everybody tonight. We're doing the super straight debate and we are starting right now with Tom Jums opening statement defending the super straight position. Tom, thanks for being here. The floor is all yours. Thanks guys. Thanks for watching. I appreciate the opportunity to have the conversation as always. So I think one of the problems with the woke SJW feminist ideology is that they don't differentiate between rational criticism and hate calling anyone who criticizes their position racist, transphobic, sexist, misogynist, etc. These morally charged terms are essentially calling someone evil or immoral and that there's something wrong with the character of the person which is why they get just ignored. This is used as a strategy to dismiss any kind of rational criticism and to say that any position that has these qualities of being transphobic has no rational use whatsoever, which is clearly false. For example in the super straight label is a perfect example of this. The point of the super straight label, its valid non-transphobic point, is an internal criticism of the woke ideology's tendency to accept some psychological identities but not accept other psychological identities. It has nothing to do with transphobia. That just happens to be the one thing that some people just aren't attracted to the idea of being in a relationship with a trans person. It isn't about targeting trans people because people who typically don't like the SJW community or like trans people in general don't adopt identities in the first place. So this super straight identity was never meant as something legitimate that people were going to accept and that the woke community was going to accept it and everyone was going to be happy and just accept anyone who was identified in super straight and anything. They said no, the whole point here was to show the hypocrisy of the woke community because they won't accept this identity even though it is the genuine true psychological state of these people. It's not meant to single out trans people and to treat them any differently. It's meant to show the hypocrisy of the trans community because they won't accept the genuine identities of certain groups, the groups who they don't think are worthy of accepting. So I think that because super straight has a legitimate use which is not transphobic it is inappropriate to call it transphobic.  Saying that it originated from a transphobic person or a transphobic goal is irrelevant. It's a genetic fallacy. The fact that some like if a Nazi invented some concept and in that concept was something valuable that other people in society lashed on to and said oh this was actually a really good argument.  It's a hasty generalization fallacy. So because super straight does have a legitimate use as a critique of the woke community's hypocrisy it is not intrinsically in any way transphobic even though some people who use it may use it in a transphobic manner and I will conclude there. Thank you very much Tom for that opening statement. We'll kick it over to Vashra's opening statement. Want to let you know folks if it's your first time here at Boundary Debate we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics and we want to let you know we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from and so with that thanks Vashra being with us as well the floor is all yours for your opening. Thank you I feel very welcome. Okay well I'm glad that we immediately dropped the idea that this was some kind of like legitimate sexuality that we're trying to recognize and that it's in some way equivocable to being straight or pan or bi because I don't think anyone meaningfully used it in that way and people who argue that it is being used in that way are probably arguing in bad faith. So your argument is that it exists as some kind of critique of a hypocrisy on the part of the quote-unquote woke community. Unfortunately I think you failed to describe and substantiate that accusation of hypocrisy. If you're arguing that it is hypocritical for a group of people to say that it's illegitimate to not be attracted to trans people and that this mistake on their part is in some way comparable to a mistake of not recognizing a sexual identity this to me seems like a really really big reach and there is transphobia rooted pretty much directly into the nature of this critique as you describe it. So a couple of points first of all super straight absolutely targets trans people let's not pretend otherwise even if we're to ignore the history and the communities around it I mean the people making the critiques matter obviously it contextualizes the way in which those critiques are made the term super straight like okay so you're straight if you like trans people you know say you're a cis guy and you like you know women and you like trans women and that's straight but then if you don't like the trans women only the cis women that's super straight as though it's more straight to not be attracted to the trans women and thus logically less straight to also be attracted to the trans women I mean the premise there is is pretty clear it's not like uh I don't think that's a huge reach the implication there is pretty clearly like oh no no hold on I'm not just straight okay I don't like trans women all right I only like real women I'm super straight that's kind of how it is I just don't see the hypocrisy here there's this meme that trans people are like screaming and shouting everyone has to be attracted to us everyone has to want to date us etc etc I think we're referring to an incredible minority of the broader trans community the vast majority of trans people let me tell you do not want to be shacked up with somebody with whom they have to fight for the legitimacy of their identity I just don't think there are that many woke progressives screaming that if you're straight then you should want to have sex with every trans woman I just I don't think that's happening that much and then to go ahead and say like in response to these and to the extent that they do exist it's very obnoxious to the extent that this minority of a minority exists I will now play up this like to your admission fake sexuality that implies trans women aren't like real women to highlight a hypocrisy I don't think it's a broader community hypocrisy I just think we're talking about bad behavior I'm a really really really small very marginal portion of the trans community so if your argument is I shouldn't have to be attracted to trans people okay you could be attracted to whoever you want to be attracted to I don't think people are out there like trying to press people's boundaries on that people don't want to be in relationships with people they have to argue into being attracted to them the only thing I'd argue is you know trans women or women and trans men or men I guess and that you should as with all things be fairly open minded because it's entirely possible that the types of people you'll be interested in lie outside whatever boundaries you may have set in your head it's only because I was open minded about my interest that I discovered I was bisexual or pan or whatever and you know that's me and maybe that's not the case for everyone but it never hurts to be open minded so I guess in summary I really don't think there's a hypocrisy here and I don't think that an admittedly transphobic meme is a good way of addressing that hypocrisy so that's my point you got it thanks very much Bosch and we are going to jump into the open dialogue so gentlemen thanks so much for being here want to let you know folks couple things one is open dialogue is free flowing however if it gets too rowdy I'll jump in and restrain it to three minute intervals back and forth and also want to let you know folks we have many juicy upcoming debates and so don't forget to hit that subscribe button for many of those juicy debates including this Saturday as T jump and Nathan Thompson collide for the first time so with that the floor is all yours gentlemen thanks for being here yeah so the hypocrisy is that the woke community like again you're right it's a very small minority of people who actually think that you should want to be in a relationship with a trans person that's not the point here the point here is that the much larger thing that does happen is the woke community wants you to accept their identities their preferred identities but doesn't want to accept identities they don't accept that's that's the hypocrisy and this is technically sort of a genuine identity so people genuinely there are a certain group of people who genuinely don't want to date trans people so that is a genuine identity even though the people who do that don't actually accept identities so it should be respected in the same sense as the other ones because they are honestly representing what they feel and believe and the hypocrisy is of course the fact that the woke community won't accept their feelings where they will try to force them to accept other people's feelings not not to date them but just in general their identity accepting the identity itself the attack helicopter meme then you believe in like tri genders but you won't accept my helicopter gender isn't this just that over again but like six years later that's that's why it's so popular because it has the exact but it was really stupid back then too because your opinion of it being stupid doesn't make it transphobic so it doesn't like the criticism doesn't make it a not legitimate criticism so i'll i'll substantiate so first of all what you're positing is the idea that all identities are equally legitimate which i don't think anyone has ever argued for and you just admitted that this identity was a meme by your own admission the identity this super straight thing is deserving of less legitimacy than say heterosexuality or homosexuality you already acknowledged that in the opening statement not exactly no so for example if the people who didn't want to date trans people did want to accept identities as a category then they could actually adopt this as a true genuine identity because it is truly what they feel they obviously don't they don't care about anything they think they're a joke and so they adopted this as a joke to show the hypocrisy in the you can't but you can't play both sides of this you can't say oh well let's not really a serious identity so i want it to be examined as a critique and then when it's critiqued as a critique you're saying well actually no it basically is a serious identity it's just a matter of how seriously you want to take it you can't oscillate between those two positions it has to be one or the other i'm not understanding your position here so i can do an internal critique of like christianity and say if god exists god's a bastard because he killed lots of babies but i don't believe god exists so i can say i can present an idea and say by your standards this should be accepted even though i don't think it should be accepted so you're saying the standards of trans people or woke community is that every sexuality should be accepted at any time a person says something as a sexuality i think that any genuine position that you actually feel because of who you are should be accepted yes but i've never heard a woke person say that what if a person came up with the term gigastrate and it's that they're only attracted to white people uh or white people of the opposite sex if somebody came out with a term like that i would join the rest of the quote woke community and saying in addition to that being pretty racist i also don't think that's legitimate identity i think you're just kind of racist and you're just trying to find a way to use our terminology to get away with it um the argument isn't that everything that one could potentially call a sexuality as legitimate we're just trying to give names and concepts in respect to legitimate you know elements of human identity so if you're not attracted to trans people then why would oh just if you're not attracted to trans people and i would be interested i guess in examining the extent to which is the case or the categories by which you define trans people but if you're not that's fine but you don't need to create a whole new sexuality one that you admit is tenuously serious because you're not attracted to like a specific group because in this case it's pretty transphobic and that's really what it's being criticized for for being different from not being attracted to women or not being attracted to men not being attracted to the trans group so by suggesting that not being attracted to trans people and not being attracted to women are similar you're kind of implying that trans women are women you recognize that right there's definitely a difference between the two biologically so it's like a psychological state in there's a difference between trans women and cis women but trans women are in the group woman so this is what i mean exactly again argue the identity is not transphobic here is applied by the person so as a person someone can categorize women as biological women and that's what they mean by women and so trans people would not be in that category and that would be a transphobic description which is why it's criticized for being transphobic it's not transphobic it's quite accurate like they can define it that way wait hold on well hold on biologists don't use the term biological woman so scientific accuracy isn't what you should be referring to here if your argument is that the term you use to describe women doesn't include trans women then yeah it's transphobic how is that transphobic it's just a categorization i it doesn't say anyone is wait hold on wait i can't i can't tell if you're being serious right now no i'm completely serious right now so i can label the trans women because our trans women aren't women is like the central argument over whether or not okay how is it transphobic do you are you asking me why it's transphobic to say transphobic to say that i think women are biological determined and not psychologically determined the central social conceit of trans people and of political movements surrounding them is arguing that they are the gender they identify as and determining that is not the case or saying that that is not the case is considered transphobic by the same reason for the same reason that like 17th century phrenologists tried to argue that black people weren't the same type of human as white people were now you can adopt a 17th century phrenologist definition if you want to and i also have the right to call you racist for it so that would be kind of you didn't answer the question so to say it's transphobic you need to show that saying one is more or less in some sense just saying i factually disagree with how you define woman and i think this is the correct way to define woman doesn't imply anyone's more or less it's just saying i disagree with your definition that's not transphobic to disagree that's the problem with the do you think a definition of human that excluded black people would be a racist definition it depends it can be and it may not be admit so wait hold on you're arguing that there are ways in which you could define human that don't include black people and that wouldn't be racist baby if you had like some scientific evidence if you literally thought how do you scientifically decide this is a hypothetical category of human so again this is hypothetical like if you if someone injected alien dna into african americans then they wouldn't be as human as other races so yes no i mean with the definition so let's say let's say right now you had a scientist who said oh yeah okay there are two species of homo sapiens on earth okay there are humans and then there are black people and my definition wait wait wait wait please allow me to finish the hypothetical and my definition of human has