, is under the delusion that he wants to be a woman. I also was not going to stick around to raise an adult. Good on you!!
22:40 Here is a better analogy:
A police officer is defined as an agent of the government authorized to enforce the law. You generally cannot tell if a person is a police officer or not by simply looking at them, because the thing that makes them a police officer is their legitimate employment with a police force. However, there are secondary characteristics we associate with police officers, such as wearing a uniform, having a badge, driving a squad car, and carrying a gun. These are the things we use to identify police officers. It is possible to fake all of these identifiers, which is why the crime of impersonating an officer exists.
If Jesse's argument was true, then we would have to say that any person we think is a police officer _is_ a police officer and that it is impossible to _impersonate_ a police officer.
Apply this logic to a girlfriend and a prostitute. lol.
"B-BUH GENDER ISNT POLICE MAN!!! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT (I have no argument) TRANSPHOBE HOMOPHOBE RACIST SEXIST WOMANIZING BIGOTED NAZI MAGA RETARD!!!! (damn I showed him!)" - Some trans person, probably
Great analogy
@@HellCatt0770 Good analogy !
To make this even more fool proof, lets assume that we see outside that the ground is wet... now 99% this would have been caused by "raining" therefore we can assume that it has been raining (even though maybe 1% of the time this could have been caused by accident such as water leakage).... This is the same thing with chromosones, as doctors and researchers within medicine, all come to the consensus that chromosones are CAUSALLY effecting secondary sex characteristics. It is ridicolous to completley ignore this and point to "outliers"
@wolfofthewest8019 that’s beautifully done- I pray Jessie sees it…well done.
SO SICK OF THEM ALREADY!
These gender "experts" remind me of flat earthers, wrong in every sense of the word, yet so confident.
at least the earth is apparently flat, but if sex change was apparent then there would be no need to tell anyone the preferred pronouns.
That's trans ideology deniers' that are like flat earthers just rejecting modern science really
@@BalthasarCarduelis Well I mean...the Earth isn't even Flat...funny how only one side rejects modern science though.
Bro why'd she bring up hogwarts houses lol, I thought they hated jk rowling
Ever heard of separating the art from the artist?
@@pickupmygroceriespeasant Yes, but that's not something I've ever seen them do
@@Tsarbbenright?!
*he
@@pickupmygroceriespeasantTRAS argue that you can't do that. They think that just by engaging with Harry Potter you're genociding zillions of trans people every second
All of Mr. Jessie's arguments are false because his X and Y are true
So epic that the algorithm blessed me with this channel. Epic content
Thank you!
Trans women are not women
they're dudes lol
Why is it controversial for trans women to be called trans-identified biological men? Furthermore, if gender is merely a social construct, why do trans people care what people believe their gender is? If someone believed that I, 6'2 ,200+ and fit, was a woman, I'd assume they were insane, joking or gay. Either way, it wouldn't bother me
@@blacksocrates1 Because it's a standard that cisgender people aren't held to. Cisgender people's subjective/nonsense games with gender as set as granted and ovelooked, where trans people 'break the illusion' and thereby draw the attention of bigots.
Because it has material affect on their lives, including their access to healthcare.
Exactly. It’s not a trans problem, it’s a man problem. How much of this issue revolves around trans-men? Very little because women aren’t the threat that men are.
It's definitely a trans problem, trans ideology perpetuates and reinforces sexist and regressive sex stereotypes that hurt everyone. As an effeminate gay man, I don't appreciate Buck Angel and Jammidodger equating their lumberjack/soyboy cosplay with my decades of lived experience as a male.
but they still spread and advocate for trans ideology..
@@LisaBrown-m9u Maybe not all of them to an extent (or idk, if assuming that self-id is a part of spreading ideology), but you can elaborate on that.
@@АлексейТабаков-ы8в they may be not a physical threat to men but they are still a part of the overall problem of the ideology that sugests sex is less important than "gender".
Given that its more difficult for women to go back after having their bodies mutilated, I think "trans men" should be discussed more often.
Its kind of wild, a "trans woman" literally has to put on a voice constantly, some can pull it off, but most just sound annoying, but the cross sex hormones in a woman actually will lower her voice, and after that there's no going back. And obviously slicing things off, youre not getting that back. If she has kids later she wont be able to breast feed them.
Its very unfortunate.
13:42 a lot of the people we imposed our culture upon literally viewed their women as property.
The idea that you can't know what an object or phenomena is, without having a rigorous scientific explanation of it, is such a reach that I'm surprised this Gender gentleman even made it. It doesn't take a thorough understanding of chemistry or atomic physics to know what water is, in terms of it's utility to us, or our ability to identify it. Humans have done this for our entire esistence, long before physics or chemistry even existed. In a similar vein, there is no real scientific description of what a living organism is and what differentiates living and non living things, (viruses expecially complicate this argument). Yet even a small child knows the difference between living and non living things in a practical and, for most purposes, sufficient sense. To say that one needs specialist knowledge to identify everyday phenomena, which heretofore most people had a commonly agreed, although to a degree provisonal understanding of, is the sort of thinking that leads a prospective judge to avoid the question of what a woman is since they are not a biologist. When one's entire ideology is built upon such unsupported sophistry maybe it's time to abandon it.
Well said
To quote Kelly Jay Keen for a moment, "I'm not a vet but I know what a dog is".
Yank here. Hilarious to hear you talking about counting Mississippis to measure time.
