Transcription
All right. Thank you so much. So Naomi, you said that I was mischaracterizing your position, but you didn't actually give us a definition of what a woman is. You just said it could encompass all these multifaceted things. What is the definition of a woman in your purview?
Would you, would you like a definition? I would like you to give me your definition or what you... I can certainly, I can certainly give you a definition of woman, but I want to be clear that I don't believe that there is like one end-all-be-all definition for any term, let alone woman. But because I recognize women more so under a sociological framework, I would say that, uh, a woman is an individual who's assigned feminine roles and expectations by their society based on perceived femininity, femaleness, and/or stated identity.
So, it's a just a perception. There's nothing foundational. I said it's, it's based on a lived social experience. Well, it sounds like it's an empty label because you're not telling me what it actually is. What is... I told you it's based on a lived social experience. Feminine roles and expectations assigned to you by society. What is the actual definition according to Naomi?
If I, if I... I just provided it to you. If I declared that I was a woman, would I be one? I don't think so. Why? That is not your sincere identity. But it assuming that also that's not your lived social experience. Assuming that I took it as my lived identity, do you need to have the social experience of being a woman in order to be one?
Are you asking descriptively or prescriptively? I'm asking you. Well, I think that descriptively, if we're recognizing woman as a lived social experience, then that would encompass somebody who lives that social role. But if we're talking about how I think that people should be prescriptively treated, then I would want to treat people based off of their sincere identity. I'm asking you. Completely claims that they're a woman. If a man claims that they're a woman, a biological male claims that they're a woman, what makes them not one?
What do you mean? I don't know how else I can possibly frame that better, but I'll try. If a person says, Naomi, I have all the same characteristics that you do, but I'm not a woman. Are they a woman? Are... if we're talking descriptively, if their lived social experiences that of a woman, descriptively, they would be a woman. So, would you misgender them? Prescriptively? No. Because I, I interact with people based off of my prescriptive beliefs.
Okay. So, uh, anybody who says they're a woman, you're going to consider them to be one. Is that... if it's a sincere identity, then prescriptively? Yeah. Well, how would you know if it's sincere or not? You have to just have to take them at their word. I think that you can typically do this based off of a vibe check. For example, when Steven Crowder, when Steven Crowder dressed up as a woman and said that he was a woman, I didn't blame him. But I think that a trans woman who sincerely said, who sincerely believes that, you know, they are a woman, they want to be a woman, it's pretty easy to tell based on the vibe.
You just told me that based on the vibe, if you feel like they aren't, it's okay to misgender them. If someone like Steven Crowder is pretending to be a trans woman, I think it's okay to misgender him. Okay. But but what if you don't know? But what if what if they're claiming that they are? You don't know for sure, but the vibe you get is that they're not. Is it okay to misgender them?
I mean, I default to being pretty lenient with people, but I think that based on the vibe check, it's pretty easy to tell when someone is being, you know, very, very dishonest. Well, how do you know? They could be lying. Like, for instance, if you tell me, Naomi, if you said to me, Andrew, I'm a woman. And I said, you're lying to me. The vibe that I get is that you're not. Why am I wrong?
Because you claim because my lived social experience, but you could be lying, right? Sure, people can lie about their lived social experience. So then why ought I say something that I think is not true? I mean, you can say whatever you want to believe. I'm simply arguing for what I believe and what I believe creates the most utility in these situations. But Naomi, I know what is. I know that in the realm of what is, I can do whatever I want. I'm asking you, why ought I do this thing?
Why ought you do what? Why ought I go ahead and and do this thing where you claim that I need to go out of my way to call somebody based on the vibe whatever I want, even if I... what if the vibe I'm getting is that they're lying? I never said that you have to do this. I'm explaining why I do this. Well, regardless, it's still an ought. You don't, you don't think people ought not misgender other people? Yes, I think that people ought to treat people based off of their, the the gender role that they would like to live in.
What if your vibe is that they're lying? Is it okay to misgender them? If it's somebody that it seems that they are very much being dishonest. Yeah. Well, I don't know what that means though. It's that's all subjective. You don't, you don't know what vibe checks are? I think I think there's lots of things that we vibe check about. Well, wait a second. If any human being then based on the criteria of like conservative Christian thinks that a transgendered woman is lying about being a woman, they should then misgender them because their vibe is that they're lying. Help me.
