[0:05]
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 
[0:37]
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 
[1:08]
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 
[1:38]
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 
[2:08]
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 
[2:39]
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 
[3:09]
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 
[3:41]
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 
[4:11]
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 [ __ ] 
[4:42]
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 
[5:13]
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 
[5:43]
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 
[6:13]
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 
[6:44]
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 
[7:15]
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 
[7:45]
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 
[8:15]
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 
[8:46]
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 
[9:16]
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 
[9:47]
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 
[10:18]
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 
[10:49]
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 
[11:20]
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 
[11:51]
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 
[12:22]
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. 
[12:53]
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, 
[13:24]
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 
[13:56]
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 
[14:26]
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. 
[14:57]
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 
[15:29]
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 
[16:01]
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. 
[16:31]
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 
[17:03]
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 
[17:34]
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 
[18:05]
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 
[18:36]
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. 
[19:07]
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 
[19:39]
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 
[20:09]
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 
[20:41]
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 
[21:12]
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 
[21:42]
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 
[22:12]
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 
[22:43]
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 
[23:13]
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 
[23:43]
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 
[24:14]
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 
[24:44]
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 
[25:15]
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 
[25:47]
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 
[26:17]
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 
[26:48]
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 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 
[27:20]
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 
[27:51]
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 
[28:21]
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 
[28:51]
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 
[29:21]
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 
[29:53]
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 
[30:23]
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 
[30:55]
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 
[31:26]
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 
[31:58]
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 
[32:29]
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 
[33:01]
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 
[33:31]
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 
[34:02]
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 
[34:32]
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 
[35:04]
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 
[35:34]
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 
[36:05]
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 
[36:35]
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 
[37:06]
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, 
[37:38]
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 
[38:10]
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 
[38:42]
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 
[39:13]
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 
[39:44]
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 
[40:15]
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 
[40:46]
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 
[41:18]
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 
[41:49]
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 
[42:21]
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. 
[42:52]
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 
[43:23]
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, 
[43:54]
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 
[44:26]
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 
[44:56]
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 
[45:27]
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 
[45:58]
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 
[46:30]
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 
[47:03]
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, 
[47:34]
"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, 
[48:05]
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 
[48:37]
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 
[49:07]
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 
[49:38]
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 
[50:09]
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 
[50:40]
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 
[51:11]
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. 
[51:41]
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 
[52:12]
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 
[52:42]
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 
[53:15]
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 
[53:46]
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 
[54:17]
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 
[54:48]
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 
[55:19]
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 
[55:51]
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 
[56:22]
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? 
[56:54]
>> 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 
[57:26]
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 
[57:57]
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 
[58:28]
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 
[58:59]
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 on fire, it's not going to be me who burns.