uh you have to have below a certain melanin count okay now do you think that'd be a racist definition because it's scientifically accurate you can determine the the amount of melanin the skin again that's irrelevant to the question you asked can you come up with a definition of human that would show one group was not the same and yes the obvious answer is yes if they had dna which is the qualification of one of the features that makes someone what a human is is a social construct no it's not we arrived at that by determining no i don't care about your social construct ideology it's not wait wait wait wait wait wait wait teach them teach them that's not an ideology you can ask a scientist if you want to the way in which we define our empirical fact outside of any social construct yes they are a species the category of humanity doesn't exist outside of our socially constructed category wait wait teach them i i there's only so many layers of illiteracy that i can cut through at a moment let's just focus on social constructs for a second now what a woman is what woman means is something that we kind of arrived at we didn't understand what woman was like 300 000 years ago well how we've described what a woman is has changed over time likewise our understanding of speciation has changed over time we describe these things in relation to how much utility they provide us now it's possible to arrive at a definition of humanity that doesn't include black people because you can arrive at a definition of anything as long as you're willing to change the definition no so would you think that's racist to be like there are humans everything you're saying is completely incoherent you're just not understanding how reality works so science defines terms based off its correspondence to reality we care about the reality thing not the made-up names thing so you're too focused on the made-up names thing which just doesn't matter so how do you determine speciation what determines what whether or not two things are of the same species lots of different criterion what criteria and how do we arrive at those criteria we make our best guess through induction to try and describe what best describes reality our best guess through induction to describe reality okay so what processes what what methods would you use to arrive at that science okay like let's say you have two this isn't complicated like i don't i don't want to go into a debate about our social constructs wait no we don't why are you interrupting me let me finish so i don't care about your diluted perception on social constructionism it's false there are factually different species they factually exist it is a fact of reality we put labels stop interrupting stop interrupting we put labels on them to try to describe them to the best of our abilities they do exist so that's just you don't get to debate this this is a fact if you deny you're denying a difference what's a chair again so don't don't interrupt so there are factually things you're done chairs are not facts chairs are not literal things that exist as a category independent of human lines species are species exist independently lines chairs don't because they're determined by biology and things that have nothing to do with humans but i've spoken to biologists and they acknowledge that there is a social element wait wait hold on wait i know you don't care because you don't know anything what you're talking about i know more than you on the process of speciesization is determined by a set of subjective categories that we've arrived at you can ask any biologist this this isn't secret social not understand any biology isn't my problem have you read charles darwin's wait wait wait so so we come up with labels to describe things that exist independent how do we come up with them we make them up okay so let's say we have two squirrels that are very genetically similar this is how do we determine whether or not wait how do we determine whether or not they're the same species of squirrel or different species of squirrel we come up with the methodology that describes species and try to accurately label them okay i agree now is that methodology in any way socially constructed of course the methodology all methodologies are socially constructed so the methodology by which we determine whether or not two things are of different species is socially constructed yes the species themselves are not okay the way we determine between a proton and a neutron is a method called science which is well constructed the proton and the neutron are not socially constructed species don't exist so when we that when you say the method by which we distinguish between species is socially constructed that determines the species there's not like two different types of species the ones we agree upon and the ones that already exist there are only the differences we agree basic philosophy to you this is the difference between epistemology and ontology no hold on your understanding of philosophy here is literally millennia out of date the idea that's socialization determines our categorization of the world epistemology ontology what epistemology is the theory of knowledge how we learn things ontology is the facts of the matter independent of how we know things we can keep talking about one thing we can keep going but we are like unless we're talking tires no it's James I would love to reel back to the thing the problem is the statement that saying trans women aren't women isn't transphobic because definitions are objective is a statement so far removed from reality that you have to go all the way back to epistemology before you can even begin to correct how many ways that's incorrect definitions aren't objective but if the definition refers to something objective then that's the thing they're talking about so if they want a definition that is meant to refer to an objective feature of the world how do you know what an objective feature of the world is science how do you okay how do you how do you arrive at what an objective okay so so there are two types of speciesation there's the stuff that we describe the the concepts that we arrive at through socialized processes and then there's the objective species difference that you say exist ontologically now how do you determine what is ontologically correct epistemology we use epistemology to try to learn about ontology okay so like so you agree that right now our understanding of species what like this is like a red tailed squirrel this is like an alpine winter squirrel whatever yes all all of our understanding is subjective it's all based off human conceptions okay so if you're arguing that all human understanding is based off subjective conceptualization then of what relevance is ontological truth to our understanding of what a woman is because if the definition is trying to correspond to ontology we're always trying to correspond to ontology let me finish the answer before you keep going so if we are no actually no we can make up things without trying to correspond to ontology all the time it's just called making stuff up so if one person defines real in the context of what corresponds to reality objectively independent of opinion intuition psychology and their definition means not including those things objective and that's what they mean by corresponding to what an ontological woman whatever the metaphysical god who knows everything could define woman as that would be it is there a way for humans to determine what an ontological woman is uh with the best technology we can infer with induction yes wait what technological processes could you use to arrive at what a woman is isn't that a philosophical question uh well science is a part of philosophy okay so how so what is the ontological woman how would you arrive at this determination uh we would look at speciation from the course of human history and determine the similarities between the two the major different sex groups and what their relations are but we're not talking about sex right we're talking about gender uh no so that would be the difference here it's like if you ontologically prove that sex and gender are the same thing interrupting so what we're talking about here is if one person has a definition of woman that is trying to correspond to the biological facts and not the psychological facts then they're going to say biology isn't relevant one sex let's hear the rest from tom why are you starting to erupting so if a person wants to use their definition of woman and wants to make it correspond to the biological facts as much as possible which they have a right to do that is biological facts are a real thing independent of a subjective opinion they are objectively existing they have the right to do that now you can define woman differently you can say you want to include the psychological facts but they also have the right to do the opposite it's not transphobic they're just disagreeing with you on what the definition sounds like you're saying it's subjective yes so so both definitions are all subjective but they're trying to get their definition to correspond to reality independent of all the subjective stuff whereas you are adopting the subjective stuff well no i would argue that it's actually the opposite that your post-hoc justifying social biases and i'm the one who's trying to arrive at the heart of like what is ultimately a linguistic distinction i would actually argue you're engaging in a much greater degree of subjectivity than i am and i think there's way more philosophy backing up the ontological relevance of my position than yours so the definition of objective is true independent of intuition thoughts opinions wait hold on so if you acknowledge that it's subjective that what the what a woman is a subjective then couldn't you make the argument that some subjective determinations are going to be bigoted and some aren't uh yes that has nothing to do with anything i said so like for example the word woman i could say this cup is a woman i can make this cup a woman just by arbitrarily defining it whatever you want but if i want to say that i want my definitions to correspond to reality then i want something in reality that maps on to this idea so the word woman would map on to some similarities between reproductive organs and that relation between species across time and what not to me yes obviously not to you so that's fine so if i'm saying i want my definition to correspond to reality in this way and i don't want to have any subjective intuitions opinions because those are the opposite of objective objective things only you're still doing the subjective determination to decide that biology has anything to do with the definition of womanhood yes but i'm trying to make the word correspond to an objective thing not a subjective thing so i want to say that this objective feature of reality that exists independent of human opinion is what i'm going to basically just say that a woman is anything that's blue in that way you have another subjective definition well that conforms to objective reality because whether or not something is blue is pretty objectively determinable so maybe whether or not something is objectively determinable is less important than how much social utility we get out of a given definition no so again we're trying to make this idea correspond to what most people mean by the word so so what most people mean by the word obviously there's social utility there is corresponding to this thing in reality that exists independent of our opinion so you could you can use the word to mean other things or you can use the word to mean that objective thing that exists independent of opinions right exactly those are fine you can subjectively choose either one but exactly racist or transphobic to choose the other so i asked i ask you again okay but you can disagree in ways that are racist or transphobic right so for example you know you can disagree with i don't know that you want to say integrate schools racially you can have a different opinion but the opinion can be racist right like if you don't want black and white kids learning together that can be like a racist thing to believe and it also can be not racist it can be like you could have some kind of justifiable reason to believe that and it has nothing to do with racism like you just genuinely believe it would be best but since we've agreed that the methods by which a person determines what they consider to be true have a subjective focus to them like for example your subjective decision to incorporate biology into your definition of womanhood and my subjective determination that self-identification should be the case since people use subjective matrices to arrive at whatever definitions they choose don't you think it tells something about somebody that people would arrive at a definition of woman which is completely antithetical to the broader political interests of trans people denies them their identity and legitimacy of their existence and contributes to broader cultural norms that's a hasty generalization fallacy so i can literally say that uh yes it is so that's exactly what it means so if somebody does thing x like categorizing woman as biological then they are racist that is a hasty generalization fallacy because there are other reasons they could do that like saying if they tend to prefer the hard sciences over the social sciences or biology over psychology it has nothing to do with liking or disliking or thinking one group is better or worse okay so they just literally think this category of information is more important than this category of information so they use this information so how do you determine how do you determine which types of information are more valid to use when constructing a definition is it subjective yes usually you go based on evidence though so don't bigots tend to subjectively determine definitions and worldviews that inform a big perspective like say non-bigots do too like say for example a person deciding that black people aren't human because they arbitrarily decide that a melanin content in your skin is one of the determiners of what makes a human yes so some bigots do bad things but wait a minute there are some non-bigots who also do those things that's not what i'm arguing wait hold on that's not what i'm arguing so the original question was why do people consider the super straight thing transphobic oh well actually then it got boiled down to why is it transphobic to say trans women aren't women which the fact that this is something that needs to be argued as preposterous to me um but the question is is can you label women and trans people in different categories for non-racist reasons is that a possible is it largely possible well no the separation of cis women and trans women the removal of trans women from womanhood would by its definition be transphobic how that would no that's clearly wrong so just disagree what does bigotry mean to you uh treating people differently so like if you treat one group as less like greater than another okay i could say trans people are greater than women i could say trans people are the greatest thing ever and i'm now separating them into a different category that wouldn't be transphobic that would be womanphobic or cisphobic so no just just differentiate the categories doesn't mean there's phobia anywhere there's no differentiation what if you said like black people aren't human but black people are like super super cool would that be a racist statement like they're super super cool but they're not racist against white people you think that would be racist against white people okay i see black people were the superior race i think so i think that's what it means all right interesting did i get that wrong did i understand your analogy because i thought you said black people are the superior