I, I don't think that they, they think the trans woman is lying. I think they disagree with the trans woman, which is not the same thing as thinking that the trans woman is lying. Well, they think they're lying about being women. Wait, wait. Is it a lie if like the conservative person and the trans woman has a different perspective of like what gender means and and the trans woman sincerely believes that she is a woman? Like, is that a lie or is that just a different perspective? It's a lie if from the conservative's perspective they believe that's not a lie at all. A Christian person believes that what you're doing... Well, okay, lies are based often on perspective. They can't be malicious. This is true. But they're based often on perspective. The conservative wouldn't be lying then by misgendering you, would they?
Wait, what do you, what do you think a lie is? I think that a lie is a false statement. I'm not going to endlessly define everything under the sun with you. If you want me to pull up a definition of lie, I will. But it's acting in a way which is dishonest, right? Acting dishonest by claiming that she's a woman. Just because she has a different definition of woman, that doesn't mean she's acting dishonest. How do we detect what's a lie? How do you detect what's a lie?
Well, I think there are lots of things that it's kind of hard to detect what's a lie, and we kind of just take people on their word based on a vibe check. I mean, somebody, for example, somebody could lie, somebody could lie to you about what their name is, but we kind of just take people at face value on that. Yeah. But if somebody came up to you and they had a scar across their face and they said, "I have no scar on my face." Is it okay to say that you're lying?
Well, if it's based on something that is physically observable, then perhaps they are lying. If it's based on something that's physically observable that you can see and from your perspective is not true, you're not actually lying then by misgendering somebody. Gender is not something that's just like purely physical. Really, there's a metaphysical aspect to it. What, what would that be? I would say that gender is more so sociological in nature. So it's a social construction. That's true. But every manifestation that you can point to of it would be physical. Correct. Um, I guess like are things like behaviors physical? The way that they manifest or physical? Yeah. I would certainly think that like gendered expression, there would be physical manifestations of it. Yes. It's all physical. We've established this. So, I don't know what you're talking about.
You essentially have just told me that if a person believes that the other person is lying in regards to gender, that it's perfectly okay for you to misgender them. This is your stance, you just took, Naomi. I think that if it's like very clear that somebody is being dishonest, you don't have to, you know, follow along with that. But trans people aren't being, you know, dishonest by claiming to be a certain gender. Okay. Well, you claim this, but if my, from my perspective, they are. What's wrong with me saying that you're lying and then misgendering you?
So, a lie requires intent. This is something that you've said yourself. Yeah, but I'm not lying about it. Wait, wait, but you said that the trans person is lying. The trans person had no intent of being dishonest. No, the intent was... You yourself have said that lies require intent, but there is no, there is no intent of dishonesty when a trans woman claims to be a woman. The conservative also isn't lying to you by misgendering you, is he? I never said that they were lying. Right. They're not lying. So, the thing is is that in order to be completely honest, a conservative must misgender. If I mean, like, if that's what they believe, like... Yeah. Yeah. Because that's the point. Like, I'm not saying like they have to like gender a trans person as the trans person would. Right. So, because that would be a lie and that would be bad and that would be against the vibe. So, as we can see, as we can see, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know out in the audience, Naomi made a phenomenal case for why anybody who doesn't believe that a trans woman is a woman, it's okay to misgender them because Naomi wouldn't want you to lie, after all. Right, Naomi?
Well, hold up. I, I think that there is a loss of utility in doing so. Now, people can, people can, you know, for for whatever their intentions are, they can still do things that have bad outcomes. So, for example, misgendering a trans person, it has negative outcomes. That's a bad thing. Doesn't lying have negative outcomes? Uh, it certainly can. Yeah. So, how do we determine that the lying has a worse negative outcome than the negative outcome on your utilitarian chart of how the person feels who is doing the lying?
Wait, what is the negative outcome for like a conservative to like gender trans correctly? How is that a violate your religion? I just told you. You just expressed that if from the perspective of the Christian they believe that they're lying by uh giving you a gender that they don't believe is true that actually correlates with the sex in which you're trying to express, they would be lying. That's against their core value. There's no utility in it for them whatsoever. In fact, it's counter-utils, negative utility. Wait, just because like a religious person believes something doesn't necessarily mean that like that is a moral action to do. Just because a transgender person believes something doesn't necessarily mean it's moral action either, right? Which is why we should look at objective outcomes such as the mental health and overall well-being of trans people.
