Hey everybody tonight we're holding the super straight debate and we are starting right now. With the opening statement from the representative from the super straight position, Tom jump with his 10 minute opening statement. Tom the floor is all yours. Yeah, thanks guys. Thanks jangles and James as always for posting these. So the first thing I wanted to say is that the biggest confusion is that super straight is not about making fun of trans people. It has nothing to do with trans people. It's about the SJW feminist ideology of making up a gender identity or creating a gender identity and pronouns and then having some kind of special status because you have these in the feminist community. The point of the super straight label is to essentially just do the same thing. Here are my genuine sexual preferences and then I'm going to take those and put them into a gender pronoun or label and then essentially hope that the feminist community is going to give me equally as much respect as all the other ones the LGBTQIA plus stuff and just be another one of those special classes that the feminism has deemed to be a thing.  And the fact that when we do that that the feminist community does not respect certain groups it shows the hypocrisy in their viewpoint and that really they're only respecting the ones that they deem worthy and so they're really the ones who are the more racist bigoted ones because they're treating certain races and certain sexualities as inferior or not as deserving of respect. Now I fully think that the trans community the LGBT community every community of individuals should be treated with respect like your individual values of what you see as important in a relationship should be respected and you shouldn't be labeled with any like the f-word or a slut or shallow or incel I think all of those are immoral and same thing with trans folks so labeling someone a transphobe because they don't sexually desire to date someone of the trans variety is just as bad as labeling someone an f-word for being gay or a slut for being polyamorous. Every single person has their own needs and values that they need validated to feel value out of a relationship and they should all be respected including straight people and the point of the super straight label is again has nothing to do with trans people it's not about demonizing the trans community it's about demonizing the methodology in the worldview of the stw feminist community and showing how hypocritical they are by using their own method to create a label and then show that they're not going to respect your label even though they claim that you're supposed to respect everyone else's label so it's essentially just like the flying spaghetti monster where you take the exact same evidence and methodology that a worldview uses to create a parody that's exactly supported in every way because it's using the same methodology and show that the people who support that worldview will not treat them equally there's a double standard there and that's really the point of the super straight label and you can see this in every one of the like the twitter account that's the super straight twitter account all of the posts are just parodying the exact same things taking the feminist stw quotes and pictures and all of the things that they use in their methodology to support why you should respect the lgbtq community and just taking those exact same things and just saying them about the super straight community that's all they're doing they're just taking the exact same methodology and saying just like you respect this group you should also respect us too that's it so this again has nothing to do with criticizing trans people it's all about criticizing the sjw methodology and their hypocrisy um but yeah again that's why it supports the valuing and treating everyone with respect whatever your needs are in a relationship uh and the super straight label is not about that it's not about saying that trans people are bad that's a huge confusion that i want to clear up it's not about that and if you just check all of the videos on super straight by the more uh non anti sjw community sargon uh blare whites all the pidd blacks pigeon speaks all those people none of them say anything about criticizing trans people they're all specifically just saying this is hilarious because it's using the same sjw methodology of creating a identity a gender identity and then showing the hypocrisy because no one in the feminist community respects it even though they claim you're supposed to respect these gender identities um so that i think sums up most of my conclusion there's a few more things like obviously it's not transphobic to not want to date a trans person just like it's not uh mesandras for me not to want to date men who identify as men it's not misogynist to not want to date women who identify as women and it's not uh straight phobic if you're gay and it's not gay phobic if you're straight there is no phobia there it's the whole point of this is just to take your values and put them into a gender identity just like all the other identities are doing and then demand respects for your values and what you need in a relationship without being criticized with some demeaning derogatory label like transphobic especially because that label in today's society can get you fired or banned from social media in many cases uh and it's wrong it's it's wrong to label someone in a derogatory way because of their preferences it's wrong to label someone an f word or a slut or shallow or an incel or anything that will hurt their identity or their individual values which should be respected everyone's values should be respected both the trans community and the super straight straight community and i'll conclude there thank you very much tom jump we will kick it over to jangles for his opening statement as well which will be he has as long as 10 minutes and it won't be over that and also want to let you know though folks if it's your first time here at modern day debate we are a neutral channel hosting debates on science religion and politics we want to let you know you are more than welcome no matter what walk of life you are from and so thanks for being with us and jangles the floor is all yours all right everyone so i'd like to start with a hypothetical video so let's set the scene so i'm in my car for some reason a little bit sunburned today so maybe that'll add to the flavor of it okay so here we go yo so i've been getting called anti-religious and stuff because you know i think believing in god is dumb i don't i don't like being told to take someone's delusion seriously it's not a real thing to me so i've decided to create my own religion like there's a flying spaghetti monster out there that created the universe and tells me that other gods are false and that i'm going to drown in tomato sauce for eternity if i respect anyone else's religion so like you can't call me anti-christian or islamophobic or whatever because that's like that's my religion and you got to respect it now if you want to talk about the actual issue there the justification of religious principles without evidence the legal protections the barrier for legitimate respective beliefs i'm all for it in fact i actually appreciate the real life utilization of post-afarianism when it's done in good faith but to sit there and legitimately pretend that post-afarianism is a real religion of genuine belief in the flying spaghetti monster it's not only insulting considering that the stated intention of its creation directly contradicts taking it seriously but it also directly obfuscates the real underlying issues that might be potentially interesting to discuss and unlike direct belief in the supernatural i have dozens of peer-reviewed scientific sources supporting both the legitimacy of trans identities and the efficacy of affirmative treatments just in case they need to be brought up today but i don't i don't believe they will i hope not as such i have two potential approaches to this debate the first is addressing and refuting the super straight meme itself and the second is the far more interesting and productive topic of sexuality and identity let's start with the former to get out of the way keeping in mind that my ultimate goal is not to change the topic at hand but to get rid of the superficial obfuscation covering something more substantive and possibly productive so any reasonable interpretation of the origins of the super straight movement would recognize that it is purely a transphobic weaponization of the perceived woke values of tolerance and the diversification of sexualities it's the well then i identify as an attack helicopter in its 875th iteration as best as i can tell it could be traced back to a tiktok video by kyle roist in which he says that he's tired of being called transphobic for not dating trans women saying quotes so you know like uh they're like would you date a trans woman i'm like no why that's a female uh like no that's not a real woman to me like i want a real woman and so he invented a new sexuality called super straight he says again quote now i'm super straight i only date the opposite gender women that are born women so you can't say i'm transphobic now because that's just my sexuality so a very tough very smart boy made a meme to deflect criticism we know that's why he did it because in an interview with insider in an interview with insider he said so i created it because i was sick of being labeled with very negative terms for having a preference something i can't control and getting labeled by the community that preaches acceptance and that sort of stuff and because in addition to being very tough and very smart he's also very honest because he followed up with it's not transphobic and it was never meant to be as if we weren't criticizing him for that little part where he says trans women aren't real women and not because he didn't want to do any dirty business with the trans people all right from there it found its way to Fortran and a new movement with the world's ugliest flag had been born but we're not going to give Fortran the credit here the tactic is old and tired and it's been for a long time literally the first thing that comes to a bigot's mind when called out for their bigotry is something along the lines of well if you were truly tolerant you wouldn't be attacking me for my ideas which rapidly involves into claiming victimhood and oppression in an attempt to co-op the language and empathy used to protect vulnerable groups in order to better shit on them i'm rightfully being dismissive of this movement because it was never meant to be taking legitimately on its face it's a troll and taking trolling seriously is just about the biggest mistake you can make in dealing with them but let's do it anyway three reasons why super straight is not a legitimate sexual orientation using the self-described heterosexual Kyle Royce as an example one if you believe like Kyle does that trans women are not women and for this reason you are not attracted to them then you remain a man only attracted to women we already have a sexual orientation that describes that and so super straight just means straight you've added nothing two if you believe that trans women are a type of woman that you personally are not attracted to then what you have is a type a maybe even a kink not a sexual orientation having a sexual orientation doesn't mean that you must declare sexual interest in every single person sharing the distinguishing characteristic you deem a prerequisite for attraction that's why it's called an orientation i myself and not typically attracted to really skinny guys but to turn around and say that i've invented a new sexuality called big gay would be laughable turn types even fetishes do not constitute a sexual orientation and three the last reason why you shouldn't take it seriously as a sexual orientation is because they tell you it isn't do you want to pretend that we didn't hear the reasoning for his creation like the original video is available re-uploaded on youtube stating explicitly that it exists to be a flimsy defense against accusations of transphobia every super straight account without exception exists solely to shit on trans people or at the very least their perception of trans ideology including one that marked suicide that's disgusting it was never about celebrating the love that you have as would be the case if you were an actual movement trying to actually parody legitimate sexualities if that were the case you'd question the lack of actual couples featured the lack of actual super straight traits super traits that meaningfully distinguish it from heterosexuality and you'd question the enormous focus on attacking the political and social aims of a group that were explicitly described as having nothing to do with the movement by liars super straight was born out of the internet tradition of inventing a hypothetical person to get mad about and then laughing at the rubes who burn the straw in effigy it is kyle royce pretending that the internet called him transphobic for not sucking a trans woman's we'll save that i don't want to demonetize you uh instead of him saying verbatim uh nah that's not a real woman to me like i want a real woman in the discussion section of this debate if we can oh well we can if we must debate whether or not people legitimately believe in the flying spaghetti monster pretending that the origins of it are not publicly available and that everyone involved in pastafarianism didn't spend the vast majority of their time attacking the religious institutions they were satirizing or we can look past this imaginary straw man concocted in the mind of some victimhood seeking transphobes and get everyone up to speed on the actual conversation that has been going on in left leaning progressive spaces for years now which is finding the line between uh where preference shifts into bigotry that's far more interesting to me and i hope that's where the discussion leads thank you very much we will jump into the open dialogue portion for tonight's debate also want to let you know folks if you love juicy controversial debates like this don't forget to hit that subscribe button we have plenty more coming up and so hit that notification bell as well so you don't miss any of them live and with that oh want to remind you are guest or linked in the description and that includes if you're listening via podcast you can also access their links via the podcast episode description box so with that gentlemen thanks so much on the floor is all yours so it seems like he clearly said it's not transphobic like when he said real women he meant biological it was just habit that he said real so i mean do you would you reject that when he said real he meant biological women i mean that's kind of what is and when someone says that trans women aren't real women that's what they mean i did that that is the transphobic attack you're not real because you don't have the chromosomes or whatever like that's a four all right so there's a really bad habit of like uh lumping all like bigotry or transphobia into like one binary which is ironic like no you don't have to be like trans people are degenerate and disgusting and ought to be like violently assaulted you don't have to be get to that level before you consider transphobic but i don't know i'm saying that like for example if someone came up to me and said that my marriage is not a real marriage because a real marriage is between a man and a woman would you consider that homophobic uh sure when it's applied to somebody else but that's not what i asked so what i asked was when he said they're not real women what he meant was they're not biological women and he wants to date a biological woman right yeah and he can certainly do that but we're not going to pretend