DEBATE: Is Misgendering Hate Speech? Griffin & 1stAmender Vs Jake of @rattlesnaketv & PWF
02:51:03 Share

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace. Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need.

Talkspace is here for you.

Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com. Save $80 with code SPACE80 at Talkspace.com.

Newark, New Jersey is where Modern Day Debate's next debate conference, DebateCon 5, is happening, including debates like Dr. Lawrence Krauss against inspiring philosophy Mike Jones on Saturday, February 15th, and Andrew Wilson against atheist Craig McNeil, as well as other debaters including David Wood and Apostate Prophet. So click below to grab your tickets right now as some ticket types have already sold out.

Hey, everybody. Tonight we're debating whether or not misgendering somebody is hate speech and we are starting right now with the yes side in particular. First Amender, thanks for being with us. The floor is all yours. Hey, how you doing, James? Glad to be back on. So yes, misgendering is in fact hate speech.

Basically what you're doing is that hate speech is not necessarily about what is intended, but rather its effect on what exactly is happening. So if you're deliberately misgendering somebody, and I don't mean like an accidental misgender, I mean like you are deliberately misgendering with the intent to be a terrible person,

What you are doing is that you are undermining the trans person's dignity as well as their identity. You are, in effect, reinforcing discrimination and social exclusion.

on that basis, right? Any human, every single human man, woman, whatever is that we generally, unless if there's a really good reason to try to include people in society. And if you are already just off the get go, uh, deliberately misgendering somebody in order to exclude them from society, you basically are excluding them based on just nonsense, right?

So to break it down, if you are, for example, misgendering them,

and you are causing deliberate psychological and social harm to that individual, that's increasing their anxiety, it is increasing their depression, it is increasing their rates of suicide rate among trans individuals. You, by their very virtue, are revoking basic inalienable rights of life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness.

This is the case in any modern society that we treat people how we would want to be treated. And if you are, say, a cisgendered person or somebody who is straight, it is safe to assume that your identity is not called into question. And with that, I cede the rest of my time. Go ahead, William. It's cool, man. I'm going to share my screen now. You got it. Okay.

Ready, crystal clear. Hey, I'm Will. I'm going to be arguing that misgendering is, in fact, hate speech. So let's get started. So before we dive into the hate speech aspect, I want to first talk about just transgenderism in general.

So first, this graphic on the screen does a really good job at breaking down gender, sex, and how it relates to each other so that we all get a better understanding of the situation. So there's three categories that make up a person, and they're on the screen here. We're going to break down each one. Gender identity, gender expression, and anatomical sex. Gender identity is a person's

inner opinion, subjective opinion about themselves, whether they think they are more woman or more man or both or neither, there is no wrong answer here because it is simply an opinion about yourself on the inside of you. It is a psychological, inner, subjective concept. So it cannot be wrong.

Gender expression is an intersubjective concept that exists in a society because a society is the thing that's going to dictate what is a more feminine attribute and what is a more masculine attribute. That's going to involve things like the way you dress, the way you act, the way you speak. And the main thing to look at here is that gender expression does not need to equate to your gender identity. You can have masculine men or masculine women and feminine men, and that doesn't break any of the rules, right?

And then you have anatomical sex, which is the physical characteristics of the individual's body that you're going to correspond to a particular sex. It's going to be things like genitalia, chromosomes, hormonal makeup, and bone structure, and more. And even that's not a binary. You can have more or less of either one. The only hard rules is sex assigned at birth. You only got three options here. You got male, female, or intersex. And this is where transgenderism comes into play.

Because according to the DSM-5, transgenderism is the same as gender dysphoria, which is the same as having a sex assigned at birth, which does not match your current gender identity. And that's all it is. They explicitly state that it is not a mental illness, it is not a mental disorder, or any of that. It is simply a psychological characteristic of an individual.

Now, that being said, there are times where gender dysphoria can result in distress of the individual. And then we have to look at that situation for what it is. This is an individual, a person in society, a member of our community that needs help. And they deserve our respect, first of all, our empathy, and our support if they need it. So how can we support a transgender individual?