Yeah I think it's universal across the anglosphere
@@KC_Streams not in my neck of the woods (West Country). It's thoroughly American from my perspective. Then again, Brits are becoming more Americanised (Americanized?)
One motte & bailey, two motte & bailey...
@@eneedham789 I’m in my late 40s and British… counting seconds in Mississippis seems perfectly normal to me. I think I learned to count seconds that way as a small child before Elephants or other words. Never really considered it an American thing despite it being a US place name.
I was taught "one little second".
I'm in a garage so now I'm a car
FACTS
Yeah, I've had trans activists try to argue that I'm somehow "no longer biologically female" for taking testosterone and having had my breasts removed (I'm a detransitioner so I kinda regret that, but that's beside the point as my biology has zero to do with how I feel about my body) even though I still produce ova and have the capacity to be pregnant.
It's just completely nonsensical the way they view taking taking cross-sex hormones and getting breast surgery as a sex change, when it demonstrably isn't. A male with tits has not stopped being male, and a female without tits has not stopped being female. You don't even need a science lab to prove that. But they're just shutting their ears to it at this point, I think. I don't think they care about the actual truth, unless it benefits their feelings.
Also, for the entirety of human history, eunuchs have been viewed as males. Men do not magically become women just because they lose sexual function or reproductive capacity through either accident or willful malice. Least of all do men become women by simply uttering the magical words "I am a (trans) woman".
That's like someone saying that Dennis Avner, known as "Cat Man," a man who won the Ripley's Believe It Or Not! record for body modifications, must be a real tiger. He just had surgery to look like a cat, but he was still a human. Or there's Richard Hernandez (Tiamat Legion Medusa), who made himself look like a snake dragon.
Why did you detransitioned?
Hey all! This is the first time this year I believe that I failed to get a video up on wednesday and instead it's going up on friday. I do have the very good excuse for this though that... I just put it off. Anyway, it's here now! But since I usually have such a consistent schedule I just thought I'd explain the irregularity
@@KC_Streams Can you tell me what t rights are. You do alot of reacting to reactions and subsequent debunking. I'd love to hear your opinion on what t rights are and the ramifications of enacting such rights would be.
I disagree with virtually all of your political views but this topic is something i find your views valuable.
Jesse in my experience will never actually address issues clearly and directly, but will just kind of go on radical gender ideology monologues and pretend that it addressed anything.
14:32 And as far as I understand this is also completely historically inaccurate. The ideal female body has changed countless times over the course of history, depending on what was considered important. In the Renaissance era for instance, a voluptuous body was a sign of wealth and good health. It meant to others that you were able to afford as much food as you could possibly need.
Saying "europeans tried to frame voluptuousness as inhuman" makes very little sense.
22:03 - 34:20 From the two examples you gave, I think the comparison to planets is more convincing - and you touched upon what I'm about to say.
Here are my thoughts:
Those definitions changed for different reasons.
In the past, even when the International System of Units was already adopted, the measurement for a kilogram, a second, or any other unit was necessarily based on tuning your measuring tool with a standard value. In and of itself, this meant that, if for some reason the standard changed, then every tool would be inaccurate.
This happened multiple times with the kilogram: not only did the replicas of the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK for short) used in different countries deviate from the actual mass of the IPK, but all of them including the original also changed in mass over time because of different factors, such as air contamination.
To remedy this the ISU gradually changed the definitions of the units to rely on precise, unchanging constants (nice pleonasm). As it was meant to be the language of the universe, it was necessary to be defined by the universe itself.
The kilogram, along with three other units that were still based on comparative values, was therefore redefined in 2019 to be based on natural constants. Now the kilogram depends on three constants, a specific transition of a caesium-133 isotope, the speed of light, which you both mentioned, as well as the Planck's constant.
The actual units themselves had the same values before and after the change in definition, however. For example the meter is defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in one 299,792,458th of a second. That should ring a bell immediately since this number is exactly the value of the speed of light. It seems like a circular definition, but this is necessary to make sure that the values don't get changed for every calculation ever made.
The goal here was to set in stone the way we describe, write and discuss the universe.
A long winded explanation, but necessary in my opinion.
Now for the planets. Spotting rocky celestial bodies is very tricky. It took humanity thousands of years and the evolution of relatively modern astronomy to go from spotting planets up to Saturn with the naked eye, to the full(er) picture of the Solar System that we have today.
Pluto was discovered in 1930. Charon, the largest moon of Pluto, was discovered almost 50 years later. It took 20 more years to discover a third body in the Kuiper belt. I personally find myself in awe that humanity could even discover such far away bodies.
Anyway, as more bodies were discovered in the conjectured Kuiper belt, astronomers realised that Pluto was way different from the other bodies considered to be planets. The same thing had happened in the past with Ceres and a few other bodies once astronomers discovered more and more of the asteroid belt.
The definition of planet was later changed in the 2000's to include three criteria: the body orbits a star, its mass must be great enough that it has warped into a spherical shape, and it must be the dominant object in its orbit (new). This did exclude objects that were previously considered planets.
And it makes sense, since planets, asteroids, dwarf-planets are and were fairly arbitrary classifiers. Situations will arise in the future where a definition must be altered to keep the original spirit.
What was interesting with the "demotion" of Pluto was that it was met with backlash from not only some astronomers, but also the general population. People saw one of the nine planets they were taught about in school be "reduced" to a dwarf planet. It was like people turned this change into a moral debate, that calling Pluto a dwarf planet was diminishing its status, even though the change did not affect Pluto's essence, so to say. The definition of planet is descriptive, not prescriptive. It was only refined to be more precise.
