More Things I Was Supposed to Say on Piers Morgan

Summary

In this engaging piece, Professor Dave reflects on the things he wished he could have said on Piers Morgan's panel, focusing on a topic that spirals around trans issues, biology, and the societal ignorance surrounding these subjects. Though unable to participate in the original program, Professor Dave scrutinizes the internet spread discourses involving prominent figures like Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and the debates on trans rights, gender identity, and the biological misconceptions propagated by some critics. Throughout the video, he aims to dismantle false narratives while advocating for a deeper understanding of trans issues, all articulated with vigor and candid rhetoric.

Highlights

• Professor Dave critiques Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins for their outdated views on gender and biology. 🚨
• Talks about the entertainment media's consistent failure to rightly address trans issues. 📢
• Emphasizes the biological complexities that underscore human gender identity. 🏳️‍⚧️
• Points out the harms of spreading misinformation in mainstream media discussions. 🌐
• Critiques the conservative narrative that oversimplifies and politicizes human biology. 🥸

Key Takeaways

• People often conflate sex and gender identity due to a lapse in understanding complex biological realities. 🤷‍♂️
• Professor Dave underscores the need for open-mindedness and science-based discussions about trans issues. 🧠
• Media narratives can often misconstrue facts, fueling ignorance and polarizing audiences further. 📺
• Biology is not a simple binary, and misconceptions about gender often contribute to systemic bigotry. 🚫
• Debates about trans individuals in various societal roles continue to be mired in cultural biases and misunderstood facts. ⚖️

Overview

Professor Dave takes the audience through a thought-provoking critique of how trans rights and issues surrounding gender identity are mishandled in public debates, particularly by prominent figures like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins. He underscores the importance of basing discussions on science rather than outdated misconceptions, urging for a scientifically literate approach towards understanding gender complexities.

The video delves into the intricacies of sex and gender, dismantling the simplistic binary perception evident in mainstream discussions. Professor Dave highlights the biological facts that challenge the notion of binary gender, emphasizing the neuroanatomical aspects fundamental to gender identity. He articulates these insights with a mix of humor and seriousness, engaging the audience in a broader awareness of trans issues.

Throughout, Professor Dave critiques media channels and figures who influence public perception with misleading narratives. He points out that such narratives contribute to the marginalization of trans individuals, advocating for a more informed and empathetic discourse. The video serves as a call to action for society to elevate its understanding of these critical issues through education and open dialogue.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:00: Introduction and Background This chapter introduces the context in which the author is sharing their thoughts. The author mentions being removed last minute from a panel on Piers Morgan's show. This incident was similar to a previous situation related to Terrence Howard's appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast. The cancellation prevented the author from discussing Eric Weinstein's views. This sets the stage for the author's analysis in the chapter.
• 01:00 - 03:00: Resignation of Scholars from FFRF The chapter explores the issue of anti-intellectualism in America, beginning with the author's confrontation with it during a panel discussion. A video and essay were created by the author to voice concerns on the rising anti-intellectual sentiment, considering it important enough to stand alone. The situation has become more relevant in the context of the current administration. The chapter further discusses a recent invitation to the author to participate in another panel, triggered by the resignation of several prominent individuals from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).
• 03:00 - 04:00: FFRF Fellow's Essay and Definition Issues The chapter discusses the involvement of scholars from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in debates over transgender issues. Notable scholars like biologists Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, as well as psychologist Steven Pinker, are mentioned. Jerry Coyne was set to appear on a program to present his perspective, and the narrator was asked to provide a counterpoint. However, the narrator was unable to participate due to being scheduled for an interview with the Foundation at the same time as the panel recording.
• 04:00 - 07:00: Sex vs Gender Identity The chapter reflects on a commitment to an interview opportunity that the narrator couldn't take part in, yet emphasizes the importance of future collaborative potential. The focus turns to a critique of a culture war debate, highlighted by a specific episode featuring Piers Morgan. The narrative intends to set the stage for discussing the resignation of FFRF board members, underscoring the complexities involved in the discourse on sex and gender identity. The chapter introduces Kat Grant's involvement as a key component in understanding subsequent events.
• 07:00 - 10:00: Reactions to FFRF's Decision The chapter 'Reactions to FFRF's Decision' discusses a piece titled 'What is a Woman', which critiques the common methods used to define sex and gender. It argues against defining individuals solely by physical attributes like genitals, reproductive organs, or chromosomes. The chapter promises to delve deeper into the issues with these categorizations and provide historical context along with highlighting some extreme viewpoints.
• 10:00 - 13:00: Discussion with Jerry Coyne In the chapter titled 'Discussion with Jerry Coyne,' the conversation addresses allegations made by bigots about trans people and touches upon some social issues. A particularly controversial statement, 'A woman is whoever she says she is,' prompted strong reactions. The chapter also aims to clarify essential concepts related to sex, which is defined as a set of physical attributes in organisms, including chromosomes and sexual characteristics.
• 13:00 - 17:00: Panel Discussion with Eli and Others The chapter titled 'Panel Discussion with Eli and Others' discusses the complexity of human development, particularly in relation to sex chromosomes and anatomical features. It highlights the fact that while sex chromosomes typically align with specific anatomical features, there are cases where they do not, and instances where features show intermediary characteristics. The process of human development is described as deeply intricate, relying heavily on a coordinated sequence of gene expression and hormone signaling. The chapter emphasizes that there are more than two genotypes and phenotypes associated with sex, challenging the binary understanding of sex. It notes that many people struggle to accept this reality, despite it being a biological fact. The discussion transitions into an exploration of gender, described as a more complex and nebulous term.
• 17:00 - 18:00: Conclusion and Final Thoughts The chapter focuses on the complexity of gender, particularly gender identity, highlighting its cultural and biological dimensions. It discusses how gender identity is not determined by chromosomes but is predominantly neuroanatomical, linked with brain structure. The chapter explains masculinization and feminization as occurring in the brain similarly to other parts of the body, emphasizing their significance during embryonic development.

