Guess what, guys? It's another Dev
monetizes his Twitter arguments episode.
Aren't these the best videos I make?
Okay, this might be some goofy fun, but
for real, there is an actual topic
underneath all the slop I want to get
at. This time, the drama began with me
engaging in one of my favorite
low-effort pastimes on social media.
Dunking on Insane Cope. The person who
runs the Insane Cope account is actually
really [ __ ] [ __ ] The entire
point of the account when it first began
anyway, was to repost people who were
coping on social media, which can be
pretty funny, but over time it devolved
into posting the most partisan [ __ ]
If any post is outside of the very
narrow slice of extreme right-wing
politics that this guy finds acceptable,
he will repost it and call it cope, even
when he's just blatantly wrong. Which is
why he's honestly really easy to farm.
Here's a prime example. In the UK, a
16-year-old transgender girl named
Brianna Gay was stabbed to death by her
classmates. And I've seen many
right-wingers online mock her death.
Now, you are allowed to do that. That's
free speech. It might be rude, but rude
speech is still free speech. That's not
what I'm getting at. The argument here
is that Insane Cope thought that
mourning her death or pointing out
right-wing hypocrisy on the topic of
mocking tragic deaths was cope. That's
[ __ ] stupid. It's very obvious,
looking at this guy's account nowadays,
that whatever he calls cope is actually
just anything that makes the left look
good or the right look bad. even to the
point of unironically going to bat for
Hitler. So yeah, he's actually really
great to mess with on Twitter. Every
time I end up getting more likes and
retweets than he does on one of his
posts, which does happen on a regular
basis, he ends up coming into my
comments and bitching me out about it,
which is really funny. In case you can't
tell, I'm not actually taking this idiot
all that seriously. I'm basically just
trolling him for shits and giggles.
Today's story begins with one such
event. This anti-trans guy said, "We
will outlast you. You are a small
irrelevant fraction of the hobby. You
will never be a woman. You are a
mentally ill freak. Now, this guy's
account has actually been deleted, so I
don't exactly know what hobby he's
referring to, but I don't think it
matters. This reads like an anti-woke
guy who doesn't like the fact that trans
people are in his hobby, whatever hobby
that is. The trans account Demon Fay
Shay replied with, "I will outlive you."
Insane Cope reposted this claim as cope
on his account. Then Insane Cope Cope,
another account that likes to [ __ ] on
Insane Cope, reposted this claim with
the message, "Trans people and their
existence will outlast your backwards
and idiotic ideology." Then Insane Cope
reposted that post. And then I finally
responded with, "This is just true.
There are historic records of people
having what we now call gender dysphoria
thousands of years ago. Your attempts to
wipe out transgenderism won't actually
work, and trans people will likely
continue to exist as long as humans do.
Jesus Christ. This entire thing is a
nesting doll of Twitter slop. By the
way, my claim here is ultimately
correct. We've had evidence of gender
dysphoria in humans for a very long time
now. It doesn't actually matter how
anti-trans a culture might get. You
cannot actually wipe out trans people.
Same thing with gay people. You can
suppress them, but they're always going
to exist. One of the replies to my tweet
is this guy saying, "In the future,
dysphoria will be cured with a pill and
transitioning will be viewed like
labbotoies." He included a screen cap of
a very old tweet of mine during the
conversion therapy discourse from a few
years ago. Feel free to go check out
that old video if you want to know what
he's talking about. I replied with, "If
this future ever comes to pass, I don't
have high hopes for it and it won't come
to pass in our lifetimes." And then
another guy said, "I'd say it's about as
likely as a man ever becoming a woman."
Basically, what's being said here in
this entire chain of conversation is
that gender dysphoria's best known
treatment is transitioning. And while
it's possible that there are
undiscovered treatments out there that
don't involve transitioning, so far our
efforts to find them have been
fruitless. and if they do exist, I
personally don't think they'll be found
within our lifetimes. And then this dude
makes a glib remark about her dur men
can't be women, which isn't really
responding to anything that's being
said. So, this is when I responded with
the tweet that pissed everyone off. I
posted, "Nobody reasonable actually
thinks that trans women metamorphos into
biological females. The ask is not
believe that men are women. It's don't
be an [ __ ] You don't have to like
trans people. You do have to leave them
alone." And just so we're clear here,
I'm completely correct on this. I might
have received a lot of blowback, but I'm
not backing down from any of it. I don't
care how big of a horde of people showed
up to complain. They're all wrong and
I'm right. In fact, there were two
hordes of people. The first horde was
left-wing, deranged trans activists who
hopped in to say that HRT does in fact
turn trans women into biological females
and saying anything otherwise is
transphobic. In fact, according to this
crowd, if you side with trans women on
every reasonable policy prescription
with regard to their individual
liberties, but you refuse to believe
they become female, then you're exactly
the same as a bigoted right-winger
trying to force them back into the
closet. These people are [ __ ]
delusional, and they're actively toxic
to their own civil rights. The second
horde was right-wing, legitimate bigots
who really do just lack the brain power
to actually engage with the conversation
in a meaningful way. Screaming about how
gender affirmation is just validating
their delusions and doesn't actually
help with gender dysphoria, even though
it does. Screaming about how trans
people are actually just groomers and
child rapists and fetishists and school
shooters, even though this is
overwhelmingly not the case. screaming
about how the most maximal pro-trans
radically left-wing position where you
must believe that trans women have
transitioned so perfectly that they have
become fully biologically female and
there is no difference between them and
sis women is actually the position that
all trans women automatically believe
and there is no moderates to be found
among them and then of course there are
a few who are claiming that I'm gay or
trans myself both of these two hordes
were ultimately irrational but for
different reasons and we'll explore them
both let's hone in on one specific reply
from the trans activist Crazy camp from
Niara VT. What aspect when it comes to
the classification of biological female
are we using? Gameamtes not reliable
enough to make this claim without
excluding cis people? Chromosomes not
reliable enough either. HRT gives you
changes associated with the opposite
sex. Primary sex characteristics can be
adjusted. Focusing on reproductive
organs would exclude cis people. Interex
people by default break the black and
white thinking and their exceptions
doesn't really fly. Trans women are
women. We don't become women. We may
adjust our appearance to match our
gender identity, but that doesn't mean
we weren't said gender before
transitioning. Also, being female is not
a requirement of being a woman.
Biological female, as if trans women are
artificial women, is also disgusting
transphobic language that makes no
sense. Trans women are real women. Trans
men are real men. Now, there's a lot to
go over here, but first, let's talk
about who Niara is since I don't think
I've really covered her on my channel
before. She's a trans activist YouTuber
with a pretty sizable audience who is
politically very far-left. As far as I
can tell, she's some type of socialist.