race and i think that would be racist against the other races wouldn't it they wouldn't be humans in the definition that i provided for that hypothetical i think black people care about being considered humans i mean that's probably something that means something to them right not i don't think i'm following here so like if there was if white people were gods and not humans i mean i think you would still consider that racist wouldn't you like if someone considered them not humans okay let's let's let's see if we can roll this back a little let's see if we can we can pull it back to like that like categorical harm so trans women want to use women's restrooms right like for the most part that seems to be something they like doing okay so let's say that everyone in the world adopts your perspective that trans women aren't women they're their own thing would you let them into women's restrooms yes my differentiation of their category has nothing to do with changing their rights in any way so i don't have i'm not against trans women using restrooms i just like to use biology as my bases are coming up with definitions rights should be all the fine i don't care but they wouldn't be women so it'd be like women and trans women's restrooms i don't think there should be like a biological filter that prevents people from going into a bathroom if they're not the right biological x and y chromosome no that's not the same thing so i'm my definition of women here is just i think that we should define things like in a more objective sense related to biology something again it would be an objective sense if you said that everything that's a woman is blue that would be like an objective determine i don't i don't want to go down the social constructionism root with you again that would be objective everything with a wavelength particle between x and y nanometers that's what a woman is that's very subjective that i'm thinking of a unicorn that's also objective but it's also subjective because it's about opinion so so i don't want to go down is your decision to incorporate biology into your argument here you already acknowledge that you acknowledge the decision to incorporate biology that's fine but if a subjective choice to go with an objective fact is superior to a subjective choice to go with how do you determine what's superior uh it corresponds to reality more likely to correspond but wait no wait hold on that's a circular argument okay you just made that you just argued correctly that it's a subjective determination to incorporate biology but now you're saying that conforms more to objective reality we're not referring to objective reality so you asked what makes one better so i'm saying what makes it better is if your beliefs correspond to reality independent of opinion that's that's circular because you're saying it corresponds more to reality because you're using biology which corresponds to reality but you argued correctly that your invocation of biology was subjective so again you could argue the same thing about the color blue i think that corresponds to reality like do you think biology doesn't correspond to reality like science so does the color blue yes yeah so wait hold on defeat me then okay everything that is blue is a woman x y and y nanometers the wavelength of the light particle that's what a woman is i have chosen a definition what is not only uh uh confers to reality but can be measured by machinery to a incredible degree of specificity um and i'm directly describing reality because my entire definitional criteria refers to something that you could see in the mathematics of the universe your biology arguments looking pretty flimsy in my in the face of my electromagnetic radiation argument uh because of the history of the word woman refers to biology so that's not a way hold on history yes so i thought we were referring to reality not tradition yes so there's a part of both as i mentioned before all methodologies are subjective yeah yeah science is a methodology the words have attended usage usage to mean certain things and then we want to find things in reality which those words refer to like obviously sometimes they don't like unicorn there's nothing in reality that the word unicorn refers to gravity there is there is something in reality that that word refers to we use the word to describe stuff falling and the stuff falling is causing we wanted to define wait i'm going somewhere i'm going somewhere with this so okay if we see something falling we use the word gravity to describe that phenomenon that we are seeing and then you say no gravity is anything that's blue like no we want to describe the phenomenon this specific phenomenon that exists independent of our opinions you can call it whatever you want i don't care we're using the word to describe the phenomenon so if people use the word woman to describe the phenomenon of a biological sex differences then the fact that your choice to make it describe blue is irrelevant you can do that go for it we're going to make our words describe the real thing to which the word refers to how is it real if our imagination how was how is what real how is how is what you just said more real than my argument i don't understand the question how is your biology definition any more real than mine without deferring to subjective appeals to tradition like historically biology has been what we've used because we use the word to refer to a phenomenon we don't use the word to refer to blue phenomenon wait blue wavelengths in the our phenomenon what wait the blue wait the color blue is a psychological i think i understand i think i understand the question so so we came up with the word to describe something we saw a long time ago and then that thing that we saw exists so so so we came up with the word to describe the thing we saw you know if maybe if a million billion years ago we came up with the word woman to describe blue things then you'd be right we didn't wait again you're referring now to historical appeal which is the definition of a fallacy see the problem wait the problem is what you're doing is history is not a whole you've gone off for a while what you're doing is the definition of a post-hoc rationalization your um philosophical backing here is incoherent um you defer to referring to reality but then you acknowledge that the decision to refer to reality is subjective and then you say that actually it's more objective in that case because you're referring to something that has historical precedent but then you argue that other things don't have the same like etymological precedent which i thought you were describing reality are you saying then that the deference to real phenomena is in any way like modified or made more or less preferential based on historical input how would we change scientific definitions that way and additionally if that's the case you still haven't given me a deterministic criteria for why we would ever use biology to describe woman instead of the nanometers of between the crests of a wavelength of an electromagnetic particle the problem is like the problem is we are so far away from the actual argument right now because you are so unwilling to cede philosophical positions that people were figuring out when they use sundials to tell the time no no no wait wait wait hold on almost almost almost done the fact the fact that we're arrived we're trying to describe like the extent to which social constructs influence ontology and epistemology when we're trying to you're arguing the position it's not transphobic to say trans women aren't women is insane um if you i mean if you really want to like go in the hard social constructionist route which you seem by the way to retreat to every time your objective argument falls through then i would simply say this bigotry against bigotry against a social minority is usually described as something which marginalizes or disadvantages them and in case you had noticed trans women really like being referred to as women hence a decision to not do that socially would contribute significantly to harm against them hence it would be a bigoted decision you can argue that it's justified bigotry which would by the way be a position you could argue without sounding like a lunatic but the argument that that's not bigotry is ridiculous to me if you want to argue that it's justified bigotry against trans people then that's the same argument I've had against a million other people but this like it's not transphobic to say trans women are women things like like where do we even go from here you know yeah everything you just said is completely incoherent so yeah every all sciences philosophers agree with me yes we come up with words in the history and past we make them up words are completely made up by humans they didn't exist in the university for humans made them up but we made them up to describe things that exist so there's a history of people using this word to describe something in reality and we try to describe the thing in reality to which the words refer the word woman has been used to refer to something related to biology usually refer to x y chromosomes gametes those kinds of things that is a very accurate description of how the word woman has been used throughout history so it is if you want to make the word woman correspond to something in reality independent of opinion that would be it which is completely legitimate it is not bigoted to class people in different groups if there is an objective difference because you're not saying anyone's better or worse between yes there is and we'll let you wrap up tom and then we'll go go back to vosh so yeah it's not racist to class people in different groups unless you're saying that because they're in this group they're lesser or greater than that's not what i've done and not what many people do the fact that you want to prioritize biological criteria and in defining them has nothing to do with establishing their worth as human beings the fact that they like to be called something is irrelevant if i like to be called king hammer the eighth and you're not calling me king hammer the eighth that doesn't disadvantage me i don't care about your psychological feelings here i care about like taking away your rights to buy houses or go into bathrooms or whatever that would be a disadvantage what you like to be called i don't care so just classifying people differently if because your classification is based off some empirical objective facts not based off of opinion it's perfectly fine has nothing to do with racism as long as you don't say they're better or worse in some sense right so the whole racism begins and ends and saying one group is better worse than another is like a child's understanding of bigotry there are many ways in which you can arbitrarily construct categorization to disadvantage groups without explicitly saying they're worse what about people who defer to like early documents from the founding fathers to say that only white people in america wait wait wait hold on what about people who defer to old texts to say that only white people in america are actual americans and that everyone else is just like an occupier or like a co-habilitator or something like that if you wanted to go back and nitpick stuff the founding fathers said you could probably make that argument i mean a lot of them were pretty goddamn racist and then you would say and then you say hold on hold on hold on we're not saying all the black people here in america are worse or less of people but they're not americans now you may argue this is a meaningless categorical distinction and similar to what you're doing right now but the fact of the matter is that there are real consequences to engaging in behavior like that first and foremost it's an arbitrary designation that doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than marginalizing that group of people if you don't like trans women just say i don't like trans women trying to argue in bad faith about epistemology as to whether or not they actually women is really really weird just be specific with the criticism and with the groups that you're denouncing when i say for example you know i don't like x or y group here in america or i don't like this behavior or that behavior i don't try to stretch pre-existing definitions to try to find ways to ostracize them without actually having the guts to specifically say they're worse than me or they're better than me fact is trans women want to be called women and trans men want to be called men it means a hell of a lot to them and we have collectively socially agreed and this is all a social process that denying them the right to be referred to as the gender they identify as is something that harms them something that's prejudiced against them i can't argue against this if you want to like retreat back to an primitive epistemology to try to argue that actually it's not bigoted to use categorization to marginalize disadvantage and ostracize minority groups that's an impossible position not only to defend by the way but to attack it's like not even wrong it's not coherent enough to be attacked if we want to talk like why don't we just talk about the super straight thing why can't we just like so you brought all this stuff up i didn't marginalize trans people um it's an inaccurate critique that doesn't need to be taken seriously by your own admission and its existence seems to hurt trans people it seems to me like a pretty clear-cut thing to criticize unless you relation fallacy that's not that's not what a fallacy it no okay so expert in philosophy who don't know valities not someone who knows falsely so tell me why should i like support the super straight movement i'm woke uh i like people's identities and i support people's right to fuck who they want so like sell me on it you know so the reason to support the super straight movement is because it points out the hypocrisy of the woke community so if you don't like what hypocrisy the fact that they accept some identities but not others that's not a hypocrisy that's fun wait hold on you're okay wait hold on you're okay with me shaking your hand but not punching you in the face i thought you were in favor of all forms of hand-based like physical contact what nobody in the left has ever said they accept all identities what about neo-nazis i think this is such a fragile criticism you claim to be accepting of all identities you're okay with trans people but not neo-nazis the hypocrisy of the left i'm technically okay with all identities i don't care what your identity is you can identify as a attack helicopter i'm fine with that i don't care i don't care about our identities okay but we don't we nobody on the left has pledged to support every identity that exists because this would include every political identity that has tried to hurt them so the argument here isn't literally every identity the argument is that argument is that you have such no no it's not so the argument is that there is such a broad spectrum of identities listed like just watch a blare white video where she just goes through hundreds of them and these are where you get your understanding of the woke community from blare white no no but she's a good example because she makes this argument so a good reason to know this is a legitimate argument made against the woke community and why many people accept this super straight label is because the proponents of the anti-woke community say this the people with hundreds of thousands of followers are literally saying the things i'm saying that yes this is a good argument because it shows the hypocrisy of the woke community that's the reason they're accepting it not because of transphobia because what argument is that wait hold on who like give me an example of sargon blare white black pigeon speaks so it's just a coincidence that all