Why should we look at objective outcomes? Wait, wait, stop. Stop. And the affirmation people improves those outcomes. You smuggled this in the objective outcome, right? How do we know that this is the objective outcome? That it's more harm for you to tell the entire swath of the American public, some 270 million who self-identify as Christian, that it's better for them to lie from their perspective, uh, than it is for your for you to be lied to because you think the outcomes are more negative. There is no harm in gendering a trans person correctly. And we have research studies, medical studies, which show that trans people's mental health outcomes are better when they are socially affirmed in their gender, like in the gender they wish to be.
Well, that's nice for them, but what about the person doing the gendering? Where's the study showing what it does to the person's psychology when they're forced into a situation of having to lie to make you feel better? I don't think that we have necessarily like studies. I don't think we have any evidence which shows that like Christians are harmed by gendering a trans person correctly. So I think we should be I think we should default to analyzing that as neutral. Unless you can present evidence that it's harmful. We should default to analyzing that as... Why is there no evidence? There's no evidence because nobody will fund what it does psychologically to a population to be forced to lie. And are you are you really claiming to be victimized by like calling a trans woman she? Like that victimizes you. You said earlier that based on the vibe that a woman's not just anybody who says they're a woman because if that were true then just based on the vibe you can say no that's not true, right? You said that that's totally appropriate, meaning from the person's perspective, the individual's perspective, it's okay for you if you believe that you're lying to not lie. So, I'm talking about like trying to figure out people who are being disingenuous. A trans person is not being disingenuous.
Now, yes, they are. You are you are claiming that like you're claiming that there is a harm in having or or in like gendering a trans person correctly. How are you the victim in gendering a trans person correctly? Because you're forcing me to lie. I am not forcing you to lie. Yeah. And not only that, it's emotional hostage taking because transgenders are saying either lie to us or we'll kill ourselves. I never said that. Yeah. Well, but when we talk about the data that you're about to get into for why it's objectively better to not misgender trans people, the number one thing you're going to bring up is that they may consider suicide if we don't gender them correctly. Correct. So just because like you are going to like, is it correct that trans people commit suicide at like greater rates when they are not socially affirmed? I'll just restate it really simply. Is it not correct that you're about to tell me that the number one reason that we need to use the proper pronouns is because if we don't, transgender people are going to kill themselves? Isn't that true? Isn't that really what you're going to tell me next?
I don't think that's like necessarily like the the main or only reason. I think that just like doing things that lead to, you know, better, more accepting, more welcoming, more happy, healthy societies in general is a good thing. Such as gendering trans people correctly. Because if we don't gender trans people correctly, what's the consequence, Naomi? Worsened mental health and all the things that are associated with leads to, which leads to, it can lead to mental health disorders. It can lead to suicide. There are lots of things that it can lead to. Okay. There are lots of negative outcomes it can lead to. Don't you want, don't you want to prevent those negative outcomes? Well, perhaps it depends on what we mean when we're saying negative outcomes. What I'm asking specifically here, do you want to like prevent trans... perspective. I want to know why you think that a whole swath of the population that may not believe this should do it anyway, other than the fact that you're holding us emotionally hostage, literally at the barrel of a gun to your own heads to say, if you do not do this, we are going to collectively start killing ourselves. I never said that. I have never used any language. I have never used any language that's emotionally hostage taking. I'm simply stating we can create better social outcomes by socially affirming trans people. That is just a fact. I'm just stating facts here.
What social outcomes do you want to see? You want to see suicide. I want to see improved well-being. Right? Why do you want to see those things? Because if trans suffer from a worse mental health stasis, what ends up happening? Their suicidality rate goes through the roof. Right? This is the number one critique, is it not? That is certainly one thing that happens. But also, socially affirming trans people leads to good social outcomes for everyone. When trans people are more included in society, when they're more able to self-actualize, they can become happy, healthy members of society that are more productive, and that helps us all. I think you should be interested in this, too. If you want a happy, healthy, productive society, you know, building a diverse and accepting society is going to help us all, and that would include the social affirmation of trans people.
Well, Naomi, let's dive into that and see if that's true. Right. When you say that we should socially affirm trans people's identity because it's good for the trans people, why do I, a Christian conservative, believe I'm lying by calling you something I know for sure, at least from my perspective, is a lie? Why is that good for all of society considering that you're outnumbered thousands to one? Because there is no harm in you gendering a trans person as they wish. Meanwhile, we have demonstrable benefits of gendering a trans person as they wish. Naomi, is lying harmful? Uh, it certainly can be. Okay, it can be. And if you were a person who was a Christian and one of the foundations of your religion was that you were not allowed to lie, would it be harmful for you then to do something that was contrary to your own religious values? It can be. Would it be? I don't think that I can make a blanket statement there. You don't think that a person who lived their life contrary to their own values, that that wouldn't be harmful? I think that it certainly can be, but I think that people have justifications for things where they might have conflicting values such as, you know, I think that you in general would believe that reducing the amounts of people that kill themselves is a good thing. You also believe that lying is a bad thing. You have some conflicting beliefs there. So, I mean, you know, there's some...