Though I cannot imagine she is so stupid
as to be an authoritarian socialist,
like a Marxist Leninist, tanky type of
socialist, a Soviet Union simp. She
gives off more of an anarosocialist vibe
to me personally. Not that it matters
that much because the anarchists almost
always end up being handmaidadens to the
tanks when the communist revolution
kicks off. Anyway, I first heard of
Niara when she debated two smaller
right-wing VTubers, AO and Leaflet, on
trans issues. And just to be clear, Nara
won both of those debates. Not because
she's correct. No, Niara is wrong about
basically everything she says, but
rather it's because Leaflet is horribly
uneducated on trans stuff, while AO is a
closeted [ __ ] who doesn't want to
admit how AGP they actually are. Both of
those debates consisted of Nara asking
the most obviously leading questions and
dogw walking those two into pitfalls
constantly. But it was my tweet that
kicked off a twoe crash out on Niara's
part. And funnily enough, she blocked me
at the end of week one. She just kept
going on her own. She still occasionally
drops veiled tweets that are related in
part to our very long argument. Even as
I'm recording this [ __ ] video, she's
still doing it, dude. But as fun as this
all is, this isn't really a Niara drama
video. If the title didn't make that
obvious, I want to actually discuss the
underlying ideas. Nara's position is
that the classification of biological
female doesn't actually work. In her
view, gametes don't work because some
cis women don't produce gameamtes.
Chromosomes don't work because some cis
women don't have XX chromosomes. The
argument she's making is that because we
can't draw a line between all cis women
and all non-cis women to define the
phrase biological female, then the
classification doesn't actually work.
But Nar is engaging in a very obvious
Loki's wager fallacy. Just in case you
don't know, the Loki's wager fallacy
comes from this story where Loki made a
bet with some dwarves and he wagered his
head. He lost the bet. So when the
dwarfs came to collect, Loki said, "You
can have my head but none of my neck."
While everybody involved could agree
that Loki had a head and a neck, nobody
could agree precisely where the neck
ended and where the head began. As a
result, the dwarves could never truly be
sure if they were taking neck from Loki
that they had no right to, and so Loki
got away with it. In the real world,
what this fallacy is referring to goes a
little something like this. Imagine a
set of data that is distributed by
modally, meaning that while there is
observed data points all along the
spectrum, a vast majority of the data
clusters in two areas. A small minority
of measured points might exist to the
very far left or the very far right of
the distribution or in between the two
clusters, but most of the points are
within the clusters. The Loki's wager
fallacy is an argument that says you
cannot actually recognize these two
clusters as distinct groups simply
because you cannot draw a perfect line
dividing the two since those middle
outliers get in the way. The most famous
biodal distribution, by the way, is the
measurement of primary and secondary sex
characteristics. The vast majority of
human beings that are measured fall into
either the masculine or feminine
clusters. But there is a minority of
people that don't fall neatly into
either and exist in the middle. Because
these people exist, you cannot cleanly
draw a line between the two clusters.
And therefore, you cannot actually
differentiate between the two clusters.
That is the Loki's wager fallacy. And
that is one problem among many with
Nara's logic. By the way, my pointing
out this obvious logical inconsistency
was like two tweets into this whole
thing. And I realized pretty much
instantly that Niara was not going to
debate me on stream like she did with AO
and Leaflet. It's a lot easier to defend
your ideas in front of an audience when
you're dealing with a degenerate
inbredad or somebody who just doesn't
know about trans stuff respectively. Not
to toot my own horn too much, but I
actually do know a fair bit about this
stuff. And I don't think that somebody
like Niara could ever actually face a
real criticism of her ideas. Nara's next
point is that HRT gives you changes
associated with the opposite sex. And
this is true. A trans woman on HRT has
female hormones. Though I have actually
heard some anecdotes that post opt trans
women on HRT have hormone profiles that
are more like menopausal women, which
isn't normal if you're in the
premenopause age, but that's a minor
detail. Hormones do in fact change
things quite a bit. So, fair enough. But
being hormonally female is not the same
thing as being fully female. It's a part
of being female, but it's not the whole
thing. Interex people also do break the
black and white thinking. Again, fair
enough. But trans women and interex
people are two different things. There
is overlap of course, but a lot of trans
women out there were not actually born
with some interex condition. Trans
activists have been co-opting interex
struggles for their own purposes for a
pretty long time now. Trans women are
women. We don't become women. This is
the sex gender distinction thing. I've
spoken about it on this channel many
times before and we'll dive into it from
a different angle a little bit later.
Same thing with being females and a
requirement of being a woman. Here's the
bit I want to focus on next. biological
female as if trans women are artificial
women is also disgusting transphobic
language that makes no sense. Yeah. So,
Nara believes that the label biological
female is disgusting and transphobic
because it implies that trans women are
not biological women, they're artificial
women, and she thinks that's bigoted.
This is the place where we begin to
drill down. For the sake of argument,
let's take the ultimate passing
transwoman. Everyone liked to use Blair
White for this back in the day, but
frankly, as she's gotten more plastic
surgery, she's actually looped around
and begun to pass less. It's like she
went from cute transgirl trying to look
like a girl to transgirl trying to look
like a trans girl, if that makes any
sense. So instead, let's take my friend
Taft, who is pretty much everyone's
transitioning goals nowadays. So what
qualities does Taftage share with sis
women? Well, she looks like them. That's
a big one. It's probably the most
important one for casual everyday
interaction. She's also got a lot of
female secondary sex characteristics.
She has breasts. She has a feminine body
shape with appropriate fat distribution.
She has a higher pitched voice and
smoother skin. She doesn't have male
secondary sex characteristics. She grows
no facial hair, nor is she beginning to
go bald, at least as far as I know. She
has the hormonal profile of a woman. And
if you want to call that hormonally
female, that makes sense to me. However,
there are also things that sis women
have that Taftage just doesn't. There
are some parts of being female that
Taftage lacks. The big one is gameamtes.
And Nara thinks that using gametes
doesn't work, but I think I can show how
it does. When we talk about any other
animal species in the planet, when we
say female, what we mean is the sex of
that species that produces large
gametes. And the same with male
producing small gametes, it's not
chromosomes. You can't say that a male
is a member of the species with XY
chromosomes because, for example, birds
use a WZ chromosomal system and they
still have males and females. It's also
not genitals because, for example,
female hyenas have penises. If we are
having a biological discussion, it is
gameamt production. That's it. What this
also means is that although humans have
two sexes, the large gameamt producers
and the small gameamt producers. It also
stands to reason that hypothetically
there can be humans that produce both
large and small gametes at the same time
and also humans that produce no gametes.
These two extra classifications
rationally make sense. Now in the real
world, humans that produce no gametes at
all throughout their entire life are
considered neuter, neither male nor
female. And to date, we have not yet
observed any type of interex condition
that actually allows somebody to produce
both types of gameamtes. We've only ever
seen people who produce one or none. In
other words, while humans have two
sexes, we theoretically have four
possible sex groupings, for lack of a
better term. Male, female, both, or
neither. And in reality, we've only ever
observed three of these: male, female,
and neither. When people say the phrase
biological female or biological male,
this is what they're referring to. Not
hormone profiles, not passing. It's the
part of being a female or a male that
cannot be replicated with current
technology, but is a part of only some
humans by the random chance of their
birth. When someone like Niara makes the
statement, "Trans women are women,"
what's actually being said is, even if
they don't know it, trans women and sis
women have enough in common that they
should be placed into the same
classification. And looking at Taft
Hatch again, you can see the best case
argument for this, plain as day. She
obviously has a lot in common with sis
women. She looks like one. She has the
secondary sex characteristics of one.