these people are transphobes you just named blare white the most self-hating trans woman on earth an ethno nationalist and a neo-nazi you don't think it's hey it's not because they're trans wait wait wait hold on it's not because they're transphobic hold on it's just a coincidence that everyone pushing for this publicly is transphobic you know yeah i don't consider them transphobic i don't you're subjective i know you don't because you're because to you definitions are just like um trapeze like escape traps that you can look like escape rooms i care about science you care about made up psychology science you already acknowledged that definitions are socially determined to process you keep backing up to like actually i defer to objectivity but you don't it's just a coward's retreat that you go to no you're not understanding how science works isn't a problem with my ideology so yes words are socially constructed and if you try to make them correspond to reality that's what trying to make them objective what is react oh no wait we're not going down the the the illiterate epistemology so yeah so my question so you're so hold on wait tell me wait wait hold on sell me on the super straight thing okay because the argument that the woke left once all identities to be valid isn't again i already addressed that so the fact that you have an arbitrary criterion for what should be accepted based on yes it is so if it was an arbitrary stop interrupting so if you have an arbitrary criterion for what you think should be accepted as an identity based off of your personal preferences and your psychology of some kind other people's psychology should also have a legitimate claim to be accepted as an identity just like that you're you didn't answer the question what is the arbitrary designation uh people's identities based off of their feelings okay like neo-nazis is the left okay with that uh no idea but i didn't know i didn't wait t jump come on meet me where the conversation is that's not no you know they're god damn well relevant topic so wait hold on no it's perfectly relevant your argument is that there's hypocrisy here but there's none generally speaking the it's hold on the reason people on the left accept these crazy identities that you guys like to make outrage videos about in spite of the fact that they're occupied by maybe six people on tumblr is because generally speaking a lot of people have experiences socially personally psychologically that they don't feel conformed to the social expectations surrounding hegemonic sexual and gender identities so by creating categorizations which sometimes is uh i don't know sort of a meaningless linguistic flair but by doing so they try to give a little bit more meaning and comfort to people whose experiences are atypical the super straight thing isn't that that's not its origin because that sounds exactly like what it is you already acknowledged right off the bat that it's a criticism similar to the attack helicopter joke you already said it's not what i just described it to be so how is what's the difference here so so is the difference just the origin what's the difference between the attack helicopter joke and being okay with people accepting divergent gender identities to describe their personal experience so what i heard you say was is that gender identities are accepted because they are meant to as a categorization to bring comfort to people who don't feel some connection to the social expectations around sexuality something like that is that about right in part yeah they're not criticisms of some broader existence so super straight that would apply literally to there's a group of people who already acknowledge that it's not a serious identity though you can't back up to the identity argument i'll address that in a minute so there is a group of people who have a sexual identity which does not correspond to the social expectation no it created a term wait wait wait a minute and they created a term to give themselves comfort so that label could be applied to everything you just said now obviously the origin is different because they don't accept identities so they don't take identity seriously but given your own definition of what this is that would fit on all of those criteria other than the origin thing only if you were dishonest you already admitted it's not taken seriously as an identity and it's used as a criticism this is what i mean by you back and forthing like a coward it's not wait hold on wait hold on it's an identity when it's convenient for you to be an identity and then it's a criticism when it's convenient for you to be a criticism you can't like i hope anyone watching this like recognizes this back and forth has taken place about a dozen times and i pointed it out every time and you still keep doing it so additionally even if we're moving beyond the broader criticism here the premise of the super straight label directly invalidates the legitimacy of trans people and for that reason the left would never accept it you think it's hypocritical for trans for like the left to say we accept trans people but we don't accept anti trans identities so so just based off of the criteria you listed of what a true identity is it is a it is a word a label that if you want to twist the definition i gave you you could describe i don't i don't want to twist it i don't i definitely do not want to twist it i want to try and use what your accurate definition can you respond to the criticism that i've levy then rather than trying to twist everything i'm trying to do that you keep interrupting so the point here is this is an internal critique so yes the super straight label is a criticism of the woke community the reason it's a criticism is because when you apply the woke community standards the things you just listed this would fit as an identity just like the other ones how is it except for the genetic fallacy genetic fallacy yes the origin fallacy sanay created for this purpose isn't about the fact that the central premise of super straight is that trans women aren't women what wouldn't that be a good reason for woke lefties to not accept it because they don't believe that not based off of your definition so your definition i think make sure i want to make sure i'm so wait wait no hold on wait wait you keep repeating the definition let me be perfectly clear okay i just explained people creating an identity to explain divergent sexual or um or um uh gendered characteristics first of all being a straight guy who's not attracted to trans women is not divergent okay it's not some oppressed minority that's you're yeah hold on to come on that's like yearning for acceptance second of all the inherent premise of being super straight is that trans women aren't women and if you wanted to you could just say keep in mind all of this whining and crying you could just say i'm a straight guy i don't really know if i'm like attracted to trans women that's all you'd have to say and i think in almost any place on earth that would be treated with a perfect degree of legitimacy this rhetorical flourish exists exclusively to with bad faith ascribe the legitimacy of a sexuality to the premise that trans women aren't women that's why you keep jumping back and forth between identity and criticism it doesn't actually hold up as an identity but you're trying to use the rhetorical flourish of a sexual identity when really all you're actually doing is saying trans women aren't women why would the left ever accept the legitimacy of an identity that delegitimize trans women you're not supposed to accept the point the point is that you won't accept it even though it meets the vast majority of the criteria you just listed the vast majority of well the invalidates trans people just happens to trip one of the red flags the left's never going okay that's nice so does it meet the other ones does it meet the one that this is a sexual identity of people who already know it's just not an identity why do you keep doing this man hypothetical a hypothetical hypothetically i see so is it is it a label for a sexual preference that is does not conform to a certain subset of society's expectations that can make people feel marginalized is to do all of those fit because they seem to fit what first of all nobody's marginalized for not being attracted to trans people like no matter how hard you want to run that down i do not buy that premise whatever victim complex you man was just just labeled a transphobe and fired because he wouldn't date or wouldn't do a sexy and with a with a trans woman so yes that does happen i'd like to see the context right wait hold on it happening once or a couple times is not the same as broader social marginalization wait wait wait you just listed like there's a bunch of names for people there's like six people who identify as this like yes yes it does so that's that's a legitimate those six people get a legitimate identity so do these six people see you're saying that trans the the person who didn't want to work with the trans person should identify as super straight uh no i'm saying they could they would fit this label so as a marginalized group who has a sexual preference that doesn't meet the social expectations like you defined it this would fit all of those criteria that you provided for except for the really critical one that the super straight thing inherently invalidates trans people okay so it meets the all the other criteria though you you realize that's a really because like otherwise you could make a sexual identity for anything i'm being straight i'm not attracted to uh black women you know i'm wait hold on hold on i'm mega straight actually i'm not attracted to like uh you know jewish women or something you otherwise you could get away with producing any kind of sexual identity sure so so you listed a whole bunch of criteria and all of them except one are met so you realize the entire wait hold on really quick really quick wait wait wait hold no no please please i'm making an argument please this is very critical the entire debate i have been criticizing the super straight thing on transphobia you are incredibly obsessed with now trying to find some like ledge to grab to justify the sexuality angle in spite of the fact that you disavowed it in the first 30 seconds of your opening statement what was the point obviously the issue is the transphobia so again you're not understanding back to it but just so you both get your points in tom do you want to go back to that you keep not understanding how an internal critique works so we adopt your ideology for the sake of the internal while knowing it's stupid so i know your argument i know your identity politics is stupid and it's wrong and dumb but i'm going to adopt it for the sake of the argument and so let's say identities are a real thing your definition of what an identity or what qualifies as an identity included things such as it is a label that identifies a certain group of sexual preference that is not uh accepted by a social community all of those things fit to the super straight label because it is all of those things now it's not you're right it labels trans women not women which so it would not fit all of your criteria but it does fit a hell of a lot of them that's the hypocrisy wait that's wait that is my definition not a hypocrisy your question wait so there's a lot of criteria that you list for an identity this meets a lot of those criteria so it tend us it seems like the vast majority of the criterion have been met by this standard and you not accepting it means your hypocrisy that's your democracy from our perspective this is whether or not you accept it or not it doesn't matter this is from our perspective it looks like hypocrisy because all of these criteria are met by this thing just like it is for those other things so this would look like hypocrisy to an idiot from for the beginning of this to the end from point a to point b the problem has been the transphobia and you're saying well it's hypocritical of you to have this standard for this but not for this oh wait it actually is the same standard but it hits most of the criteria anything could be considered an identity like i said neo nazi can be considered an identity literally all of the human experience the word identity is extremely broad the critical distinction here is the transphobia that's what we've been arguing about this entire time so your argument hold on that it's hypocritical would only be legitimate if you ignored the transphobia problem which is the main thing people say about super straight there are two things progressives say about super straight both of which you've acknowledged first of which you said it's not a real identity that it's done in bad faith you said that from the beginning you said it was the same as the attack helicopter joke so i mean you can back and forth at all you want but you opened and i appreciate you i agree yes i can i agree with right and the second point is that it's transphobic which is and then we had to argue the definition of transphobia forever but yes it was not approved it was not you didn't prove that's okay that is very funny that that's what you thought happened there but that's the criticism people on the left levy that it's in bad faith and that it's transphobic you acknowledge the bad faith in disingenuously invoking an identity for the sake of the attack helicopter criticism and then you acknowledge that there is a legitimate categorical distinction between the left's acceptance of the identities we do consider valid and the left's acceptance of super straight the transphobia you have already seated both points both of the criticisms that people make and the idea that this like you're arguing there's hypocrisy here is at this point by your own admission completely invalid you've already determined the category the consistent category by which people on the left determined their support for these identities it's it's that simple let's let me review let me review the argument for you so obviously it's it's a criticism of the sjw community created on our side which is fine but an internal critique means that we apply it to your ideology so you're but it's not it didn't reveal it don't interrupt don't interrupt so you're assuming it's transphobic which i proved was false you can you can label trans women and women in different categories without it being transphobic you don't have to say one is better or worse to say they're categorized in different categories if you're labeling it based off of biology it doesn't mean you have any bias it doesn't mean you're bigoted it just means you define the word based off of this feature of reality rather than psychology there's literally nothing transphobic about that so if it's not transphobic to label these as two different categories and you can use super straight and meets every other one of the criterias and now it meets your trans one too because it's not transphobic it's now met all of your criteria but it doesn't it meets our definition of transphobic and you can say you disprove that it was transphobic and again that's a spectacular interpretation of events you have back there but by the left definition a consistent definition we have by the way trans women or women trans men or men etc etc a consistent definition bulletproof even you can disagree with the internal premises but it is consistent by that definition we have a consistent way of deciding which identities are valid and which aren't or it's one of the you know if a if there was like a racist like giga straight i'm not attracted to black women thing that we all so you can't be racist etc etc right so right well hold on so so again the um the idea that there's hypocrisy here is factually incorrect because you have identified the existence of a consistent standard remember wait hold on