I think this fits your point way better. Changing the definition to be clearer doesn't and shouldn't affect its original "spirit".
And like you expressed multiple times in other videos, definitions need to be exclusionary to have any use.
In short, I think the two examples correspond to two different types of definitions; one is description of a concept we are observing in the world that gets progressively stricter the more situations we come across, whereas the other is the basis for the most abstract and most pure measure of natural phenomena.
I might be a bit too caught up in the details, but I thought this might be interesting.
What is a man? A miserable pile of secrets!
I just had a thought, like, this is a ridiculous discussion that nobody should be having, but here we are, explaining basic biology.
Very much enjoyed the detailed analysis of just how much nonsense Jessie actually talks. Bravo!
He, that is Jessie, reminds me of my ex husband, The crossdresser who lied to me about where he was, where the money went. Then later claimed he is 'mother' of the sons I gave birth to.
What an insult to you as a mother😢❤
Disgusting males.
It's the creepy desperation to lie to everyone about what really going on that bothers people.
That was disturbing to read. Mentally I am trying to wrap my head around the mental gymnastics a person needs to do to delusion themselves to get to this point. I hate blaming Tik tok or social media but it's been the bane of existence of the modern world in promoting false ideas and mis truths. Remember the days when people said "Do you believe every thing you read on the internet", this meant something different back then. NOTHING on the internet today is based on facts or truth which is no longer the "sum of human knowledge" I really hope not.
If gender and sex are different why do they use the same categories and labels?
Types of genders: male, female and intersex.
Types of sexes: male, female and intersex.
It’s like claiming race and ethnicity are different. They are not. This is just simple logic and shouldn’t offend anyone.
up until recently nobody in everyday life distinguished between the two, it's only recently that words have become weaponised and manipulated in order to drive a wedge within society.
that video by jesse gender is the sole reason why i canceled my nebula subscription and why i will never subscribe to nebula ever again.
Based
This might be the best summation and refutation of these types of arguments that I've seen. Well articulated and scientific without sneaking in politics. Thanks.
Just found your videos and I LOVE your channel. Jessie Gender actually peaked me about two years ago with a hot take about TIMs in women's sports and it's so satisfying to watch someone intelligent analyze his views. Thank you!!
Yes, of course it was trans people existing a little bit too loudly for your taste that “peaked you” (turned you into a disgusting bigot)…
Was a huge part of mine too.🚜
These AGPs peak more people than the TERFs ever could. Contrapoints is what peaked me 2 years ago as well.
Jessie is an intelligent individual. I believe these videos are a window into the thought process, possibly rumination of someone struggling to alleviate the stress caused by gender dysphoria.
As a detransitioner who did all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to justify my position that I was actually a man, that's exactly what this is. Jessie is struggling with the deep distress that is characteristic of gender dysphoria. We should try to have compassion for them.
And one can see how incoherence and reality-denial are the symptoms.
Basically, she says there’s is no good way to distinguish man from woman other than stereotypes, but the stereotypes are constructed so we can’t use those, but the genitals aren’t really an adequate factor to consider either, so if you feel like a like a woman which isn’t defined you should transition to a man which isn’t defined and change some of your cluster traits which are stereotypes and there you have it. But also, maybe you don’t change your traits or behaviors and basically live the way you live but now you are something different, which isn’t defined.
My worry is that this started out as something more understandable. I’ve known or been around trans folks my whole life. Then a lot of people jumped on out of no ill will because their struggles truly seemed to align with being trans and then we all got in too deep and it would be really challenging to bounce back and everything is totally out of hand.
I apologize for the brain dump and lack of grammar.
I have to do the Syndrome quote:
46:33
"And when everyone's trans, no one will be."
There is no such thing as "biological" male, there is just male. Calling it "biological" is redundant or tries to create separation where there is none.
💯💯💯
Finally someone who gets me on this insanity. 👍🏿
This is how tricky they are - they'll just hear "no such thing as a biological male" and run with that instead.
It might be redundant, but I think the clarification can help shut down equivocation when someone is legally registered as female despite actually being male.
@@youdonthavetocomment It's manipulative language.
I disagree with one point you made. Stereotypical gender expectations and characteristics are not plain "sexist" and irrelevant, they are behaviors that came about from the difference in biology and how men and women adapt to live together, now i believe these should never be enforced on everyone but i makes sense they should at least be encouraged because these gender roles still fit the majority of the population like they have for most of human history.
Now, i do find it rich that trans activists have such a binary view of men and women that they will fit right in with the views of my great grand parents.
Thats 100% accurate, but rememmber the guys a femenist and a marxist, hes never going agree that gender roles came from biology.
@@locky7347 this dude is a marxist? thats suprising, since everything he says (in the video) comes from such a logical standpoint.
@@locky7347Some of them, mate. To claim all is just disingenuous.
@@akashajones6079 ah mate youtube got rid of my comment, what did i say?
@@akashajones6079 whatever i was talking about, obiously groups are made up of many invidivual people who are unique.
Gender is a social construct but also if ur son likes pink we have to enforce the social construction of what it means to be a woman on to him he can't just be a boy who likes pink
EXACTLY!! This ideology is very inconsistent.
Gender has been used as another word for biological sex for decades. Stop making shit up.
A miserable little pile of secrets. But enough talk. Have at you!