More Things I Was Supposed to Say on Piers Morgan Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 Hey everyone. Last year I published a piece  expressing some things I would have said on   a Piers Morgan panel, had I not been dropped from  the segment at the last minute. Due to a similar   series of events I have another such piece  for you today, so let’s get into the details.  If you’ll recall, the panel I had been invited  to participate in was about the internet fervor   surrounding Terrence Howard’s first Joe Rogan  appearance, undoubtedly because of my video   covering that appearance which went somewhat  viral. I was dropped from the panel at the last   minute for reasons I am not aware of, which  prevented me from dissecting Eric Weinstein’s
• 00:30 - 01:00 disgraceful rhetoric right to his face, something  I would have enjoyed immensely. So I made a video   to summarize what I would have said on that panel,  which culminated in a short essay on the rise of   anti-intellectualism in America, something that  I felt was important enough to upload as a stand   alone piece, and which has only become more  poignant in light of the new administration.  Well a few weeks ago, a different producer for  the show reached out to me, asking if I would   participate in another panel. The impetus for the  panel was the resignation of several prominent
• 01:00 - 01:30 scholars from the board of the Freedom From  Religion Foundation, on the basis of their stance   on trans issues. These scholars are biologists  Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, and psychologist   Steven Pinker. Jerry Coyne was going to appear on  the program, and I was asked if I would provide   counterpoint. I did not end up participating in  the panel, but this time it was not the fault of   the program. In a bizarre coincidence, I was  scheduled to participate in an interview with   the Freedom From Religion Foundation at the  exact time the panel was set to record. I did
• 01:30 - 02:00 not want to bail on my commitment, so I told  the producer I was regrettably not available,   but to keep me in mind for future broadcasts.  You can check out my interview with FFRF on   their channel if it is of interest to you. Of  course I watched the Piers segment when it aired,   and I have a lot to say about it, much of  which feels like screaming into a void while   the country continues to engage in the most  idiotic willfully ignorant culture war of the   21st century. But before that, let’s get just a  bit more context about the events that led to the   resignation of these three from the FFRF board. This all began when FFRF fellow Kat Grant wrote
• 02:00 - 02:30 a piece called “What is a Woman”. In it, she  highlights the inadequate manner in which most   people attempt to define sex and gender.  Defining men and women exclusively by an   individual’s genitals doesn’t work. The same goes  for reproductive organs. Or ability to conceive.   Or chromosomes. Or gametes. Problems with these  attempts at categorization will be expanded upon   as we progress through this piece. She offers  other historical context, highlights outrageous
• 02:30 - 03:00 allegations that bigots have made regarding  trans people, comments on some social issues,   but it was her closing sentence that upset a lot  of people. “A woman is whoever she says she is.”  Before moving forward, we must make a few concepts  perfectly clear so that we can refer to them as   necessary. Sex is a word that refers to a suite of  physical characteristics possessed by an organism,   like a human. Most humans have a pair of sex  chromosomes, as well as primary and secondary   sexual characteristics, including genitals  and other reproductive organs. Most of the
• 03:00 - 03:30 time the sex chromosomes correspond with these  anatomical features, but sometimes they don’t,   and other times these anatomical features  exhibit intermediary characteristics. Human   development is profoundly complex, relying on a  tightly coordinated sequence of gene expression   as well as signaling molecules called hormones.  There are more than two genotypes and more than   two phenotypes associated with sex, which means  that sex is not binary. Many people have a hard   time accepting this, but it’s a biological fact. Gender is a more nebulous term that includes
• 03:30 - 04:00 broad cultural connotations, but one  component of gender is gender identity,   which also has biological implications. However  it is not chromosomal but rather predominately   neuroanatomical. There is such a thing as  having the experience of being male or female,   and this correlates with brain structure.  Masculinization and feminization occur in   the brain just as they do everywhere else in the  body, most notably during embryonic development.
• 04:00 - 04:30 Since the genitals differentiate in the first  trimester, and the brain becomes imprinted in the   latter half of gestation, it is possible for the  fetal brain to be imprinted differently than the   genitals. The vast majority of the time, gender  identity aligns with sex, producing what we now   refer to as a cis person. But there are instances  in which they are not aligned, and someone is   assigned male sex at birth but possesses female  gender identity, or assigned female sex at birth   but possesses male gender identity, and that is  what we now refer to as a trans person. Cis and
• 04:30 - 05:00 trans are Latin prefixes that are used all over  the sciences, including chemistry, and they refer   to sex and gender identity being either the  same or opposite, much like substituents on a   cyclic organic molecule projecting in either the  same or opposite directions with respect to the   ring. Research regarding regions of the brain  that pertain to sexual orientation and gender   identity are ongoing, and we will  touch upon some of it a bit later.  Then we get to language. Words are made up.  Humans look at the world, and ourselves, and
• 05:00 - 05:30 make up sounds in an attempt to compartmentalize  our experiences and communicate them, an endeavor   which is often imprecise and subject to revision.  “Woman” is one such sound. “Woman” is a word. It   means whatever we say it does, just like every  other word in every language ever. And since   becoming aware of transness, the word “woman” has  come to mean any adult of female gender identity,   the vast majority of whom are also of female sex.  Trans women know they are individuals that were
• 05:30 - 06:00 born of male sex. Everyone who is an expert in  this area knows it. Anyone who complains about   trans people “changing gender” or “changing sex”  are confused about what sex and gender identity   are. Trans people are born with a sex and gender  identity that are not the same. Because of this,   they experience something called gender  dysphoria, which is highly distressing,   and going through puberty as the sex that does  not match one’s gender identity is a complete
• 06:00 - 06:30 nightmare, which is why trans youth have  dramatically higher proportions of suicidal   ideations and suicide attempts than cis youth. So you see, getting back to the outrage-inducing   essay, anyone who was upset by the sentence “a  woman is whoever she says she is”, indeed does not   understand language. Admittedly, it’s not the best  wording. A woman isn’t Abraham Lincoln because she   says she is. Perhaps a more accurate way to put it  would be to say that “woman” refers to whoever we
• 06:30 - 07:00 say it refers to. And we decided that it refers  to adult individuals of female gender identity,   which includes trans women in addition to cis  women. Likewise, “man” refers to adult individuals   of male gender identity, thus including trans men,  who were assigned female sex at birth but possess   male gender identity. These phenomena, sex and  gender identity, have a deep biological basis.   The latter is, of course, much harder to observe  and identify. But it is biological nonetheless.