She has the hormone profile of one, but
she does not have the reproductive
capabilities of one. She doesn't have a
uterus that sheds its lining once a
month. She can't get pregnant or give
birth. So, the question actually is,
should trans women be placed into the
same bucket as sis women based on all of
these qualities they have in common, or
should they be put into a different
bucket based on the qualities they don't
have in common? If you're approaching
this topic honestly, that's actually a
pretty complicated question. I attempted
to answer it a few years ago in my video
titled, "Are trans women actually
Women?" And I think I did a pretty good
job of it. Feel free to go back and
watch it if you like. But today, I'm
approaching the question from a slightly
different angle in a way that will
actually help us pull back the curtain
on Nara's thinking a bit. The core
argument of that previous video, by the
way, is basically that the whole Loki's
wager thing can in fact be turned back
on Niara's own position. She said that
you can't go by gametes because sis
women who have had their ovaries removed
no longer produce large gametes, meaning
they're no longer female. Personally,
I'm actually just willing to totally
bite the bullet on that, by the way.
Yeah, they become neuter. Nearly every
society on the planet has accepted this
logic for males who lose their
testicles. They were no longer
considered male. They were neuter. Some
even had specific social roles for Unix
that neither men nor women could access.
So this isn't exactly new weird logic or
anything. We understood this kind of
thing for a while, but Niara's position
is that if women are female and some
females lose their ovaries, then gametes
can't be part of the equation because a
line cannot be cleanly drawn between all
women and all non-women along the basis
of femaleness. then no line at all can
be drawn which means that the only
people who are women in the end are
those who self-identify as women and
even she knows there's a problem with
this as I'm sure she's heard it before
that's a circular definition is correct
to make fun of this idea because all
definitions are circular that's true
however niara is still wrong even though
I'm not a progressive I consider myself
lucky that I got to enjoy a progressive
university education one of the first
people you learn about when learning
critical theory is the French
philosopher Jacqu Dereda he's the guy
that we get deconstruction from. A core
part of deconstructive analysis is the
idea of difference. Yes, that's just the
word difference with a bad French
accent. But it's not simply the idea of
difference. Derided purposefully
misspelled the word with an extra a in
order to ground the idea in both the
French word for differ as in to be
unalike and the French word for defer as
in to postpone. Difference is
recognizing that signs are not identical
with what they signify. They gain their
meaning through their differences to
other signs. Meaning arises from the
differentiation of one sign from another
and through a constant deferral of
meaning along a chain of infinite signs.
Dereda described language as being a
series of life rafts in the ocean that
we hop between, never actually arriving
at the true shoreline of the real world.
Here's the example my professor used to
describe how this works. There's the
sign, in this case the word be, and its
real world corresponding object, the
signified, a real bee. Why is it that
when we read the word be, we understand
its meaning, its link to the real bee?
Well, my professor tasked the class with
listing off a bunch of qualities that we
know real bees have. Here's three
obvious ones. They're bugs. They're
yellow. And they make honey. Well, each
of these words are also signs, and they
also point at real world things. So, we
do the process again. This time for the
word honey. What qualities does honey
have? It's sticky. It's sweet. It's made
in a hive. We can repeat this process
again for hive. Home. Hexagon. Bug. And
now we've come back around to a familiar
word. Both hive and bee led us to bug.
In Dereda's terms, we've hopped around
in the life rafts of language, jumping
from raft to raft without ever
encountering the shoreline, a real bee.
And this has been a circular journey.
We've returned back to the word bee. But
because we've gone on this journey,
we've encountered other concepts and
understood how they relate to each
other, we now have more knowledge of
what a bee actually is. All definitions
are necessarily circular. But because
words have qualities and those qualities
have qualities, we can trace through a
web of meaning and understand what an
initial word actually means based on its
relations to other words. Most writers
who debate this [ __ ] don't actually know
why circular definitions are bad, which
is probably why Nara mocked the idea.
She's likely encountered those writing
the past. But the actual problem here is
that definitions that are circular in
one step, well, it turns out there's no
web of meaning to trace down. There's no
understanding to be gained by examining
how the word exists in relation to other
words. If you were to actually draw a
deridarust style web of meaning for the
word woman, what related qualities might
you put in there to begin your journey
of raft hopping? Maybe things like large
gametes, XX chromosomes, larger breasts,
wider hips. But these are things that
Nara has already explicitly rejected as
necessary parts of being a woman. From
Niara's point of view, the word woman
cannot actually point to these things
for the same reason that the word be
cannot point to say mammal. So what's
left? How would Nara draw a web of
meaning for the word woman? Well, when
she said the only thing that all women
have in common is that we are adult
human beings who identify as such. What
she's saying is the word woman only
points back to itself. It is
self-referential. It contains no
relations to any other concepts. In
fact, the very idea that the word woman
might contain any qualities at all is
inherently transphobic to her because
that means somebody might identify as a
woman and yet still lack that quality.
Which means the existence of the quality
in its position as a relation to the
word woman is actually gatekeeping
womanhood from that individual. In other
words, if there's any sort of external
standards attached to the word woman
that outside people can observe and
judge those who claim to be women by,
then it's automatically transphobic
because of the possibility that someone
might not actually pass that judgment.
Therefore, for Niara, the word woman
must be self-referential and contain no
other meaningful content. You are a
woman if you say you are, and that is
all the word means. So, if we actually
did draw a web of meaning for this view
of the word woman, it would be circular
in one step. Now, maybe you think this
isn't a problem. Like, who cares? Well,
what this diagram is telling us is that
it is impossible for anybody to actually
know what the word woman means, at least
in the deridian sense. It has become a
useless, empty word, devoid of meaning.
And if we were to sub in a truly
meaningless word into the diagram, the
problem becomes obvious. What is a
glorous? Can we actually truly know if
the word glorbus contains no relations
to any other ideas? If it can be any
shape or size or color? If it can be
alive or dead? If it can serve any
function or no function? If its only
quality is that it's a glorous, how
would we know one if we saw one? Now,
there actually is a pretty good rebuttal
to the derided way of viewing language.
I even gave it to Nara at one point,
though she wasn't smart enough to get
it. But hey, you know that old saying
about leading horses to water. And
speaking of horses, that's actually the
rebuttal. There's an old story, well,
old by internet standards, of an
argument between a turf and a transact
activist. The turf said that a chair is
defined as having four legs, a back, and
a place to sit upon. We can see this
aderes to Dareda's web of meaning
nicely. The signifier is chair. Its
qualities are four legs, back, and place
to sit. But then the transactivist shows
them a horse. By this definition, a
horse is a chair. It has four legs. It
has a back. It has a place to sit. Now,
maybe you think you just need to add
more qualities to your concept of chair.