wait hold on that's super straight flags and other identities we accept don't our definition of transphobia is consistent in ours not wait wait saying trans women aren't women is by our consistent standard transphobic that's an easy generalization fallacy that's not wait hold on i can't i can't teach you that ideology is wrong let's wait hold on that is wrong really really pithy wrap up vash and then we'll go over you tom oh yeah sure um t-jump is uh not even wrong on this i don't even know if i can really say i won this in the same way that i don't necessarily know if i could win a debate with a person who doesn't speak english uh his understanding of basically every big brain um like dictionary word he tried to pull out here from ontology to epistemology to social determination to specization to um to um like all the fallacies that he miscited is indicative of an i don't know if it's arrogance or what but man uh yeah no so we've disproven his point using arguments he gave us first and foremost he acknowledged that the super straight thing is not being done in good faith it's not my identity and that's not what that means you can if you're ever what if you're ever curious what what t-jump is saying means you can actually google it and i would encourage you because there is there is a spectacular range of difference between the words that he uses in the way he uses them and the actual definitions of those words so the two key um i don't know victory medals that i'm wearing on my neck over here are thus far first he gave me the win in the first 30 seconds um this is not a identity and it's not treated as such and it's not considered such by the people who promote it and second of all the left has a consistent definition that we use to determine the legitimacy identities don't be transphobic by our definition of transphobic or if you don't want to use the word transphobia acknowledge the validity of trans people's identity that's a consistent standard and it's something that works with our identities and doesn't work with the super straight thing so there's no hypocrisy here which means that trying to expose the hypocrisy with a six-year-old meme the attack helicopter meme is uh i guess it failed i'm really happy that we were able to resolve that today uh it's just an inaccurate flaccid impotent critique that doesn't reveal any hypocrisy and that's all i have to say all right so let's review all of vosh's failures and just basic misunderstanding of philosophy uh so jack fallacy is the fallacy of origins that says that its origin is in somehow discrediting its current modern context that's literally what the fallacy is you can google it and what it says so its origin doesn't matter to its current context the whole point so yes that is a genetic fallacy hasty generalization fallacy he's saying that anyone who labels trans women as not women is a transphobe by his definition that's a hasty generalization fallacy there can be legitimate reasons to label them in different categories that have nothing to do with bigotry or saying any is better or worse which proves that dislabeling them separate things is not transphobic it's not evil there's no bigotry there because there can be reasons to do it that have nothing to do with bigotry so it's a hasty generalization fallacy to say that anyone who does this is racist hasty generalization fallacy nazis breathe you breathe you're a nazi hasty generalization fallacy that's the second fallacy epistemology study of knowledge ontology study of what exists yes i do know what these words means vosh is an idiot so as i have proven that you can label trans women as not women and not be transphobic as long as you don't have any bigotry involved in there it's not about better or worse it's just a category then no it's not transphobic to use the super straight label because you haven't said they're better or worse in any way you've just stated a personal preference so it means every single one of his proposed criteria of what an identity would be other than its genetic fallacy origin of not meant to meaning to be a literal thing so in an internal critique of his worldview in an intro three of his worldview it would meet all those things which would prove hypocrisy which would prove the point of sargon and blare white and black pig and speech that yes this does demonstrate the hypocrisy of the woke worldview because their own standard fails because they just reject things by subject to opinion bubble we are going to jump into the q and a one of remind you folks our guests are linked in the description first time i'm mentioning it actually so we do encourage you you can click on those links right now we do appreciate our guests and want to remind you folks please attack the arguments instead of the person as always being your you know it and so with that we'll jump into thanks very much for your first question bubble gum gun says social social these are some of these are comments says social constructs do not equal definitional disagreements that's an incoherent statement definitions are something that we arrive at socially in order to maximize the utility that we get language is something we invented to make it easier for us to communicate in reality there's actually no way to either visualize or describe true reality we can just approximate it through language that mirrors or mimics the best possible extent what we see in reality there are plenty of terms that mean a lot to us that have no actual basis in what you would call like an empirical reality terms that describe our identity our preferences whether you're a top or a bottom can you find that in somebody's dna no but it's very important got you and sleepy don or dan thanks for your question says quote unquote people of color is a term that doesn't include white people is that term racist vosh it's racially discriminatory in like the groups it refers to but like the word black doesn't refer to white people and the word like coca-cola doesn't refer to what i'm not entirely sure what that means if the argument is that the term poc should also include white people then that would kind of invalidate the reason it exists which is essentially to say non-white people but you know i guess in a more welker academically relevant way like i don't know there's some validity to the existence of a word that refers to non-white people we already had the term non-white so gotcha and thank you very much for this question from amy newman says late night after show at my channel and question for t jump who i still love says why not simply amy newman was saying they love you tom not me said why not simply call yourself straight and then not date transgenders um for the exact same reason that uh well it's the argument that you're making up language and trying to make other people accept your language well they're doing the same thing they've made up language so why aren't you accepting their language you could just use the word say you were you are a biological man and you have surgery like why don't you do that oh well you don't want to it's the same argument the whole point of making up this language is to mirror the fact that the other ideas have made up their own language and are trying to force that on you as well can i interject very quickly sure the rejection of the social or the utility and social understanding of language by people like t jump is a really common tactic that bigots use to ascribe bigotry and bigoted values without actually having the balls to own up to any of the positions held if you're willing to engage in enough definitional fuckery you can construct worldviews and linguistic trends that invalidate all trans people gay people redefine degeneracy to describe marginalized groups and say only white people are real humans without ever actually saying x group is worse or better than the other the reason i'd argue that trans women are women based on identity is out of social utility we're not really describing reality with that any more than we are biology woman isn't a reality term it's something we made up and i think that the world is generally better when with all the millions of trans people out there we look at them and say hey you know what yes sure okay go for it doesn't seem to hurt anyone helps millions of people that's social utility i give you a super pithy response and see original question is for you tom otherwise we're gonna go to the next one yeah woman refers to things that exist independent of humans before humans ever existed it refers to sex and biology so the fact that humans made up the word doesn't mean it wasn't a thing before humans made up the word bubble gum gun says vosh i think you're misusing focalt's post modernism um nothing that i've said right now is post modernist this actually fits very concretely within a modernist theory the idea that definitions are socially constructed isn't like a post modernist thing this is like a basic literacy in the way the world works types deal i'm pretty sure that um even as far back it was like plato and Aristotle they already had a fairly well formulated idea of the difference between the world that we can describe and conceptualize and the world that we actually like live in and we're talking about people these people had some wacky ideas but even they understood the the epistemological ontological gap the isot gap um as well and uh yeah i don't know it's really interesting stuff there's a was it stanford dot edu plato um they have some really like basic philosophical terms you can look them there it's really really interesting stuff this one from Matthew Steele appreciate it says vosh are you arguing that someone is a bigot for not performing an act that someone else prefers if so what is your justification um yeah wait not performing an act other people prefer it can absolutely be bigotry if you're at an award ceremony and you'll shake hands with every white person but not with a black person yeah like and you're like oh yeah i just don't shake hands with black people because i should be forced to do what i want to do yeah of course that can be bigoted absolutely yeah um i don't know why people in all cases in all cases nothing very few things are in all cases um if you're arguing that there are ways to do things that are in some context bigoted and in some context not bigoted yeah of course obviously like saying like there are a ton of instances where that's the case but when we're talking about categorical generalization stuff like whether a trans woman is a woman or referring to trans people by their preferred pronouns these are things where basically any instance is going to be um pretty indicative of your broader attitude towards that group got you this question from marshal farron thanks marshal for saving us on was it friday night saturday night said for tom how did the anglo saxons check for an xx chromosome when they came up with the word woman they didn't they made generalizations based off of biology but they didn't know at the time got you harley quinn says vosh's nuanced explanation of bigotry is such a breath of fresh air were you listening t jump and they said definition of bigotry is wrong so again he's labeling any differentiation between woman and trans as necessarily bigoted which is by definition a hasty generalization fallacy that's not what that fallacy means yes it literally is guys you can google it i just just feel free to google it anyone who does x is a racist you do x you're racist that's literally a hasty generalization wait do you think everyone who thinks black people are inferior or racist um probably yes because that's oh is that a hasty generalization failure um fallacy because everyone who does it means lesser so if you think someone is lesser you are racist does not mean lesser it means prejudice based on race less less there is a generalization there for anything that thinks one group is better or worse or in some way should be treated differently yes you're doing the fact that you should have been the bulletin said that that doesn't have to be racist stop stop so the fact that they're you label them as different groups doesn't mean you're racist because you don't think they're better or worse in some sense it's only racist if you think they're better or worse should be treated differently in keeping this is the nuanced understanding of bigotry from a person who said that if you constructed an arbitrary definition of humanity that specifically excluded black people that's not actually racist unless you also say that by the way really quick this is this is specifically this is specifically what i said about too cowardly to actually make the prescriptive arguments so instead he'll play bad faith word games with like epistemological definition construction to try to rebrand all the groups he doesn't like into categories that are socially disadvantageous to them but he won't actually go ahead and say oh yeah these groups are worse it's super like beta shit i don't know man this question because wait i know that's so i don't think one second i'll give you a chance to respond tom but then we do have to go to the next one and this next one will actually be for vosh so vosh will get the last word on that one so i'm on record saying i would date trans women so i have absolutely nothing against trans people whatsoever i'm representing this position from a logical position and vosh is doing his dumb ass woke shit where he thinks that people because they hold this position must be evil or have some bias against trans people which is obviously false so you just said that vosh shut up so as i said you can hold the position and make delineations in reality without them having anything to do with racist or bigotry that's why the woke community is so dumb ass because they can't differentiate criticism and differentiations between reality have nothing to do with personal bias and all they can do is make an appeal to motive and say you're being evil without addressing actual criticism very quick correction i've actually never talked about individual bigotry over the course of this discussion it's only been the premise of bigotry behind saying trans women aren't women so ascribing my accusations of bigotry from a broader idea to an individual is fallacious on your party jump just quick reminder bubble gum gun you literally said yours is in mine so not this one coming in from bubble gum guns has returned to confederacy trans states should have their own ethno state as well as commies and caps monarchists etc and anyone against confederacy isn't interested in coexistence but submission i don't understand i think every individual should have an ethno state of their house next up bubble gum gun also says epistemology is an argument from pathos not logos um sure oh people use pathos and logos and common conversation tend to be fairly insufferable as well um now the um the problem is if you went up to an actual philosopher and you said um my understanding of epistemology is entirely reflective of reality you would get your head caved in by a huge book um the the nuances of epistemological philosophy are so complicated and so based on subjective human understandings and interpretations it's so far beyond my like baseline understanding i don't even feel comfortable like making strong statements about it but i know what i just said for a fact uh so i gotta respond to that really quick so actually no like 80 70 80 percent of scientists and philosophers are realists so they believe that it actually does correspond to reality and no one accepts his social construct of garbage so yes it's made up by humans oh no he doesn't know realist means oh no yes scientific as in science reality and believing in social constructionism are not mutually exclusive at all and i strongly encourage you to read the basic literature on this you're so dumb