that he did so it's not transphobic so so he the fact that he used words that you interpret to be transphobic doesn't make them transphobic because he's not saying they're not like real people he's just saying they're not biological women and the fact that he used the word real you interpret that to be an insult when it wasn't meant as that at all i don't believe that for a second and the reason is because i'm because all the super straight movements lashed onto that don't believe what could you clarify i don't believe for a second that he didn't mean that as a transphobic attack again transphobia doesn't have to be this enormous like a battering down to something but if that were the case why were are all the super straight accounts on twitter and anywhere else that i can find why were all of them latching on and why is all of their content specifically shitting on either trans people or trans ideology none of them are none of them are shitting on trans people or ideology at all except all of them that i have wait wait wait don't interrupt so what they're saying is is they're criticizing the uh i created a gender identity like if you just go to the super straight twitter account none of them are saying trans people are bad what they're saying is is we can use these exact same methodologies to create a gender identity just like you do and obviously someone who doesn't take gender ideology seriously isn't going to honestly believe they are this gender identity the point is an internal critique of the feminist worldview so they don't need to take it seriously for the point to be a real point it's like it's a genetic fallacy to say oh it was created as a meme therefore we don't have to take it seriously like no memes and jokes do convey serious real points that was like the entire point of money python like they make serious points with jokes no definitely and that's why in my opening statement i said yeah when post-afarianism is used effectively like memes satire can be enormously effective but we can't we have to uh what's the difference between the post-afarian and this one yeah the post-afarian this one because no one in post-afarianism would legitimately say no this is a real ideology and if you don't like it like no one oh yeah absolutely so so i agree with you on that part but how about how about this just one so but are there real by the other difference oh yeah i just want to go one at a time so but are there people who genuinely don't want to date non-biological women is that a genuine feeling that many people have certainly yeah so so they're not lying here they're saying this is what i genuinely feel and you are labeling me some derogatory term because of what i genuinely feel okay and so i'm going to try to get the same level of respect that you give that group by doing the same thing they did and getting a gender identity of my own see this is where i put in that you're making up something like you're making up an ideology and pretending to parody that ideology like no one in the like i am self-described shaw no one's saying that you can just make up something and it must be respected you actually have to provide like a little bit of a clarification of what it means like that is a discussion that's been had that's been had it's been had in the sjw and progressive spaces i keep saying sjw the woke spaces that's been a conversation that's been going on for the longest and i'm not following what you're saying so it is more than just if you create an identity for yourself you have to actually tell people what it means and yeah you shouldn't crap on someone if they legitimately believe that identity but that's the key word there is legitimate belief if it's painfully obvious one sec just just to hear the rest from jingles just so if it's very obvious that the belief in your identity is not genuine and this is the case here the belief is genuine they're not this is not a real sexual orientation uh it's and it's it was created that way from you just said that there are people who genuinely don't want to date trans people that is how is that not a real sexual because soup because you can you're still straight you could just not be attracted to a certain type we have gained nothing by saying you're super straight here you're just straight right so so what you're saying is is that uh they've created some terminology they have this new terminology and you already have a word in your terminology in your language to describe that and you don't want to adopt their terminology i mean does that sound familiar to you no it doesn't you're making up a version of the of the woke sjw that just doesn't exist in any sort of good faith way and plus i'm not gonna i want to stick here and defend like random people do you find on twitter if you would like to hear someone who self describes as woken sjw tell me what i think about this issue i'll certainly will but try to vaguely gesture at hypocrisy that you think is on my side i'm not going to do that it's not going to be productive well it's not specifically about you like the straight super straight label wasn't created because of you it was created because of the hypocrisy in the larger woke community not just you do you think that a significant portion of the super straights are not legitimate transpose yes okay why are transfers attracted attracted to this ideology because they're also it benefits their worldview just like it does the anti sjw worldview now there's not a lot of overlap there yes so there's lots of overlap between lots of ideologies that's a hasty generalization file so you can't say well nazis like this therefore anybody who likes this must be a nazi that's literally a fallacy we know that no it's not like saying that nazis like water there and hey you like water too i guess you hear some common traits with nazis this is not a different hasty generalization because we're talking about core ideological beliefs is like i'll love the people who are in this that super straight movement don't think trans people are real people don't treat don't think trans people are the gender that they say they are this is inarguable it's the minority the minority but uh in anybody uh if you would like to search super straight find accounts on twitter if you think if i did i did i watched the videos on it like sargon blare white who is trans many of the trans people who say yes people are people do you think that sargon of the cod is not a transphobe no i don't think it's a transphobe okay then we just have very very different definitions of transphobia like i talked about how do you define transphobia someone who does not think trans people are legitimate or uh correct and they're self described and how they present themselves in their identity sargon wouldn't disagree with that he wouldn't say they're not legitimate people i don't know if anyone would say they're not real people i had a discussion with sargon about trans issues and i can say for certain like yeah he is a transphobe your opinion on it doesn't make a difference like he's never said they're not real people it's not a thing okay i didn't say he weren't they weren't real people wait we come back okay go just get us back on track thanks guys all right stop yeah stop giving it back to like they're not real people i don't know where that's come from the transphobia the transphobia is someone who says that a trans woman is not a real woman that that's the transphobia and that's like the baseline for transphobia of course that definitely cannot be transphobia because it's only transphobia by your definition of what real means like you are interpreting the word real to be non or to be a positive non derogatory thing if they just mean real as in biological they're factually correct there's nothing transphobic about that they just mean something different by real than you do like they're not saying we should take their rights away we just we just don't see them as is that the bar that we have to set like in order to be transphobic you actually have to uh want to take someone's rights away it seems like an unreasonable standard if you treat them as less than other human beings yes like not legally but take their rights away as in a general sense of if you treat them as you know than other human beings yeah i don't buy that defense at all because i heard it a lot growing up like against my identity like people said hey i don't want to take any of your rights away as a gay person you have all the same rights that straight people do you can get married to a woman as well i don't want you thrown in prison for a while i just want to make sure that you know uh you're not a protected class other people aren't protected classes why do you get to have a special treatment that's what i heard over and over and over again it's the same tired excuse that every single social movement has had to endure and fight against the arguments do not change i don't know how people keep uh keep following because it's true like there's nothing wrong with that argument like i i don't have any problem with trans people i have many trans friends on my youtube channel i they i would give them jobs i would give them positions of power i'm fine with a trans person being president the fact that whether or not i want to date one is not transphobic at all there's nothing about that that's transphobic how about this let's say that you have uh let's say that you have me okay and i say repeatedly uh i don't want you know i would never date a black woman like i'm saying this as me i would never date a black woman do you think that that's racist uh maybe maybe not like maybe you have a phobia yeah from yeah right like may not have anything to do with racism right so it's right we have to know a little bit more about where that has come from in order to make that distinction you can't just do the blanket thing that you're doing more saying like uh just because they don't want to date trans people doesn't mean they're transphobic that might not be the whole story and it very often is right i totally agree with you there so so that statement on its own the not wanting to date trans woman is in itself not at all transphobic there could be other things that are transphobic you could be transphobic and therefore not want to date of course but the statement on itself i don't want to date trans women the super straight identity itself is not transphobic on its own you need something else you need some other transphobic thing to make it transphobic yeah and that's where you just go on to yeah that's where you go to literally any super straight account and scroll down for about 20 seconds or so that's where i did that i didn't find any like anti transphobic things i found them saying that oh we're just you can use the exact same labels that the lgbt community doesn't mimic them you are like super straights are deserving and meaningful and do you matter cool do you know what gender critical is i don't know how familiar it with uh like trans like the trans discussion that you are like you know in gender critical theory gender critical theory in academia no gender critical as like a movement mostly online no do you know what a turf is uh something some a feminist that doesn't like trans women or something pretty close trans exclusionary radical feminist you got the idea though so when you scroll on any of these super straight accounts you see retweets of the exact same things uh that's all the turfs and gender critical people do you see retreats of the lgbt alliance which is an objectively transphobic organization they say they're fighting for my rights but it's really weird how fighting for my rights looks a lot like boobing on trans people and they use to say that they use by a sexation you didn't actually provide once i do want to hear it just just i appreciate your gusto tom but just hear that the end of that sentence from jingles and we'll come right back to you hasty generalization this guilt by association no if you are agreeing with the core ideology the core principle if you retweet a nazi that is not in and of itself a uh you know evidence that you are a nazi it always depends on what the nazi says if the nazi is saying something that very clearly identifies them a nazi and you retweet that and say this is based yeah that is not guilt by association that is oh you agree with what the nazi said get about something that makes him a nazi i know what's uh you haven't provided any transphobic examples you've just said oh they've retweeted nazis like you provided zero transphobic examples here so so show me something super phobes when they are told to stop grooming children so anybody who opposes uh the super phobes or rather or anybody who opposes super straight which is mostly like trans people uh and trans activists uh they must be uh grooming children which is a very common which has always been a common uh line of attack against any lgbt group and by now it's being used against trans people it was used against gay people and it's going to be used against gay people again if uh we lose if we so again you haven't provided anything or you've said oh look there's some bad people well there's some bad people how many so yes is your standard that i would have to put is your standard here that you want me to go through all of these accounts and list everything that i find transphobic in them but is that how you want to go to the big ones i want you to like sargon blair white to go to their video show me where they've said anything against trans people because everything they've said is we don't like the sjw ideology and they're just copying it okay i don't like the gay lifestyle i don't care about gay people i don't like the gay lifestyle like i i'm just that's all it is uh i'm against trans ideology there's nothing to do with lifestyle this is this is about my life not yours okay i said nothing about your life okay what is what is this imaginary like trans person who is like pounding on your door and saying if you don't sleep with them um then that means you're transphobic and you'll be fired from your job from being transphobic you guys haven't known the time like you can find clips of it in every one of those people's videos i've listened so um no you're a transphobic you sys gin white male how dare you say that no you haven't provided any examples so i'm not going to believe you okay that's fair i mean so there's a bunded evidence if you don't want to believe that's fine okay there's a bunded evidence of the super straight movement okay so cool all right let's i'm not we can keep talking about the super straight movement if you like there's but there's a deeper conversation to be had here about like sex identity uh what we're the line between preference morphs into bigotry if you like are you fine shifting more towards that because all right cool so this has been going on uh this is the conversation anytime i go into a left lane stream a cozy space a safe space if you will with my fellow sjw's and you know y'all like to hang out and it's never been brought up it's never been brought up as a serious position that just if you have a genital preference for example um like if you just don't like a dangly bits or uh or an uncertainty if that's just not your thing then no you don't have to date anybody with that that's that would be completely unreasonable uh like your person like what you do in your personal life and who you choose to like personally be romantic with or sexual with um all that stuff is like very very personalized and might have nothing to do with your internal bigotry however that's a uh limp justification if someone says you know what i usually i find that i'm not really super attracted to black women i don't know why that's way different than you know what i'm not attracted to black women because they all look like gorillas to me like that's