Like, okay, chairs aren't made of living
flesh like a horse is. Fine. How about a
fake horse? Is that a chair? The problem
here is that you will never actually be
able to provide a set of qualities that
draws a perfect circle around all things
we call chairs while excluding all
things that we don't call chairs. There
will always be some edge case because
even after we've attached over 9,000
qualities to the signifier, some rare
item will require 901 to be truly
excluded per the strictest definition of
the word. Another way to look at this is
we've returned to Loki's wager again. A
second philosopher of language that I
had the opportunity to read while at
school was Vickenstein. In his most
well-known book, Philosophical
Investigations, he formulated his most
well-known argument. The meaning of a
word is in its use in the language.
Vickinstein is taking a completely
different approach to language than
Dereda is. For Derrida, meaning is
derived by a word's relationship to
other words. For Vickinstein, meaning is
derived by empirically observing the
realworld thing that humans use the word
to refer to. While Derida might derive
meaning for the word chair by observing
its relationships to the idea of having
four legs and a back and a seat.
Victinstein derives meaning from the
word chair by looking at a real life
chair. And while Dereda's method might
have problems differentiating between a
chair and a horse, for Vickinstein there
is no such problem. He simply points at
the horse and the chair and the argument
is settled. So, let's bring all this
back to the question at hand, which is
what is a woman? The reason we're asking
that question is because we want to see
if trans women fall under the umbrella
of woman, if they fit into the bucket of
woman. Well, for Derida, we discover
what a woman is by examining its
qualities and then tracing the web of
meaning. There is one definition of
woman that actually functions as a very
easy web of meaning to trace and
right-wingers love repeating it. Adult,
human, female. Those are three qualities
that the word woman contains within it.
So, are trans women adults? Yes. Are
they human? Yes. Are they female? Well,
if the answer to that is no, then trans
women aren't women. And both Niara and
the Ritoids know this, which is why they
both desperately fight on those grounds.
There are of course other options.
Another valid web of meaning would be
something like if you look like a woman,
you are a woman. That includes passers
like Taftage, but it would not include
non-passers, which is why trans
activists like Nara are considered to be
transphobic. To her, it is simply
unacceptable if anybody who wants to be
included in the label of woman is left
out of it. However, if we approach
language like Vickinstein, we
immediately solve this problem. Trans
women are women. If the word woman is
used to describe them, simple as. And
because most people would use the word
woman to describe Taftach because she
looks like one. And in casual public
encounters, that is actually what we all
go by in real life. Then the meaning of
the word woman includes trans women like
Taftach because that is how the word is
used. Like for example, if you turn the
corner at a grocery store and
accidentally bump into a woman, do you
immediately inspect her genitals to make
sure she's actually a woman? Obviously
not. You go by what you see in the
moment, you would use the word woman to
describe that person, whether they're
female or not. And so therefore, they
are a woman because per Victinstein, the
definition of a word is found in its
use. However, if the problem with Dereda
for Niara and other transact activists
like her is that their view of the word
woman is self-referential and therefore
unable to actually contain any meaning,
the problem with Vickinstein is that if
somebody uses the word man to describe
trans women, that is actually just as
valid as if somebody uses the word
woman. Let me explain. This idea of
definition as use applies not only to
languages but sub languages as well.
Words from the larger monoculture can
take on different specialized meanings
within different subcultures. They may
derive their specific meaning from the
same general meaning, but these specific
meanings are not actually compatible.
For example, the words master and slave
mean something very different in say the
kink community where it describes
specific roles in a sexual relationship
versus the computing community where it
describes how different systems within a
computer may be controlled by other
systems. The words master and slave
within the two different subcommunities
of kink and computing have no
relationship to each other. But they are
both related to the larger monocultures
understanding of the concepts of masters
and slaves. Each community or each
subculture within a society has its own
private language which heavily borrows
from and alters the society's main
language. And each of these private
languages are valid within their own
spaces. So, for example, if you entered
a space that was very LGBT and queer
friendly, the word woman within the
private language of that space would
absolutely include trans women in its
definition, and that is how the word
would be used. Therefore, in that space,
trans women are women. However, if you
were to walk into a space that is very
anti-quer and anti-LGBT, the word woman
would not include trans women within the
private language of that space. In fact,
the word man probably includes trans
women in that space instead. And because
these private languages do use language
in this way, both of these definitions
are ultimately valid because once again,
the definition of a word isn't how it is
used. All of this means that we've
arrived at a very big problem for trans
activists. The problem with
Vickenstein's view is that in some
spaces, trans women are definitionally
not woman because that is how the word
woman is used in that space, which
transactivists just cannot accept. For
them, in their view, for moral reasons,
the word woman must be used the way they
want it to be used in every single
space. However, the problem with Daredus
view is that no matter what definition
of women you use, some people who might
want to call themselves women, will
eventually be excluded because having
any standards at all, even the most lack
standards, naturally includes the
possibility that somebody might fail to
live up to them. And having no standards
at all, means the word woman becomes
meaningless. You basically have to
choose between having some gatekeeping,
which means excluding some people, even
if extremely small, or you have to allow
other people to define the word
differently than you do within their own
communities and accept that it is valid
within their own contexts. The radicals
in the transactivism camp simply want
the best of both of these things, even
though that makes no sense whatsoever.
They want an objective definition of the
word woman, therefore, everyone must use
it. But they also want it to be
subjective enough that anyone can join
it on a whim. These two demands are
ultimately irreconcilable, which is why
trans activists are fighting a battle
they can't actually win. By the way, I
don't actually think Nara is smart
enough to know she's doing all this. I
don't think she's read Dereda or
Vickenstein. This is just the natural
end result of her logic. But let's shift
gears for a minute and look at the other
side of the aisle. Probably the most
high-profile person to jump onto the
other side of the conversation was
Sargon, who made a video covering the
whole thing. And to his credit, he is
smarter than Yara. Let's have some fun
of our own with an old friend of ours
called Short Fat Otaku, otherwise known
as Dev. And Dev has spent the last many
years
accepting that there are massive
problems with liberal politics. And when
I say liberal politics, I am including
basically everything that is an
extension of well, I mean, John Lock
onwards, I think, is fair to say. As I'm
sure you know by now, I think that
everything from liberalism onwards is
all a part of the same plan, has the
same philosophy, the same metaphysics,
the same tilos. It's trying to get to
the same place, but doesn't succeed.