• 07:00 - 07:30 It is not, contrary to popular belief, pure  whimsy. It is consistent among almost all trans   people throughout their entire lives, and science  clearly supports this. This approach to defining   these words serves to dignify trans people. It is  in no way a disavowal of biology. On the contrary,   people who object to this terminology typically  do so on the basis of ignorance towards biology.   I have yet to hear anyone reject these terms while  accepting what we just described regarding sex and
• 07:30 - 08:00 gender identity. There is nobody I have ever  encountered who says yes, sex is this suite   of genetic and anatomical characteristics, while  gender identity is this largely neuroanatomical   construct, and a trans person represents an  instance in which they do not align, but someone   of male sex and female gender identity should be  called a trans man. I have never heard that once.   To be clear, one could make the case that this is  a defensible position. It is one that acknowledges   every aspect of the science we described. It is  a strictly semantic position, though undoubtedly
• 08:00 - 08:30 one that is callous and lacking empathy. But it’s  totally moot, because I have never heard anyone   make this argument. People who object to this  terminology say things like “gender is a fact”,   or “men can’t have babies”, or “you can’t change  your gender”, all of which are expressions of   willful ignorance. “Gender is a fact” doesn’t mean  anything. Gender factually exists, a part of which   is gender identity, which does not always align  with sex. “Men can’t have babies” is a straw man,
• 08:30 - 09:00 since they mean either cis men or trans women,  who absolutely nobody thinks can have babies,   while ignoring trans men, who absolutely can,  because they have uteruses. “You can’t change   your gender” is another straw man. Trans  people are not changing their genders.   Many of them alter their primary and secondary  sexual characteristics to align with the gender   identity they’ve had since birth, in order to  minimize gender dysphoria and be happier. And   the most depressing part is that we’ve been having  this discussion as a society for nearly a decade,
• 09:00 - 09:30 and most people still have not lifted a finger  to get past the conservative propaganda that   surrounds them regarding this topic, which  serves exclusively to polarize people to the   right on the basis of “dogmatic gender ideology”,  a completely fabricated conservative dog whistle.  Let’s take a short break to introduce today’s  sponsor. As you can imagine, I piss off a lot   of people. The frauds that I debunk hate me,  and so do their followers. Sometimes they take
• 09:30 - 10:00 that hatred and do weird things with it. Like the  time someone found my phone number and address,   and told me they were going to burn my house  down. That’s a real thing that happened.  From arson threats all the way to  everyday spam emails and phone calls,   this stuff is what prompted me to take every  measure possible to make sure that random   jerks can’t figure out where I live or get any  of my information. That’s why I use Incogni.  Incogni scours the internet for data brokers  who collect and trade your personal information   without you knowing. Finding them all and  demanding your privacy would take forever,
• 10:00 - 10:30 if they comply at all, so why not let the  professionals do it for you? Go to Incogni dot com   slash professordave and use code professordave to  get an exclusive offer of 60% off an annual plan.   Incogni will find every last one of these data  brokers and make sure that all your information,   from your name, address, and phone number,  to social security number, medical data, and   even shopping habits, remain completely private.  The best part is that this activity is constant,   so you can rest easy knowing that any new breaches  that crop up will be dealt with swiftly and
• 10:30 - 11:00 efficiently. And you can keep track of all this  progress in your own personalized dashboard,   which tells you the number of hits and how  many they’ve been able to remove. Take back the   power and control your data with Incogni today. So don’t wait another minute, go to Incogni dot   com slash professordave and use code professordave  to get a whopping 60% off an annual plan. That’s   Incogni dot com slash professordave or click the  link in the description to take your personal   data off the market. Now back to the video. With all of that context covered, it’s time
• 11:00 - 11:30 to introduce Jerry Coyne. Now to be clear,  Jerry and to a greater extent Richard Dawkins,   have done phenomenal work fighting evangelical  propaganda surrounding evolutionary biology.   They are to be continually commended for it.  Nevertheless, they are both demolishing their   legacies in their twilight years due to  their complete rigidity and unwillingness   to learn anything new about human biology. Jerry  decided to write a response to Kat’s piece, and
• 11:30 - 12:00 he called it “Biology is not Bigotry”. In it, he  demonstrates a complete inability to distinguish   between sex and gender identity, insisting that  biological concepts he is unfamiliar with must   therefore be ideological, thereby absolving  himself of having to update his worldview.   He even claims that all multicellular organisms  adhere to a strict sexual binary, unable to grasp   that animals which are hermaphroditic or change  between hermaphroditic and dioecious throughout   their life cycles do not have to constitute  a “third sex” in order to violate the binary.
• 12:00 - 12:30 Even still, biologists that study certain  nematodes do indeed refer to them as having   three sexes, a phenomenon called trioecy,  while other species can exhibit gynodioecy   or androdioecy. Breeding strategies in  the animal kingdom are extremely varied.  His analogy about deformities producing  extra digits may be valid when comparing with   chromosomal abnormalities like monosomy or trisomy  of the sex chromosomes, as these too represent a
• 12:30 - 13:00 mere difference in number regarding features we  all possess, but it still has absolutely nothing   to do with trans people. He speaks about sex, and  then gender in that overarching nebulous way, but   does not mention gender identity a single time,  demonstrating that he does not know what it is.  At any rate, the controversy began when FFRF,  which had initially published his piece,   decided to remove it. Presumably there was some  backlash, as the piece indeed contained abject   errors, and to call it shortsighted would be an  understatement. Whether one thinks it was right or
• 13:00 - 13:30 wrong to remove the piece is their business. But  the result was that these three scholars resigned   from the board, to significant publicity. And it  is precisely this reason that Coyne was invited   to talk to Piers. The format of this segment  was a bit strange. Piers spoke to Coyne alone,   and then a separate shitshow of a three-person  panel followed. There’s plenty to talk about   regarding each portion, so let’s start with Coyne. Biology is not bigotry claims categorically in   biology, a woman can be simply defined in  four words. An adult human female. From the
• 13:30 - 14:00 author of the New York Times bestseller, Why  Evolution is True, Professor Coyne. Professor,   great to have you on uncensored. Thanks for having me.  I’ve been literally using that definition  of a woman for about three years. An adult   human female, that’s it. To me, it is breathtaking  that people like you actually have to write books   pointing out to people the bleeding obvious,  that actually it’s just a biological fact.
• 14:00 - 14:30 If either of you were aware of what is “obvious”,  you would know that those who advocate for trans   rights are using the same definition. Adult  human that is of female sex or female gender   identity. Adult human female. You just both  refuse to learn about what trans people are.  You say to some nonbinary people or  men who identify as women feel their   identity is not adequately recognized by biology,  they choose to impose ideology onto biology, and
• 14:30 - 15:00 concoct a new definition of woman. Why should sex  be changeable when other physical traits cannot?  They are called transgender.  By bringing up aspects of sex,   you demonstrate immediately that you have no  idea what you’re talking about. There is no   ideology here, it is specifically biology, and  it is biology that transphobes regularly ignore.  Feelings don’t create reality. I mean Ben Shapiro  has had a pinned post on X, pinned tweet as it was
• 15:00 - 15:30 at the time, that simply says facts don’t care  about your feelings. Which pretty well represent   what you wrote there. I mean when did we get to  a place where indisputable fact became something   that people thought they could completely ignore? Piers confidently said, ignoring all the   facts that hurt his feelings, and Ben’s too. Well it’s ideology as it often is, and the history   of ideology is that it can displace fact. It did  so in Russia in the time of Lysenko the famous
• 15:30 - 16:00 the charlatan who completely transformed Russian  agriculture to the deaths of 20 million people   because he thought that he had a sort of dualistic  view of nature that was wrong. And Stalin   adopted it, and the result was that probably  millions and millions of people died in China.  Ok, just brushing past the fact that  Jerry sounds either drunk or drugged,   jumping to Lysenko is complete bullshit,  and rather ironic. Lysenko denied genetics.