way different these are not the same sentiment being expressed and there's a lot of uh all false equivocation between them if you say you don't want to date trans people we need more okay if you say you don't want to date trans people because that's not a real woman to me that is that is transphobic not because you won't date them but because the reason you're not dating them is something a little bit deeper that uh like from the core of your being that is expressing a form of bigotry uh definitely not so again saying you want to date a biological woman and if you mean real by biological then that's perfectly fine like if you want to have kids you need to date a biological woman if you're a man that's yeah again that's perfectly fine if you want to have kids so if i want to date a real woman because she can have kids there's nothing bigoted about that no there's nothing bigoted about that but to have a blanket like all right would you date a uh a cis woman all right would you date a cis woman if she couldn't have kids uh maybe maybe not because i kind of want kids okay cool i a i want kids too adoption is a thing if you didn't know that um like actual biological kids i want my kids oh okay so are those not really my kids yeah like i want my genes like gene kids okay do you think that you would be more of a father because those kids are biologically or is it more father mean okay do you feel better cool if you were to tell me that okay i have kids and we adopted because obviously no matter how hard we try i mean my husband cannot have children do you think if you were to come and tell me like hey like i'm glad we have kids and stuff but you know these are my real kids by real i mean biological like obviously again so it's purely subjective i'm saying i would feel better like it would make me feel more proud of myself to have kids that are my biological kids has nothing to do with you so what you know what makes you feel validated is completely irrelevant to my but do you think a reasonable outside observer could observe that interaction like you saying like hey it's cool to have kids like i have kids but you know like i wanted real kids though like these are my real kids like those again that's a false analogy so again no that's actually a very good analogy because you've defined real as James you make you stop me every fucking time if he's going to interrupt me you got to stop him too so uh every if i say i want real kids and what i mean is kids that are my genes no there's nothing that's racist or bigoted about that and no anyone who interpreted that would be completely wrong to interpret that a bigoted because literally it should be pretty clear what i mean is i want kids with my genes has nothing to do with you this says nothing about your life your ideology what you value this is all about my it's my value that's the whole point the super straight thing is about my values or the values of the people who adopt it not about you not about trans people it's about us so why do you keep bringing this back to you the world is not centered around you no i'm bringing up hypotheticals in that scenario that's why it's and i also don't appreciate being lied to this has nothing to do with trans people when the entire sexuality is yeah it has nothing to do with trans people it has nothing to do with the exact group that is purposely and deliberately being excluded yeah it has nothing to do with trans people it's pretty obvious like everyone who says super straight like they're just being honest like i don't want to date trans people okay okay when you say stop interrupting so the reason they're adopting this is a criticism of the lgbt ideology the adopting gender identities has nothing to do with trans people it applies equally as well to any of the other gender identities too this is not about trans people this is about the ideology of adopting gender identities and that giving you some special privilege or special rights to be respected over other cis-gen white males it's not about trans people all right we're gonna come back to that in a second like what hold on as so i am i have a couple of those right i'm a i'm a cis male i'm gay though that apparently gives me some points what points do i have over you since you're straight i'm gay what points do i have over you uh you wouldn't get be insulted by being called a cis-gen white male because of white male it's that okay cool you wouldn't be well actually you would be insulted by being called gay that's actually a very common insult but you're sexy like you said if someone was trying to insult you they would call you a white male if someone was going to insult me they'd call me a cis-gen white male okay what if they just called me the f-slur would that also be an insult do you think that might have okay do you think those things are equivalent uh if both can get you fired yes but yours can't get you fired it's illegal to fire you for calling you an effluent it's not illegal to fire people for calling someone a transphobe which has happened yeah and do you think that when people are fired for being a transphobe do you think that it's because they refuse to date a trans person or they expressed mild discontent like hey you know what i don't think i would yeah like they posted on twitter that uh you can't change your biological sex that's that's all they posted and they get fired yeah that happens well you can't change it well one yeah you can of course you can uh like you can't you can't change every x y chromosome in your cell no of course you can't change chromosomes you can't change gametes of course not but you know those are practically useless when we're determining someone's biological sex so yeah you can't you can't change someone's biological sex sure you can you can change all the secondary sex characteristics and you can change all the you're not talking about the secondary sex change character. Of course those are part of the conversation. The cellular composition of the XY chromosomes that cell retains. You can't change those.   Okay, we can come back to that if we'd like. If what we mean by that is you can't change the XY chromosome, we're right. You can't change the XY chromosome. All right, let's okay. No, we can't change the XY chromosomes. And then that's what we mean by it. Cool. That's useless. Like what? It doesn't matter if it's useless. Wait, the use actually kind of matters like my definition if it's useless. All right. No, the point here is that you can post a tweet. You can't change your biological sex and buy by what they mean by that is you can't change the XY chromosome. So they're factually correct if that's what they mean. And then they get fired. Like whether or not it's true makes no difference here. The fact that they can be fired for being labeled a transfer of prescading effect is a problem. Like that makes it worse than being called an effort because you can get fired for someone else calling you it. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm interrupting too much. Are you done for? All right. So let's say that we had Twitter back in the 1950s, which wouldn't that have been crazy. And then it's a white person said that you can't change your biological race. That's a fact. Sure. If you're saying do you think of coins and genes, that would also be a fact. Yes, cool. And if we were talking very specifically, this is very obviously in the conversation of whether or not it's black people should be allowed into white schools or white areas. Do you think that maybe it's not just stating the biological fact, it was the intention of stating the biological fact toward a different purpose. Unless you're psychic and you can read their mind and know you don't get to your psychological interpretation of what you think they're doing. No. Oh, okay. So I don't understand like what this conversation is about. You don't know what the the feminist ideology is. You're not inside their minds. You're not inside the mind of any feminist. Likewise, you said, and likewise, we're not, you know, I couldn't possibly inside the inside the mind of someone who is a transphobe. And so I guess, you know, there's no, it's almost like that language is a two way street. So yeah, conversations, language is a two way street. And what you say is only half the story of someone reasonably interprets what you say as a thing that is just as legitimate intent. Absolutely not. There's no such thing as reasonably interprets. Like you can't if they literally say it, yeah, you can like black people are bad, sure.  You can't try to interpret some kind of intentionality there just like with the super straight movement, you can't interpret them to all be secretly transphobic when there is a huge plausible justification to say that the reason this is valid is a criticism of the feminist movement in general and not about trans people. There are trans people who support this movement. It's not about criticism trans people.  I'm sorry, I hate that. That's liberal identity politics.  You can have bad, bigoted opinions. In fact, I did a whole like video on like the research justification on why certain marginalized groups are actually more likely to compete against their own self interest because like of like a large body of research that says that just because Blair White says something isn't transphobic doesn't mean that the broader community wouldn't see as well. She is not the representative of trans people. She is often a scapegoat not a scapegoat, but she's often a like someone who is, you know, lifted up. She's the Candace Owen. She is the she's the Brandon Straca.    Absolutely. Yep. Just like Jesse Lee Peterson as much as we love him. We can he's trans? No, well, he's racist. I got it now. It's like, wait a minute. So I don't want to assume, right? So, but we can we can pick whatever pundits you want.  Therefore, you label them as transphobic. And that's a problem like saying that you don't want to eat someone isn't transphobic. And you can't then project onto all these people that they are somehow transphobic because they disagree with you on a political policy. Like obviously, there should clearly be a rational interpretation of the super straight movement has nothing to do with transphobia. Like, is it can you conceive of that that this super straight is used not as a transphobic thing, but could also independently be used as a way to criticize the feminist movement and not be transphobic is not a possibility. Oh, no, of course, not this specific movement. We're not talking about an abstraction here. Could you make a movement that was about that? Maybe. But when this I have to get back to this, I don't know how to interpret that super straight movement has nothing to do with trans people. I don't know how to interpret what is what is objectively a false statement. So if we go back like this guy, Kyle Royce in the video that introduced that it's largely credited with introducing the whole super straight movie, he said, I'm sick of being called transphobic. I only want to date real women. And so I'm creating super straight. So you're saying that the stated reason for creating this movement, and it's a grandiose word, the stated reason for it has nothing to do with it. That is nonsense. I mean, you've literally just said, I said the reason I created this is because I don't want to be called transphobic. And then he stated his gender preference, which is not the reason he created it. The reason he created it is because he doesn't want to be called transphobic. And calling someone again, as I addressed in the beginning, a real woman, if by real, you mean biological, you're correct. The problem here is that you are interpreting his statement to be derogatory when he didn't. Like, do you think he has some kind of subversive, subconscious intention of using the word real that means something other than biological? I don't know.  Well, as you said in his other interviews, he's like, this is not about transphobia. This is specifically about, I don't want to be called transphobic because here are my gender preference. Oh, well, he said he's not transphobic. I guess that means it's true. Like, you know, you know how like bigots really love to admit that they're bigoted and how that's a really common thing. Oh, so, so you can read his mind now? Is that you're just going to psychically interpret what he's saying and the obvious interpretation of real here just mean to biological, which is what most people mean by super charitable. And let's say that by real, he meant biological. So you said, are you super familiar with like trans discussions at all? I think I've asked you this before, but I'm sorry. I forgot. No.  You will never be a totally agree. Definitely. Okay. So why so is that way you agree that that was definitely transphobic. That's like saying you will never be a real person for sure. No, it's not. You'll never be a real person. It's specifically related to the gender identity. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. I understand. Yes. That would be that would be transphobic. Why do you keep going back to like you'll never be a real person? Like unless you're saying like you are less than human, like you're not actually a full human that it can't be counted as bigotry. It's a parallel to try and compare. Like I understand what you are saying. Yes, that is transphobic. Okay. So why one that would be obvious. Okay. So why is that not so we agree that saying someone who has a gender identity who has grown up with a lot of like transphobic materials who say that no, if you if you're not this, you're not a woman, but who's someone whose identity is very much tied up in DNA woman. And we have a society and a lot of like people who are still pushing against it saying that no, this is what makes a woman. It's chromosomes. It's genitals. That's it. If you ain't got those, you're not a real woman. Do you think how that could be perceived reasonably by a trans person as transphobic? Yes. And can it also be perceived as not being as just a habit by real. Do you mean biological? Just because those words make sense in your head and it has nothing to do with transphobia. Is that also a reasonable interpretation? Cool. I mean, it may be. If it wasn't, if it wasn't like tied up in all of the other like objectively, you know, things that we can see. If it wasn't tied up in all of those super straight accounts, would you don't think that they're transphobic? I think they're very obviously on their face transphobic. So this was before any of the super straight accounts. They're saying we're talking about the guy who invented it. When he said, I don't want to date a real woman. Is it a reasonable logical interpretation to interpret what he said? It's just meaning biological with no ulterior motive or extra connotations there. He just meant that but said it carelessly. Is that a reasonable interpretation of what he said? If we were being very good faith, yes. Why do we need to be very good faith? Why wouldn't that be the reasonable interpretation to anyone for pretty much most people who say this? That's probably what they're going to mean since it's what most of their history has been. Well, you've hinted at it. You said most people. So it's not, we cannot take this statement in a vacuum. We have to put it in a broader societal context. In this context, this person is online. They're on TikTok. They're very aware of trans issues. They've made up a scenario in which like their friends were calling them transphobic because he said he wouldn't date a trans woman. So that's the conversation we're putting it in. He's not this old boomer who's just learning these new terms. He grew up with it. He's on the internet. It's reasonable to ascertain that he's probably familiar with these terms. And he knows that saying that a trans woman is not a real woman has a transphobic connotation to it. Probably not.  