So, you want me to lie so that trans people won't kill themselves, right? I don't think it's a lie. But that's that's what you want. Why not just admit that that's what you want? It's a lie from my perspective. I'm not saying that you're lying. Listen, Naomi, I want to be ultimately charitable here. I'm not claiming that you yourself are trying to lie to me. I don't believe that that's true. Okay? From my perspective though, regardless of what you believe, I think you're lying. Therefore, it's contrary to my religious belief structure, which is very harmful to me. So why should I affirm the identity unless it's to somehow stop you from doing self-harm? You're asking me to do something against my moral values in order to stop you from self-harming. How is that a justification? How is that good for society? How is it good for society? Because it leads to better social outcomes. That's how, because we have studies on this. We have studies. We don't have any studies on studies on trans people. Okay. Well, if we don't, if we don't have any evidence for your claim, I think we have to default default to it being utilitarian. No, we don't. First of all, that's not how science works. Science doesn't only... If you don't have evidence that it's actually like harmful to you, I don't think you can claim that it's harmful to you. Well, first of all, wait, wait, wait a second. I have no evidence harm. I'm telling you that you're asking me personally to do something that conflicts with my own moral values. That would be harmful to me. Yeah. Um, I think that you have moral values that are at conflict there because you also have a moral value for social good, don't you? Uh, it depends on what the social good is. Say like people in general having better mental health and um like like being more so able to self-actualize. Not necessarily. It depends. You don't think that people should have better health? You don't think on specific, give people better mental health on average? Like, for instance, if you were to say, should a person take a magic pill that makes them live for 300 years? I would tell you no. I'm talking about mental health. Okay? But let's say you said that a person could take a pill. Like, I said, it's the criteria that matters. You have to be very specific here. I'm giving you something that is now. It is right this second. I'm telling you that Christian conservatives don't want to gender trans people based on the pronouns of their preference because we think we're lying. And so this causes actual harm to us on the scale. You say, "But the only empirical evidence that I can demonstrate is the harm to ourselves." That's nice, right? But there is no harm in gendering a trans person correctly. That I just told you that I'm... You're asking me to lie and that's harmful. That's not empirical harm. What is entire... That's not empirical. You don't have any numbers. Subjective. You're saying it hurts my feelings, but that's just entirely. That's all you're saying. No, no. I'm saying I'm saying we have objective data which shows that trans people live better lives. Oh, you're so... When they when they are socially affirmed. No, the objective data that you're going to say is that these amount of people were polled and it hurt their feelings. Isn't that true? No, we also have objective data on things like educational outcomes, things like uh economic outcomes. Trans people who are socially affirmed do better in like in society, they get better jobs, they they acquire higher education. We can actually point to objective outcomes that have been studied here. But you can't point to any objective outcomes. Yes, I can. I can. I've already done this multiple times. I'm saying no, you just pointed to your subjective. Logically, you have logically stated this multiple times already that a person who has the religious values that I have, that of saying something that's perceived as a lie from their perspective, would probably be harmful to them. I said it can be. Yeah, it can be. And I don't... I said it can be. Do you... Okay, so let me ask you this. Do you think that Christians, conservative fundamentalist Christians, why do you think that they don't want to label transgender people by their pronouns? Because it hurts their feelings. So it hurts them. I think I think I think their poor feelings are are in danger. I think it's I think it's snowflake TV. So it hurts, so it hurts them. I, I think I think it's just about their feelings. So, okay. And what is it for trans people? If it's not about feelings, it's about objective outcomes, which we have measured in like the based on the bas. It's all based on how they feel. No, not just based on feelings, based on mental health, based off of socioeconomic attainment. Naomi, you're so full of [ __ ] If a person does better, socioeconomic attainment is different than feelings. The affirmations that are happening for trans people are so that they feel better, so that they can do all the education and blah blah blah. Isn't that true? What did you say? I said specifically it's their feelings that lead to those outcomes, right? It's based 100% on how they feel and that's what's actually leading to those better outcomes. So, it's 100% how they feel. It's 100% based on how they feel. Otherwise, why would the affirmations matter to them? Um, how I guess how can you say it's 100% based on how they feel? It can't be based on anything else. I think that it certainly can be based off of things like social cohesion. That's not necessarily a feeling. So, of course, it's a feeling. What else is it? No. Like, like actually like having greater connections is not just a feeling. Like if if you have like if you're better able to