😂
I dunno why the "Have at you" made me laugh so hard!
Probably because the rest I read with an American accent in my head, but reading that last part it instantly and subconsciously flipped to British.
is this a riddle where you have to arrange the words into a coherent sentence?
It's a video game reference. 😆 @@bepitan
The components hydrogen and oxygen can’t be part of the definition of water because we didn’t know about those when we were first drawn to sip.
Please keep making these videos despite your analysis! I've never known any other YTuber do this! I watched from beginning to end 💗
Gender expression is expression not a gender, category error.
That man did not present any actual argument for his point. He just made a bunch of claims and assertions without an ounce of logic to back up a single thing said.
which man are u reffering to?
@@bepitanJessie Gender, obviously.
I know you dont like responding to tra videos bc theyre so disappointing, but i have to say they make for your funniest videos lol
KC I just want to say that you are my favorite Marxist. I'm not one myself, and I've only been a watcher for not very long, but I appreciate everything you have to say. You speak truth with actual philosophical substance. You are articulate, witty, and stalwart against the GIE crowd.
Despite our differences in moral intuitions, I can agree with you on most things you discuss.
I wish you the best, and hope to hear more from you. What you have to say is valuable and appreciated. ❤
Lies!
Male and female are called genders and have nothing to do with biology.
Gender has no DNA marker.
Male or female is determined by gender located in the soul not sex characteristics.
JESUS was TRANSGENDER 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️, a female man returning as a female woman in a lesbian relationship with a male woman.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4 the forerunner to the return of Jesus.
And fake ministers all know Malachi 3 8 is telling THEM to return the money.
Woah he's a marxist? But he's not woke, and insane, and advocating for the destruction of the government, and actively engaging with the arguments of his opponents. How is this guy a marxist?
@@Creativeusername617Yeah, GC comes directly from marxist scientific materialism, and KC mentioned a handful of times that prominent GCs were actual radical activists who pushed for the same kind of emancipation as the rest of the left.
Also, KC is also looking at the same kind of ideal outcomes based in the ethics of marxism. Based on his policies video, he advocates for a form of gender abolition, which is essentially complete emancipation from gender.
This guy is a marxist? LOL
That's some extreme cringe
I thought he actually had critical thinking skills.
@@RaRd8zagreed…Marxism can be destroyed with simple common sense or logical reasoning…that’s how weak of an idea it is. All real world examples are nightmare fuel…not even including the universe sized amount of research, books, articles etc that definitively obliterated any argument of the ideology having a single ounce of rational thought…
There is no intersex condition in which a biological female can have a penis. However, they may have a macroclitoris, which is an enlarged clitoris. On the other hand, there are intersex conditions where a genetic male can have a vagina. One such condition is Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), in which genetic males cannot respond to androgens. This lack of response interferes with typical sex development, resulting in nonfunctional undescended testes and the presence of either a fully developed or underdeveloped vagina. If the vagina is underdeveloped, a functioning vagina can be created through non-surgical interventions, such as dilation and sexual activity.
On the first part of your video regarding the composition of the video, and arguments made, if you look at the videos more as vanity projects rather actual good faith thesis statements they make more sense. Most of these videos don't actually make points directly from the authors mouth, as they hide behind what people have said before, quoting Marx, Hegel etc. so that if they get something wrong or someone challenges them, they can fall back on, "Well I'm not making that argument, I'm just educating you on what they said", when in fact, they were making that argument. This is because they don't want to be seen as being incorrect, they want to make you believe that they are smart, and that they are educating you. They want to inflate their own importance, and be seen as an intellectual. This is why a lot of the video is admin, they want to talk about themselves, show everyone how much work they put into the video etc. when in reality if they really wanted to get their point across in a concise way they could easily cut down the video, and remove specific parts, they could even just get out of the way entirely, and not "star" in the video to begin with. But Contrapoints started this trend off, people have seen it works, and now people follow the same trend, to such a degree that there's obvious skin walking clones like philosophy tube.
Very good. Also Pluto is a planet & NdT was wrong.
Y = Guy
Such a simple fact that people are twisting themselves into pretzels to dispute.
Lies.
Male or female is determined by gender located in the soul not sex characteristics.
Gender has no DNA marker. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with biology.
Anyone saying otherwise won't be here much longer.
Matthew 19 12 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ says God prefers same-sex marriage and confirms transgender people are born that way.
I am Elijah of Malachi 4 the forerunner to the return of Jesus.
JESUS was TRANSGENDER 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️, a female man returning as a female woman in a lesbian relationship with a male woman.
And fake ministers all know Malachi 3 8 is telling THEM to return the money.
Imane is a male then
@@Scratchy8644 2017 argument. We dealt with that ages ago. Get some new material.
@@Scratchy8644
Male or female is determined by gender located in the soul not sex characteristics.
Gender has no DNA marker.
The soul enters the body at birth when a baby takes its first breath.
That's how a set of identical twins can have the same DNA, the same sex, but be opposite in gender.
What would you call someone who is XY who menstruates, has ovaries, and gives birth?
They're rare, but people do exist like that.
I'm not twisting myself into a pretzel to dispute anything, I'm asking how you've arrived at making this all so simple.
I feel like this video sums up the fact that activists are so used to quippy arguments to other responses that they have no good argument at all and its just a machine gun of garbage.