Why do you think that that knowledge is somehow ingrained into his use of language? And he didn't just think real as in biological because it's an empirical fact and empirical facts are usually attributed to be real when psychological facts are usually attributed to be imaginary. Like most human beings who know science realize empirical equal real psychological imaginary. And so when they use the term real, they're usually talking about some kind of empirical fact like DNA, cell structure, XY, chromosomes. So why is that not the most reasonable interpretation? When someone says real, they mean some kind of empirical fact. Because that's not how we interact with it. What in psychological doesn't mean imaginary? Like psychological, that is part of your genetics, that is part of biology is your brain. And the way we perceive the world is through, I know that wasn't the point. But the point is like, if you have atomized it down to like, if you don't have X X chromosomes, and if you don't have a virgin, I'm not going to be actually it is. So the point here is that when he says is real, if someone is was 100% passing, and he found out that they were trans, that is the identifying factor that he is deemed. Nope, this is not acceptable. What if you're attracted to somebody, and then you find out a fact about them, even though like you were initially attracted and that fact says no, I'm no longer attracted to you. Like if they were white supremacists. Yeah, they were white. Oh, excellent example. Do you think it could be reasonable if someone found out that someone was a white supremacist and didn't no longer wanted to date them because they were not attracted, that they have something against white supremacists, do you think that's reasonable? Cool. Yes. All right. So by that same logic, if someone found out that someone was trans, after initial attraction, if they found out they were trans and they no longer wanted to date, that it might be a reasonable assumption to say that they have something against trans people. No, same reason, like if what you are attracted to what makes you feel good, you have no control over in your brain saying it's racist or transphobic because you don't feel the same kind of emotional pull to one person of a certain identity or value or who has enough money. There's infinitely many ways you could be attracted to or not attracted to each individual has their own set of values. But I do want to bring this back to what my point was here, which was that when he said real woman, it's pretty like the most reasonable interpretation is by real, he meant empirical, by empirical, he meant some kind of genetic sting in the cell rather than psychological. Obviously, I understand psychology is also determined by the brain, I'm a determinist also, but when people think psychological states like gender identity, they're thinking imaginary. That's like the number one criticism in every anti-SJW community. This stuff is all made up. So I mean, understanding that if you're not of the woke community and you're in the anti-SJW community, if you're thinking real, you're thinking empirical and if you're thinking imaginary, you're thinking psychological, that's a really common thing here. So to interpret his statement as being deliberately transphobic or something like that is clearly not the more reasonable interpretation here. Okay, well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. By the way, that may have used to have been the case, but now all the woke he left is now we have the stats and the empirical data, and now you can't trust empirical data anymore for some reason from all the like the anti-woke crowd. Anyway, all right, so let's move on to talking about like sex and sexuality. So something that I think is enormously like weird to repeatedly come up against is that like sexuality, gender identity, sexual orientation, that this stuff was invented by woke people, that it was invented by trans or gay people, like that the concept of a sexual orientation or sexual identity was invented wholesale to like make up these new identities and when that's really not the case. Yes, of course, like if you didn't really have a word for heterosexual until homosexual was coined because you need some sort of differentiator in the same way that like if we have the word trans we need something as a differentiator. It could be non-trans or we could have a word like cis or not word but you know a prefix like cis means cisgender.   Correct, yeah I did not say that in this debate. Oh I know, I did not mean to apply what you did but a lot of the things you were saying like so what is so this might also might be interesting. What is your like criticism of like the woke ideology or the SJW ideology regarding gender identities and sexualities? What do you think they're criticizing? What do I think who's criticizing? What do you think the super straight movement is criticizing? The fact that they're being called transphobic because of their preferences of what makes them feel validated in a relationship. Okay, no they're not. That's literally what all of them are talking about like all of the people on YouTube are talking about it like all of the big memes on the super straight Twitter account are talking about it that's that's what they're talking about. Okay well I don't, all right if you think this are going to be caught in blood pigeon speaks are credible sources again we're just gonna have to. It doesn't matter if they're credible sources that's what they are literally saying that is the words that are coming out of their mouth in the videos. They represent a huge portion of the community because that's why they have so many followers there these are the people that the anti-SAW community are look up to and agree with and get information from so they represent a large portion of the people making these arguments so it is fair to say that they do represent the that group for sure. Okay so in my so I've called Kyle Royce transphobic I've said that almost all the every single one without exception of the like super straight accounts I think that they're transphobic and yet I've also said that no not wanting to date a trans person because you have certain genital preferences or you want to have children that is not transphobic so what are these imaginary attacks that they're making up it's the internet like again it's the internet's the internet tradition of making up a hypothetical person and then getting really mad about them. You're not being called, Kyle Royce isn't being called transphobic because he won't date a trans woman it's because he said that you know trans women are not real women and I know you have a different interpretation that but you also cannot deny that that is a reasonable uh like a reasonable trans person or reasonable trans that who's heard that a million times over as a transphobic attack might take issue with the phrasing of that. You could say it's poor phrasing or not but those words in that order in that context can be reasonably interpreted as transphobic and that's what's being attacked at the very least can you please agree that that is the part that I call transphobic. Yeah definitely I agreed before that if someone says like you will never be a real woman as an attack against another human being yes that is definitely transphobic or not giving someone a job or whatever there's definitely things that are transphobic but given the context like obviously people are not perfect at speaking and not perfectly considerate about what they say and most people aren't eloquent and educated like we are so the fact that this guy used the word real and it should be more irrational to interpret what he said as being oh he's a human being who just made a simple connection between real equals empirical and even if he's completely deluded and doesn't know anything about gender or sex or how the empirical sciences work he thinks like Sargon does because he also doesn't know all that much about this field that oh gender is some empirical thing in the cell and so when I mean real I mean the empirical thing I mean why do you think that isn't the more reasonable interpretation like what how do you think that this person has access to genetic testing uh I mean like the thing that Kyle Royce has some sort of access to genetically test uh someone that he is in contact with no no okay so in a real woman in the genetic sense it is not reasonable since he will never have access to that data and we've defined real woman as a biological woman as determined by chromosomes and organ mates that if he's defined as someone as a real woman based on something he will never see or never have access to testing I don't think that's the reasonable interpretation what I'm not following at all your same here so like the fact that he can know it or not doesn't make a difference like you could be dating a white supremacist and you'd never know it and even like the idea of it would make you feel sick he's like you could say before ever knowing it I don't want to date a white supremacist even if you never knew it like that why does the knowledge here make a difference because the knowledge here this analogy I love like this is the analogy that I would bring up to support my point if you were dating someone with initial attraction like you are attracted to them and then you found out something about them that made you go whoa no it's we can reasonably interpret that oh you got something against them just like if you were dating a trans woman and the and that you found out that they were trans uh and you pulled like an ace ventura and went by the way that's called the transpanic defense and it's still legal in a lot of states which is really disgusting uh this is the kind of stuff that we're talking about so I don't hate trans people all right I just want to protect women's spaces all right so when we're talking about trans rights that's kind of this things we're talking about that's the obfuscation that I find really really dishonest if you like it's I don't hate trans people I want them to have all the rights that they that they can possibly have but I I want to protect women's spaces which means keeps trans people out I want to protect women's sports which means keeps trans people out I want to make sure that uh like like crisis and rape abuse centers uh like those support centers I want to make sure they're completely free of males which means keeping trans women out and do you see how like this this benefit of I don't hate trans people I just want to protect this thing has been used as an obfuscation for legitimate bigotry for as long as bigots have existed yeah but like you as you admitted earlier you can't just say because someone adopts those policies therefore they are transphobic because they can be legitimately justified for other reasons like rationality rules I don't think he's transphobic at all and the fact that you want to exclude many biological men from sports like you mentioned or men from restrooms that's a perfectly rational position to hold without being transphobic like that does not entail that you are transphobic and so to label everyone who holds that ideology as transphobic would be a hasty generalization so okay so there is a reasonable interpretation of it that is not transphobic you can't label that thing itself as oh they're a transphobic because you hold this position okay so let's let's go back to this again do you think saying that trans women aren't real women we've agreed that that can be that could be yes if you're attacking another human being saying you will never be a real woman or that group will never be a real woman yes okay we're talking about like the legal implications of trans rights those are also real people and so like what you just said like uh no it's reasonable not to want men coming into women's bathrooms I also agree with that I don't want men going into women's bathrooms but I don't know what we were talking about that led you to think that because I was talking about trans women I was talking about women entering women's bathrooms like so you can see how like the language is that it is reasonable for someone to want a not want biological men to enter women's bathrooms because biological women are disproportionately stronger than biological women and so it presents a threat here that's perfectly reasonable there's nothing transphobic about that where is not following your argument because it's not backed by any sort of empirical data it's based on fear it's based it's based on the assumption that trans that trans women are men they're just men in a dress they're just males pretending to be women they're not real women do they have more testosterone do they have more muscle mass yes or no it depends on whether or not they've undergone hrt all right so so if they haven't which it's expensive anyway is it do they have more muscle mass and more testosterone most likely so it's based on facts yeah they have more muscle mass and more testosterone but you know what else is facts empirical data showing that there has never been any sort of issue with states that adopt uh some sort of trans inclusive bathroom policy right right i agree with you there that's fine but so there's a reason to adopt this which is not transphobic it's literally there is a fact of the matter that they are physically stronger so i mean yes and when the women are afraid of men in many cases even though most men i'm very rarely harm other women and mostly harm other men okay when the facts that fear that's not like yeah but when the facts of the data when the empirical data comes out and it's on my side that we should let trans people go into the bathrooms that they identify with because the empirical data supports my position then what are you left with when the facts are not on your side anymore you continue to hold them in face of evidence or because it might be reasonable to have that assumption or do you say well no the data doesn't support it and we have and as empiricists as people who value that empiricism that apparently precludes chilaroids from being transphobic now what do you do what so like we know the facts that most women aren't going to be assaulted in the streets but people women are still afraid like the fact most women argue that or there's have been extremist feminists who argue that there's a curfew for men because ah men assault women in the streets even though it's an extreme minority does the fact that the stats go against them make them misandrists no not necessarily although i certainly could they certainly could yeah absolutely could for sure but i wouldn't label them just because of that that they are misandrists i'd say they're taking their feelings and their interpretation of the data that they believe is true and then making a judgment off of that now obviously if you present them with the contrary facts and they're like oh that's true then right they should change their position but that's it's hard to change people's position on facts confirmation bar use makes that very very difficult so i'm not going to judge them as being racist or bigoted or transphobic or misandrist or misogynistic i'm saying they have feelings they have the facts that they support those feelings so until we can actually show them that's not the case that's a reasonable position to hold like even if it's not true that's the best position they have to believe at the time so it's a conversation and philosophy we have all the time like if your kid and your parents tell you santa claus exists it's reasonable to believe santa claus exists because santa claus does exist you got me on that one defeated but so if the best source of information you have indicates something that's false you're still reasonable to believe it so i would never call someone transphobic or misandrist