• 16:00 - 16:30 Jerry will present a highly reductionist and  inaccurate portrayal of genetics throughout   this conversation. It’s also a breathtaking  demonstration of conservative alarmism to just   shout “Stalin” and pretend it has anything  to do with trans people. A very bad start.  There are plenty of problems with the claim  that self-identification maps directly onto   empirical reality. You’re not always fat if you  feel fat, the problem with anorexia. Not a horse   if you feel you’re horse. You don’t become Asian  simply because you feel Asian. But sex we’re told
• 16:30 - 17:00 is different, it’s the one biological feature of  humans that can be changed solely by psychology.  Classic straw men straight from the Daily Wire  script. Having the experience of being male or   female is what determines gender identity,  which is not sex. Mass, weight, and volume   are empirically measurable and indisputable.  Species-specific DNA is indisputable. Ancestry   is indisputable. That we aren’t yet at the  place where we can do a scan of someone’s
• 17:00 - 17:30 brain and conclusively identify the structures  that make them trans doesn’t mean that transness   somehow isn’t real or just as rooted in  physical reality as those other things.   Also, nobody is pretending to be a horse, so  that’s totally idiotic. There is no biological   mechanism for feeling like a horse. There is  a biological mechanism for gender identity,   with plenty of scientific literature describing  this. These people will never bother to lift a   finger to learn literally anything about this  topic because they value their false sense of
• 17:30 - 18:00 superiority via whatever culture war they perceive  themselves as waging and martyring themselves for.  There are limits to what can be self-identity, and  those limits are at gender. So you can identify,   or sex actually, biological  sex, let me not confuse them.  You are specifically and deliberately confusing  them, Jerry. You had it right and then corrected   yourself to become wrong. Self-identification  applies to gender identity, because it is
• 18:00 - 18:30 associated with neuroanatomy and therefore  expresses itself most clearly in personal   experiences. That is totally different from sex,  which pertains to chromosomal characteristics and   gross anatomy. How can anyone be this dedicated  to getting everything wrong on purpose?  In your estimation professor, is there any  way for a biological man to become a woman?  No. They can say they’re a woman and I  will respect their self-identification
• 18:30 - 19:00 to the extent of using she and their  preferred pronouns, but as a biologist, no.  So you’re acknowledging their female gender  identity, and female pronouns, and pretending   that they somehow claim to be of female sex,  which they don’t, and nobody says that they are.   This is why discussion with transphobes never  goes anywhere. They are totally disinterested   in dialogue. They are constantly having an  imaginary argument with a fabricated opposing   view that they’ve concocted in their minds. Because the biological definition of sex
• 19:00 - 19:30 is based on the reproductive apparatus  that can produce either sperm or eggs.  Is it though? So a woman without ovaries  is not a woman? A man without testicles   is not a man? I think you need to  broaden your definition there, champ.  When I see a scene like we saw in the  olympics of this poor boxer literally   throwing the towel in after 40 seconds because  they couldn’t stomach or withstand the pain of   being hit that hard by somebody who is almost  certainly more a biological man than woman.
• 19:30 - 20:00 Well Jerry just said sex is determined by the  gonads. This boxer you’re talking about is an   individual with XY chromosomes that was born  with female genitals and reproductive organs.   Why isn’t Jerry jumping in to correct him, saying  that this person is objectively female by his own   definition? It’s because neither of these clowns  know that that’s a thing that happens. Yes,   you can have XY chromosomes but express female  genitals, or XX chromosomes and express male
• 20:00 - 20:30 genitals. On top of the plethora of other  situations that can occur regarding sex   chromosomes, including monosomy and trisomy.  That’s why neither a chromosomal nor gonadal   definition for sex is sufficient. Because they  can contradict each other. That this boxer was   born with a vagina and ovaries makes her a woman  according to Jerry. Piers, on the other hand,   is fixating on her sex chromosomes as the only  important factor, which somehow make her more   man than woman, in his own words. So which is  it? They are oblivious to the fact that they
• 20:30 - 21:00 are contradicting each other because they don’t  actually care about being accurate. They’re just   grandstanding for the conservative audience  that champions them as voices of reason in an   increasingly reality-denying, willfully  ignorant, and science illiterate world.  There is a sea change now happening in which  a formally taboo subject can now be discussed   openly. And that’s what I tried to do in  my article which was censored by the FFRF.
• 21:00 - 21:30 Anyone could always talk about trans people, and  transphobes have never shut up about trans people   for a single second for at least a decade, so  I have no clue what he’s talking about. And   FFRF didn’t “censor” you, Jerry. They found  your article to be ignorant and problematic,   and therefore not reflective of their  values, so they removed it. They are   free to make their own decisions about who  to platform and why. You sound like a child.
• 21:30 - 22:00 And unfortunately I’m receiving more hate  mail for that than I ever have in my life.   Most people are calling me a transphobe. I don’t  hate trans people. I’m just trying to adjudicate   the clash of rights that’s gonna be inevitable  when you have this kind of thing happening.  And you’re completely right. And the  people who hate you are completely wrong.  Wow, you really are the exemplar of an open mind,  Piers. Me right and them wrong because me say so!   No, guys. You are completely wrong, and the people  criticizing Jerry are completely right. I’m sure
• 22:00 - 22:30 he is getting plenty of emails pointing  out his transphobic stance, and I’m sure   he is simultaneously ignoring all of them, even  those from professionals who work in this area of   neuroscience, while simultaneously blowing their  condemnation way out of proportion, because again,   martyrdom is too sweet a prospect for these types  to avoid. Now they’re going to throw Neil deGrasse   Tyson under the bus because of something he said  about categorizing athletes according to hormone
• 22:30 - 23:00 levels instead of sex. We honestly don’t even  need to watch the clip because it’s neither a   profound insight, nor an official position of  his, nor is it to be taken that seriously. But   Jerry’s response is quite interesting. Well when you see someone as eminent as   Neil deGrasse Tyson, proper scientist, when  he says that kind of thing, what do you feel?  Well my first reaction is charitable, I’ll say  he’s a physicist, he’s not a biologist, and   he’s not aware of the literature looking at the  strength and athletic abilities of trans women.