Sargon's view nowadays is basically that
liberalism inevitably turns into
socialism and then communism because
liberals value the same thing as the
socialists and communists. And on paper,
the socialists and communists simply
have a stronger preference for those
values. and therefore every liberal will
inevitably either stop being a liberal
or they will move leftward over time. In
other words, Sargon's position is that
Marx's observed contradictions of
liberalism are correct. That the
political position of liberal is
fundamentally unstable and that given
enough time, everyone must eventually
move either leftward or rightward off of
it. I've discussed this idea in a
previous video already, and while I
don't agree with it, it is not entirely
without merit. For example, this 2016
Jacobin article, which we've looked at
several times before now, makes exactly
this claim that liberals and socialists
value the same thing, freedom and
equality. But liberalism cannot actually
provide people with more freedom and
equality than socialism can. Markx
observed the liberal revolution only
gave freedom to the bourgeoisi from the
old aristocracy. It did not give freedom
to everybody, but the socialist
revolution will. Sargon believes that
Markx was right on this, and his
solution is to reject the liberal
revolution and the enlightenment
entirely. This is why Sargon has taken
to calling everyone and anyone to the
left of him a communist, which in
reality is about as dumb as lefttoids
calling everyone a Nazi. But I've
already complained about that in several
recent videos. We don't got to do this
again. Anyway, here is how Sargon
describes my position. He says, "Nobody
reasonable actually thinks that trans
women metamorphos into biological
females." And the ask is not believe
that men are women. It's don't be an
[ __ ] If you you don't have to like
trans people, you do have to leave them
alone. Um, but I mean, I'm not
interested in in doing anything with
trans people. So, I'm happy to leave
them alone. They're just not allowed
into the same changing room as my
daughters cuz they're men. So, there's
that. Maybe if they I mean, and this is
this this is the eternal problem with
the the term trans rights to human
rights. Name a human right you don't
have. And the trans lobby would be like,
"Well, we want the right to go into the
women's bathroom." And you'd be like,
"Well, I don't have that right.
You're a male. You don't have that
right." And the the women being females
don't have the right to come into our
bathrooms either. Actually, it's not a
human right to go into the bathroom of
the opposite sex. So, you're asking for
extra rights that don't actually exist.
And frankly, I think we should just be
denying that. No, you do not have that
right and you will not get that right.
But beyond this, you're right. I don't
want to have anything to do with them.
So, you know, um the the what what would
I want to have to do with these people?
Um but anyway, the point that we have
arrived at with Dev is he's trying to
open up this gap. The ask being is not
believe that men are women.
The problem is that's not true. It's
never been true. When they say trans
women are women, they are not saying
trans women aren't really women, but
we're going to pretend they're women to
protect their feelings. What they're
saying is literally trans women are
actual women. And they have been saying
this the whole time. And Dev, the
liberal, wishing to be tolerant of trans
people, says, "Well, I'm going to be
tolerant, but I'm going to accept that
it's not real, and I'm going to expect
everyone to just exist on the point of
that contradiction." Now,
unsurprisingly, people don't actually
like existing at the point of
contradiction. People like consistency.
Actually, people like to have a logical
throughun on a certain premise and
follow through to the conclusion. They
don't want to say, "Well, I mean, we're
all just pretending that's a woman,
right?" This isn't quite right, but I'm
not going to blame him for it because to
be honest, I didn't pay for a blue check
mark on Twitter, and so I didn't
actually fit in the entirety of my view
in this one tweet. So, here is the
entirety of my view. Are trans women
female? If you want to say they're
hormonally female due to what we
discussed earlier, I get the logic, but
they're not completely female. Like I
said earlier, females are the sex of a
species that produces large gameamtes.
Because trans women do not produce large
gameamtes during the normal reproductive
cycle for the average human female, they
are not female. They can be male. They
can be neuter, but they are not and
never will be female unless we can
figure out how to give them functioning
ovaries and a uterus and make them
fertile. If that means that radicals
like Niara think I'm transphobic, I
frankly don't care. They're wrong. And
the fact that they are trans and I'm not
doesn't mean that their gaps in
reasoning are suddenly more important
than my actual logical thinking. I
reject this woke progressive idea that a
trans voice is more accurate on trans
issues than a cis voice solely because
that voice is trans because being trans
doesn't make you smart or correct. So
all of this is to say that trans women
are not female. Now are trans women
actually women? Well, despite pathy
remarks from right-wingers, this is
actually complicated. If we're going by
the adult human female definition, then
they're just not women. And there are
right-wing communities out there where
that definition of the word is in use.
Per Vickenstein, we know that in those
spaces, trans women are not women.
However, by that same logic, we also
know that there are spaces where trans
women are women. And we can even draw
out Dareda's webs of meaning for the use
of the word in those communities. If by
the word woman, a community is referring
to somebody who looks like a woman, then
a lot of trans women are women. if
they're referring to somebody who takes
on a feminine social role in their
relationships with their partner and
their family and their friends. And once
again, a lot of trans women are women.
These definitions necessarily exclude
some people who claim to be women, which
is why trans activists reject them. But
nonetheless, these definitions also
better reflect the actual realworld
lived experiences of every single
transwoman that passes in stealths and
is accepted in their world as a woman
that I have ever actually met in real
life. more so than any of Niara's
terminally online brain rot nonsense.
And of course, we all know this
intuitively. Taftage's claim of I am a
woman is far stronger than the same
claim voiced by a balding, bearded 7-ft
tall gigahon who doesn't have a single
drop of femininity in them. And if you
don't agree with me, if you think these
two people are the same, then you have
to either be blind or you're denying
what your eyes are seeing for some
ideological purpose. By the way, another
big reason as to why this whole
discourse blew up on Twitter is because
I said this exact same thing in one of
the replies. And a [ __ ] ton of trans
activists also got really [ __ ] angry
at me over my use of the word gigahon.
Not because it's a slur, but because
it's a part of the online trans
community's private language that they
believe that I, as a sis person, really
shouldn't know about. Ultimately, my
answer to the question, are trans women
actually women? Is, do they look like
women? If yes, then yes. And that means
to the terminally online trans
community, I am highly transphobic. Even
though I support a ton of protrans
policy prescriptions in government
because what it means is that I respect
the identity of a trans woman only if
they pass well enough for my intuition
to see them as women. And my response to
that is, well, too bad. Yeah, it kind of
sucks. But guess what? None of us are
actually fully self-authored beings. We
are not what we say we are simply by
will alone. For example, I'm a fat guy.
I am not a thin, muscular guy. I could
become a thin muscular guy with a lot of
hard work. But if I identified as a thin
muscular guy and did nothing else, that
would not make me one. Some people are
born women. Others, like Taftage, become
women through a lot of hard work. I know
for a fact she suffered to get where she
is now. And good on her, because that
takes real dedication. But not everybody
gets to be everything they actually want
to be. That is the harsh reality of the
real world. In fact, I'd say that each
of us have some internal qualities that
we never actually get to become because
the objective reality outside of your
own self-perception also matters a lot.
And any trans activists who are
currently listening, if this sounds
transphobic, you know you ultimately
agree with me. It's a big part of why
you transitioned in the first place.
This is why my original tweet is worded
the way it is. With regards to the first
half, trans women aren't female. Some
trans women are women. Trans women are
women if they pass enough. And that
means some people just aren't going to
make it. And that sucks. I feel for
them, but that's life. Not everyone
makes it. And with regards to the second
half, even if you don't think a specific
trans woman is a woman, you have a right
to that opinion. Even if I might
disagree, like to go back to our
example, if you look at Taftage and say,
"Nah, bro. It looks like a dude. You're
[ __ ] delusional." But okay, you've
got a right to be delusional. But when I
said you have to leave them alone, yeah,
you actually do. You should not harass
trans women, even non-passing trans
women, if you notice them, say, walking
down the street. This is a bad thing to
do. And there should be appropriate
social and legal punishments in place
depending on the severity of your
harassment. You should not be forced by
the state to accept me as women, but you
should be prevented by the state from
harassing them for simply existing in a
public place and doing nothing wrong.