or misogynistic for making these generalizations off these very supported facts of reality okay very supportive facts but no you framed it as if they believe in something if they're mistaken about what the facts actually are then we can you know people are ignorant no one knows everything that's reasonable but the facts like if we're talking about reality and empiricism the facts support letting trans people into those spaces right so just there's another point that i really wanted to bring up here so again so with that we're talking about sex and sexuality and whether or not it's okay it's like a preclude a certain group of course that is the case absolutely but do you think that a reasonable interpretation of i don't think uh so if i found out that i was dating a trans woman i would never do that because that would make me feel gay and you know i don't want to feel gay like that my identity would feel attacks do you think it's reasonable to say that i view that trans woman as a man uh yes okay so do you think that viewing trans women as men and trans men as women do you think that that is transphobic no see i that's to me that that is the the baseline this is where transphobia starts could you explain that more sure so in gender identity so we have gender identity and we have like biological sex and all that fun stuff more important for most people in most scenarios is gender identity because we can't see biological sex as it is normally defined by biologists it depends on which definition of biological sex you go with so we go based on presentation and we also go if you're ever unsure we also we go based on someone's like self identification what do they what do they tell you that they are and so for someone to say like hey i'm a woman um because you know my name is woman's name and i am a woman and for you to say like no you're not i think i know better than you you're a man to me that is that is like the baseline so that's right i agree to say no you're not that would definitely be wrong but i can say i define a man as a biological man i define a woman as a biological woman so i can say your gender identity is a woman and that's fine but by real i mean just the biological say just by my definition that's how i use the word so if you use the words differently that's perfectly fine it's not transphobic to say that you use the words differently like if i'm rejecting your definition and say no your definition is wrong then obviously that could be bigoted in some way but if i'm just saying i define it this way and by my definition you're not a real woman because i define it biologically that's not transphobic that's just saying this is the way i use the word okay um again so it almost it almost sound like and you can let me uh you can clarify if i get this wrong a little bit it almost sounds like you can have the beliefs but as long as you don't vocalize them towards another person then you can't be considered transphobic uh well we can't read other people's minds so if someone isn't deliberately doing something transphobic it's wrong to ever call them transphobic um but like i can just have the belief that because i define a man as a biological man because i'm super hard empiricist all i care about is empirical science kind of the stuff and i just define it by those empirical standards this has nothing to do with transphobia it's just i care about the shape of the x and y chromosomes because it's science and i don't care about psychology i also i also love me some empirical data i love me some science i use a ton of sources and if you'd ever like to a conversation about why you're incorrect about your assumption of what constitutes a real biological sex and it's usefulness and practicality in society i'd love to have it but onto the topic of like i agree i agree we can't like actually measure x and y chromosomes so it's not very useful in society to to know to know that information but my that's was different a different point i wasn't making that point okay but it almost sounds like you can't call someone transphobic unless you can physically get in your head which we've both agreed that for at least now at least for now until our cyber punk utopia comes we can never see what's in someone's head you gave several examples we could absolutely call transphobic if someone said uh trans women will never be real women that could be considered transphobic for sure one that can't be considered transphobic is saying i don't want to date a trans person that can't be considered transphobic one either one of them we're getting into someone's head we're using inductive reasoning we're using like tone past comments in the greater context of the conversation so what if someone said exactly the thing that you said it was no this is not transphobic i no i don't think i data trans woman uh ever what if we put that into the context of the broader conversation of what they were likely were exposed to what if we look at their like past history and past comments to get a better idea of what they normally say what they normally think could we then post talk rationalize not post talk rationalize but could we then gather data that would then put that in a more transphobic light so for example like if they said transphobic things in the past that were clearly transphobic and then they said less obviously transphobic things you could infer a subconscious or a sub uh some other kind of context we're trying to pursue but if they haven't done that before and they're just talking like normal humans then you couldn't do that and so unless he's accidentally explicitly said some transphobic things in the past you couldn't infer that his specific motivation is transphobic in that case you just say he used the word real to mean empirical biological like most people do okay do you think where do you fall on is is sexuality more socially constructed or is it more uh like genetically determined uh depends on what you mean by sexuality if you're talking gender socially constructed if you're talking biological sex biological sexuality like what you're attracted to um i need to uh well it was kind of a false question but uh i realized that as i was saying it like genetics and so here's i can just tell you my belief yeah nature nurture it's it's both it's both yeah okay so okay so yeah my belief for just for the people in the audience like um is something purely genetic or is it environmental that's like asking if the length of the width is more important for determining the area of a rectangle well just to clarify like height is purely genetic for the most part except like it's physical interactions with your body like food can affect height but it's mostly not socially constructed well not no oh but when i say nature i just mean environment that doesn't that that's a broader category of yeah including all the food and your nutrition and all that kind of stuff yeah so that all that stuff is like environment um so so i think the sexuality is mostly the same way there are like the certain parts that are more geared towards a certain way and then like as they manifest itself in current current society both with environmental factors but mostly with societal factors and social factors and social influences that those same genetics can manifest themselves in different way do you think especially as going forward considering that more and more young people are starting to adopt some sort of uh uh i'm using queer in a reclaimed sense here adopt some sort of like queer identities do you think that this is a sign that maybe a lot of initial like discussed towards trans trans people now and to gay people in the past do you think a lot of that is socially influenced yes absolutely yeah okay absolutely it's the case like anything that if aliens came to earth people wouldn't want to be many people would not want to be in relationship with aliens because they're just new it's not something that's been you speak for yourself what how about you speak for yourself yeah so i'm on the record saying if there is a sorry i would totally be all over every sorry that came but turian also also a good choice yeah for sure so um but yeah so if there is something new that isn't like familiar in your mind simply because of the way the brain works novelty is a scary thing for humans and so many people are going to not want to be in a relationship with that thing purely because it's novel and you need to build those neuroplastic connections to make it more familiar for sure but that doesn't make them racist or speciesist just because they haven't had the neuroplasticity time over a social industry to build that familiar actually this yeah that's actually i 100 agree with that oftentimes bigotry might not be coming from an intentional place of malice and i think that's a huge all right if you want me to criticize my side the woke side the sshw side i do think too many times despite the fact that we lefties like we love talking about systems we know the systems are enormously important that everybody is a product of the environment that they grew up in we tend to diagnose people as morally wrong based on just a few superficial characteristics and that's really not fair considering that we are supposed to like know a lot about systems so i don't i think that you can absolutely be bigoted without being intentionally malicious i don't think you have to be a bad person or even want harm to uh to come to the people that you are being bigoted against in order for you to be bigoted so just like what you were saying it doesn't really matter what your intentions are because we can never get inside your head so if that's the same we're setting then what's inside your head what inside your intense might not even matter at all it's how it is it perceive what affects does it have in broader society and if one of the effects in broader society is that trans women are not real women therefore they do not deserve the same rights as women this is going to negatively impact the trans community going forward and we've already seen that with a lot of new legislation popping up to like deny trans kids the access to health care to needlessly like uh ban trans people from support despite a lot of flimsy evidence uh or very little and very flimsy evidence to support that as well so do you see how like it doesn't have to be from your heart of hate in order to have an effect it's it could be uh like you said this is just how he grew up and i completely would buy that but what i don't buy is like because he didn't mean it to be transphobic then it doesn't have transphobic effects well if he didn't mean it to be transphobic i'd say he wasn't transphobic so i'd say that the intentionality there the mens rea is absolutely important so i'd say obviously the effects can be bad like you can uh do something to harm trans people without realizing it like do some stupid policy like biden or something and cause lots of transphobic effects so the the policy would be transphobic even if biden's intentionality wasn't so there's a difference between the effects and the intentionality of the individual and i'd say that just seeing differences and some you prefer and some you don't would not qualify as big as saying you want to be in a relationship with one person rather than another i don't want to be in relationship with james or men who identify as men i'm not missandrist doesn't work that way even though i clearly see there's a difference between the groups of men and women just like people super straight people see a difference between trans people and uh non-trans people the fact that they see a difference doesn't mean there's a bigoted thing there for it to be bigoted it takes something else it takes some kind of they're less than or less good or like less than people it's like the best standard i have to judge uh racism or bigotry in that real sense is that if you think they're less than people or a less lesser kind of person that's a good way to show that yes you're definitely bigoted or transphobic but if you think they're the exact same like level of people and should have all the same rights and stuff you just don't want to date them that's perfectly fine like obviously i'm not judging james because he has a very funny nose and i don't want to date him because it's funny nose it's just i have no uh inkling to to to like restrict or negate or be bigoted towards anyone who's like james like so the fact that you don't want to date someone doesn't say anything towards transphobia like obviously there can still be transphobia there maybe i just hate all james's and can't stand james's but you couldn't make the leaf that's saying ah the super straight movement doesn't want to date trans therefore they're transphobic when many of them many of the people who do support the super straight movement have nothing to do with transphobia they're just doing it as a critique of the lgbt community like do you do you reject that there are at least many people who are using the super straight movement specifically for just that only that purpose um no do you know why because you can just critique woke ideology without adopting this movement why did you specifically pick this one it's funny what it was it's i mean you think the attack helicopter joke is funny even if you thought it was funny five years ago it's kind of getting old now dude come on well it's funny because it's adopting like the same reason the spaghetti monster as you mentioned we both use that example because it's a great example we're taking a parody of the movement which is an internal critique we're taking their own methodology applying it to something new and then showing that there's a double standard there that's why it's funny it's the exact same thing that money python does uh it's that's why it's such a beautiful beautiful example to use if you're only trying to criticize the lgbt community or the lgbt ideology without criticizing the lgbt community as a whole okay so there are a few things i wanted to get back to one criticizing the ideology of a community again this has been used every single social rights movement has had to deal with this right i have i have like a whole like paragraph of like of a bit here that i why does that make it wrong like like we criticize communism too but that's not racist okay so do you think anybody wants to be thought of as a bigot no how do you think a very do you think a very common tactic of legitimate people that you and me both would be would consider bigots you think a very common tactic of them is to stop focusing on who they hate and start focusing on what they're defending sure but that doesn't mean that just because nazis breathe doesn't mean everyone who breathes is a nazi again this is not this is a false false equivocation fallacy all right so all right here we go if you want to clip me out of context uh to get ready this is the best place to do it i don't hate trans people i just want to protect women's spaces i'm not anti-gay i just i'm just in favor of traditional marriage i'm not anti-american i'm pro i'm not anti- immigration i'm pro-american i don't want to restrict women's bodily autonomy i'm just pro-life i'm not anti-science i'm pro-religious freedom i'm not anti-black i'm pro-white i just want what's best for germany and her people like a no no no hate movement should be thought of as such right it's always tricking the book is to frame it out of something as a defense of something else remember so i said that all nazis breathe if you breathe you're a nazi so yes obviously nazis or racists or bigots will always use the same tactics that everyone else is using to try and blend in essentially but that doesn't mean there's non-nazis non non-nazis who also use the same tactic for non-bigoted reasons so the fact that that bigoted or racist people may use the tactic doesn't make the tactic