network, that's not necessarily just a feeling. Like that's something where it's like it's something you've actually achieved. What's the purpose of it? The purpose of it is how you feel. All of the affirmation is based around how you feel. All affirmations are based around feeling. You say that this does harm to Christians because it hurts their feelings. I'm saying the same argument. The only thing that it does harm to you on is that it hurts your feelings. But there's far more of us whose feelings get hurt. We know this because I can demonstrate to you how many Christians there are fundamentalists in this nation. A lot more feelings get hurt on this side. So, what are what are like the negative outcomes of that? Like like what are the objective negative outcomes? You're about to tell me you're about to tell me Naomi that the negative outcomes if we don't do what you say is that trans people are going to kill themselves. Just so you know that is perhaps trying to hold usage one negative outcome. I'm not holding you hostage. I'm just stating that that's something that happens when trans people are not socially affirmed at high rates for us is that we feel like we're strangers in our own nation and religion. We feel like people are allowed to not only broadly lie. I asked, I asked for objective outcomes. Do you have any? The objective outcomes is that our mental health suffers from having to lie. What is what's your like source on that? What you're my source on it. I ask for like objective outcomes. You already told and you just pointed you just pointed to your feelings. Like you don't have objective outcomes. Naomi, why again do fundamentalist Christians not want to use proper pronouns? Because they're snowflakes. Because it hurts their feelings. Yeah, because it hurts their feelings. Source. Give me the source, Naomi. Give me the source. Well, that's talking about a subjective. No, give me the source, Naomi. Give me the source that it hurts their feelings right now. Do it. So, I asked you for something objective. I didn't want to just talk about... Do you want me to do you want me to give you sources about how socially affirming trans people give them objectively better outcomes? Because I can do that, but you can't give me any. I asked for I asked for I asked for sources on objective data, not sources on subjective data. I asked you for... Andrew, one sec. I never asked you for a source on subjective data. I asked you for a source on objective data. It is subjective data. You claimed that it was objective, but you didn't have any data. It's not objective. Your source is based 100% around polling of how people feel. That's not true. And then based on those feelings, you get... I, I also have studies that are based off of like economic outcomes, educational attainment. All that's not done based off of a poll of people's feelings. You can collect this from demographic data. That's not based off of a poll. You said it was based on... You said it was based solely on a poll, but that's just not true. We can actually assess the objective outcomes of trans people and they improve when they're socially affirmed.
Well, let's find out if this is true or if you're lying to me again. Okay, so here, we'll do it this way. How would we know if those objective things like the economic outcomes and the mental health outcomes were true if you hadn't done a poll asking the person if the affirmations were the things that helped them uh get those results? Can you explain that to me real quick? So, you don't need to ask them like what gave you the results. You simply ask them like like like information about their their level of social affirmation and then independently you assess objective outcomes. Done. So, and you correlate, you correlate the social affirmation with the objective outcomes, which is something I can do that you can't. So, let me help you out here. Here's what you just said to everybody listening. Here's what Naomi just said. Naomi just said you can call them and ask them if the affirmations which directly uh uh you know posited in their life a type of feeling contributed to this outcome. That's not what they just said. That's not what they do and that's not what I said. What they ask people is about the level of social social affirmation that they experience in their gender identity. Things like are their parents supportive? Things like do they have friends and family that are supportive of gender identity? They ask them things like that and then independently they use demographic data about things like e like economic attainment, educational attainment and you correlate their level of social attainment with their with their objective outcomes. This is something that I can do that you can't. You don't have any... But I don't need to like Christian's level of misgendering trans people and how how that, you know, ends up in educational attainment, economic attainment. You don't have any studies on that. Yeah, I do. Well, I don't. Well, here's the thing. One, I do. And we'll pull up studies in just a second when I move on to my next argument as this one you're getting just destroyed on. But I'm going to finish this up because you need you need to explain this. It makes no sense to me. You claim that we can do an objective analysis after they already feel good to show that the outcomes were good. Okay, nobody's disputing that. When I ask you, how do you know or why is it that you think that Christians don't want to use their pronouns? You say because it hurts their feelings. But when I ask you for a study on that, you say there isn't one. Of course, there's not one. Nobody's bothered to do any of the research on it. But you yourself are