That is what my actual position is. That
couldn't all fit into one tweet. And
this is how it differs from Zargon's.
We're all just we're just going to
pretend because we're such polite
people. Well, that only obtains so long
as we feel the need to be polite. If I
felt the need to be an [ __ ] I
reserve the right to be an [ __ ] If
someone's being an [ __ ] or deserves
acting in a way that deserves an [ __ ]
response from me, I feel completely
entitled to level one. This is why I'm
not a libertarian. This is why I don't
believe in the non-aggression principle.
No, someone's doing something I think
deserves aggression, then I'm going to
be aggressive towards them. Uh, I don't
see why I should have to ideologically
give that up. If a non-passing
transwoman was actually just walking
down the sidewalk or buying groceries at
the store and doing nothing actually
wrong, just existing in public, would
that qualify as acting in a way that
deserves aggression? Sargon, I hope not,
because if you answer yes, then you're
actually the problem. The non-aggression
principle has its issues, sure, but it's
honestly just the gold standard for a
lot of everyday encounters. Live and let
live liberalism is in fact a moral
position that most people believe is
appropriate for most of the time, and
you would be the one doing the wrong by
violating it. You don't have to like
trans people. You do have to leave them
alone. Well, I mean, that's fair, but
this gap doesn't really exist. It's a
bunch of It's very online, this gap. And
it's being rapidly closed, but not
really by the right. The right has just
been like, well,
let's just be honest about this, shall
we? And the left has been like, no, Dev,
you are basically a reactionary rightist
who's seeking to destroy trans women.
>> Sargon's wrong about this, too. He's got
it inverted. Actually, the space that
I'm describing is actually very, very
common offline. Anybody who's ever had
trans friends or co-workers or been
involved with trans people in a
non-romantic capacity understands that
my position is actually the dominant
normal one. I am how your average person
behaves on this topic. This rapidly
closing gap as the dialectic comes to
its conclusion. That is the terminally
online brain rot. In real life, there
are a lot more Lilith love than there
are naras. That's for [ __ ] sure. And
to be honest, this is a huge problem for
the online right, including Sargon, in a
lot of topics far beyond today's. They
believe the loudest, most terminally
online, most far-left voice represents
every single person they oppose, when it
just doesn't. Uh, but you can see they
just do not accept Dev's premise. So,
they actually do think trans women
metamorphoses into biological females.
HRT literally makes us biologically
female. I mean, 5,700
likes on that one. Like these 7,500
likes on that one. Dev only had what?
700 likes on his. Sorry, Dev. I don't
think the gap that you're trying to
carve out actually exists here. You
either believe it makes them
biologically female or you're a
reactionary writist. You've got to make
the decision on that. This is the part
where I fundamentally disagree with
Sargon. Not only has he accepted Marxist
premises, but he's also accepted the
same conclusion. He's reduced everything
to either you accept all of the trans
activist positions or you're a
reactionary right-winger like me. And to
that I simply say no. Why would I let
the people who are wrong about this
conversation dictate its terms? I don't
actually care if they view me as a
reactionary right-winger. That just
means they're [ __ ] [ __ ] And in
the same vein, I don't care if people on
the right view me as a revolutionary
communist either. That just means
they're [ __ ] [ __ ] too. Sargon's
argument here basically boils down to
one of popularity. A lot of online
radicals said you were wrong, Dev. The
people who you were defending have
stabbed you in the back, Dev. You should
just join us on the right, Dev. Well,
one, I actually have more daggers on my
back from your camp than theirs even
now. Thank you very much. But more
importantly, what is true and correct
and good matters more than whose side
something helps. This was also another
branch of the Niara drama where Niara
and others like her would shriek at me
that I'm not a real ally because I'm not
saying or thinking the right things. And
okay, I actually don't give a [ __ ] if
you think I'm an ally or not. What
matters is, is what I'm saying actually
true? For example, it is just true that
Taftage looks like a woman. It is also
just true that the experience of gender
dysphoria causes a lot of mental
distress and that transitioning your
body to be more in line with the
opposite sex, even if you can't get all
the way there, does in fact alleviate
that distress. The data is in on this.
People with gender dysphoria
pre-transition versus people with gender
dysphoria post-transition. The
post-transition people consistently
report higher quality of life.
Legitimate transphobes do occasionally
post this study, which they claim says
the opposite, but it doesn't. This study
says that people without gender
dysphoria have a higher quality of life
than people with gender dysphoria who
transition, which is just obviously
true. But they're not comparing pre and
posttransition gender dysphoria
sufferers. And when you do that, you
just plainly see transitioning helps
treat the symptoms of people with gender
dysphoria. However, there are other
truths that don't fall in line with the
ideology of trans activists either. For
example, while it is true that when you
scan trans women's brains, you discover
they have some commonalities with cis
women brain scans, it's also true that
they have a lot of commonalities with
gay men's brain scans, too. And when you
control for the differences between
straight men's brain scans and gay men's
brain scans, trans women's brain scans
are almost identical to men's brain
scans with the exception of the area
that governs self-perception. This is a
truth that a lot of trans activists
really don't like because it points to
trans women being more closely related
to gay men than they want to admit. But
it is nonetheless true. Same thing with
the trans women and women sports
conversation, which I've covered
multiple times in this channel now, so
we don't got to get into it. But the
TLDDR is you've got to be on HRT for
like 5 years before the advantage of
male puberty begins to subside. And for
a lot of sports, that means that trans
women just can't compete at the
professional level without starting HRT
while underage. Sucks for them. But I am
only interested in what is true, not
what is good for the political activists
on either the left or the right. This is
why I reject Sargon's argument. It is
fundamentally the same as Niara's.
They're both saying there is no neutral
space. You must join us or join them.
However, the truth is actually found in
the neutral space. So that's where I am
and I'm not moving off of it. Yeah, it's
true. People to the left of me got
thousands of likes while I only got
hundreds. But I don't believe that's
indicative of the real world because,
and this might be hard to accept, I'm
not actually terminally online. But
okay, let's assume this ratio does in
fact reflect the real world. Most people
have actually chosen sides and my tiny
centrist camp is being squeezed out. So
what? Do you think this is the first
time I've stood in front of a mass of
idiots before and told them they were
all wrong? I used to do it every single
week on Arch's channel. If something is
true but unpopular, you should stick to
it, even if it costs you. My core
problem with 2026 Sargon is that in his
descent down the post-modern
neo-reactionary rabbit hole, he's
developed the same problem in his
thinking as the postmodern neo-Marxists.
He regularly rejects truth in favor of
what is good for his political project.
And frankly, I'm just not built like
that. And Sargon kind of knows all this,
by the way. He tips his hand a bit in
this next segment. I mean what what is
interesting about this is that the trans
argument has devolved from being
idealistic as in existing in the world
of ideas and saying well look actually
we're not gender essentialists. We're
not biological essentialists. We don't
believe that the physical properties of
the body are what make you the thing
that you are. Your identity is not drawn
from your physical um attributes. It is
something that is chosen for you, which
is what the liberal wants to believe.