Like alot of the counterpoints to Jesse takes some thinking and nuance but its not that much that anyone can counter these points but none of these are catchy enough to use verbally and take too long to respond in a live setting, so most points go uncountered and Jesse's video is a result of talking those points as truth
0:08 I have found there are two general schools of thought when it comes to transgenderism, but of course, the group as a whole essentially has to hold to simultaneously, despite their contradiction. And I tend to call these biological essentialist, and social essentialist. Both of these however would say that trans women are *not always* biologically male. To a biological essentialist, they essentially believe (with no evidence mind you) that somehow the mind of a woman can end up in a man, and vice versa. Despite basic biology and genetics making such a thing impossible, this is what they believe. They would say that's why there's a significant overlap with transgender and autism, because its all in the brain wiring. I'd say the overlap is because cults go for the socially vulnerable, but I digress. Point is a biological essentialist would say that a trans woman is biologically a woman, but purely in their brain, not the rest of their biology. These are the types to point out intersex and all that. Now a social essentialist is the type to claim that gender is just a social construct, a costume to put on, and that sex doesnt really determine gender, rather than gender is self-determined. Usually having a very stereotypical view of interests innate to either gender. The thing is these people would not always say that a trans woman is biologically male, as a woman could identify as nonbinary, but still be called a "trans woman" which is of course, confusing, but there's a very real sense in which that is the point. Cults are meant to be confusing.
I havnt watched the video yet but given the chapters in the video I would say that this Jessie Gender guy is a social essentialist.
6:08 GOSH it drives me insane when I see this type of thing. Like, ok just analyse how this man is thinking about these things, if you look at the thought process itself... This is an extremely masculine way of presenting an argument. This is just how a man's brain works. You can see it.
7:20 gender can change? 100% a social essentialist. Mind you, they tend to flipflop when its convenient for the argument.
21:57 its almost like your DNA determines the plan for your body or something. Like, this is nonsense, like the chromosomes where discovered to match with the physical observation before. That doesnt mean that they dont mean anything.
45:23 that's exactly what he is saying... because its a cult. It applies to everyone, but is also innate. They need both to set the trap properly. Anyone can join, but once youre in you cant leave.
51:45 the argument that's often made here is on the "comfort level" this is what makes them "comfortable" but is that really an argument? People on drugs can be pretty comfortable when they are getting shot up, and become rather uncomfortable when they try to get off those drugs. Does that mean we should supply drug addicts with drugs? That's where this logic goes.
To be fair, literally no one on the left is calling women who identify as non binary "trans women". They call them "AFAB non binary people".
@@Yipper64 think it’s more “gendered soul“ versus postmodern performativity, but YMMV
@@collyernicholasjohn They would never admit the "soul" thing but that's essentially what they have to appeal to.
@@Yipper64 ‘Lady feels’ 🤣
Have you ever considered responding/reacting to the GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic ? I used to follow him due to his debunking of all things theistic (being a non-believer myself). However, he seems to be completely captured and is now putting out nonsense about AMAB and AFAB statistics in support of trans identification (how this is linked to his original modus operandi I don't know). Maybe he has caught on to the fact that 'queer ideology' garners more likes in YT?
I think WPATH has hired him to run the secondary fake backstory the way Erin Reed runs the transbara vanguard
I’ve had to unfollow so many of my favorite atheists channels, including Drew. They’re the apologists now when it comes to trans ideology.
@@Canthavemybones This is how you recognize atheism based on hate and trends, rather than on logic.
You unfollowed him because he doesn't hate trans people? Lol you're as brainwashed as the radical leftists are, just on the opposite side.
I had to do the same with that Dave guy who debunked flat earthers. all these leftist men falling in line to promote men living their women fantasy 24/7 is beyond disappointing.
Speaking of the start of the video 2:23 and how much of the argument is irrelevant, I have noticed that OFTEN Leftist videos start by asking a question, and then never answer it. For a few example, look up Tara Mooknee's Vanity video and Alexander Avila's "Did feminism FAIL men?".
Tara for example does not even define vanity in the video, and Avila spends the whole video discussing the effects Patriarchy has on men.
There are other such videos, but I have not memorized them.
5:38 When Jesse went to discuss Harry Potter houses, I had to sit down.
Who could have imagined that a personality sorting for your peer group would be based on... character traits?
P.S. I had to sit down because I already was sitting down.
10:00 The concern is only had about trans people doing it because only trans people attempt to normalize that boundary crossing and we're only supposed to accept it when trans people do it.
12:32 Quick someone tell... ah... I forgot her name... and her channel was deleted... that black gc woman who sang a lot on the piano.
15:39 Policemen swear to God...
Ok, at the point where I went half an hour without making new notes, I'll end the comment.
Oh my goodness yes about the asking a question and never answering it. I don't know how they don't get called out all the time because I click on the videos because I want the question answered so obviously i'm going to notice that they don't do it!
@@KC_Streams I think they don't get called out because the audience isn't there to have the question answered. They're there to vibe, for aesthetics or for that creator's style and to laugh at the "obviously incorrect because it's bigoted or not Leftist" position that the essayist responds to.
Karen Davis. That was the black woman. She gets her channel deleted a lot, and the title was a question. Found her channel again just now.
I think that guy would have his face as the illustration on the cover of a non-existent / purely hypothetical book that I just invented, called “People Who Can’t Be Reached: The Non Peakable TRAs”. ;) Not only does he have EVERYTHING invested in this ideology being true, but he also clearly does not care whether or not it IS true! Because personal gain / its proliferation being extremely good for him. Which is clearly all he cares about. Just like with all the other AGP TIMs.