On the screen, there are six different modern peer-reviewed articles that point directly to the fact that gender-affirming surgeries helps transgender people who are going through distress avoid suicidal ideation and depression.

So we know gender-affirming surgeries help, but we also know a lot of people are very nervous about transgender surgeries and gender-affirming surgeries for them. So there's great news for them. There's a much more better, much more foolproof way to help transgender people avoid those terrible mental issues, and that is simply affirm them and support them socially, right? Respect them, respect

vocally, voice your respect, your affirmation for them, you know, validate that their identity is theirs and it is valid, and just support them, right? The reason people want transgender gender-affirming surgeries is because they don't have that affirmation socially, right? So if we supported them socially, we would actually likely reduce the desire for those surgeries in the first place,

So this is where hate speech comes into play. Because when you are going out of your way to misgender them, you are doing something that you know is going to contribute to severe psychological harm in some cases to these people, right? And obviously we're only talking about purposeful, intentional, and deliberate misgenderings. Any accidents, no transgender person is going to have a problem. But when you do it deliberately...

and you do it consistently, and you are clearly trying to disrespect their personal gender identity, that's when it becomes harmful, that's when it becomes harassment, that's when it becomes hostile, and that's when it becomes hate speech. And that's not even mentioning the fact that misgendering is a form of language that's aimed at marginalizing and invalidating the entire group of transgender people, just because of their personal beliefs and opinions just about themselves.

you're completely disrespecting that entire identity of them. That is very important to them. And guess what? You don't even have to affirm their gender. You don't have to affirm their gender. You just don't need to

misgender them, right? Because there's another option. You always have the option of simply using gender-neutral language like the word "they" as a pronoun or just drop the pronouns and just use the word, just use their name, right? Whenever you talk about them, just use their name rather than using gendered speech. So if you really want to respect them but you also don't want to affirm their gender for whatever reason,

You don't have to. You can still support them, still respect them, and not cause any type of hate speech by mis-gendering them by using gender-neutral language or just using their name.

So it is very easy to avoid this form of hate speech and respect each other and build each other up the golden rule that we all respect. So I hope we get into bathrooms. I hope we can talk about who can use what bathrooms. I hope we can talk about who can play what sports. I hope we can talk about all the plethora of topics that are related to this. And I think that's it for my time, but I appreciate you guys being here. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that opening statement. I am going to kick us over into the other team's opening as well. But I want to say, folks, first, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, I'm your host, Dr. James Coons. Modern Day Debate is a fully neutral debate platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics.

Don't forget to hit that subscribe button as we have many debates coming up, including a debate con this Saturday. Folks, if you didn't know it, in Newark, New Jersey, debate con this Saturday is modern day debates, two day debate conference filled with debates on both religion and atheism and politics. You don't want to miss it. Click on the link in the description box to get your tickets right now. That kick it over to.

First time here, Jake of Rattlesnake TV. Thrilled to have you. The floor is all yours for your opening. Thank you, James. And hello, Modern Day Debate. Good to be with you all this evening. My first time on the platform and I really appreciate the opportunity. So thank you very much, James. And I'll be seeing you guys on the 15th on Saturday at DebateCon in New York, whoever's coming. So I'm really looking forward to that.

On the topic of the debate, my name is Jake. My channel is Rattlesnake TV, by the way, and I like to go by Lord Rattlesnake or Lord Jake, most base chat of all the lands. If that's too much of a tongue twister for you guys, then you can just call me Lord or me Lord. So just for my opponents today, when you do refer to me, I would really appreciate it if before you address me, you say my Lord or just Lord. Either one of them is fine. So that would be fantastic if you could respect my identity.

Furthermore, my pronouns are we, us as well. So if you could use we, us when you're talking about me, that would be great.

And in terms of the debate, I do not think that misgendering is hate speech because I don't think that speech or words in themselves can actually be hateful. There has to be intent behind it. I'm not going to say that there aren't people who don't hate transgender people. There are going to be people who hate transgender people. However, to say that misgendering alone is hate speech is

would imply that there is always intent there with the misgendering. I completely disagree with that notion because normally if somebody does misgender, they're doing it because they're making a truth claim. They don't believe that they are the gender or they don't believe that they are the sex that you're calling them. So...