everyone please man go to the next question will steward says vaj why are you allowed to label me as cis if i've never accepted that label for my identity by what system or criteria does that label exist what what wait oh wait hold on you could if you're trans you can let me know and i'll stop referring to you as cis we you humans have hundreds thousands of labels that we've constructed that we apply to people without asking for their opinion on the matter like their height or i mean the wide variety of things their general skin tone we can make determinations about them like uh uh phenotypically we can make determinations about the categorizations they fit into society or nationality or birthplace your origin they're what do you mean do we need to ask a person before i say they're an american if they're born in america lived in america their whole lives if you take issue with that then feel free to like say you're trans and i'll respect you you know harley quinn says t jump by what method have you accounted for inherent bias given culturally conditioned conventions specifically without scoffing please let me know i make pretty much all of my decisions based off empirical science hard sciences rather than social sciences so it doesn't have anything to do advice and again i have nothing against trans people i specifically said i would date if they were attractive enough vals just doesn't know what he's talking about as usual go for them this one from ian crone says t jump what about people who are intersex and were raised a certain gender but are biologically the other gender would you force them to live as a gender they were not raised as i wouldn't force them to do anything i would categorize them based off of the facts of their biology in my definitions but i wouldn't force anything on them at all gotcha and this one coming in from actual socialist trash my favorite name on all of the youtube says love you vosh t jump one word answer are trans women women and trans men men not by the definition described by biology only this one coming in from do appreciate your question two seconds it's glitching on me brinef says vosh does someone have to agree when a biological man says that he's a woman you don't have this free country you can do whatever you want people are going to be mad at you if you say that a trans woman isn't a woman and that's their right to that's i mean that's the that's the power of living in this country right but if you're like up in arms about this they're forcing me to use this language we've been doing this for as long as human society has existed honorifics for elders or people in positions of social power designators between different racial groups that we've since gotten rid of pretty much entirely thankfully the world all of human history has been full of people who will say you should refer to me as such and if you don't i'm gonna be upset your parents have said that of you your boss says that of you this is not something new and you can say that of other people too with a simple sentence i would prefer it if you called me x because people use nicknames too that's your right and hopefully if you've got people around you who are respectful and kind more so than you seem to be they'll listen to you when you say that okay thanks for your question says i'm gay and i wouldn't uh have relations with a trans man why is that wrong why can't we just live happily together and be the best of us they would or wouldn't have a relationship with a trans man they say they would not that's your you can see though again i think the group of like woke lefty people who are saying you have to fuck trans people is incredibly marginal i really don't think that's the case because trans people would rather be with people attract to them um okay like okay that's fine also by the way i don't think genital preferences are transphobic you you could just be like oh yeah you know i like dick and you know a lot of trans guys don't have dicks so and that's fine i'm most i mean like 99 percent of trans people will not bother you over that they'll be like oh okay because now they'll go find someone else who doesn't mind it's totally fine gotcha thanks so much and thank you thick earl says tom claims to be straight with that mustache in the year of let's see with that mustache in the year of our lord 2021 vosh came to like dudes but has a jesus beard post shave vosh slash beard tj i'll put my hair down so i look there there we go thank you and then carlo says why do you keep attacking tj personally let's see they say to vosh you're attacking well to be fair you guys have both it's been a wild one tonight they've both uh but we at least appreciate their passion and not a chump says vosh what's the difference between bisexual and pansexual why do we have those two different identities i think they basically mean the same thing i've never met a bi person say they were bisexual as a way to get out of saying they're attracted to envy people it really just seems super super arbitrary um i guess you could just use them interchangeably i like pan a little better because it feels like it's a little bit more semantically correct for most people but like there was one time i heard a story of somebody who said like it took me 10 years to accept that i was bi that's the label i got used to do i have to go by pan now because i'm okay with envy people and like no no just do what makes you comfortable gosh and thank you very much for this question not a dj angle geek says trans women equal women and cis women but they say which this also equals women but trans women do not equal cis women i think that's technically correct right yeah yeah trans and cis women are like two different types of women you know like black and white women or like tall and short women yeah they're two different types of women i think they're both women but yeah there's nobody on the left has a problem with you distinguishing between trans and cis women trans women know that they're not the same as cis women that's the whole transitioning thing they they know they're fully aware um i mean you just don't be spiteful about it it's all fine right you know gotcha and re vera says t jump have there not always been people who you couldn't tell their biological sex but used gender based on presentation or identity thus proving that gender or sex have always been separate uh no so if you define women as referring to the biological thing which is true independent of opinion or any psychological features whatsoever that hasn't has nothing to do with socialization it's about a fact of reality independent of opinion that's what makes it objective it's not if you use that word to refer to both gender and sex then no because it's about the feature of reality that is true independent of opinion not about psychological socialization got you on this one from balthazar to do8 says is tom jump aware that alden's university is now accepting online applications he seems like someone who can benefit from the coconut island course tom have you heard of this university i think it's the one you went to god genetics genetics researcher thinks your question says i'm a teacher getting pushed back that biological sex doesn't exist how do you think how do you think we can discuss the science of biological sex without offending trans people sex is an important concept in the class yeah a lot of um a lot of kids are really really dumb and they get like reflexively angry at arguments that sound parallel to conservative arguments even though they're true sex does exist of course though it's not a binary if you talk to a scientist they'll tell you that actually it's also though a highly bimodal a spectrum um but all you really need to do is say and if kids don't accept this then whatever you can say i want you all to recognize sex and gender aren't the same thing that gender identity is a you know a reflection of yourself and that sex is more of a biological thing and even sex is more complicated than a lot of people give a credit for but for the purposes of this course or this examination we'll be referring to the two bimodal you know sides the two most common biological um invocations of human biology and you know the male and the female or some something like that i'm sure i mean if there are kids unreasonable after this that's that's their fault my ears got jenna logan j says tom jump are you aware of how many times you committed alden's fallacy in this debate really need to look after that yeah no i didn't um but i do actually know fallacies because i i do philosophy unlike vosh next up dj shog thanks for your super sticker and secret xxx stars says hi tom jump if super straight only exists as a critique wouldn't making a sexual identity quote unquote of attraction only to brunette women had made the same point so why choose this specific type of quote unquote identity the point was that was popular the reason we're talking about it is because it gains popularity not because it's transphobic but because it makes fun of the hypocrisy of the woke community and that's the point is that you can have a position which some people can use as transphobic while others are not using this transphobic which means the trend the position isn't transphobic it just means those subset of people who are transphobic or using it for a transphobic reason are but the position isn't because it has a legitimate use that isn't transphobic the funny thing is that just really quick it actually would have been a better criticism if you had done that if you'd set a sexuality for only being attracted to brunette people that wouldn't have been bigoted in any way and you actually could have made a much more salient argument about the left being arbitrary with which identities you accept but the people who do the super straight thing were so itching to be transphobic they actually ruined the validity of their own critique because they wanted to own the trans people that actually would have been a really salient now that i think about it like that could have been really interesting discourse but they were jumping at the bit to be transphobic so they broke the criticism by doing so man maybe like next year they'll do that it'll be like the super brunette or something we'll actually have to have that and that'll be a complicated conversation too because i don't know what makes a sexuality legitimate that's actually that's like a phd candidate level question you know juicy and rue gall i don't remember if if this was done by you vosh they said the absolute gall of accusing tom of scoffing when they say vosh when you scoff so much it would make sargon your father blush so is that i don't remember you say did you call tom wait hold on i it's true that i scoff but i don't scoff anywhere near as much as sargon okay the force laughs that guy like like we're not here to fed himself he gets real all right all right by the way yes i have to thank you vosh because your debate with sargon was where we finally came up with the rule that if things went off the if they went off the rails we would do those three unit intervals so that was a special thing yeah that was quite the thing i think i think i'm gonna be talking to him again sometime in june he he recently was shit talking about a live stream which is fine i do the same to him that's fair game but i try to go on there to talk to him and he uh just didn't respond for like 40 minutes by dms and then two minutes after i ended live stream because i had to go run errands to prepare for the 24-hour live stream i was doing the next day he dms being like all right we're ready to have you on and i was like wait i can't now i have like stuff to do i'm on a schedule he was like so you're backing out that's for apparently talking sometime soon so oh god well that sounds juicy and i'm excited to see you guys interact again sorry you can tell you can say an identity is valid if it tracks an aspect of reality are there people who are only attracted to quote-unquote cis women yes so doesn't that make super straight valid no it just means cis women and trans women that would be like saying like because some people are only attracted to blonde women that means that brunette women aren't women it doesn't necessarily follow cis women and trans women are different i mean in some ways though i mean if i want to make the hard argument there are some trans women a post surgery who pass with clothes on and off so excellently that they would have to tell you you could live your entire life with them um and they would just be like an infertile cis woman to you unless they told you uh because i don't know the text getting pretty crazy these days that's awesome you know live your life um but anyway yeah just cis women if you don't if you don't want to fuck trans women it's okay i i promise you they won't come chasing after you you know god you're indeed rich says thank you t jump i've been called racist for claiming that black people aren't human but you proved the haters wrong i think they're being ironic i i don't know you know who knows tom what do you what do you think yeah that would be racist if like you're unless you can actually have a legitimate reason which is possible like if you find alien alien dna in one group of people then it would be reasonable to say one group isn't as human as the other without being racist so you can do that and not be racist if you actually do have some legitimate non-racist reason to do that it is logically possible which is why it's a hasty generalization fallacy and why vows is an idiot all right let's see we're gonna jump in boss should you like to insult tom back we know that's no that's that's quite all right i was by the way i was way meaner than i should have been during this day i acknowledge my faults he jumped i'm sorry that i was super abrasive um it's okay we need the views next step any so it's fine you can take some cracks back i want viddie anderson says a fallacy of generalization is when someone makes a general about a large population or group based on a sampling of that group that is too small uh so that's the fallacy of generalization not the fallacy of hasty generalization those are two different things john ciparoni or ciparini thank you for your questions says t jump hasty generalization fallacy doesn't apply to definitions but arguments being used x meaning x is not fallacious you're just wrong uh okay so if nazis breathe you breathe you're a nazi that would be an example of a hasty generalization fallacy so saying you do something any action x and anyone who does action x is a nazi and therefore you're a nazi would be a hasty generalization if there is some category of people who also do x who are not nazis so there are people who breathe who are not nazi so to say that anyone who breathes is a nazi because nazi's breathe would be a hasty generalization fallacy i'll take it anyone who breathes is a nazi okay you're all on the canceled list we're all we're all going down this is a sinking ship okay and endo xd says tom there are six characteristics that define sex chromosomes are only one the other five are changeable if someone has one out of six female traits are they really female one of them is whether your mom's busy that night sorry i won't uh again so the point here is that a person can choose to define one based off of a certain criterion of those so that they they prioritize to choose the biology and that's legitimate it's not racist to do that to say i choose to define woman based off of the biology it's just a preference of what information you find more valuable therefore you can differentiate trans women and women and not be transphobic because it's not transphobic just pick this kind of information you value more and not actually have any bigotry towards one group or the other gotcha and will steward has given a