..Maybe some people in his AUDIENCE can still be reached, though!! I sure hope so. Some of them may just come here to hate watch, which was how the whole shift started for me, too. (Not this channel, specifically. But other totes evil, oh so deliciously “forbidden” GC stuff.) Funny how THAT works. 😜
Also..? You have the patient of a saint, 4 realz!!! I doubt I could bear listening to this guy for more than 5 minutes, personally. Not to even mention taking him SERIOUSLY! Argh. Hope you do reach some of his viewers, yes indeed. :)
Not an attack, and I assume the original video didn’t explain this, but Pratchett’s argument is essentially a jokey explanation of the “unprovable first principles with best results” problem of educating children.
A child struggles with “fairness” because anything less than what it wants is less than what it wants and it can neither appreciate the happiness of another, nor imagine that anyone else is capable of holding a grudge, but we have to instill this idea in the child.
Hogfather is one long treaties on the idea that having Santa knowing and judging your actions is necessary for the teaching of the idea of God, which he equates with a conscience, a sort of internalised parent, who determines if what you do to others would be “fair” if it were done to you.
Amusingly, I’ve been hearing more materialist types complain about this part of his writings for years, in spite of his generally assumed left wing views.
I'd much rather children be made to understand the instrically valuable nature of conscious sensation and their rational obligation to concern themselves with the welfare of other beings just as sensitive as they are, than outsource their ethics to an uncountable, unexplained god. I don't have the skill to turn that into a parable fit for children, but I think it's likely we're doing children a disservice by raising them to defer their judgement to a deity that can't be evidenced.
@@dsm7014 Pratchett was supposed refuting that idea, which had been popular in schools around the time he was a journalist.
Just to get the other side, should read Hogfather (you also need Mort and Soul Music for it to work), he lays it out well, and it’s both funny and poignant:
the discussion comes up when Susan, death’s daughter and the epitome of The Nanny expresses basically what you just did.
Death, who has to repeatedly take children who can’t grasp what’s happening into The Good Night makes it clear that you can’t do that for children in his experience. Even those you think have gotten it are just pretending until their teens. Pratchett was convinced by being a journalist that even scientists think in metaphysical terms first, an argument that my experience with people raised the way you are describing doesn’t little to refute.
@@Mulletmanalive It's a rationale I understood before I learned to read, I think you're underestimating the capabilities of children. Nor do I understand impinging it's utility on a necessity for instillation during early childhood. We don't give up teaching Algebra or civics because we can't teach it to Kindergarteners. At any rate, religion's continued love affair with all manner of hatefulness and bigotry, especially in the realm of public policy, would contend with it's alleged usefulness as a means of pacification. You certainly wouldn't wish to live in any of the world's currently existing theocracies.
@dsm7014 However, were hardwired fir with or dogma or whatever you want to call it. Something will come along to fill the hole where religion used to go and it may not be entirely preferable. You gotta serve somebody as my dude Bob said.
The point of words is to convey information. Under the traditional view of "man" and "woman" I could show you a room of 100 people, tell you there's only 1 woman, and you could pick her out in the majority of cases. Under the trans definition of woman, you would literally have no way of picking out the woman, because it's entirely possible that 50 of those "men" are feminine presenting females and the 1 "woman" could be a masculine presenting male
This was an absolutely excellent video with very cogent arguments that clearly answered what biological sex means and how it relates to our categorization of men and women.
I also just want to say that I think it’s really gross when a grown man dressed up in women’s clothing makes a very long video with a white board trying to convince everyone that he likes playing with dolls and thus, ipso facto, he is a “girl”.
There seems to be one error in taking up this debate.
You're trying to logic someone out of a position that they didn't logic themselves into in the first place.
but they are trying to use logic to justify their position ..hence the roast.
@bepitan I don't mind roasting them or this video in general. All I'm saying is no amount of logic will convince themselves out of their position because they didn't use logic to get to their current position. They used feelings to get to their conclusion, and are using logic to justify their conclusions.
Trans activists are like Flat Earthers, and like them, no amount of pointing out their logical failings will convince them otherwise.
You might as well argue with a cat to not shit on the floor.
@@Tommy9834 ..well yes, the trans movement and the popular anti intellectual movement are closely intertwined, it's now all about feeling and emotions but ultimately it's all about not being able to accept the word no, a lesson that used to be taught early on in past generations.
True, but it can help fence-sitters logic their way out of supporting such nonsense.
The harry potter comparsion dont work as its titles of rank that are given not some self id view of yourself
And its a analogy, Its not the biggest deal if its used
The analogy has to make sense tho
Might not watch the video, but will spend my 2 cents. Yup, trans women are biologically male, and nothing short of an entire genetic rewrite can change that, and we currently don't have the tech for that. I'm entirely fine with people wanting to look feminine, but to claim a falsehood as a fact is just straight up wrong. You're not a woman. Feminine, sure, but you're not female. You just aren't. More importantly, sex shouldn't be subject to arbitrary changes at the whims of random people. Dividing people into male and female isn't, "offensive", it serves a lot of very important functions, especially in statistics using large amounts of data, and corrupting that data could lead to severe outcomes. Sure, act as feminine as you want (or vica vera), but don't tell lies. Personally if I had it my ideal way, I'd be indistinguishably feminine from actual women, but I'd never consider myself actually female, that'd just be a lie. I don't give a shit about what catagory I'm in biologically, it doesn't matter, all I care about is what I LOOK like. Kinda like how getting a tattoo wouldn't transform me into a comic book, and if I believed that it did, I'd be insane. At the end of the day, male and female have very important roles within the data that'w used in every field, and muddying that data, as I said before, can have disastrous consequences. Anyone trying to claim that they're the opposite sex of what they biologically are, is insane. It shouldn't even matter to you what you're *CATAGORIZED* as, as long as you *LOOK* the way you want to.