my source because you believe that that's the truth. And so do I. And that what we're really talking about here is hurt feelings across the board. Your feelings get hurt which leads to worse outcomes for you in life. But you want to assume to the rest of the audience that hurting the feelings of hundreds of millions of people. No bearing whatsoever. Who cares? You like like like how how hurt how victimized are you by like gendering a trans person as they as they wish? You're forcing religious people to lie, you know, at literally at gunpoint of self-harm. It is not a lie at all. Yeah. You're doing it at the at the gunpoint of self-harm, too, because trans people are saying collectively... It is not a lie at all. Yeah. Well, if we don't affirm what they're saying, is suicidality going to raise if we don't affirm the gender identities of trans identity? Yeah. That does have the outcome of increasing their rates of suicide. That is true. So, it's emotional hostage taking. You're saying I have never I have never like held you emotionally hostage. I have never said you need to do this because otherwise we're going to kill ourselves. What I said is you should you should do things that lead to better social outcomes, such as improving the mental health of trans people. That's my claim. We should do things that lead to better social lead to better social outcomes for Christians, which is allowing us to uh say the gender that we believe is not a lie. I, I like what is what is the better social outcome? Well, the social outcome there is that we're not lying and so therefore our mental health is greatly increased. Yeah. I don't think it's a lie to gender a trans person the way they wish. I think it's... Well, then why do Christians want to misgender? I think they don't understand that. No, you said it's because they had hurt feelings. Don't change the argument now. I thought it was hurt feelings five seconds ago, Naomi. Now it's something different. I think that it can be both. I think that, you know, like ignorance can breed those feelings. Okay. So, if I'm ignorant on this, are you saying that I don't know the difference between gender and sex? I think that for a lot of people that misgender trans people, they don't. H. So, if they were to misgender you, they're not lying, are they? If they don't know the difference, uh, if they like I, I, I, I guess I would certainly agree that lies require intent, but I don't think like I can come up with a blanket statement of like lying is harmful or like lying is good. I think that lying is kind of like morally ambiguous and it depends on the situation. But what matters most, what matters the most here is objective social outcomes. Why does that matter the most? We don't know what the objective social outcome could possibly be on subjecting hundreds of millions of people to having to lie. We've never, it's never, we've never studied it. We can't study it. But you yourself know that there's a negative outcome because you've stated it now emphatically. I don't know how many times that the reason that Christians don't want to gender you correctly is based solely on the fact that it hurts their feelings. That's a negative outcome for hundreds of millions on the util scale. Naomi. So, I don't think that they're... I don't think that it's a lie to gender a trans person correctly, though. Okay. But from their perspective, they're lying. That's what matters. I think that we can educate them on why that's not a lie. And I think they can educate you. We can create the best social outcome if we can convince them that it's not a lie. Yeah. But why can't they educate you on why it is a lie? So, we know that that leads to worse social outcomes. Right. That's right. And the the maximum negative. Yeah. Right. The social outcome being, and this all by the way is emotional hostage taking. Not just the suicidality. All of it. If you're saying it's going to lead to worse social outcomes, the whole thing is hostage taking. If it doesn't provide you with a better education, doesn't help you do this, doesn't help you achieve this goal, doesn't help you achieve that goal, it's all emotional hostage taking across the board. You're literally saying we need to make sure that we lie to you so that you have better outcomes. That's emotional. It's not a lie. And I've never said you need to do this. I'm saying it's a good thing to do this. Now, I, I guess like how, okay, let's let's kind of compare like let's kind of compare like what the what the actual social outcomes are. How many Christians, how many Christians kill themselves because they have to because they like gender a trans person. Correct. No, it's never been studied. Ought we do this? Ought we use proper pronouns? Do you think that's an uh uh we do that? Yeah, I think that's an uh. Well, then you are saying it. So, don't lie and say you're not saying I'm not saying need. You're saying you're conflating uh with need. So, what? So, what should happen if all fundamentalist Christians collectively tomorrow across the board decided that they were not going to adhere to gender pronouns, right? Should there be consequences for that, Naomi? Should there be consequences? Yeah, I think that perhaps like trying to educate them better. Yeah, I think I think that that's what I'm trying to ask if there should be. Should there be consequences? Should they get fired for instance from their job even though they have a conflict? Misgendering people can certainly constitute like workplace harassment, right? So there has to be consequences. So this is an ought. You want actual consequences to happen to people if they don't follow along with the we must gender you a certain way. So if that's