But notice how here they have literally
collapsed that back into on the other
side of this. No, we are literally
biological females. And therefore, we're
going to make the gender I we're going
to literally make the biological
essentialist argument regarding gender.
This is all biological essentialism.
Biological essentialism. And ultimately,
what that means is, well, I get to
decide if that's what a biological
female is. And if your chromosomes and
genitals haven't changed, or at least,
you know, they're not the authentic ones
of the other sex, then I don't agree
that you have changed your sex. And so I
can actually trump this with the
biological essentialism of there is no
such thing as a woman's penis.
Just saying. Dev seems to uh have missed
the point. Apparently, this isn't the
woke position, though, which Dev would
agree with. He's not trying to be woke
here. He's trying to be liberal. Yeah,
what he's getting at here is that both
camps are actually ignoring different
bits of the truth because it hurts their
politics. For Sargon, he's ignoring
gender dysphoria and the passing
principle, while for trans activists,
they're ignoring the fact that trans
women don't have functioning ovaries and
uteruses. Neither of these positions is
sufficient to actually describe the full
reality of what's going on here. And
this is that full reality. Trans women
do in fact represent a third gender.
This does not mean that there are
infinite genders or anything, but that
the experience of being a transw woman
is sufficiently different from the
experiences of being both a man and a
woman. Trans activists hate this because
they want trans women to be completely
identical to sis women where there's no
way to differentiate between them. But
this just isn't true and they can keep
coping, seething, and dilating about it
because they're [ __ ] wrong. But the
anti-trans activists are also wrong when
they say that trans women are men. Trans
women who either have had bottom surgery
or they've been on HRT for so long they
no longer produce sperm are no longer
male. They're neuter. They don't fit the
label of man, adult human male, because
they do not produce small gametes. It's
the same reason as why they're not a
female. If a right-winger like Sargon
can recognize that despite the obvious
similarities between a trans woman and a
woman, they are not the same thing. Then
he should also be able to recognize that
despite the way less obvious
similarities between a trans woman and a
man, they are also not the same thing.
But Sargon can't do this because he is
just as ideologically captured as Nara
is in the other direction. This is why
he has to characterize my position in
this way. But notice how they're trying
to capture a biologically essentialist
argument here. And Dev doesn't seem to
realize that
his idealist position of we're just
going to let them pretend out of
politeness sake. I mean, that's not even
idealist. He would like I guess he would
concede like the
everything but the bi biologically
essentialist aspect of the argument
and then for that just say as he says
we're just going to believe a polite lie
about this but the people that he's
trying to protect don't agree with him
at all. No, no, they don't want to be
liars. And this is one of the things
that the far-left has over the center
left, the sort of liberals, the
communists, the radical lunatics have
over the libtards, which is well,
they're being honest, right? The liberal
Dev's own position contains a lie. Dev's
own position itself is a lie and he
advertises it as a lie. No, no, no, no.
When they say trans women are women, uh,
trans Yeah. Yeah. trans men, trans women
or women. Um they're not saying this is
really true. What they're doing is we're
constructing a social lie that we're all
going to adhere to because it protects
someone's feelings. And so we're all
going to live in a lie, says the
liberal. And he wonders why these people
are just like, "No." And the only
recourse that Dev has is say, "Well,
you're not being reasonable." It's like,
"Dev, I don't know that it's reasonable
to construct a widescale social lie."
and then ex insist everyone agree to it
even though everyone knows it's a
[ __ ] lie. I'm not sure that's
actually reasonable at all. And
actually, it seems very unreasonable
when you actually lay out what that
you're doing here. And honestly, I mean,
these are not good arguments, but at
least these people genuinely believe
these arguments, and so at least there's
some kind of sincerity behind them. No,
Sargon, it's not a lie. It's recognizing
that gender dysphoria is a real
phenomenon. That phenomenon combined
with the work that trans women put into
alleviating it does not mean that trans
women are the same thing as cis women.
But it also does not mean that they're
the same thing as cis men either. I'm
not lying here. I'm recognizing nuance.
And your entire goal in this
conversation seems to be the same as
Niara and her ilk. To collapse nuance
and render true understanding impossible
in a way that aligns with your larger
political agenda. But I refuse to follow
either of you down those paths. This, I
think, is just the the point of what I'm
trying to drive at here is essentially
Dev doesn't have any space to be able to
make the sort of 2015
liberal arguments against radical
wokeness, right? That that space has
collapsed. The people on neither side
agree with him and so he can't create
the compromise he's trying to create.
So, yes, no, we will pay heed to
reality, but we believe what we think of
it as their lies. And the people on the
right are saying, "Well, no, we're not
going to we're not going to pay heed to
their reality cuz it's not real." And
the people on the left like, "We don't
want to live by lies. We genuinely
believe this. Whether you think it's
true or not, in fact, the fact that you
don't think it's true makes you the
reactionary evil like you, the people on
the right." If it is truly the case that
I am the final 2015 liberal and there's
nobody left who actually agrees with me,
then that's fine. I've made my peace
with that long ago. My many debates with
you and the others over the years about,
for example, the objective truth of
Trump's corruption have already helped
steal me to the outcome of being
surrounded by giant hordes of people who
do not live in reality and do not see
beyond what is good for their side. I'm
not lying. Rather, I'm just willing to
observe the bits of reality that you are
willfully blind towards. And I'm going
to remain here unmoved by either of you
because that 2015 liberal position when
fully articulated is actually the one
that is most in line with observable
reality. And additionally, it doesn't
actually matter if the people who I'm
defending hate me for my defense because
I'm not really doing it for them. I'm
doing it because it's correct. For some
reason, Dev has decided he's going to
fix himself in this place. I fix myself
in this place because what this place is
is the real world. I think the reason
I've come to appreciate guys like
Richard Hania, for example, is because
while he fully understands and
articulates the fault of liberalism, he
recognizes that nonetheless it is still
the most in line with the real world
when compared to any other political
position. However, I will once again
give the devil his due. Sargon did in
fact accurately identify the reason as
to why I find myself opposed to both him
and Nara. These two factions view the
problem the same way. They just disagree
on outcome. I'm different from both of
them as are many other libs because we
do actually view the problem
differently. Here's a great example of
what I mean from someone in the Nara
crowd. The gender not sex rhetoric shows
us once again how it damaged our allies
perception and advocacy of us.
Literally, you are not that far from
thinking like them if your whole defense
is just leave them alone. You can really
only say this slop if you're
ideologically captured because this is
actually the proper individual liberty's
defense. Sargon's correct in that this
person's logic is biological
essentialism from the other side. But
that logic is incomplete for the reasons
we've already discussed. They're both
missing parts of the story. The whole
thing boils down to something like this.
For Nara, supporting protrans policies,
like say enshrining a legal right for
individuals to transition is not enough.
To her, doing that is still transphobic
if you don't accept the underlying logic
of trans women being women. as in trans
women being identical enough to sis
women to place them in the same category
in all possible languages and spaces to
the point that you genuinely believe
trans women are female in all respects.