I took one look at Jessie Gender's channel and knew there was something off about it all.
It seems to me that transsexuals' are a category of males who are sexually attracted to straight men. The dissonance is caused by straight men being attracted to the female body, and it is typically either resolved by taking on the appearance of female to be treated as female by straight men. So the more one "passes" and attracts the sexual attention of straight males, the less the dissonance is, and the happier the trans person is.
Makes much more sense then the tosh I just watched.
It's that plus how society overall treats women better than men. So they want to basically be cared about and treated like "a person" Yet being trans is a bandaid to the bigger problem that society treats EVERYBODY badly and running to the other side doesn't make the grass greener. Since it isn't a true switch, it's a balancing act a lot of people can't uphold due to that need to pass. When they just look like a weirdo man in dress. They're cooked, especially when their fashion choices are HIGHLY dated and flags them so much.
So transsexuals are just gay but want to be on the other side?
i think that trans person could benefit a lot from being a scientist or a biologist it will make them understand better the body and many concepts, they could even discover something new that can help with their arguments, but that will require that put aside their ego and their activism to swallow all the raw science concepts and laws
Or they could just learn to not be delusional
If they just said the truth they would be far more accepted by the general populus. You can't change your sex, gender dysphoria is not a thing and being trans is just cosmetic procedures.
Trans people who are 'biologists' argue that sex is a spectrum because hormone levels aren't a binary. It doesn't matter where you are, the delusion follows.
An offering to the Allah-gorithm!
I don't think women in the West historically were seen as "property" so much as a "responsibility" akin to children. Yes, I know this does not sound good, but I lack a word to make the distinction in the concept. Children are not property, but parents are responsible for raising them and attempting to give them as good a life as possible; which may have some undesired outcomes from the child's point of view: chores to instill responsibility and work ethic, arranged marriages to ensure a life off the streets or maintained affluence or just a source of perceived protection, punishments to instill the idea that actions have consequences, etc. It feels like people often take the rare, worst outcomes of the cultures of the past and blanket the entire culture and feel justified because the people of the past are no longer around to defend themselves. These are often the same people that would decry this behavior against current minority groups and foreign cultures.
Too jubbly, im out!
Great video and arguments as usual!
I have seen some clips of that Sakar/Butler interview and I suppose at some point I'll try to force myself to watch the whole thing, but from this and other recent Butler clips, where for some reason she felt confident enough to venture out of the parapet of her abstruse writing, I do get the impression that she really isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
Why is this even a debate 🤦♂️??? They are.
In most cases it isn’t necessary to point this out.
Some of the people pointing this out are doing so to be deliberately mean.
But it’s not untrue.
If you truly think it isn't necessary to point this out on the regular you've been living under a rock.
Well, the truth can hurt. But it’s still the truth, whether people want to listen or not
It's a debate because it's been forced on us by much richer and much more powerful people than we are.
33:10 This whole tangent is kind of irrelevant because Male and Female are not defined by Chromosomes.
They are defined by what Sex Cell is produced which we knew when we defined the terms
Can you elaborate your points please? Not stupid, just interested by your words. 😊
@@I_Gladly_Tell_You_My_Name The whole point he was going over was about how although we didn't know what chromosomes were when we came up with the terms Male and Female we knew we were describing something.
Something that we later defined based on Chromosomes.
My point is that we don't define male or female based on Chromosomes at all so both Jessie and King Critical are arguing about a point that doesn't matter because they are both accepting an incorrect premise.
We define male as an adjective meaning "of or denoting the sex that produces small fast moving gametes, typically spermatozoa"
And we define Female as "of or denoting the sex that produces large gametes, typically Ovum"
This is also why when Trans activists bring up Intersex people it's irrelevant because Intersex people only ever produce one type of gamete, meaning although we call them intersex because of their genitalia, they are actually always one sex or the other not both.
And since by the time we started using the term Male or Female we would know about Sperm and since Sperm needs an Ovum to reproduce that means we knew who was producing Ova and can define these terms based on that even before we define the terms for Sperm or Ova
@@Lordgrayson What roles do chromosomes play then? Don't they determine sperm and ova (sex cells/garmets) for you? 🤔
@@I_Gladly_Tell_You_My_Name Kinda but it's a bit more complicated than that, especially when we start talking about other species.
However yes in most cases your Chromosomes code your development so you produce Sperm with XY and Ova with XX in humans
However we don't define Sex based on chromosomes specifically because of the reasons why Pro Trans people try to use against it.
1. There are exceptions to the XY and XX chromosomes like XXY or XYY or XXX etc where additional genetic material is present that can mess with development, it also would mean we couldn't define XYY as male even tho would present as very masculine.
2. You can't tell what chromosomes someone has without using very modern genetic testing, so when we created the distinction we did it using the Phenotype(Observable traits) instead of the Genotype(Genetic Makeup)
3. If you look at animals other than mammals, alot of them have the same Male/Female that we do however they don't have XX or XY chromosomes.