• 23:00 - 23:30 Ok, Jerry. Is it then also fair to say that  you’re not a neuroscientist, and that you   completely ignore the primary literature  regarding gender identity? Which is why   you are completely botching this topic every time  you open your mouth? I’d say that’s quite fair.  And this is probably one reason why, that played  into the Democratic defeat in the election,   is that the Democrats tend to be progressive  extremists. I’m a Democrat but I’m more centrist,
• 23:30 - 24:00 I hope more rational. The Democrats were telling  people that they could see were not true.  Wow, that’s a whole lot of stupid. The Democratic  party is not left, and yes, increasing transphobia   and bigotry of a general nature contributed  to Trump winning, since he fosters it.  The scientific case for trans was outlined  in a scientific America article called “stop
• 24:00 - 24:30 using phony science to justify transphobia”. They  argued there is bigotry in the position adopted by   Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, and yourself.  And some of it, I wanna go through some of the   stuff they said. They said the popular belief  that your sex arises only from your chromosomal   makeup is wrong. The truth is your biological  sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system   with the potential for change. A half century of  empirical research has repeatedly challenged the   idea that brain biology is simply XY = male brain  or XX = female brain, in other words there is no
• 24:30 - 25:00 such thing as the male brain or the female brain.  The science is clear and conclusive, sex is not   binary, transgender people are real, it’s time we  acknowledge this. Defining a person’s sex identity   using decontextualized facts is unscientific  and dehumanizing. What do you make of that?  Well I would say what a thicket of weeds we  have to hack our way through in that sense.
• 25:00 - 25:30 Yes, a thicket of weeds, also known as  scientists who actually know what they’re   talking about with regards to this topic  pushing back on the bullshit that people   like Jerry spew. Let’s see what he can muster. I mean there are so many wrong with it. I’ll   just say, first of all sex is binary, we have  males and females, they’re defined by the types   of gametes they produce, sperm vs. eggs. Wow, so now it’s gametes? Earlier you said   it was reproductive organs. So did you change  your mind in the middle of this interview? All
• 25:30 - 26:00 you need to do is see what gametes a person  is producing, and that’s it! That will tell   you male or female! That’s exactly what they do  at the hospital when a baby is born, they check   for eggs or sperm! Oh wait, no they don’t, since  testes don’t produce sperm until puberty. So they   obviously don’t do that, and also your definition  would demand that prepubescent boys are not male.   That doesn’t work. Jerry, sex is not binary.  Sex refers to a broad suite of anatomical and   physiological characteristics, from the molecular  level to the anatomical level, including hormones,
• 26:00 - 26:30 chromosomes, gametes, genitals, reproductive  organs, and secondary sexual characteristics.   To claim that sex is binary is to claim that  all of those features exist exclusively in two   sets that are totally unmodifiable. That is  wrong. There are plenty of people who express   a variety of intermediacy in this suite of  characteristics, as we’ve already outlined.
• 26:30 - 27:00 Positive and negative electric charge. That’s a  binary. Matter and anti-matter pairs of particles.   That’s a binary. Human biology has no binaries.  Living organisms are immensely more complicated   than any binary system we are aware of. Proportion of exceptions to that in the human   species is between 1 in 5600 and 1 in 20,000.  So basically it’s binary, the chance that you’re   nonbinary is the same as the chance of tossing a  quarter in the air and having it land on its edge.
• 27:00 - 27:30 Right, so it’s binary, except for when  it isn’t, so it’s not binary. And sorry,   this heads or tails analogy doesn’t work. He’s  trying to take a suite of characteristics, like   sex chromosomes, genitals, gametes, reproductive  organs, and secondary sexual characteristics,   and lumping all of those together to represent  “heads”, while the other set of characteristics   is “tails”. Multiple characteristics that do  not always align can’t be smooshed together
• 27:30 - 28:00 to represent one side of a coin. In general, the  mathematical certainty he is trying to paint upon   the biological world demonstrates a remarkable  ignorance of biology, which is pretty shocking for   a biologist. It makes sense that an uneducated  buffoon like Matt Walsh would spew this crap,   but Jerry? He really should be ashamed of himself. As I said, I’m not a transphobe. But you have to   recognize that sex comes in two forms.  So that’s the first problem with that.
• 28:00 - 28:30 No, that’s the second problem. The first problem  is that you’re wrong, sex isn’t binary. The second   problem is that you think this has anything to  do with trans people, when it doesn’t. Examples   of gonadal dysgenesis, like Swyer syndrome, XY  but female genitals, or de la Chapelle syndrome,   XX but male genitals, have absolutely nothing  to do with trans people. At all. The same goes   for intersex, or any of the other conditions  pertaining to sex. Not even a little bit. Trans
• 28:30 - 29:00 people have a gender identity that is different  from their sex. That is not chromosomal. That is   neuroanatomical. When, oh when, oh when  will you get that through your skull?  You know the science of male vs. female brains  is in flux and especially the science of people   who claim to be intermediate gender is in  flux. It’s not clear whether trans people   do have intermediate brains, if there is such  a thing as brain differences, or if those trans
• 29:00 - 29:30 people that do show intermediacy are really gay  people who say that they’re trans. And there’s   a difference between being trans and being gay. Wow, really? Trans and gay isn’t the same thing?   Holy smokes, I’m learning so much from you,  Jerry! No, trans people aren’t just gay, sexual   orientation and gender identity are completely  separate phenomena. And the science you’re   referring to isn’t in flux. Researchers have  been identifying the regions of the brain that
• 29:30 - 30:00 pertain to sexuality and gender identity for quite  some time, you just haven’t ever read any of it.   There indeed are brain differences, which can’t be  reduced to simply “male brain” and “female brain”.   That is overly reductive. There are differences in  brain structure and composition between males and   females, which has been known for a long time,  and there are differences in brain structure   and composition between cis individuals and trans  individuals, though this can in no way be reduced   to “female brain in male body”, or something like  that. Living organisms are complex, and the human
• 30:00 - 30:30 brain is the most complex object in the known  universe. A deep dive into this literature can   occur in a separate piece should that become  necessary. For now it will simply suffice to   say that Jerry has never read any of it. How would you describe that difference   from a biological perspective? Well trans you feel like you’re   born in the same, in the wrong body, and  you wanna assume the other body. And I’m   not denying that those people exist either.  I think they really do. I don’t know when it
• 30:30 - 31:00 starts this feeling of being the wrong body, but… Wow, what a rigorously scientific explanation from   the scientist! Yes, you don’t deny that trans  people exist, you just pretend it’s mental   illness instead of learning about neuroscience.  As for when it starts, it’s during childhood,   and apparently it’s a fucking nightmare. A gay person is somebody, a gay male or a gay   female, somebody who has a sexual attraction to  members of their own natal sex. It has nothing to
• 31:00 - 31:30 do with feeling like you’re in the wrong body. It  has to do with who you’re sexually attracted to.  Man oh man, you are just a fountain of  wisdom, Jerry! Although I’m very confused now,   because you’re correctly stating that sexual  orientation has nothing to do with being trans,   when literally one minute ago you  baselessly equated them. That’s bizarre.  I mean when you were talking to Richard Dawkins  and Stephen Pinker about what was going on,   were you all equally kind of bemused, baffled, or  how would you categorize your thinking about it.