true then this is an ought and you are saying we need to do it or else. I mean like I think that I think that the in like the workplace harassment case like you can create a hostile work environment by like vehemently misgendering people and that just makes the office worse for everyone. Yeah. But should there be a law that says that a person must do this? A law that a person like must do this? I don't think so. A person must gender correctly inside the workplace? No. I think this is probably better handled by like HR boards. Um, cuz like dealing with hostile work environments. So it's not discrimination. Is it discrimination to do? What if I don't want to hire discrimination to do what? Yeah. What if I what if I don't want to hire you and I say I don't want to hire you based on the fact that you have these pronoun restrictions? You don't want to hire someone because they're trans. Because they have pronoun restrictions and they conflict. Everybody has pronouns and they conflict with my faith. So, you want to you want to like be able to not hire someone who has a certain gender identity because of like your religion? No, I want to make sure that I don't h the requirement isn't that I have to lie to them from my perspective. Uh, I think you might get in into the territory of violating the the Civil Rights Act if you were to do that. And what's the civil right like the civil right for people to be free from discrimination? Well, what's discriminatory about it if there's no lie? At least from the person's perspective, discrimination doesn't have to be like a lie. Well, I think that discrimination preferences are mostly based around the fact that they're preconceived notions which are often wrong and lies. No, no. Discrimination is denying somebody access to an institution based off of like a protected attribute such as gender identity, for example. And that's discrimination. That has nothing to do with lying. But those people discrimination nothing to do with a lie. Oh, no, it does. What do people mostly discriminate along along the lines of race, stereotypes, right? That's perhaps one thing that people discriminate along the lines, probably the primary thing, right? They they discriminate based along stereotypical lines. Wouldn't you agree? That is one one one way in which like discrimination happens. So, I mean the stereotypical lines are mostly lies and that's why they're bad. They're bad because they're not true and that's why you shouldn't discriminate. But what happens if you have a conflict with somebody who's discriminating based on this? I don't think that discrimination is bad just because something's like untrue. I think that discrimination is bad because it denies people equal opportunity. Yeah. But what's the motivation to discriminate to begin with? Typically feelings. Typical. Typically feelings. Usually preconceived notions that are untrue. Correct. Snowflakery. Like for instance, if somebody said, "I don't want to hire Mexicans because I think that they're lazy." That would be a stereotype that's not true. Correct. That would be a stereotype. That's not true. That is correct. Right. And that's most of the reason that we have discriminatory practices. Right. Because of what? Because of stereotypes. Stereotypes are what leads most often to discriminatory practices. Uh, in in I guess typically typically yes. But I don't think that like just because something is true or untrue is like what's harmful about discrimination. I think that what's inherently harmful discrimination is the denying of equal opportunity. Not asking you what's harmful. I'm asking you the motivation. But wait, I care about the harms. I'm I'm a con. I care about the motiv. That's nice. I care about the harms, too. But the motivation is what leads to the harms. So, you're kind of putting the cart before the horse. Uh, I don't think that like lies are necessarily what leads to the harms really. So, you don't think that it's basically the reason that most people would discriminate is based along preconceived notions that likely aren't true. Isn't that the primary reason for discrimination? That's typically how discrim typically typ lies. That's what I'm saying. So if you're in a situation where you don't h where you know something is true, know it's true and you're forced to lie, right? You're saying you shouldn't be able to discriminate. This is your... Let me let me give an example. Just be like something can be a stereotype that can be true and it can still be harmful to discriminate along those lines. For example, it is true that black people commit crime more on average than white people. There are there are, you know, systemic reasons why this happens. But if you were to discriminate against like black people because you just think like they're they're more likely to be criminals, that's based off of something that is true, but it's still harmful to discriminate there. The harm isn't in whether or not something's true or false. The harm is in denying people equal opportunity. Yeah. The problem is is that there's a lot of nuance within the confines of that statement, especially when it comes to higher criminality by other perceived races. For instance, you don't believe in race, right, Neil? I think that race is real. You think that race is real? At least as real as any other political construct. That's not what I asked you. Is biological race real? Is like skin color real? No, that's not what I asked you. I asked you if biological race is real. What do you mean by biological race? I mean, can you taxonomically categorize people biologically along racial lines? Uh, to some extent. Well, what does that mean? Like I said, the gift is in the nuance, Naomi. So, I