Respectfully, Will, I appreciate that you came with a whole sort of DEI thing today. That's fantastic, but I don't care about your DEI presentation. It doesn't really matter to me what your parameters for a woman are. I don't think it's relevant to the debate whatsoever. We're not going to be able to convince each other differently. That's not going to happen. The debate is about whether or not it's hate speech, so I'd appreciate it if we could stick to the debate prompt rather than getting into the weeds of...

what is a woman, etc. We can if you really want to go there, we can, but it's not going to be relevant. And it's not going to be productive. So if we could keep to the prompt, that would be fantastic. And with that, I'll cede my time to Alex. Yeah, my lord, Jake makes some good points. I actually go by your majesty, your highness will be also sufficient. So okay, by definition, hate speech is abusive or threatening speech that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds. The big

thing is, it requires intent to cause harm. The speaker must have intended to incite hatred or hostility towards a particular group. If you, for example, believe there are two genders, like most people do, then you're just simply identifying someone correctly, according to your beliefs. You're not being abusive or threatening. At least that is not your intent. It is potentially impolite. Yeah, sure. But it is not hate speech.

It is also a first amendment protected right. If you're not communicating a serious intent to commit and cause violence, then it also is protected under the first amendment. Furthermore, I'm just going to add this. The whole premise of hate speech is a horrible idea for the left. I'm personally an old school liberal and sad to see how the left basically fucks itself in the

ass and loses every single election because of its focus on things like this. They're pretty much normie. They're pretty much every normie rolls their eyes on and thinks is cringe. But yeah, the bigger point here is that simply that it requires intent to cause harm. And if you believe there are two genders, right, then you're not intending to cause harm. So for example, if you don't actually believe that Jake is a Lord and you just say, hey, Jake, you're not intending to cause him harm. You just simply disagree with what he believes he is to be.

But it's more polite to call him my lord. So just point it out. Thank you very much for that opening. We're going to jump into the open dialogue. A couple of quick housekeeping things. First, folks, as I mentioned, DebateCon in Newark, New Jersey this weekend. Folks, if you think that you don't have plans for this Valentine's Day weekend, you do. All the debates will be live streamed if you can't make it. So you're in Australia. You're like, James, I can't make it. Don't worry. You can watch them live from at home.

Also, you can get in on some of the action. So for example, asking a question during the Q&A or getting a signed photo of your favorite speaker with the Indiegogo crowdfund linked in the description box. Check that out right now. As for example, Andrew Wilson will be there. You can see that photo on the bottom right of the screen. He'll be facing off.

Off against atheist Craig McNeil. You can get a signed photo of Andrew Wilson, if you'd like, or whoever else you might like from DebateCon. Check out that Indiegogo link in the description box. That, gentlemen, thank you very much. The floor is all yours for open dialogue. Yeah. I wanted to see if I can say something real quick, right? So you got wanted to be called Alex, I believe, wanted to be called by your highness. Jake Rattlesnake wanted to be called by Lord, correct? Lord, yes, that's correct. Yep.

Okay, so are you aware of the massive difference that exists between respecting someone's actual gender identity and indulging in your absurd demand? Whoa, whoa, what's absurd about my demand? You have to call me my lord, and by the way, you haven't actually addressed me as my lord. You're not being systematically discriminated for it. Well, how do you understand that? If you're a lord versus not a lord, you're not being discriminated against. However, trans people are discriminated.

Right? So you're saying that based on my personal subjective experience, because you said in your opening statement that it was about effects. So if we're going to talk, if we're going to talk, first of all, if we're going to talk, you have to let me talk and then you talk, then me talk. Yeah, I know how this like, this dish galloping, steamrolling thing goes. Let's hear from Jake first of all. I'm going to respond to what you said. You're making an unserious comparison to dodge the response. I'm going to respond. First of all, I hate doing this. Gentlemen, I hate doing this, but just to

First Amendment. I do want to hear it. We'll come right back to you. But I do want to hear what Jake has in response to what you had just said. Okay, ready? And then I promise, of course, First Amendment will come right back to you. I want to be fair. Go ahead, Jake.