• 31:30 - 32:00 Well sandbagged would be the American word for  it. Because we had no idea this would happen.  You had no idea that continually repeating  objectively false and bigoted talking points   would draw criticism from knowledeable people? I  find that hard to believe, given that you all have   experience debunking science-denying  evangelicals. You just can’t handle   being on the receiving end of the debunking. We are all on the honorary board of the freedom
• 32:00 - 32:30 from religion foundation, and we have in the past  warned them that they’re widening their mission,   going outside their mission, by dealing  with things that don’t involve church-state   separation, which is the purview of the FFRF. I don’t want to speak on behalf of FFRF here,   but in my opinion, no, this is not outside  their purview. This increasing attack we   have been seeing on trans rights, women’s  rights, education, and so many other things,
• 32:30 - 33:00 is specifically fueled by Christian nationalists  and the propaganda they peddle. That Trump’s   administration is using the precise misinformation  that these demagogues wield in order to implement   federal laws that negatively affect women and  trans people qualifies as a violation of the   separation of church and state. They just refuse  to acknowledge it as such because they know that   would instantly be deemed unconstitutional,  which would thus undermine these rulings.   That’s why people like you, Jerry, are so harmful.  Because you give their bigotry and lies an air of
• 33:00 - 33:30 scientific credibility. Do you get it now? Then in this case, in which they published   an essay saying that sex is whatever you  feel it to be, a woman is whoever she says   she is, that was too much. The essay didn’t say that,   Jerry. You are inserting the word sex arbitrarily  and probably didn’t even read the essay. You found   that closing sentence, didn’t like it, and are  now misquoting it on a hugely televised program,
• 33:30 - 34:00 which is unethical and pathetic. The word woman  is not the same as the biological characteristics   we associate with the female sex. You can  dispute the way that the word “woman” is   being used, but you can’t make these outrageous  mischaracterizations about what the essay said.  And you can look it up in the Oxford  English dictionary, which I regard   as sort of the bible of linguistics. Right, because language doesn’t change   over time at all. Never in human history has  language changed! And if language should change
• 34:00 - 34:30 as the result of new scientific understanding, it  will show up first in the Oxford dictionary! Not   primary scientific literature. Heavens no. It defines a woman as an adult human female   and it defines female and male based on  the types of sperm or eggs they have.  Hey remember when we already explained how  that doesn’t work? It continues to not work.  And they published it, and as I wrote in my  essay, they let it stay up for a day before   they decided it was hurtful, and they removed  it, censored it right off the internet. And none
• 34:30 - 35:00 of us like this kind of censorious behavior. Yeah, they graciously allowed you to provide   counterpoint, quickly realized your counterpoint  was full of shit, so they removed it. That’s not   “censorship”, and they certainly didn’t  “censor it right off the internet”,   because you have it published in dozens of other  places. That’s how I was able to read it and see   how much it sucks. This very deliberate and  baseless implication of tyrannical censorship   and assault on free speech is completely idiotic.  You can’t force them to keep your crappy essay up.
• 35:00 - 35:30 You are so overflowing with conservative dog  whistles that they’re coming out your ears.  It's completely preposterous,  isn’t it. I mean the whole point   of being an intellectual or a scientist or a  professor is you push back on stuff, right?  Yes. You   challenge conventional norm and you ask questions. Yeah, plenty of professionals challenge you Jerry,   and you, Piers, by trying to educate you on these  topics. They are challenging the conventional
• 35:30 - 36:00 norm, which is the widely held ignorance  that you embody. You continually ignore them.  Because when merit clashes with ideology  and wokeness, it’s always the merit that   gets discarded. This is why for example in  America the SATs and ACTs, indices of how   you did in high school, have been eliminated in  many schools as criteria for getting into college.  Got any evidence for that? It sounds  like bullshit to me. If that were true,
• 36:00 - 36:30 why would any student still take those tests? If  they weren’t factors, then nobody would take them.   Common sense debunks you. And there is no “woke  ideology”. That’s a term invented by conservative   propaganda to present facts they don’t like  as baseless faith, just like anti-science   evangelicals do to modern evolutionary biology  by referring to it as Darwinism. How ironic.   Jerry might as well be exclaiming that  it’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
• 36:30 - 37:00 I get called transphobe on a daily  basis merely for saying that the   rights of trans people and the rights of  cis people are going to come into conflict   sometimes and they have to be adjudicated. That’s not why you get called a transphobe,   Jerry. You’re back to your motte and bailey.  You get called a transphobe because you   deny transness. Because you continually say  meaningless things like “men can’t be women”   that perpetuate bigotry. It’s the perpetuation  of this bigotry that keeps people like Piers
• 37:00 - 37:30 ignorant of the science he doesn’t know he doesn’t  know, and it’s why you’re on his show. Anyway,   that’s the end of that interview. It would seem  that Jerry declined participation in the panel,   probably because his arguments fall apart when  confronted with anyone knowledgable in this area,   so let’s move to the panel. It consists  of right-wing podcaster Brianna Wu,   trans rights activist Eli Erlick, and Tomi Lahren,  the absolutely insufferable Bigot Barbie and   female Steven Crowder. Let’s see how this goes. I mean Eli we heard it pretty well there from
• 37:30 - 38:00 the professor, that from a biological point of  view, never mind anything else, from a straight   scientific biological point of view, a man  cannot be a woman. What is your response to that.  He is completely unscientific and so bound up in  his ideology that he isn’t even paying attention   to the vast majority of biologists, including  those from the American academy of sciences   who disagree with him, and do agree that sex  describes a variety of different characteristics,
• 38:00 - 38:30 characteristics that can be changed. This is a bit painful to watch, because   given that Tomi is a delusional maniac and Brianna  immediately rolled her eyes, we can already see   that Eli will be the only voice of reason here,  and although everything she said was correct,   it doesn’t address the ignorance of Piers’s  question in the most relevant way. Piers said:   Purely from a biological perspective, what about  these words we made up? Which is stupid. It’s a
• 38:30 - 39:00 stupid question. The whole point is that “man”  and “woman” are words we made up and therefore   mean whatever we say they mean. The other problem  is that by making the conversation about sex,   the discussion is tangential to the actual point,  that trans people have a gender identity that is   different from their sex, which is why nobody  denies that trans women are individuals born   of male sex. The extent to which surgeries can  change that designation is a semantic issue. One
• 39:00 - 39:30 could make the case that a trans woman will never  be anything other than of male sex due to the sex   chromosomes in every cell in their body. It is  an argument one could make, even if it completely   contradicts every argument for designating sex  that Jerry and Piers made just a moment ago. But   more importantly, it still would have nothing  to do with the definition of a trans person.  There has never been a trans woman  who has won a gold in the olympics.  Well actually hang on, hang on, we literally just  had, at the Paris olympics, the Algerian boxer…
• 39:30 - 40:00 She is not a trans woman. I’m about to tell you what she…  For all that we know she is intersex,  she was assigned female at birth.  All we know is she was banned from the World  Championships the year before because she   reportedly tested positive for male chromosomes. Again, this does not mean she’s a trans   woman, she could be intersex. Why doesn’t she just take   a simple sex test and show us? A sex test? What the shit are you   asking for, Piers? The whole world already  knows that she has XY sex chromosomes,
• 40:00 - 40:30 and you’ve already made up your mind that her  sex chromosomes make her male, even though she   was proven to have been born with female genitals  and reproductive organs, and even though you just   got done agreeing up and down and all over  town with Jerry that it’s the reproductive   organs that determine your sex. Eli just told you  that has nothing to do with being trans. And your   response is, take a sex test? Are you an idiot? When you ignore not only biology but when you   ignore gender itself, why should biological  women, and I don’t even like saying that Piers,
• 40:30 - 41:00 I don’t like even referring to  myself as a biological woman.  No, they’re women. I’m a woman, ok?  They’re not biological women, they’re women! Well  what is a woman? A thing that you would insist is   determined biologically. Then say it’s redundant,  but the fake outrage is just infantile. And again,   gender identity is also biological. That  trans women experience female gender identity   is biological. In fact, whether we as a society  choose to call them women or not is the only thing
• 41:00 - 41:30 in this entire conversation that specifically  is not biological. You’re both idiots.  Why should me and other women like me  have to put up with competing against men,   or having men in our locker rooms, men in  our restrooms, because it makes a very very   small segment of the population feel better  about themselves. Why do their feelings trump   the feelings of women? That’s what I don’t  understand in this argument and this debate.