think I think that like the the political category of race that we've constructed is not like strictly based off of like biological features. I think it has much more to do with lineage, which is not like cleanly delineated biologically. What do, what do you mean? What does that even mean? That doesn't mean anything. Like, what is race as a political? Asking about the biological taxonomical categorization of race. Is it true or false? Can you categorize people along racial lines or not? There are certainly there are certainly categor There are certainly lots of different categorizations of race and not all of them are strictly biological. That's again that's why I say to an extent you go out of your way these things are these things are more nuanced than just like blanket answering yes. Well, you don't need a blanket answer. You're asking for a blanket answer. When I try to provide a nuanced answer, you reject it. You want me to give you a blanket answer, which I'm not going to do. Has to be rejected because this is a yes or no. Can you taxonomically identify races biologically? Are there... My answer is to an extent because it's more nuanced than than a blanket yes or no. Okay. So, it's it's nuance. Can a can a person change their race? I don't believe so. Why not? Because race is a political category defined by lineage and you can't change your lineage. Then why did you just say it's more nuanced than that, Naomi? What do you mean? How else can I say it? Why did you just go out of your way to say it's more nuanced that you can't say that race is a biological uh um imperative? Whether it's a more nuanced appeal, right? Okay, fair enough. It's a more nuanced appeal. But then when I ask you to elaborate on this, you can't. I'm like, "Look, can you change your race or can't you?" And you're like, I did elaborate and I said you can't change your race. I can't because it's a political thing, but you said that there's a biological aspect to it. Can you change the biological aspect of it? Uh, what are what are specifically bi biological traits you're referring to when you're referring to like biological? I'm asking you, that's why I asked you what there are lots of ways that people... Well, there are lots of ways that people define race. If you're talking about race as in like certain genes that like people have based off of say like ethnic lines which only like to an extent kind of classifies race. I mean obviously like you can't change those genes for example but if you're talking about like if you're talking about like you know the amount of melanin in someone's skin well I think we have some procedures that like can like inject people with melanin and stuff. Perfect. This leads me right to my next portion of my argument, which is that if you cannot change your race due to the biological factors, you also cannot change your sex due to the biological. Are we talking about sex or are we talking about gender? Sex. I thought this was a conversation about gender. They're both intertwined. Wouldn't you agree? I would say they're correlated. Sure, they're certainly related, but they're not the exact same thing. I didn't say that they were, did I? But one more time, I'm going to go down this road because it's It's very important. If you cannot change your race, how can you change your sex? Knowing that the genetics determine both of those things. Sex is not determined by genetics. Wait, what? Sex isn't determined by genetics. No. What do you think a chromosome is, Naomi? I think that a chromosome is something that has genes, but it's not the sole determinant completely upon genes. Chromo Chromosomes have genes. What is a chromosome? Like it's it's the it's the piece of like your genome that has that has genes. Wait, what? It's the piece of your genome that that's what you think uh a chro What is a chromosome? Why can't you answer that? Answer what a chromosome. Take a second. Pull up what a chromosome is cuz you just said it's not genetic. Wait, which is insane. Hold up. I said that sex is not solely genetic. Chromosomes are genetic, but sex is not solely based on chromosomes. What's sex determined on? Would you like to know what sex is determined on? So sex is multifaceted. We can break it down into lots of categories. There is a genetic component to sex, but there's also an anatomical component. There's a hormonal component. Uh you can even talk about there's a brain component. Genetic expressions. Those are those are not all genes. Hormones are not the same thing as genes. you take and the anatomy is not the same as... Let me take a second to go ahead and show you why you're wrong on this. Can you see this? Okay, Naomi, I can go ahead and scroll in for you. This is the typical XX. Uh, you know, you know XX generally, right, for male. You can see XX is generally female. Yes. But this is for an XX male. Okay. Okay, as you see the 46 XXX, you see that it kind of goes around here and goes to smaller testes and then it goes right in line with what we would generally see with a person who did not have these XX chromosomes. Now, I'm going to show you the typical progression of an XY male. If you look at the XY male here, right, I'll scroll in again. You can see that there's that loop doesn't exist to bypass the um by potential gonad, but it leads to testes and goes along the exact same arc. Why does it go along that exact same arc? Because genetics determine what your sex is going to be. You only have two paths ever. There's not ever more than two paths. Regardless of XY or XX or whatever chromosomes that you want to throw in, it always relies on two. Period. There's only two paths ever available. And we can actually chart this out. Neil.