itself racist because there can be legitimate uses of the tactic just saying what i say there can be but and this is not one of them this i i'm still kind of i hate circling back things but i'm still stuck on like the entire stated purpose of these two straight movement was specifically about trans people like that was like the essential thesis of it all right and it's and it's specific you read the quote again because he specifically said i don't want to be called transphobic because it's like the reason i did i don't want to be called transphobic for yeah that that has and also like i don't want to date a trans woman like i don't want to date trans people yeah all right so that's the stated purpose yep that's it has it it doesn't have nothing to do with trans people trans people are the entirety of its existence that is the central unifying soul factor behind the super straight movement and now somehow somehow we get to weasel out of like they have nothing to do with it i don't get it so let me ask you this if he was never called a transphobe would super straight exist if you would never probably not know so it's not about the trans people it's about the fact that he's called a transphobe that's that's the reason never this still has a lot to do with like trans people like being called a transphobe is implicitly like related to trans people oh yeah sure sure but that's the point the reason it was created wasn't because of to trying to support bigotry against trans people it was because he was tired of being called a transphobe it was a defensive thing because he was being assaulted it's not an offensive way to try and harm trans people that was invented as a Nazi bigoted way to try to attack the trans community it was a defensive thing because he's been called a transphobe which i have been called one too and so have many people i know yeah all right so let's let's take that so you say that the central reason is to critique uh what is the exact word he used sjw woke ideology trans ideology yes i'm like specific i just the creating an agenda identity and having a like a more significant role or someone that if you have this identity you're more deserving of respect than other communities right so that's i feel like you're there's a certain point that i think i could i could see where you're coming from but that that seems like a straw man to me that seems like a made-up like part of your ideology that has been misunderstood and straw man to the point where like so could you explain that like no one says that trans people should be above assist people no one says that gay people should be above like absolutely absolutely just clarify it's like when people say you cisgen white male you're just a cisgen white male why are you speaking no we should have more women in this space we don't care what you think that's a there's common common criticisms posted on every single one of the anti sjw youtube journals for like the past three years of this occurring if people being labeled a cisgen white male to trans or whatever and then being demeaned and being kicked off stage or saying they shouldn't be allowed to speak because of this trait that they have and then in their place they're supposed to be replaced by brown women muslims anybody else anybody other communities so the it's not that they're saying that they're literally they're worth more it's just a de facto case that they're treated as worth more because they are not cisgen white males they're lgbtqa or whatever i said do you think if like so do we agree that like no one should be like nobody should be excluded from spaces based on their you know pick a pick a characteristic all right so let's and let's say because of and will we both also agree that uh cis white straight men have dominated most areas of public life at least like uh you know for the past several hundred years sure okay okay very good and we also agree that as every result of if we were truly reducing the amount of racism homophobia transphobia um Islamophobia like all that stuff if we were truly reducing that amount of uh the amount of that in society then we ought to see a more diverse group of people starting to make their way towards the top definitely and that's what we're seeing okay so you think it's reasonable sometimes to look at like the that you know straight white cis men are still in charge in most areas of society you think it's reasonable to look at that and say like we actually just pay in lip service hey you know what a really big woke critique of like rainbow capitalism is and like all the brands putting up the black square for black lives matter it's like they they they're doing it for lip service we don't we don't see a policy change here you say it's a good thing and then you don't actually do anything from it that's like a woke eschadilla critique of all these and then i think you know reasonable people could agree with right it definitely i totally agree with there my problem is is not noticing that there should be a change it's that it's specifically saying you're white you're banned like if you're deliberately targeting someone because of their gender identity or their race and saying you're not allowed to be here or we're going to remove you and replace you with somebody else because they have a different gender identity race that's sexist and racist regardless of whether it's white or black or whatever so my criticism isn't that noticing this isn't isn't the problem definitely not and then there's going to be a change over time that we see like more black presidents for sure and more black people in power and minorities are going to get more popular we just had the first openly transgender senator i think so yes we're going to see this happen but deliberately forcing it to happen and picking people and we're taking them out by force because of their gender or sexual identity or race is itself sexist or racist so that's the problem specifically removing or degrading people because of theirs are the people i'm criticizing not just yeah i cannot touch on that they're forcing it to happen you know like for example the the trans health secretary a lot of people said that she was only picked because she's trans they wanted to divert your signal so when you have so in this conversation it's a very very very common anytime you see a minority of any group get into a position of power it must have been only because they were that minority so this line of thinking that you know uh you know if uh you know we're gonna the only way for minorities getting power is for them to be forced there because they're minorities and this is an attack on white men's attack on straight people like do you see how like that kind of feeds into the actual legitimate racism not only of the past but can also develop like a post-hoc rationalization of like current racism today sure what is i absolutely agree yeah totally wrong to say that they've just been put into power if unless there's specifically a policy that like mandates a set number of women or something then yeah if they've just were hired because of their skills then clearly it would be wrong to try and label them they were just put in there because of their sexual identity or whatever it's equally as racist or bigoted or sexist to say that for sure all right i have a meta analysis of a study but i think it's getting a little bit off topic do you want me to bring it up or do you want to try to circle back around sure i don't care all right so let's so there's a meta analysis going around that people with black sounding names are a lot less likely to be hired a lot like let's a lot less likely yeah the meta analysis not just the uh the gemal study yeah so what is the solution here like if people are whether they're unconsciously bigoted or not like it doesn't like even if they are remove the names of resumes yeah just remove the names okay maybe that is maybe that's a thing but i think names are kind of a little bit important for resume it's like it's an identifying factor but i don't know hey maybe that that's an idea i haven't thought of maybe that would be a good idea yeah so so one of the solutions proposed i think it was actually in the meta analysis or in response to the meta analysis if you remove the names replace them with numbers or something temporary numbers during the hiring process and then once they're hired you can put their names in and put all the identifying marks and it would eliminate any of the racist factors kind of but yeah but it doesn't point but it doesn't fix the racist factors right they hold the whole point that said it was see are people still racist and if people are still racist in society if they still think of black people uh as lower than the rest of people like maybe there needs to be a little bit of unbalancing like you don't balance the scale with the more balance right well the solution is to gradually change the neuroplastic social thing in your brain over time and to do that if you make sure that they are hired at an equal rate and an equal opportunity so that you remove the racist factors in just the hiring stage and then they occupy more positions of power more positions of employment then gradually over time that bias in people will change so as long as you give them equal opportunity by like taking those things as you're moving the name or whatever and then they get all the proportionate amount of jobs that they okay okay okay to bring you back to this topic okay i love me some neuroplasticity what if as a society if we want to reduce the amount of transphobia what if we tried to weed out and phase out the language that trans women are not real women because you know you're not a real woman unless you get these biological characteristics what as a society we work to push like this language out of the public archives would that be a good thing yeah absolutely but it wouldn't be a good thing to punish people if they don't do it so if you're saying it would be better if you phrased it this way and like that that should be the thing you would ask the guy who did like should you have phrased it this way like is that way many people can interpret to be transphobic even if you may have not have intended it that way would you agree this would have been a better way to phrase it i mean like probably like yes my apologies this is a better way to phrase it so what if he didn't change them what if he says like no i guess then you could start to infer maybe he's transphobic maybe he's deliberately saying it this way but as long as you say you know what here's a better way to phrase it that is less offensive that doesn't hurt us as much and could you have said it differently and if he agrees with that or if he says no no that's stupid you're not real women then obviously that would be transphobic but if he acknowledges it even if he does it in future by accident just because it's part of in the grand language as long as he acknowledges it in the moment and says yes i realize that you could interpret it this way here is a better way to phrase it it would be better to not interpret him as transphobic okay so i want to i want to point just the last thing that i disagree that i actually want to point out something that i definitely agree with you that i think is actually very good for public discourse going forward so with the disagreement that way we can end up the positive one so the disagreement is i don't think it's more reasonable to say that now he wasn't being transphobic when he was saying like a real you know trans women aren't real women i think that's common enough i think it's more reasonable to assume that he knows that that's a transphobic attack to me that makes way more sense than no um you know he because this is obviously a very young kid he's heard about trans issues especially if it's like something that he's chosen to make a topic he's chosen to make a video on like he knows about this like if he's been accused of transphobia it's reasonable to assume that someone has already explained why the things he's saying are transphobic to me that's more reasonable and so but the thing i do agree on something that i think that's everyone is and again this is criticism i would have of my side we need to start pointing out points and uh like attacking arguments attacking sentences rather than attacking people so is he transphobic i don't know it's kind of shitty to like uh and if he is is it okay to like diagnose him purely as transphobic irredeemable i don't think that's okay i don't think that will help make things better i do think that we need to put more emphasis on like is that statement transphobic and that way yes like that's up on the table we don't have to attack this person's character that statement is transphobic in this context i think that is a much more healthy version to go forward public discourse so that i definitely agree with you and i wish we could do that more often uh in conversations perhaps like this although who has time and the amount and alcohol to sit down for an hour and a half for uh to zoom for zoom calls about topics right for sure definitely i would agree that we should uh approach it in a topic where we can talk to people about how it's transphobic but i think it would be wrong to label the statement itself as transphobic for the exact reason i stated before like people could say it and not mean anything transphobic by it so even though it it hurts you and they don't realize it you shouldn't label them as transphobic you shouldn't demean them as people or or label them something that could get them fired you should say uh here would be a better way to phrase it please try to do that in future and if you just do that for long enough eventually the society will change without ever having to label anybody some demeaning derogatory label okay and now the only issue i have with that is that if that is not being applied to the the woke side the sjw side it is a losing strategy to adopt that good faith policy that's the worst part what do you mean not if it's not applied to the sjw community so that's the worst part about public discourse is if you're cheating by being super bad faith then i'm just gonna lose if i don't also cheat and that's the perception from both sides i'm just i'm just pointing that out and so when we see a lot of the the super the super straight memes and they're constantly making up strawmen to attack they're constantly being incredibly derogatory again one of those accounts like directly encouraged trans people to commit suicide that was a direct quote i you're gonna have to take my word for that because that account was suspended and i was dumb enough not to like get a screenshot of it but to me these are these people are not offering good faith criticism of uh the thing that you're talking about they're not offering good faith criticism of trans ideology and a lot of like that language saying like oh i don't hate trans people i just hate trans ideology that's an obfuscation basically saying that i just hate the thing that lets you be trans in society it's like i don't hate gay people i hate the gay lifestyle like oh so you hate the thing that lets me be gay which is like openly being gay to me that's just a on its face a ridiculous and because it's so commonly used it's more reasonable for me to interpret that as a bad faith obfuscation of true bigotry than it is for a reasonable like oh you know i just don't i wouldn't i would call someone homophobic if they said like i don't hate gay people i just think gay sex is weird and you shouldn't do it like that's i'm not gonna interpret that in good faith uh just like uh if someone says you know i don't i don't want to date trans women because i don't think they're real women that's the part i think is is okay like that's that's transphobic if you but if you say like no i am just super in to this