Yeah, so I'm actually a little bit triggered, to be honest, by First Amendment's response there, because actually in his opening statement, he said that it's about the effect that it has on the person. And now he's trying to shift the goalposts and say it's about whether or not that person's oppressed or not. Actually, I feel very oppressed by you not calling me my lord, and it's deeply, deeply upsetting for me. And based on your own logic and based on your own parameters that you put up in your opening statement, that would be hate speech. So you're engaging in hate speech. How dare you call it absurd or

that I want to be called my Lord. Yeah. So again, you're making an unserious comparison to dodge the reality that misgendering has real world consequences. I just told you I'm sad about it. You're talking about actual people who possess higher suicide rates, job discrimination, as well as medical mistreatment for misgendering. Whereas calling you Lord versus not does not systemically discriminate against you.

So I want to address the actual question, right, rather than this ridiculous nonsense, right? The question is, is misgendering hate speech? I really want to ask a question for Jake and Alex as well. How do you both decide what pronouns to give somebody?

But how do we decide what pronouns we use? I just look at them and I ascertain that they're a male or female. I understand that I can be tricked by somebody if they were to do a really good performance. I've been to Thailand and I've walked down the red light district. So I understand that you can be tricked. But 99.9% of the time, we're going to be able to look at somebody and ascertain what sex they are. That's called using their gender expression. You're looking at their gender expression and making a call.

And as you just said, there's a big difference between something being hate speech and you choosing out of the sake of politeness to call. So, for example, if there's a trans person on the panel and they seem cool and nice, then I'm not going to I'm just out of the sake of politeness. I will call them that. Right. But even if I don't, that's not hate speech. It's my First Amendment protected right. Because there's no if I believe there are two genders.

That's my belief. I believe they're too generous. But nobody is asking the government to create laws to force you to not misgender somebody. We're just saying, hey, well, okay, but we're not Canada. We're the United States of America. I'm arguing, is misgendering hate speech?

Hate speech, even if it is labeled hate speech, still has nothing to do with the First Amendment because you can still incite hate speech provided that they're not technically fighting words or like words that incite violence in the United States. So you can say hate speech, right? You can go outside and be a dick. But the problem is, is that that doesn't really revoke the concept that it is hate speech. So stop invoking the First Amendment. It has nothing to do with this.

Well, no, I think some people do dislike us.

That is not the case in being called the Lord or Highness or not being called Lord or Highness. So understanding that it does cause higher suicide rates to deliberately misgender people, and it does cause job discrimination and medical misdemeanor. Are you just going to filibuster the entire debate, or are you going to let other people tell you? You need to be honest.

Can I please finish my question? All right. What I want to do is I'm going to give you 20 seconds, 20 seconds for some matter. And then I do think it is true that we want to make sure it keeps flowing. Okay. Knowing that it causes higher suicide rates and job discrimination, as well as medical mistreatment by misgendering, right? That inherently, what do you think that that could be interpreted as hate speech if the speech itself causes those things?

Okay, just one last thing. But just because something could be interpreted as something... I'm asking you. I'm not asking society. I'm asking you. This is a dodge. Okay, hold on one second. First of all, I do want to actually... So if you ask more and more questions, I think there are a few points that they actually want to make in response to what you just said. So if we just let you launch into only questions, then we actually won't be able to hear some of the points that they were kind of waiting to give back. So I do want to get... Before we get into interrogation mode...

Jake and Alex, any thoughts that you had from the points that First Amendment just made? Yeah. First of all, you have zero idea. You just met Jake. You have no idea what caused him emotional distress or not. Zero idea. You're speculating, right? And the point of an extreme analogy like this is to prove a point. Let's do a less extreme analogy. What if I decide right now that I'm a woman? Is it hate speech if you don't call me ma'am? Do you actually internally feel that of woman? Yeah. Let's say I just decide that right now. I

I mean, if it causes suicidal ideation, job discrimination and medical mistreatment, yeah, it is hate speech. But obviously it's not really that simple to just simply flick a switch and just say, okay, I'm trans now. Because it's a long pathway that takes a

How do you know about gender?