response to you vosh now the last one that will had said was his first question is vosh why are you allowed to label me as assist if i've never accepted that label for my identity then in their response to your response says if that goes for this then why does super straight identity need your permission it's not so nothing needs my permission so it's an argument as to whether or not the labeling is harmful this to me is okay we need to take a couple of steps back okay so we acknowledge that it's possible to label somebody without their permission because some labels transcend identity like whether or not a person's an american if you're born america you live your whole life in america okay like that seems like a fairly straightforward categorization some categorizations uh can it can be used and are nonetheless harmful um i mean you can look back through the entire history of racial pseudoscience to find examples of this taking place now some of those definitions and labels are internally consistent but internal consistency is not always the metric for whether or not an identity is worth saying or using my argument is that it's utility so with regards to the super straight thing the fundamental premise is that trans women are women i think that sucks i think that it's you can argue it's accuracy because ultimately it does boil down to a subjective linguistic flourish that there are arguments on all sides for though i think the utility argument wins out in my favor because millions of people benefit from the idea that trans women are women nobody gets hurt from validating trans people like seriously people have been fear mongering about like trans bathroom rapists and like people gender police arresting people for years now and it's never happened like it just isn't happening nobody's being hurt by the acceptance and validity of these people so with all that being said whether or not the terminology you use is acceptable is going to come down to whether or not i think it's hurting or helping people that's the main thing got you this question coming in from by the way folks we cannot take any more we've got a good list of questions here we cannot take any more because we want to get our speakers out of here by a decent time so thank you for your questions and mind forage manna sees manacles says t jump you know we got that sarah basny thank you for your question says can you provide a non-circular definition of woman that is capable of including trans quote-unquote women um sure i would argue um i mean you could argue that like a woman is one who identifies as one that is circular because then a woman is one who identifies as one who identifies one who identifies as one etc etc though in this instance i would argue that like self-referential um definitions if they provide more utility are still more defensible than less utility providing non-self-referential definitions after all in this case what a woman is doesn't actually seem to matter that much i'm a gender abolitionist ultimately i don't want a woman as a concept to exist at all right now the most utility that you can get um with regards to trans issues is the self-identification one because it hurts the lowest number of people if you want like a broader definition you can go towards social constructionism you can go towards like gender performativity theory like say for example judith butler there are lots of theories of gender that work to validate the existence of trans people in a wide variety of ways many of them are incredibly nuanced and many of them by the way defer to historical truths because trust me the whole history of gender is not um female male etc etc um so i guess what i would say is the trans woman or woman argument is basically a accessible and lazy synthesis of the basic points given by a number of really really interesting gender theories um that are bandied about in academia now as we speak i guess for anything more specific than that within the purview of the time i have now i think i'd be doing a disservice to the theory thank you for your question as well louis barnett says oh thank you they say thank you very much both of you for coming on the show it's been a pleasure so appreciate that positivity and cam w says t jump if you saw a woman in public and did not know that she was trans or not how would you define her and is she and if she was trans how would your biological definition apply when you don't know so yeah the definitions apply to objective facts whether you know them or not that's what ontology is epistemology is you try to make the best guess given limited information of what of those objective facts would correspond to so i would guess that she was a biological woman even though i couldn't know it and i would be wrong about it would be a justified belief because i have some justification for that belief it would just be a justified false belief got you on this one from can i say one really quick thing i forgot to say at the end of my last thing also keep in mind can you define a chair in a way that isn't circular or self-referential that's the tough stuff with social constructs you know at the end of the day it seems like a lot of them boil down to self-referentiality for a chair a chair is something you define as a chair right well what is a chair then well a chair is a chair i don't know you get what i mean right it's yeah okay sorry kashen kastizo says vosh you're very good at debates it's like you were born to become a great debater do you believe your path to greatness in debating was based on destiny i watched him for a while yeah and he's also really good at debate so yeah absolutely i got a ton of the rhetorical like i don't know interest from him as time goes on obviously my influences will diversify more often you know and uh i guess that's fine i've never really been ashamed of that past though because i'm you know so cool now and snake was right says if the definition of a label is just anything that uses that label it loses all meaning i think that was for you you said if the definition of a label is just anything that uses that label it loses all meaning i defer you to the chair there's actually tremendous social utility in describing what a chair is you know this is a chair that is a chair but trust me you're not going to be able to find that inclusive definition of chair that excludes things that aren't chairs you're not going to be able to it's just not possible because it's so like broad like is it a thing we sit on what's a bench you know what's a you can sit on the ground is the earth a chair i don't know it's really arbitrary and it comes ultimately down to social preferences different cultures will have different ideas as to what fits within the purview of a chair and none of them are more right or wrong than the others so i don't know this is vittgensteinian right something is something because people describe it to be something but we get utility from these definitions you got it and thank you very much for this question snake was got that cosmotholu says is it pronounced t jump or chump okay that's just the only one okay that these deals as vosh where can i send you a list of the actual fallacies you make in this debate describing your position and movement with time stamps uh vosh fidea at gmail.com i spend as much time as you can typing it up and wait my um very timely and lengthy and thorough responses god jane lawson Harrison says it's at the point of the battle of words that i have abandoned referring to gender and now only refer to the two sexes um i mean you could argue that in a gender abolished world there wouldn't be much refer to refer to other than expression and sex but that's not really what people live right now people's experience is very massively based on the um the social roles placed in them like gendered expectations you know this would be like um i'm sorry did i mishear the question like would would gender abolition mean that people only use sex as a way of referring to each other i'll read it in its entirety just they said it's at it's at the point of the battle of words that i have abandoned referring to gender and now only refer to the two sexes oh i mean i guess if you want to that's that's gonna you're gonna lose a lot of social utility in doing that though have you ever been to like an anime con do you have any idea how many androgynous people there are wearing made outfits what are you gonna what are you gonna scream when you see them you know question mark question mark you gotta suck sometimes you know you just gotta you just gotta lean back and get used to the definitional arbitrarity you know juicy and james librado says vosh much of your argument hinges on in your own words your definition of transphobia what is this definition and how does it apply to your argument or invalidate t jumps understanding well i mean any definition of anything is going to be fundamentally arbitrary but i think with transphobia as it was defined there it falls back and basically the same definition that you would use for discrimination against any group that is to say an ideology which describes the marginalization or ostracization or otherization of a marginalized group of people and since pretty much the number one thing trans people want is to be referred to as the gender they identify as and that has a very meaningful consequence to their lives i would say using a separate and also equally arbitrary set of definitions to deny them that ability and that social recognition would constitute bigotry much like you know oh black people white people the same but only actually white people are humans like you can you can start a lot with stuff like that but i think there's a lot of importance to inclusivity when it has meaningful consequences like that got you an actual socialist trash says t jump what do you think of alden statistical data on the difference in trans and cis women isn't that made up like all the anything alden is made up i'm pretty sure like there's no actual alden's fallacy in philosophy next up miss tree says police think topless trans women are women and arrest them alongside cis women for public indecency how does tom reconcile this with his view i think it should be legal to do whatever you want pretty much like it wear clothes not wear clothes i think most laws are stupid juicy gabriel k says thanks for your support says really love the channel thank you very much and says i also love t jump and amy get amy on more keep it up james well that would be a juicy one if t jump and amy wanted to bait bubble gum gun says and thanks for your support gabriel bubble gum gun says all identities are legit or else it's gatekeeping well gatekeeping can be good i mean for instance i don't want like nazis on left right or i guess in my swimming pool gatekeeping isn't inherently bad it's all about the utility that you get from stuff like this it ultimately always comes down to utility there's always going to be some degree of social construction when we talk about what fits within this definition or that so what hurts the most people what helps the most people how do we work this out you know it's i think once you think of it in terms of utility a lot of the really hard questions become more obvious you stop pretending to try to divine like ontological truth which i don't think humans have access to and you work with what we have which is a limited understanding of the universe and you know a desire to help the people around us gosh and thanks for this question socialist says t jump what do you think about alden's theory of sexual you can ignore all the people who say alden from now on take their money and run james run for the hills next up thank you very much avana ivy says what is demi pansexual and then they say chris stuckman and x jahovah's witnesses jahovah's witness came out as pan on his youtube channel his wife is demi pan question mark don't know what that means elucidate or educate demisexual means that you don't really experience sexual attraction to people you're not also romantically attracted to so like i can do hookups you know i don't i don't care i can just be i can just like say hello and hook up but demi people you know there needs to be more of a connection there for them to even feel a sexual interest really uh and pan just means that you don't care about gender when deciding whether you're attracted to people so think of pan like bisexual for example gosh and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from legacy nitro says t jump do you ever sit down at night and think to yourself instead of addressing real world issues like fixing homelessness or anything that has a real life effect you advocate for super straight instead well he does have a real word issue because it's affecting lots of people it's very popular obviously if i could fix homelessness i would do that make me president i will next up ferran salas says if t jump's chair and otangeles chair had a bastard child raised that abomination for my obligation to humanity thanks debaters and james thank you and reminder folks our guests are linked in the description we do appreciate the guest they're the lifeblood of the channel and bubblegum gun says individualist ethno states is anarcho capitalism by the way well that's not good go ahead oh no that's not good you don't want anarcho capitalism all right i'm backing off my very strong conviction that i expressed earlier in this uh q&a section and then genetics researcher said vosh is completely wrong sex is neither bi it's neither biomodal or a spectrum is biomodal a real word now i i didn't know is that are they meant by i think they meant by okay i was like oh it's like new things but they say can you please explain the genetics of how this would occur i have a phd in genetics this argument is unscientific and prevalent i'm sorry what was the name of the person who sent this donation in let's see it was pardon the delay genetics researcher genetics researcher with the phd biomodal okay it could be a typo um yeah okay so um the characteristics that we use to determine one sex are not just chromosomes chromosomes can vary there are people with why chromosomes who are genetically female chromosomes aren't the only one there are multiple characteristics and variances in the expression of those characteristics and because it's not a hard line one or the other that means that there is a little spectrum now the bimodality with sex is very very sharp that is to say the vast majority of people are going to exist at either mode you know the the typical male or the typical female but it remains a spectrum because that bimodality means that it will even past its peaks slant towards the center in a small but still significant number of people who are divergent enough from modal sex characteristics that they're you know well intersex usually we call them intersex people of which i think about one to two percent of the population is to some extent or another it's all very complicated but i'm sure genetic researcher knows that with the phd and all got you had a loss in hereson says pay t jump to debate about homelessness and he will trans debate is what the internet has demanded i mean i talk about trans issues way more than i talk about homeless issues too so the internet attention economy affects us all we're getting around that pay me i'll debate about anything sun flower says vosh what if i'm simply unattracted to people who hide or emit something as significant as their transition i am personally turned off by deceit um sure i do want to be clear first first of all 99.9 percent of trans people are going to be pretty upfront about it okay i promise you like especially now that trans people are becoming more normalized they tend to let people know um actually if you want to ensure that trans people do withhold that information make