general like i love the things it does love the shape love the mouth feel all those things are like the best things for me and i want to partner with all those things like that's way more reasonable um but i think in a lot of these the super straight movement itself it's infected and it is dominated i don't know what i think it had that the origin in the the transphobia but its modern iteration is 100 only attacking trans people that's all it does for for a movement that has nothing to do with trans people most of the feed is is attacking trans people so i think that's the major difference as you said youth you in your experience it's mostly used in a more transphobic way whereas in my experience it's almost never used in a transphobic way everyone using this is specifically criticizing the adopting a gender identity kind of a thing because i think it's more psychological and not a real thing in the world which is how in the context they use real in most of these cases has nothing to do with uh transphobia it's just about usually biological facts so in the communities i'm a part of it's usually the opposite of the case it's never used as a transphobic thing many of the people i know are trans this is actually a great clear fine question do you think social constructs are real by my definition of real i would say no i'd say they're to me they're yeah to me they're undeniably real we have i think that's the major difference here is that when people in my community use the term real they're usually talking about non-imaginary non-psychological for something and but to me like the our reality is interpretive based based on our perceptions and so if we perceive something as real for all intents and purposes it is like i think that's that's another big part of the difference is that when i'd say real i mean things that are true independent of imagination if we never existed it's still going to be true kind of a thing okay do you think language is real no imaginary okay but we are certainly getting a lot of utility out of it yeah i mean we get utility of tons of imaginary things math is imaginary logic is imaginary uh testimony science or imaginary all those things are social constructs in our brains they're just imaginary things real things are like particles atoms genes cells stars black you know language yep you know like language processing centers there's are real you know molecular and genetic components that facilitate themselves like with these social constructs so the language processing center in our brain these are real neural neural connections these are real neurotransmitters being sent and that is language like the words coming out of your mouth are in interacting with real sensors in my ear they're that's being sent to the auditory centers in my brain all those things are real so yes the interactions in the brain are real but the thing itself language itself is not real uh it it is a particular kind of a pattern that is shared across brains but that particular pattern isn't itself language language is an abstract concept the abstract concept doesn't exist even though that abstract construct is instantiated in certain kinds of neurological patterns james did you see the conversation going here did you predict that going to jump into q and a gentlemen and so i want to remind you if you guys are ready for it i can give you guys more time if you'd like but i do want to remind you since i've cut in already our guests are linked in the description folks and even if you're listening via podcast which you guys we are excited we are on virtually every major podcast and so if you're listening to modern day debate via podcast you can find our guest links in the description box there as well and so gentlemen if you'd like would you like more time yes i want to discuss the santa thing like i'm i'm skeptical of the santa thing yeah uh look look there that's the average santa denier this is the average believer you got it we are really excited you guys we are going to jump into all of these questions and so we appreciate them first up steven steen nasty guy had to make an appearance he says jangles looks very sensitive and huggable is that true would you would you say you're sensitive and huggable yeah very much so i went outside for nine seconds today and got a sunburn i do like hugs very soft very nice well next up thank you raven zero says that chair has spoken tom how is your chair looks great sweaty it's really hot right now because it's starting to all the snow is melted in minnesota oh that clam shell chair we love it raven zero or raise the sunflower says jangles no one actually identifies as an attack helicopter there are people who are only attracted to cis people whether you like it or not i'm very much aware that i just wish they would stop like pretending to substrate is like a real sexuality it's the whole like if we know your meaning if we know you're not sincere your entire point is illegitimate we can just say you've stated outright that you're lying like i so like the whole well you have to take me seriously not a few yourself like i can point to you saying that this you're not taking this seriously like i can just isn't that an appeal to motive fallacy because if i say one plus one equals two and i'm lying i mean the statement is true or false independent of the intentionality no it's saying that like i am making up something about myself and then now you have to treat me that way like that's i just heard you lie about i just heard you say the intention that you are specifically lying so i can just point to that and say like hey you're lying about what you say or like if you lie about being a congressman or lie about being a i don't know a scientist whatever and then like you expect to be treated as a scientist i can just point i don't have to like disprove you being a whatever i just have to point to you saying like hey there's evidence of like you said you were lying about this i could just point to that i don't have to engage with your like identity at all i can point to you lying about it and that's the refutation gotcha this next one coming in from james collins thanks james says super straight is the most attacked and most vulnerable yeah i know all those back in the 80s the super straights just dying of this new disease they were just like left to die because the public didn't care about them and almost actively pursued by very super pho members in congress and you know how like like there's a there's a super straight panic defense like if you're if you are you know doing a sex with a person and you find out that they're super straight it's actually legal to kill them definitely gotcha and go ahead sorry no i'm moment silence for all the super straights in their oppression next up turbo says jangles fancies bigger men the georgia shooter let's see sometimes i don't get to read these so i'm fancied asian women jangles is it okay for people to have sexual prejudices or kinks for people based on particular traits like height race or sex yeah i said that in my opening statement it's okay to have a tight absolutely right all right here's here's the i i'm just usually i like bigger guys you know super gay a lot my big hairy men i all that stuff is great but i've actually you know dated and enjoyed company with like a lot of like skinny guys um if i just said like but if i were to phrase that like i don't like skinny guys i don't like these weak little prissy dudes like that i could like snap their wrists with a with a blink wait a second that's that's not the same thing it almost sounds like you have like some kind of like deep hatred of skinny guys and it's reasonable to assume that based on the stated reasons as to why you don't want to date them so yeah it's okay to have types but you it's often worth examining why if there's an entire class of people that you have just taken off the board that would normally fall within your sexual orientation it's worth examining why that's the case that's all we're saying gotcha and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from adam friended gives big smiles thank you for that adam you guys know you each know adam right i've debunked him on a few days i haven't known him for a while since he blocks me sunflower says jangles you keep bringing up kyle royce do you remember when you simultaneously advocated for white frugility while disavowing the book that robin d angelo wrote oh you got me there i definitely only talked about kyle royce here i didn't bring up any other concepts or analogies whatsoever excellent false equivalency thank you thank you tj gotcha this one coming in from full monterey says appreciate your work so much james thank you to the debaters tjump and jangles too and we couldn't agree more folks we appreciate the speakers and they are linked in the description including if you're listening via podcast nick ali says my weekly tithe thanks for your support next up so we have one from okay that's not ferran salas thank you for your question says no question but just want to throw a few bucks to support modern day debate thanks so much for your support and this one coming in from experiments and pre prebiotic chemistry says hi tjump from one of your fans always interesting to hear you debate got a fan out there so thank you appreciate it and that's that's nice your mom made an account okay lucas diva tail my chair did too so oh tom i love tom all right next up does your mom not want your debates and support you that's just good mom stuff oh she's super religious so she hates me are you serious yeah she's super super christian oh i didn't know that wow amazing next up lucas deba tail says by jangles logic not dating women means he's a misogynist his argumentation leaves no room for same-sex attracted men to exist and not be misogynist you see that's where like the inventing someone to get mad about that's where that comes from like if there's no reasonable interpretation of like be saying that you can absolutely have an orientation but you can have some types in that orientation you can have an orientation all that stuff is good if you're if you're straight i guess we can let you i guess we'll let you into our clubhouse if you're gay that's even better because we have better hair if you're bisexual i'm married to a bisexual bisexuals are awesome pansexual and any kind of like a word that you get more utility describing your own sexuality if you get more utility you think it's a better descriptor of that stuff awesome we're here for you it's just if you are wholesale like if you are oriented towards a certain type of person you have wholesale rejected a certain type of that you should examine why if you you know exam if you just wholly reject a certain type of person and it's for a good reason cool you examined it and you're confirmed if you realize there's there's might be something a little bit insidious there like if the only reason you don't date black people is because you kind of think a little bit you know they're gonna be like super loud or like they're gonna there's some sort of racist trope underneath it maybe that's worth examining okay you don't have to be a terrible person in order to go find that stuff so gotcha and thank you very much do appreciate it and appreciate it from daily rices can we skip this debate and just have destiny blow tom jump out of the water on this topic already owned destiny or last date so oh did you okay steven steven says i want to be in a relationship with james wink okay thank you steven we already knew that we already knew that sigma any says can i just take a moment steven you're a married man i can tell you sigma any says can i just take a moment to say that i love human beings full stop also aliens but that's a different story thank you for that steven steven follows up with i hate aliens they're the worst and alex quahawk let me know if i pronounce it right says super straight ss is a reactionary fascist movement started by racist transphobes from the internet why you think they're they all showed up at once on the say like basically yeah is it fair to say it kind of like exploded one day on twitter i saw so is that genetic fallacies even if it was started by like a literal ss Nazi guy that wouldn't change the fact that there's a legitimate sentiment that it expresses that the like anti sgw community it latches on to and they're not like racist transphobe for the most part i disagree with jingles on that part i think most of them are not transphobic they just don't like the ideology in general and using the internal critique to use the same methodology is a legitimate form of criticism regardless of the origin like nazis invented helicopters not everyone who uses helicopters is a nazi okay i would examine your use of genetic fallacy because i don't think you're using it correctly but next yeah this one coming in from dakashinden see thank you for your question said dumb question uh why that's what they said they said i guess the dumb question is quote unquote why is quote i don't want to date trans women transphobic or biased if i have a genital preference slash i want biological children quote unquote is not uh is that addressing me i guess one of the questions yeah it's absolutely not transphobic if you have a genital preference if you want to have if you want to have biological kids to have your dna no it's not transphobic at all that's what we said from the beginning maybe you should start engaging with real people with real opinions instead of like inventing a person in your head to get mad about gotcha yeah i'm confused by the fact that they called their own question dumb so i can't tell if they're who they're trying to target uh if they're being ironic or not mecca wing zero though says isn't it cool how the super straight colors are orange and black like a calico cat since calico cats are nearly always female you need two chromosomes to get that color combination yeah i mean they specifically chose those colors to be like the colors of grinder and porno to make it more funny you serious yep wow next up orange like the sexy color like why is orange and black like porno it's all porno porno adopted those colors and now there's a social uh attached attachment or addiction to those colors being associated with sex probably uh cool oh leave it to tom and next up will stewart says jangles do you think the theological view do you think the theological view point of quote unquote sin is transphobic or homophobic if so why the concept of sin has zero partiality i'm guessing if like if you believe it's a sin to be homosexual uh does that make the the theological concept of sin homophobic did i interpret that correctly yeah i think so i mean i think he's asking like the bible says gay marriage is wrong and you should stone them is that homophobic i'd say yes probably yeah like that's pretty homophobic like maybe the concept of sin isn't bad because i i all right i actually have the best ideological platform no one could beat my okay i want good things to happen because i like good things i don't want bad things to happen because i like bad things and if like that that i don't like bad things if that stems from like a theological or not theological but like i forgot the word for you that stems from like the broader concept of sin no i don't think sin is inherently a bad thing but i also don't like it when you can just like point to something that you do not have to prove and say that it will actually that's wrong because uh they say it is and it really really bothers me when i have all this like scientific uh all these scientific resources like dozens upon dozens of scientific sources supporting the scientific validity of trans identities and yes they say black warriors making stuff up you know that's what trans ideology is is just making stuff up making stuff up i'm just have you