Neil deGrasse Tyson's Thoughts on Transgenderism

It seems that the left is militating against the advent of science, one of those areas is the area of ​​

transgenderism

. The argument often made by gender theorists is that gender is completely separate from sex. You've already seen the argument. that there is no difference on average if men are stronger than women and that if we allowed transgender women to compete with non-transgender women then this would somehow not harm biological women and this seems absolutely scientific to me that if In fact, We're going to have a discussion about gender and sex that should be based on data suggesting that mammals are, in fact, binary in terms of sex, unless you typically have intersex birth defects or genetic defects.

I'm happy to comment on this. This only matters because we segregate almost all sports by gender these days, otherwise why do you care what someone identifies with? So we live in a free country and with adults and people who consent to the free expression of who and what they are, adult man. Level, I agree with you, I think it doesn't matter what you teach, then there is the matrix of, you know what you are biologically, how you express yourself, who you choose as a sexual partner if we really live in a free country. As we tell ourselves, people's freedom to behave in any of those ways should not concern them at all nor demand that they behave that way.

Okay, this is for your own freedoms because we now live in a free country. What is not resolved here is what to do. what you do with sports is not resolved and I have followed it closely and I do not see any significant solution to get off of that. We know that hormones manifest differently in different people and they have the whole issue. with steroids steroids are hormones, right, and we deal with steroids in professional sports because they give you an undue advantage, so I've tried to think about what the future of sports would be in the world of the gender spectrum and can You don't specify if it's a male or female sport, you simply take measurements of what your hormonal balances are and, therefore, you compete according to your mother.

This is what I thought I had. I don't know, I don't know where the wnba is going to land. won't be in business for long if that's the case it would just be uh you'd have to find some way to compete with each other if you still care about sports being an interesting activity I guess area where it comes up in a non-sports area, I don't know, so it would be you who talk in your book about educating children and teaching science to children and right now children are being taught about the gender spectrum, in quotes, which does not have a scientific basis is an idea based on theory don't wait wait wait wait wait wait people express themselves on a spectrum so you learn that it is true that is a social point not a scientific point is its meaning we express ourselves in different languages, that is something that is taught in science class or is something that is taught when you teach language, so if the fact that people want to express themselves on a gender spectrum, if that fact is something that you want to put in a sociology class or in a science class maybe that is yet to be determined but it is a real fact about real society, of course no one denies that people identify how they want to identify themselves so the question is what is the relationship of that to the meaning of biology, right, it is argued that trans women are women, for example, and what that seems to mean is that trans women are identical to women now people want to say that trans women are not biological women, obviously that is the case, but people don't seem to want to say that, although that is obviously scientifically true, trans women are not biological women, biological women are biological women, but where are you going with this? what is your?

What are you trying to achieve by asking yourself? It's science or it's not science, it's how people are in society, but this is a perfect example of an area where suddenly it doesn't matter to say things that are simply true, like why it's bad or wrong. Another way to approach this. I care about what is objectively true in the world as a scientist. But don't let me say even as a scientist. I simply care about what is objectively true. And science turns out to be a quite powerful path to invoke and find. figuring out what's true and therefore whether people express themselves on a gender spectrum and that's a real thing in a real society, if we haven't fully explained it scientifically, that's an interesting frontier to study, if you want to say that It's just sociological, so it's the purview of the social sciences I don't care who studies it It's an interesting fact about society that's worth learning If doing it to fight with someone and say it's not biological It's just yours This is real and it's there because it is real because it manifests but it is real because it manifests but the question of how to classify manifestation is a scientific question, which means that, for example, there is a woman at Brown University, she presented a study that suggested that there was a phenomenon called rapid. onset of gender dysphoria in which a member of a particular group would suffer from gender dysphoria and this person's immediate peer group would suddenly have an onset of gender dysphoria.

This article was so controversial that Brown attempted to withdraw it and was then forced to reassign it. Later you will see this type of question, that is a different question. What you are doing now is: are there some topics that should not be studied scientifically properly and are there any taboos? Sam Harris talks a lot about this, yes, and I think the concern is if you study some hot topic and apply scientific methods and tools there that we don't trust. I'm interpreting here. I think we as a society don't trust the people in charge in a free country not to do that. to try to legislate something that restricts people's freedoms from that information, I think that's the fear, well, it's not that it's a fear, I mean, and it's not that you don't trust our own ability to govern ourselves. vs.

What could be information relating to other types of issues? Isn't it a small problem? Yeah, yeah, it's not, it means it's not a free society, it's not a free inquiry society, which I think is ultimately necessary, but, yeah, the big picture of all of this, from climate change to gender dysphoria and all these issues, is to bring out the science and then analyze it. I think the problem I'm seeing in many sciences. What is your motivation? Because? It matters, it matters because if you have political power you could end up creating legislation that takes away freedoms from people who previously enjoyed the same freedoms as you.

The story of that exercise and present a better argument, it doesn't end well, but the story. from what exercise to extract all the science and discuss it. What I'm saying is that if you take out all the science and politicians discuss it, the history of that exercise is a recipe for disaster if it involves discoveries that put people's freedom as defined. in our constitution is at risk, but now you are arguing for limitations on particular areas of study. No, I'm arguing that we need a way to protect, we need a way to protect people's freedoms from anything that is discovered scientifically, so i i i' I'll give you, I mean, I agree, I think that's what the constitution is to protect rights, but we are always, I mean, people who want rights are always fighting others who say they don't get rights from the constitution. a daily challenge on the progressive left is a daily challenge here is an example.

I forget how I ended up getting this phone call. It was a magazine that serves the gay community and they want me to remember why because they wanted my opinion on um. There were some who wanted my opinion on whether being gay was biological or important, but there's a new study that came out, this is psychological, right, okay, right, and I said I don't care what it is, figure out what's okay, but the answer . to that question it should not have consequences on legislation or laws because for example suppose he says it is purely biological okay then you say oh that explains it suppose he says it is purely psychological what are you going to do now I say well now you can You are going to go to reorientation camps or whatever they're called, where they realign you because they say it's more psychological than biological, and suddenly people start behaving in society in ways that want to restrict freedom of expression. of who and what people are and that is a danger so maybe there needs to be a line in the sand let science do what it does but politicians keep us free but there are so many politicians that are doing the opposite of that, why not? you are a libertarian I am a libertarian come here okay the line is right here join me here