sure to marginalize and shun them because the more accepted trans people are the more okay they'll be openly saying oh yeah i'm a girl but i've you know i've got a big dong or whatever it's you know the more acceptance there and additionally you know when people when trans people withhold that it's not necessarily deceit most of the time it's sheer gut wrenching terror um which you know i think you should disclose stuff like that to a person before you sleep with them just as a general rule for safety's sake but just keep in mind that in instances where that doesn't take place where the trans person isn't up front about that information the vast majority of the time it's because of some perceived or existent social backlash that doesn't mean that it's good to do necessarily it just means that it's there's usually more going on beneath the surface gosh i am thank you very much for your question this one coming in from detrich says moderated it was sarcasm but i feel bad for making having made you say it that was the one where they said they said thank you t jump i've been called racist for claiming that so and so aren't human okay so glad that was ironic and thank you for your question balthazar 228 says can super straight people define fallacies by definition aren't they people who refuse to look at fallacies yeah i don't know i mean um identities can be a lot of things these days and go ahead tom you look like you have a mischievous smile uh refusal to look at fallacies i mean you understood the comment right it was don't look at dicks so they can't it was it was a dick joke oh wait was it oh i missed that too okay well hold on that's a one point to t jump over there you get your mind out of the gutter there well i mean what if what if they're but does it have to be because what if you were super straight but you were of a different sex besides uh male like could you be a female super straight person from what i've seen in the super straight communities no there are no women there interesting okay okay okay they're white but rugal mig doll says bra please read my super chat verbatim you ruined it you guys you seriously you must be like missing some information why would we thrash i mean we'll needle him a little bit and you know we'll make fun of tom's appearance whatever but why would we thrash somebody who's a guest on our show it just doesn't make sense i don't know donovan screws says do either of y'all buy into ancient alien science no um you know i'm always open to arguments gotcha and this one thank you very much for your question coming in from donna uh balthazar okay the jika man i don't know what okay next up they say they see t jump are did i just say something bad they say are you no i could just tell you're trying like tripping over all my idiot fans trying to throw memes in the in the super chats i can i can see you the playing hopscotch around them thanks that says they say t jump are you really pretending that sargon blair and black pigeon speaks the guy that believes the west is collapsing because of immigration from non-white countries are not transphobic no i don't think sargon and blair are transphobic black pig and speech is probably super racist but i don't think sargon is no gotcha lunatic thinker says i do not understand what would be so illogical in going for utility and amend quote unquote woman to accommodate for trans folks tom just not use cis woman instead what so the point was is you can differentiate between the two without it being transphobic that's the point here that's why it's a hasty generalization if you can have a legitimate reason to not to separate the two categories which has nothing to do with bigotry it just has to do with your preference for certain kinds of knowledge over other kinds then it's not bigoted and if there is a case where you can differentiate between the two and not be bigoted and not be transphobic then to label anyone who does so transphobic would be a hasty generalization fell i'm not saying you should do this or which one is right i really don't care i'm just proving that you can do so without being transphobic duchan terry gerardo says t jump in a hospital icu environment getting gender right immediately is critical i feel you approach gender with this consideration word utility what he uses utility i don't use utility what i don't understand this i'll read it one more time they say so they said t jump in a hospital icu environment getting gender right immediately is actually critical they say i feel you approach gender with this consideration and oh i think they're maybe saying like so you do see the word is having utility uh are you using the word i'm confused by the phraseology as well i don't know why in an icu gender is irrelevant sex would be what's important i would imagine i don't think they i don't think a hospital needs no gender for anything in an icu gotcha and this one thank you very much for your question coming in from brenton langel that's right good old brent says regarding chair all definitions are imperfect because everything is imperfect this is one reason why quote appeal to definition is a fallacy i mean if we can imagine if we can imagine two people on a live stream arguing over the proper definition of chair right and one person was arguing like um yeah okay my definition refers to objective reality okay because the the face of the chair the bottom part of it has to be at within this range of angles from the surface and then the other person's like yeah okay here's my definition though okay a chair is whatever people consider a chair though have you ever thought of that and like meanwhile the whole house is burning around them and in this case the house is the millions of trans people who need medical care and support and social acceptance i feel like i feel like what's that phrase from vittgenstein sometimes the best way to answer a question is to stop asking it gotcha and this one get what i mean right yeah okay thank you very much also lawson harrison says it's okay guys it was more of a statement let me go back to lawson's original statement which was pay to jump to debate about homelessness and he will yeah and then thank you very much for your question coming in from sleepy dan says can an unvaccinated person identify as vaccinated it would mean a lot to them to not wear a mask anymore so i'm going to assume this is a person who legitimately doesn't understand the difference between an identity that is determined by one's you know self-perception and the actual status of whether or not you've been injected this is like if something's an identity then everything is an identity no well no i think there's a lot of social utility to be derived from gender being identity based i do not think there's utility to be derived from vaccination status being identity based actually there's quite a bit of negative utility associated with that for the exact reason you just gave because a bunch of people would be very happy to identify as vaccinated gotcha and thank you very much for your question as well gabriel k says t-jumps chair beyond the resolute desk hell yeah is that some sort of inside joke thomas resolute desk is the desk of the president ah thank you and you look good james bash the bash spank the tank says a hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion that is reached is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence short t-jump is using it incorrectly so i've literally given examples like 10 times now nazis breathe you breathe you're a nazi it's when you take a small sample size of a single example and make a correlation between one property of that thing and the other without realizing that there are other completely separate kinds of things that can have a similar one property without the other property it's this is very simple simple like if there is a way that you can delineate between trans women and women that has nothing to do with bigotry or hatred or wanting any either group to be treated any differently then you can say they're different without calling them without being a transfer like that's that's the point that if there is any way where you can differentiate between women and trans women without it being bigoted then it's not transphobic to do it and to say so any case of doing so would be transphobic would be a hasty generalization super simple fallacy i think i think wash i think your entire audience just learn how fallacies work they're having their minds blown as we speak i bet gotcha this next one coming in do appreciate your question sleepy dances how dare vosh invalidate super straight women oh i'll keep doing that by the way that's that's gonna be a cancel me for that because we're going to long haul on that particular uh that particular cancellation gosh and rivi says tjump said he would date trans women can you ask him to slide in these dm's sure if you're attractive enough i'm totally okay with that hundred percent juicy uh the dating connection we got something came from this then at the end of it all okay look at that legacy nitro says if lady dimetrescu sits on me am i a chair yes is that an inside joke no they just i mean yes that's like you know if if somebody sits in your lap are you the chair to them i mean well there's actually one thing i wanted to say about the chair comment like there's a difference between a chair and a star or a neutron uh neutrino uh proton neutron those things objectively exist without any human reference whatsoever chairs don't chairs are things humans made up so obviously they're arbitrary but there are things in reality that are not arbitrary that do have correct definitions well i so i think i think that the extent to which a definition is arbitrary is largely defined by how many component parts there are to the thing being described so chairs exist sure but they're also this mashy social thing and they can be a million trillion different things but then you take say for example and uh you know a proton and well you're right protons existed before humans and there's just the proton um but i think that if you look into like scientific epistemology you find that even at a more fundamental level our understanding of science informs the way in which we consider these things for example like at a very fundamental level the whole like the way that a particle is a you know wavelength exists simultaneously that kind of thing there's a degree of social categorization that we're applying to that state that that duality that may not exist in another alien's lexicon um i read i read an article on this but like if you get right down to it and then you have like fundamental particles and stuff like that and like socially how much do we consider their existence when they don't exist in ways that we think conform to the other rules of our universe i can't i mean i'm butchering this like there's a the whole other realm of research but there's there's always something interesting there you know it's so it's cool you know something cool there something worth arguing about you know juicy and thank you very much for this next question the hicka man says i'm disappointed in both james and vosh the j is pronounced like an h ever heard of the spanish j huh is that the hicka man that's right the g i'll never make that mistake again next up brenton lingo says vosh's point about the chair was 100 right i use the same point against sargon the chair argument they're never ready for it you know juicy and so with that i think we have gotten to the end of our questions i'm going to just do a quick scan and while i do that just to be sure that we didn't miss any want to mention folks our guests are linked in the description if you want to hear more from them you can find their link below and that includes if you're listening via modern day debates podcast folks i don't know if you know we are available on podcasts so look us up on your favorite app right now as we're excited about that we will put tom's and vosh's link in the description of this podcast episode as well so if you're listening that way you can find their links there and so thank you guys vosh and t jump it has been a true pleasure to have you on it's been a lot of fun thank you very much thanks james thanks vosh for coming enjoy the audience 100 so folks i will be right back in just a moment of the post credit scene letting you know about juicy upcoming debates and so thanks everybody for being here and stick around i'll be back in just a moment excited oh yeah you know what i forgot at the moment i'm opening up a new zoom meeting because whenever i click out of it i forget it basically goes away so i am going to be showing you or you could say on screen again in just a moment so let me just move this over oh very embarrassing so i'm almost there thanks for your patience want to let you know you guys we are absolutely thrilled super excited as if you have not heard about it we have a crowdfund that we are pumped about in particular dr kenny roads and matt dillahunty will be debating on june 5th folks you don't want to miss this it is going to be an epic debate and we're excited that you guys we have honestly seen so much growth in the crowdfund for this so i want to show you here i am again but let me show you this as i'm really excited and i'm going to show you this on the other page as well where it has this little meter that basically shows our progress in terms of how many people have jumped in on this crowdfund and we're excited about it as we are at 66 percent you guys this is gigantic and so let me show you this right now on the far right side of your screen i want you to pay attention to this happy little guy right here which shows that we have only nine days left until this event happens you guys this is going to be epic and so i want to encourage you if you have not already jumped in on this superb opportunity we are thrilled we're absolutely going to make this goal folks and we want to invite you to partner with us as we want to use this strategy to take you could say bigger risks in terms of upcoming debates that we want to host doing things like crowdfunds in order to fund the honorariums for our guests and so this next one with dr kenny rose and matt dillahunty is going to be epic folks seriously we are thrilled about it and so as you can see on screen only nine days left on the far right there and we are at what is it last time i checked it was 2340 that's right 2340 out of the 3500 so we're like i said we only have a third of the way to go and we are absolutely going to make it folks we are thrilled about that and so that fundraiser or crowdfund is linked in the description highly encourage you to jump in on it if you haven't already as we are absolutely pumped and i'm going to share that link with you right now because you might be like i don't know like where is it it's in the description but in case that is some way or in some way not accessible to you i'm going to throw it into the live chat as well crowdfund two seconds there we go crowdfund and we are absolutely pumped though you guys this is going to be epic we are thrilled about it matt has honestly lily a judge just said someone named azi and just donated a thousand bits on twitch please check it out thank you azi and for your donation on twitch that seriously and also thank you for your gifted subs that is seriously encouraging as you have you've topped 70 different subscriptions that you have uh you have gifted to others and so thank you so much azi and for all of your support seriously we are excited about the future folks and as you know or maybe you don't know i don't know maybe you do or don't we are on twitch as well folks and so want to let you know about that as we are pumped a lot of people are like hey it's kind of like a more easygoing chat a little bit slower tempo and just you know it's like a