We have that option that's always available. And if we choose, that's not misgendering. That's just you want me to use every single word to be in congruence with how you think language works. That's not the same thing as misgendering, right? Misgendering means I'm going out of my way to say that you're a gender that you explicitly are telling me that you're not. Now, I want to go back to what I was saying where I asked you, how do you decide what gender to call people? There's only two genders.

I want to go back to what I said when I was asking you how you just... No, I will. I will. I want to go back. You said, well, Jake said that he looks at someone's gender expression and decides that's how they're going to use what pronouns is going to be fit for them. But I want to ask you, if you say a person is a she or he and they say, actually, I'm a man, what are you going to say back to them? Are you going to say, no, you're not?

It really depends on the person and their nature of our dynamic. If they're being nice and polite, I will just for the sake of politeness, just suck it up. But if they're being rude and condescending, I will say, well, actually, no, you're not a man. Sorry. So you admit that it's at least disrespectful to misgender. You're at least going to say that. It could be disrespectful. Yes.

I love that. Now, if it's so disrespectful and you are aware that that misgendering could potentially lead to psychological harm of that individual, would you say that might have intention behind it? That could you're basically intending to harm them if you know that that action is going to likely harm them?

It is – I'm just going to skip to the point I think that you're trying to make. It is theoretically possible to have – to use hate speech against trans people, right? Yeah. You're intending to cause them harm. But if you're like most people and believe there's just two genders, then all you're doing is just accurately, descriptively describe them according to your worldview. Alex, you can believe in two genders and still misgender somebody.

Like, I don't know what you're trying to make. You can also believe, you can believe they do genders and correctly gender somebody. It wouldn't be, it wouldn't be. In fact, most trans people aren't doing neo pronouns. It wouldn't be misgendering though, because if they are having, for example, in

XX chromosome, right? Then, and they claim to be a, I believe it's a man, right? Then I'm like, no, well, like, no, you're actually a woman. I mean, but you're not going to ask for their chromosomal makeup, right? You're aware that there are people with XX chromosomes that have penises, right?

Sure, but that still doesn't make you, you can get a penis. Okay, well, so then that that exhibits that exhibits an incongruency that exists between something and sex and you are using, you are saying regarding someone's gender, I don't know if you're doing that, like on accident.

But what we're referring to for men being women, right, we're talking about it in terms of gender, right? The initial sex, men being women, in terms of gender, women, gender, okay? So, like, for example, you could have XX chromosomes, as in woman, or I'm sorry, female chromosomes.

And then when you grow up, you have a specific hormonal type that causes you to feel that you're a man in a woman's body. Then the answer is, is that their gender and their gender expression would be that of woman. Do you understand? So I just want to just be sure, because I know that I know that you've got a round in the chamber ready to fire Alex. But I also want to make sure that in case you had any thoughts, Jake, you've been patiently waiting in case you had anything you want to mention.

Yeah, I would like to understand what our interlocutors here agree is psychological distress. Can you please define for me what psychological harm is and how that's quantified? If you can believe, if you know a certain action is going to potentially cause suicidal ideation or depression in an individual, that would easily be considered hate speech, right? Or psychological distress, wouldn't you agree? Sure.

Sure. Well, I just don't understand why you haven't called me my lord then, because like we said at the start of the debate, that deeply, deeply offends me if you don't call me my lord. And actually, it might make me seriously depressed. Lord is an agenda.

No, it's my identity. That's my identity. This debate isn't about misidentifying me. No, no, no. It's my identity. I'm telling you it's my identity. And first, Amanda, you can be as flippant as you want about this, but that is my identity. I am a lord. Have you been to a psychologist where you're getting dysphoria because people aren't calling you lord and you're spending every waking moment of your life where you're literally cutting your own wrists?

because you're not being called Lord on a daily basis? Are you serious? Do you understand how disrespectful of what you are saying on this? No, I have done that. That has happened. Show me your arm.