Nara types don't simply want civil
acceptance. They want you to think like
they do. Any contradictions be damned.
Meanwhile, for Sargon, the liberal
rejection of trans women as being
identical to siswoman is also not enough
for him. That's still far-left lunacy.
Sargon types make the same demands as
Niara types from the opposite direction.
people in his camp are very happy to
demand that you say the magic words.
Trans women are men. That is, if you can
ever actually have a long enough
coherent dialogue with them to get to
that point. In reality, trans women
aren't women and they're also not men. I
don't care whose political activism this
hurts. It's true. And the reason it's
true is because the observable evidence
about trans women in the real world
points towards them having some aspects
of femaleeness, but not all of them.
existing in that space between two
clusters in a biodal distribution
inherently means that you're not
actually a part of either cluster. And
moving from cluster A into the center
does not automatically put you into
cluster B. It means you're in the center
and that's that. Anyway, there is a lot
more to this topic. Maybe I will do
follow-up videos on different points in
my multi-week Twitter argument with Nar
that I didn't cover today. But Sargon is
ultimately correct when he says that the
trans activists are probably going to
lose this fight, at least in the short
term. Liberalism is revealed to be a
kind of social technology rather than
actually anything useful about passing
the world itself. It's trying to bring
into existence a a social space to bring
these two things together so they can
both exist together. But no, they're
directly contradictory. And the
overwhelming majority of people who do
not agree that trans women are women or
are biological women, they are going to
get their way. And the 1% of ridiculous
radical leftists are not going to get
that way. And there's no space in the
middle for you to carve out a
compromise. Dev, I hate to say it. Even
though my liberal centrist compromise is
the position most in line with reality,
if trans activists themselves aren't
going to support it, then the remaining
possibilities are convince the majority
of the world that trans women and sis
women have no real differences between
them, which you are not going to do
because it is self-evidently false, or
convince the majority of the world that
trans women are men in dresses, which
also isn't really true, but it is a lot
easier to convince people of, which is
why in the absence of liberals like me,
right-wingers win the argument. And
guess what? Nara is not actually that
stupid because even she knows this. Here
is Niara ultimately agreeing with my
position in the face of right-wing
victories on trans topics. Here's
another prominent trans account who
blocked me long ago for my apparent
transphobia, saying the exact same
so-called transphobic things that I
said. Compare these two to this other
large trans account who jumped into the
convo, and you'll see what I mean. I'm
sorry, liberals, but it really is the
case that you have to accept trans women
in sports if you don't want fascism. You
are doing exactly what Sargon said. You
are signing your own death warrant. You
are an idiot. I talked about this
specific dumb [ __ ] the last time I did a
video on transwomen women sports. So, we
don't got to spend too much time on her
stupidity. Even though both of these
groups are wrong, Sargon's group is less
wrong than Niara's. And if the battle is
only fought between these two groups,
Sargon wins. But my position is actually
the correct one. And more importantly,
it's the one that actually defends trans
people's rights in the real world. And
I'm not just saying this. We can test it
empirically. The liberal streamer Hutch
interviewed Laxsha Jane on stream
recently. Laksha works for a liberal
political outlet called The Argument,
and he runs the organization Split
Ticket, which is a polling organization.
He is a pollster by trade. His whole
deal is that he collects real world data
from real world voters to see how
Americans are currently feeling about
the issues with the aim of using that
data to advise Democratic politicians on
how to get elected. So here is Laksha's
view on the current polling data on the
issue that this joy [ __ ] demands that
liberals accept or else they're
fascists. The trans women in women's
sports issue. Forget about ideology.
What do the raw facts say about how this
issue intersects with candidate
electability? you you recently came out
Laksha with an article kind of exploring
the trans issue for Democrats. Um how do
you how do you s you know what what if
you were advising a campaign like how
would you advise them to uh respond to
questions like you know should trans
girls play in sports?
>> You say no if you're in a swing state
and if you're in Manhattan you say
whatever the hell you want. Um, it's
just like this is something where like
outside of like Manhattan, San
Francisco, like you know, the blest of
blue areas, people just straight up do
not agree. It does not make sense to
make this a flash point. I understand
that people say if you give an inch, you
seat a mile. But the truth is, at this
point, you've already seated the mile.
Now you're trying to get back a little
bit of that ground. And by insisting on
something that even your own base
doesn't agree with, you are basically
just endangering everything else
associated with that issue. So I would
say there are times at which you
literally have to triangulate and say
no, I'm not for that. That's what Rob
Sand did in Iowa. And that's also why
he's um in part really avoided being
suckered into the culture wars and he's
pulling very very well there.
>> What about a presidential candidate?
>> I'd say the same thing for a
presidential candidate. You have to win
the swing states.
>> Oh, this actually sounds very, very
different from you must accept trans
women and women's sports or we're
descending into fascism and you're
transphobic. In fact, it sounds like
those normies who are the most likely to
be supportive of trans rights in most
other areas nonetheless still disagree
with trans women competing in women's
professional sports. This point is an
electoral loser and insisting upon it
has made no real world gains for trans
people. In fact, it's helped the right
incur realworld losses against trans
people because to the rest of the world,
you look like you're [ __ ] delusional.
And like it or not, trans people do
actually need the rest of the world on
their side. It is my position, it is the
liberals that actually makes trans
women's lives better because my position
wins real world elections. My position
puts people into power, that can
actually pass legislation that protects
people's right to transition. My
position might not be ideologically pure
like Niara's is because I don't take the
maximally protrans stance on every
deranged stupid talking point like she
does, but my position has the advantage
of creating realworld results. Nara's
position ultimately leads to her and her
pack of morons screaming on Twitter all
day about how everyone hates them and
then crying about how they've been
betrayed when all of their rights get
taken away by people like Sargon. And
hopefully Nara won't have to take too
many more [ __ ] L's before she figures
out that people like her only embolden
the rights attacks against trans people.
That is what Laksha's polling data
actually means. The normies view trans
women in women's sports as such a hard
line for them that they will vote for a
right-winger who would abolish all trans
rights. But if there was a reasonable
centrist candidate who didn't accept
trans women and women sports, but who
also didn't agree with every maximally
anti-trans stance the way the right-wing
does, well, that guy wins elections.
That is what people actually want. The
only reason this dialectic collapses, as
Sargon put it, is because the trans
activists force it to collapse. And that
is basically the death nail for trans
people because recent political history
has shown they're not going to [ __ ]
survive that collapse. But don't worry,
Nara. It will be those pesky liberals
you hate who ride in and save your
dumbass once again like we always do,
even if you don't actually deserve it.
Despite what Sargon thinks, the libs are
actually going to win this one, Nara.
You are going to get the right to
transition enshrined in law. You are
going to get your anti-discrimination
laws, too. You are going to get banned
from women's professional sports. And
even if you don't have the intelligence
or the humility enough to thank us for
it, you're still going to enjoy it.
You're welcome. You can either get with
the program or keep pouring gasoline all
over yourself. Because if you ever light
on fire, it's not going to be me who
burns.