However since they still produce Sperm or Eggs it means we can still easily classify Male from Female
@@Lordgrayson Agreed and understood. 👍🏿
What *is* a motorcycle?
Are those bicycles with a 25cc engine motorcycles?
What if I never turn on the engine and instead push the bike forward with my legs?
Can I go 150 on a 80, press the clutch and turn off the engine just when I pass the radar? Can they prove I reached that speed using the engine and not my legs?
No. They're motor powered bicycles. They still pedal like a bike.
To think that humans have the ability to subvert or reverse a transformative process during gestation on a molecular level is wild to me, the absolute hubris.
I can't imagine ever being soft headed enough to think that an analysis of a fictional work can reveal any truths about the physical world.
Jesse's posture makes my back hurt.
I agree with you, but the 'second' analogy isn't great. A second was historically defined as 1/86400th of an hour, which was defined as 1/24th of a day. Definitions aren't discovered. They are agreed upon. If there was some disagreement about some fraction of a second historically, the length of a day could be appeald to.
I'm glad you did this. I made a comment to this video 7 months ago. I'm too lazy to make videos.
ruclips.net/video/39uen84KnNg/видео.html&lc=UgzzHKKIMk4ICPfrhXh4AaABAg
If you haven't already, would you make a response to the video "Is Biological Sex A Simple Binary?" by Zach B. Hancock?
Another analogy to this guy's nonsensical argument about chromosomes would be that we measure time by days. Days are now defined as the time it takes for the Earth to complete a full rotation on its axis, but we've been measuring time by days for far far longer than we've known about the Earth rotating on an axis. This does not negate days as a real thing that exist and are relevant to human life (and many other forms of life as well) and can be defined quite easily and concisely, regardless of the fact that we did not know WHY they happened when we first started using them as tools to describe reality. Either way, it's fucking baffling that TRAs think this is a good argument when you can come up with so many examples on the spot of other phenomena humans have been describing forever whose scientific explanation has only recently come to light.
Side note: I don't want to be overly mean, but perhaps only people with good handwriting should do whiteboard bits. It's incredibly jarring in an otherwise semi-professional looking (not written!) video to see this guy's 8-year-old boy handwriting scrawled on a whiteboard.
"Every video is like watching the slow kid on the playground punching himself repeatedly and not knowing if you should look away or go tell a teacher, but somehow instinctively knowing that engaging directly with him would be a bad idea." - this was stolen from ovarit user sylviasmushrooms who was reacting to a different Jessie video over 2 years ago. I'm posting it here because it's still relevant today.
Hey KC, just wanted to say that I really value and appreciate your channel. You are able to construct immaculate counterpoints and legitimate arguments that really help me when tackling these topics myself, and manage to make said pounts while remaining respectful. Never change!
Hay I just want to ask since its clear you have some kind of script of some kind. Would it be possible for you to form some kind of blog like site where we can get written transcripts of these videos. It would be nice to use your work as a source with out the stigma of youtube.
14:11 Jesse's argument makes it seem like black women aren't real women because of their "voluptuous bodies" when the entire reason that the dehumanization was wrong was because they were just as much females as the white women. It's like she missed the actual point of the issue.
21:45 A problem with this argument is that most humans are not that ambiguous in their sex. 9 times out of 10, if the person looks like a man, they're a man, and we don't structure society around the outliers.
I don't agree with Jessie Gender's conclusion here, I think this is the one and only time I agree with you, or at least your conclusion, but can you not misrepresent her argument? At one point of the video, you misrepresented her argument as her saying that because we didn't know about chromosomes when we first came out with the concept of gender then that isn't what we are referring to when we reference someones gender at birth, but what she ACTUALLY said was because we don't know someones chromosomes when they were born then that isn't and can't be what we are referring to when we talk about someones assigned gender at birth.
Funny that Terry Pratchett's name would be brought up in a quote. I recently watched a video on 'The Science of Discworld', Discworld being an absurdist representation of an unscientific understanding of the natural world, and one of the reasons things in Discworld work is because someone wanted it to. Sounds a lot like most of the arguments being put forward.
Cisgender just means normal.
There is no such thing as cisgender.
Oh dear god, pleas! Another over educated gender studies “woman”. Pleas enlighten me about the inherence sexism in Transformers, pleas!
his head looks so weird on his body 💀😭
I don;'t think the word salad is accidental, that's just what gender theory actually says. It presumes that the sexual binary is purely and entirely arbitrary and that the native state of humans has no sexual differences that could be outwardly identifiable. To which I hope you would agree that even if men and women should be at liberty to defy norms, that due to the fact there are significant developmental differences between men and women, including by all scientific data, in commission there will still be natural expressions of sexed distinctions on average in the population in things like behavior.
I guess to clarify, men and women are different in more ways than merely what gamete they are designed to produce, as the process of that biological specification obviously has greater effects than that, including on human behavior. These effects are not as universal, however, and individual men and women will conform to them more, or less, dependent on many complex factors, but that there still WILL be an identifiable bimodal distribution (and research consistently shows this, which the differences between male and female behaviors actually becoming MORE apparent the more liberal and open a society you are doing the measurements in). The queer theorist rejects, wholesale, that there is ANY natural distinction that could be made of any relevance whatsoever and that in a liberated society everyone WOULD be queer.
Something weird is going on with the volume whenever jesse speaks.
Jesse's volume was a little inconsistent in the original video
Everything you've said is true. So based King!