No, it was when I was younger. Oh, okay. All right. So you never get it. By the way, those don't go away all the way into adulthood. So yeah, you're lying. No, I'm not going to show my arm. If a trans person hasn't cut their arms, then they cannot be. And I'm telling you the massive difference between respecting someone's gender identity and indulging in your absurd demand. What? Sorry. If a trans person has not thought of it. Yes, exactly. Hold on. Just to be sure that we're here. Hold on one sec. Okay, Alex, do you have a thought?

Yeah, if a trans person has not tried to commit suicide or cut their arms, then you cannot misgender them, right? That's not what I said. So, First Amendment, just to be clear, because we were having a second thought before, just to be clear. I'm saying that I'm giving an example of somebody who's dealing with actual gender dysphoria, and your ridiculous comparison to Lorde, that's a dumb straw man, and it doesn't have anything to do with the argument, right? First Amendment, we get it, we get it. So I wanted to go back to the fact that you are basically inhibiting into hate speech.

McLovin, relax. Relax, McLovin. Okay. So when you walk up to a trans person, and so if I was trying to ascertain in my ignorance the level of damage that was happening to a trans person, would I ask them to show me their arms if they told me about all the distress that they'd gone through? And is that how I would quantify the psychological harm? Right?

I'm just pointing out the difference. I know that that's not like the 100% test that you would take. Not all trans people are cutting their arms because of their gender dysphoria, but some are. So then it mustn't be that bad. And I'm just pointing out that you're talking about someone's mental well-being. You're talking about their self-worth. You're talking about their emotional stability. You're talking about increasing their prolonged stress. It's very hard to have this back and forth if you just keep talking and talking. You're talking about creating verbal abuse, discrimination. I got another question. And all of these...

forms of mistreatment, you're causing all of these things and you're just like, did you hate speech? I just want to be a giant piece of garbage when I wake up in the morning. That's literally what this is. Get to something more substantive. Go ahead, Jake. I did give you something substantive. Causing emotional distress, cognitive damage, behavioral changes, and physical symptoms. I know, but the impression was it wasn't super substantive. Let's go to Jake. So, um,

You still haven't quantified harm for me, by the way. But if they did say to me that they were going through all of this harm, why should I believe them? You're talking about the emotion? Okay, fine. I will quantify it for you, right? No, I'm saying why should I believe them? Emotional or mental distress caused by actions, speech, or experiences that negatively impact your well-being, their self-worth,

emotional stability. You're happy? Is that okay? Now we can move on instead of being dumb. All right, cool. Why should I believe them? Why should I believe them, First Amenda? You tell me. Why should I believe them? Because they might have gender dysphoria. Okay. Well, I have told you about my own emotional distress and the fact that I've been to psychologists and I've had all of these terrible things happen upstairs right here. You have not been to a psychologist being called a leader. Are you serious? First Amenda.

It's my identity. You're falling into this trap by trying to argue with this. This is not a gender identity. So you're saying that you shouldn't just believe people on face value when they tell you things? Jake, you are not arguing about gender identity. Have you looked at the prompt? This is about gender identity. This is my personal identity. It's actually a really good analogy. William has been, forgive me,

just because William has been waiting for a while. So I do want to hear from William because it has been a while. And then I promise Alex will come back to you and then Jake and then for some matter. So William, go ahead. Thanks, James.

Your analogy is bad, Jake. It's called a straw man because you're making up an argument that we're not making and trying to have us argue against that, but we're not making that argument, okay? You're not talking about gender when you talk about my lord. If I really wanted to avoid gendering you at all, I could do that, and I could just use gender-neutral language. I could use they, or I could just call you by your name, and that is how I can talk to you respectfully.

No, that's not a straw man. You cannot control every aspect of language around me. And that's not what transgender people are trying to do. Transgender people aren't trying to control all aspects of language. They say it would be polite if you called me this type of pronoun. You don't have to. You don't go to jail if you don't have to. But if you want to be considerate, if you want to...

care about these individuals, then you need to understand that these types of, this type of language can cause distress. And if you believe the scientific research that does prove that, then you would want to be respectful. You want to have empathy for these people and you want to call them the respectful pronouns that they ask for, or just use gender neutral language.