• 41:30 - 42:00 There’s that motte and bailey again. Tomi,  I don’t know what to do about the locker   room thing. If there are cis women that feel  uncomfortable changing around a trans woman,   I’ll have to take your word for it, because I have  to be honest, I’ve never heard anyone make that   complaint. But that’s your motte that you retreat  to when you’ve been called out on the bailey,   your complete denial of human biology you don’t  understand. I believe there is a world out there,   perhaps even one that we might inhabit in the  relatively near future, where we all accept   reality regarding trans people. We accept  that sex and gender identity are different.
• 42:00 - 42:30 That neither of them are binaries. That trans  people are not mentally ill. That nobody ever   asks “what is a woman” ever again, or gets  slapped in the face when they do. That world   can be our world. And in that world, it will be  possible to sit down and have mature discussions   about what to do with these social issues.  But that world will never come until you loud   mouthed morons either shut up or get educated. Eli and her trans fringe freakshow friends are
• 42:30 - 43:00 threatening anyone that disagrees with them. I  as a trans person have dealt with their death   threats constantly since just standing up and  trying to say we’ve got to have some common sense   conversations about this. There’s nothing he said  in that interview that is remotely transphobic.  Well, I’ve finally seen it. A trans person  completely botching trans issues. It’s kind   of like watching Jesse Lee Peterson say that  slavery in America wasn’t racist. Amazin’!
• 43:00 - 43:30 When do all your brilliant ideas kick  in and we start winning election again,   because you’re destroying our entire movement.  You’re doing things like giving hormones to   children, you’re giving hormones to children  online, you put together a network for this,   you lied about it in the aftermath,  when do your ideas start working, Eli?  Eli? We heard this exact same rhetoric during the   civil rights movements, the gay rights movement. When do they start working?  Wow, this chick is unhinged. I have no idea  what she’s talking about with the hormone thing,
• 43:30 - 44:00 although it’s a nonstarter, since that is medical  treatment which saves the lives of trans kids,   that is currently under attack because of rhetoric  that is perpetuated by people like Jerry and most   of this panel. But Brianna is pretending that  it’s the fault of progressives that so many   conservatives are reality denying willfully  ignorant assholes. It isn’t. This issue in   particular is the single most maddening issue  in this culture war specifically because of   the insane degree to which people consistently  ignore all of the facts that are shown to them
• 44:00 - 44:30 over and over and over again. Eli starts to bring  up previous iterations of civil rights movements,   a progression which trans rights are clearly a  part of, and she just doesn’t want to hear it.  And we’ve seen this already with the supreme  court knocking down certain transgender rights,   next comes abortion, then comes cisgender  women’s rights, then comes free speech. We’ve   seen it over and over again, we’ve seen it with  the civil rights movement, we’ve seen it with   the gay rights movement of the 1960s to 80s. Perfectly stated. All human rights issues in
• 44:30 - 45:00 America are related and arranged on a precarious  slippery slope down to fascism and Christian   theocracy. That’s why FFRF was perfectly in the  right to comment on trans issues. Talking points   from the right that deny transness, or seek  to strip women of their reproductive rights,   are always evangelical, whether outright or  covert, and it is those people who actually   seek to silence free speech. It is those people  who have emboldened Trump to issue an executive
• 45:00 - 45:30 order taking down CDC pages that mention the  words trans, LGBT, pregnant person. That is   unconstitutional. That is fascism. That is  tyranny. Any rhetoric about the tyranny of   “woke ideology” is nothing more than a smokescreen  projected by those who wish to exert tyranny. It   is always the christo-fascist who shouts the  most loudly about censorship, in an effort to
• 45:30 - 46:00 censor any aspect of reality that threatens their  rise to power. A rise which we are witnessing in   real time. And this rhetoric is amplified by  unwitting participants like Coyne and Dawkins,   simply because of their unwillingness to learn  something and be on the right side of history.   Their perceived authority emboldens the rhetoric  of the demagogue, to the detriment of the   people they believe themselves to be saving from  religious demagoguery. You can’t write this shit.  She can’t answer, Piers. She can’t answer. She  will not defend these braindead tactics. You
• 46:00 - 46:30 know Piers, I don’t wanna go compete against  Tomi in sports, I wanna go have lunch uptown   with her and like talk about normal stuff. That’s  why I transitioned, to just have a normal life.  Why the fuck would you want to have lunch  with Tomi, a person who completely denies your   identity? Where the hell did  Piers find this bizarre person?  Eli is out there pushing this narrative, that  science doesn’t matter, that sex doesn’t matter,   that we can just roll into every space. She  claims to be a feminist, but she doesn’t
• 46:30 - 47:00 want to make any common sense compromises  with the women she says she speaks for.  A trans person is using the anti-trans motte  and bailey within a single sentence. It’s   really astounding. Eli is defending  science, you’re denying science,   and then conflating biology with social  issues like women’s spaces. Stop doing that.  But I don’t think these activists mind the  backlash. In fact I think they thrive off of it,   and I think they make their paychecks off of it.  Because they love it, they love keeping this at
• 47:00 - 47:30 the center of controversy, that’s the only  way a lot of these organizations can exist.  Holy shit, can you say projection? This pointless  conservative mouthpiece is accusing trans rights   activists of keeping trans issues in the  spotlight and profiting off of it. I mean   that is chef’s kiss hypocrisy. I am not familiar  with Tomi’s whole body of work, or whatever   you want to call it, so I don’t know if she’s  whining about trans people only half the time,   or literally all the time, like Matt Walsh or  other similar grifting assholes. But the complete
• 47:30 - 48:00 reversal of reality here is immeasurable. Free speech is saying what you wanna say,   it’s also hearing what you don’t wanna  hear. There’s plenty on these so-called   free speech platforms that I don’t like to see.  I don’t like to see transgenderism pushed on   children, but unfortunately that’s been in  existence on meta platforms and on tiktok.  Won’t somebody please think of the children! Ah yes, the children. As though trans rights
• 48:00 - 48:30 activists aren’t specifically thinking of trans  youth who regularly kill themselves as an enormous   motivating factor to combat all of this bigotry.  You think of children, Tomi. You actually do it.  Bottom line is, if I’m transphobic, then  why are two thirds of this panel trans?  Right. Piers, one of them is probably   the only trans person on Earth that will give  you the perspective you’re actively farming for,   and the other is a trans activist. She’s great  and all, but here’s an idea, how about interacting
• 48:30 - 49:00 with a scientist who studies this stuff? Have  you ever thought of that? Of course you haven’t,   because in your mind, there is no science to study  here. That’s why you’re transphobic. Phobias tend   to take the form of a fear of the unknown, and  you sure as hell know nothing about this stuff.   Patting yourself on the back for inviting trans  people to your panel doesn’t change that, and you   only did it for the optics anyway. But this is a  point that desperately needs to be made. There are   thousands of researchers around the world who are  actively investigating the relationship between
• 49:00 - 49:30 gender identity and neuroanatomy on a daily  basis. Why is that we never see a single one   of them participating in a panel like this? Has  any pundit even considered that? Are they asked   but they decline, painfully aware of the avalanch  of harassment they would immediately receive from   the far right, no matter how much they like to  pretend that trans rights activists are the ones   who do the harassing? Some food for thought. Why are you giving children hormones illegally?