know 40 something citations saying otherwise uh i i guess that was the biggest i should have brought that up in the debate gotcha and just some guy says super straight is the world's oldest and most prosperous sexuality what are you talking about jangles it's completely real no asexual reproduction is the most prosperous and oldest sexuality next up lucas d mateo says jangles were you born let's see more of what we want to encourage you folks to insult the arguments or attack the rather than the guest and it's not even that bad so i can take it this is how they say jangles were you born sanctimonious or was it work it was a lot of work oh my goodness like putting in the time every single day all right you aren't born with this level of like snide condescension you aren't born with this level of unearned like go all right you have to work at it you got to put in that grind every single day thank you and do want to encourage you out there folks though friendly reminder in the chat we do want to encourage you to attack the arguments rather than the people we do appreciate our guests a lot and azian says is it reasonable to create a new sexual orientation in response to the new diversity of sexual orientations the diversity promotes subsets is it okay to differentiate publicly the gender that you prefer of course yeah yeah i think i said it a little bit earlier and i'm not following the person for not having heard me say this but like yeah as we as we are more open to explore different sexualities i think as long as you can gain utility from describing your sexuality in a different way yeah it's worth including that in the conversation and since language is not just a i'm introducing this and therefore it's a real word if enough people pick up on that word and it starts to become adopted by more and more people i think it's perfectly healthy it gives us more words to describe more different things it's the exact opposite of 1984 we're getting more words to have better like more detailed conversations yeah it can be a very very healthy thing the only issue is super straight is it doesn't do that it doesn't give us more utility it actually almost takes away utility and as well as you know you can call it a genetic fallacy if you want but stated purposes are not genetic fallacies it's it's transphobic the higher evolutionary says jangles if i announced that i'm not attracted to other straight males does that mean that i'm straight male phobic and against straight rights definitely yes and you'll see if you go back and watch this debate me saying yes to that question is completely consistent with my entire line of arguing yeah if you don't if you don't want to have sex with a group of people you actually hate that group of people and you can see just based on my previous conversation that that's exactly what i meant no of course not it's why all right like if you think it's like again if you if there's a group of people who you do not want to do a sex with because you think that there's something wrong with them and it will gross you out to do so it might be look working it might be worth looking into why that's it all right gotcha and thank you very much for your question just some guy says i meant human sexuality i'm going back to that straight my super straight isn't the most common i think that's what he's talking about yes you're right yep most common and oldest i mean like sex has felt good for a long time i i i hear all right i haven't had sex yet maybe one day when i get to have sex it'll it'll be as awesome as i imagine but from what i hear like sex is just super awesome all right and people have been doing it in all sorts of fun different ways like for the entirety of like human like the human experience yeah uh a man with it with the pointy bit and the woman like they that's the most common that's it's like no means like the only one because again sex is awesome i would actually wager that actually just a self-pleasure is far more common next up i vote says because of tiktok you know what i agree because of tiktok and courtney coal has some words for you tom jump courtney says tom jump said jangles shouldn't assume that people are transphobic but why is tom jump automatically assuming that these people aren't transphobic anyways squad w vosh rad well you should always assume someone's innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around but there's a good reason to assume they're not transphobic because typically the word real when used in this context refers to empirical facts rather than psychological facts which is a very common like pretty much universal thing in the communities on the part of real means empirical and conceptual means imaginary so it's it's an extremely reasonable interpretation to think that when someone says real women they just mean some empirical fact about them that makes them a real woman rather than some kind of transphobic or bigoted underlying psychology there this is the more reasonable interpretation given what my community is like and given that i'm not familiar with a lot of the empirical data supporting the validity of trans identities and the empirical data actually points to the trans person they are who they say they are there's more way more empirical data to support that because again that has way more utility in social context and therefore it's what we usually use we don't look at chromosomes when we determine someone's sex we go by like a presentation our assumptions based on that presentation and when in doubt self identifications and so the empirical data kind of supports my side the biological contributions to gender identity are actually pretty well they're not well studied but all the the preponderance of research at least in the early stages point towards that being empirically supported and i think it's more reasonable considering that this for tonight this is a lot of assumptions we have to do some inductive reasoning of course that i can't see into his head considering that he's young considering that he's at least somewhat tangentially familiar with the topic of trans issues i think it's very reasonable it's much more reasonable to assume that because he said that trans women are not real women that he meant it in a derogatory way because when you say a trans woman is not a real woman that is a derogatory sentence toward that person it doesn't have to be the most hateful thing ever for it to be derogatory right so we don't want to set the bar like oh you still treat them as a person like well who cares that's that's not the bar we need to set we don't want to trip over that okay gotcha and this one comes in from a yo says you don't determine others reasons for consent if someone says they don't consent to having relations with a trans person that's their choice i you know what i agree you don't have to have sex with anyone you don't want to what i want you to ask yourself is why do you think that anyone disagrees with that statement do you legitimately think that people say that if you don't want to have sex with someone actually you should have to if they want you to do you think that is that sounds very woke do you think that sounds very like aggressive why have you invented this person to be mad about online why is that do you think that this is a healthy conversation maybe actually talk with somebody like talk to the face to face get in discord get in a zoom call and actually see what they actually think because i promise uh as far as it is and as easy as it is to make up a straw man to attack that i'm sure you'll have way better ideas and opinions if you actually talk to real people joshua larson thanks for your question says i don't have anything nice to say because i don't have or i said i don't have anything to say because i don't have anything nice to say love ya thanks for your kind words soldier of science says jangles i prefer brunettes it doesn't make me blonde phobic just saying i guess you already addressed this but had to read it let me know soldier of science if you hadn't heard uh jangles responded like the idea of types versus but uh silver harlow says you can choose not to date someone for any reason at any time as long as you don't treat people you don't want to date as lesser would both sides agree yeah i'd agree even like if you don't want to date black people because you just don't like black people in our genuinely racist i still think it's wrong to call you racist because you choose not to date them as long as you don't treat them badly in any other context i think that's perfectly fine okay so actually i agree with that somewhat if you are a legit to the t we have scientifically uh determined that you are a racist and that is the reason that you don't want to date black people i still don't think you should have to date them that's that like the most extreme version there's never a scenario where you have to date or have sex with somebody even the most extreme examples however i don't i don't think it's realistic to say that if you have racist motivations towards not dating somebody that those racist motivations aren't going to manifest themselves in other areas of your life i think it's very unlikely that those beliefs are going to be quarantined to this very narrow topic of how you personally have sex with next up a yo says people saying super straight is homophobic really don't know about super gay and super lesbian oh uh yeah they're they're transphobic as well easy easy next up will steward strikes again he says so tom jump and jangles if sin is inherently homophobic and transphobic does being a christian inherently make you so as well no there's progressive christianity who just rejects those as being uh not literal statements and they were just misinterpreted or uh wrong or just human error thing so there's lots of versions of christianity that don't include those in the progressive versions absolutely agree next up james sc says male and female are the labels for the two major clusters of outcomes of the human sexual differentiation process t jump and jangles agree or disagree you can use it in that way it depends on your context i think that words have usages not objective meaning so like i use the word atheist to mean uh no reason to believe in a god whereas steve macray uses it to mean absolutely does not believe in a god there's no correct or incorrect it's just how you use it and i think it's wrong to try to force someone else to use your usage i think i agree with james would you mind repeating it for me please i'd be happy to they said male and female are the labels for the two major clusters of outcomes of the human sexual differentiation process jump definitely gotcha and this one coming in from do appreciate your question james sc says male and pilgrim says why is super straight different from super gay or super trans people who are strictly another sexuality but super straight is wrong sorry i interrupted you uh it isn't all of them super gay super straight super one of the rest of them doesn't matter all of them they are designed for the same exact purpose all of them are equally equally transphobic like um so yes super gay like i'm only attract uh to say that i'm only attracted to other cis men no that's transphobic your exclusive you have developed a sexuality in order to exclusively target a type of person that you do not want to have sex with it when a other one perfectly encapsulated that so all of them are equally transphobic hey that's the quality there baby you can be just as shitty as a gay person as you can be as a straight person either one of those have anything to do with loving or hating trans people maybe next up code five six zero one says is the super straight movement more proof that tiktok is an abomination and should be excised from the internet data's out on that one tom do you have a tiktok uh nope i don't i have never had a tiktok so i can't really count it gosh and grim says super straight have been expected when the meaning of straight was changed when i would ask this person when the meaning of straight was changed then they say straight was slaying for heterosexuality which is attraction to the opposite sex um this that might be uh so when we say attraction to the opposite sex how do you define sex do you define it as chromosomes do you define it as gametes because a lot of uh binary seeking individuals say that no biological sex that's the only determining factor is either gametes or chromosomes and so there's no such thing as attraction to sex where you're attracted to gender gender is largely socially constructed i mean of course there's definitely a genetic component to it but you're attracted to largely secondary sex characteristics so that's not actually correct because attraction doesn't necessarily physical physical attraction you can be attracted to a personality or an identity or a wealth someone who has lots of money you can be attracted to people for other reasons so if they have some property in them that you find more attractive like they are a biological woman you can be attracted to that oh of course there's there's literally no way to be attracted to chromosomes or gametes we cannot sense those those are not available to us and so if you agree that biological sex is those things and we are not attracted to those because we cannot perceive them and so you cannot be attracted to biological sex you are attracted to your perception and that's perception is going to be heavily influenced by what you know about other people yeah absolutely all of our attraction is based on perception we can't ever know anything about technically another person and therefore gender the way we just define gender is a far more you're attracted to other genders that's a far more accurate uh terminology for it so well no you can literally say i'm attracted or i find people who are biological women more attractive psychologically that makes me feel better that's perfectly reasonable i mean it could be perfectly reasonable sure but you still don't aren't attracted to their sex you're still you're attracted to what your perception is you're attracted to like secondary sex characteristics or knowledge or like uh and again i think it's worth looking into if you find out someone's trans you were completely attracted to them for the entire time and you find this information out i think it would be worth looking into well why did the attraction stop do you have a visceral gut negative reaction towards the idea of being intimate with a trans person gotcha this question comes in from raven zero who said james super wet troid next up thank you very much this one comes in from the hake report says thanks for the stream amazing do appreciate that hope you're doing well hake Courtney Cole says can someone explain why the argument gay marriage makes me uncomfortable is or is not homophobic i know the analogy was briefly brought up before but i never remember that being answered cool so this is something i think we need to we as like lefties need to do a much better job of yeah if you are uncomfortable with the idea of two men or two women living together and being married together if that idea makes you uncomfortable that is homophobic there's something you have against gay people you don't see them as as legitimate you don't see them as as worthy of being married that does not mean you're a terrible person that doesn't mean you want to throw gay people off of rooftops like there is not this binary of bigotry that we seem to like talk about like you can be a tiny little bit bigoted most people are about most things i have a lot of our internalized homophobia uh eastern kentucky and i've been told for my entire life that gay people are gross and terrible and that you know even though i am gay and happily married to a man and have been for you know i've been with him for like close to nin