• 49:30 - 50:00 Why are you setting up networks to do this,  Eli? Why? This is a crime, I wanna know why   you’re doing it? It really hurts us, it makes  us look deranged, why are you doing this?  Eli, why are you doing it? Well this is gonna make some great TV. Look, when   trans youth are denied necessary healthcare, we  always have to step in. And right now under very   brave trans lawyers like Chase Strangio are in  the Supreme Court fighting for trans kids because…
• 50:00 - 50:30 In a case he’s gonna lose. The insanity of Brianna, a trans person,   grilling Eli for providing necessary healthcare  for trans youth, is unthinkable. But wait, Tomi   is gonna jump in with some high octane stupid. There’s no such thing as a trans kid.  Tomi? Piers, there’s no such   thing as a trans kid. That’s actually child abuse,  when you take somebody who’s still growing up,   figuring out who they are, doesn’t know anything  about sexuality and shouldn’t at that young age,
• 50:30 - 51:00 and you try to convince them that they’re  something other than what they were born to be,   that’s a problem. That’s child abuse. Hey dumbass, trans people are born trans.   Just like gay people are born gay. You seem to be  denying both of these facts at once by conflating   gender identity with sexuality, and by pretending  they both suddenly appear out of thin air in   adolescence, which just makes you sound like a  moron. Also, nobody is “convincing” anybody of   anything. Trans kids discover and express their  transness. Ultra-conservatives are so stupid that
• 51:00 - 51:30 they think parents of trans kids are trying to  make them trans on purpose. As though that’s a   thing you can even do, first of all, and as though  anyone would willingly invite this shitstorm   of harassment on both them and their children.  Denying transness is peak transphobia. You are   perpetuating bigotry and making it impossible for  trans youth to get the care they need to not want   to kill themselves. You’re a terrible person. Are you a parent?
• 51:30 - 52:00 No of course not. Except for one beloved cat. Ok so I’ve got four kids. I’ve got four kids, and   I know, and my brother had four kids, my sister  had four kids, I’ve seen a lot of kids go through   puberty. They change enormously in that process  in how they think. I’ve seen young girls who were   tomboys who then completely change having come  out of puberty. Everything changes emotionally,   psychologically, physically. And yet over 90% of trans   children maintain their gender identity. And to try and tamper with that process…
• 52:00 - 52:30 Well you heard Piers. Eli has actual statistics,  and also went through this process personally,   but Piers knows a few kids! Even a tomboy!  How can anyone take this douchebag seriously?  Anyway, that’s the end of the panel, so  let’s wrap things up. I didn’t show most   of the instances of Piers or Tomi bringing  it back to women’s sports again, and again,   and again, because it was just too repetitive to  put you through that, but that is what happened.   This is what happens every time with these  sorts of discussions. People who claim to
• 52:30 - 53:00 want to have a simple discussion about biology  will always retreat to these social issues,   because it’s the only aspect of this discussion  that actually contains nuance. It should be made   clear that there are issues that can and ought  to be discussed regarding the acceptance and   integration of trans people into every aspect of  social life. Regarding trans people in sports,   I think there are instances in which it is not  fair, and I think that there are instances in   which it is fair. People who don’t even take  the time to understand what trans people are,
• 53:00 - 53:30 will certainly never lift a finger to understand  what hormone replacement therapy is or precisely   what it does on an anatomical and physiological  level. And there are trans individuals who delay   puberty until they can legally transition and thus  never go through puberty as the misaligned sex,   which means that any argument about advantages  bestowed by development during puberty are totally   inapplicable. But, it’s complicated. It’s nuanced. With the locker room thing, bathroom thing,
• 53:30 - 54:00 whatever you want to call it, again I do not see  this as an enormously pressing issue. But if some   people are genuinely uncomfortable changing near a  trans person, perhaps we will see a trend in more   locker room areas and bathrooms being planned with  private stalls rather than open changing areas.   Most people prefer that anyway. I don’t know  what we should do, and it wouldn’t bother me   if people were to talk about these issues in  a genuine, good faith manner. But that is not   what happens. Transphobes use sports as their  favorite motte when their bailey starts to sink,
• 54:00 - 54:30 which is the smug self-righteousness they exude  while confidently demonstrating that they have   no clue what they’re talking about when it comes  to biology. Biology first. The rest comes after.   We will never, ever, ever progress an inch on  these issues until conservatives, and even the   liberals who are being held captive by this  rhetoric, take the time to educate themselves   about human biology. It’s a message I’ve offered  before, but it clearly hasn’t made a dent yet,
• 54:30 - 55:00 so I’ll keep going it until it does. And that’s it for this episode of things   I wish I could have shouted at Piers Morgan’s  face. Perhaps I’ll have an opportunity later,   whether it’s about this topic or some other one.  We’ll just have to wait and see. Until next time.