Sure. Okay, well, once again, first of all, that wasn't a straw man. So you got that wrong. And that was a little bit stupid. But second of all, what I just I can't quite understand this. Why won't you respect me? And why won't you respect my identity? I've clearly asked you to call me. Hold on, Will. I've asked you so many times. Hold on.

Fogel. All right. I've, I've, I've asked you many times now, Will, to call me my Lord. So I want you to respect me because by your own metrics, this is my identity and you are not respecting my identity and it is deeply upsetting. So Will, please, next time you address me, my Lord X, my Lord Y. It sounds like you didn't come in with any arguments, Jake, because that's the only thing you're going to keep on repeating and repeating and repeating. I've explained to you why that doesn't, that's not the same thing. I've explained to you why that's a straw man. We can,

We haven't even gotten to the debate. I'm simply asking for human respect. Human dignity. I'm asking for respect. And then later we can get to the argument. This is not an argument. This is just me asking for you to respect my humanity. Is there any other arguments you have, Jake? Or do you actually want to talk about the debate? We can exhibit... My lord, I'm sorry you've been treated this way so far. Jake, we can exhibit...

For example, trans people existing at an endocrinological level. This is also the case at a neurochemical basis. It also exists under the neurobiological basis, right? Understanding that, show me where is your allele frequency for, say, being called Lord and your dysphoria of not being called Lord.

It's actually irrelevant to the debate because the debate's actually about hate speech. It's not about whether or not you can prove endocrinologically. Wait, it's about what being hate speech? It's about whether misgendering is hate speech. Oh, not calling Lorde because that's not a gender. Oh, correct. Yeah, correct. It's my identity. Well, hate speech is not limited to gender. It's not just limited to gender. Let's just get out of the way. Hate speech is not limited to gender. I'm going to ask a hypothetical question. What debate though?

What? The debate is about misgendering. Hold on. I do want to hear from Alex as he's waited. I'm going to ask a hypothetical question. What do you know for a fact, right, that Jake is going to be more suicidal if you don't call him my lord? Is that hate speech then? It's a hypothetical.

If it was absolutely true, then I would actually advocate that it is. But I think it's pretty obvious that he's just making up a... Attempting to make an example. So he's just creating a red-haired... Hold on a second. Hold on, all right, James. This is very important. For some reason, he doesn't seem to have any injuries. Oh, okay. This is very important. Got it. So he's like a liar. But so in a hypothetical, if you... Got it.

Okay, I hate to do this. So I think that Jake had something that he wanted to say. And then I appreciate everybody's enthusiasm. But go ahead, Jake. And then what I think we'll do is go over to William. Go ahead. I have to unmute you now. Go ahead, Jake. Yeah, I just want to reiterate how unbelievably offended I am by this because I'll have you all know that I actually am a lord. I own a small bit of property in Scotland. So I am...

By definition, a lord. So you guys, for some reason, I've been telling you I'm a lord this whole time and you guys haven't been believing me. You've been saying that you don't believe me and you don't believe in my identity, but I'll have you know that it's actually true and I can verify that. I can actually send through the documentation to James. So you've been denying...

my identity this entire time. I've told you about the psychological damage by your own metrics. It is psychological damage that I'm going through by both of your metrics. And you've still been denying it, even though I can show empirically that it's true. So I don't really care anymore about your endocrinological argument.

I love your example of Lord because it actually disproves your entire point. Right? So Lord is a legal term that has legal precedence in certain legal cases, right? There's specific legal requirements. You need to become a Lord. Gender is not like that. Gender is different. And I know you don't understand that, but that's okay because that's what this whole debate's about.

So gender is about a personal identity that you choose. It's your personal opinion about how you identify. It is not a legal term, right, Jake? Which is the one you were using. You were using a different scenario. That's why it was a red herring, right? It is my identity, Will. What do you understand? It's my identity. It's my humanity. It's a legal term. It's a legal identification, which is different than a personal subjective identity. Is it different, Jake? Is it the exact same?

I don't care. It's my identity. It's different. You're not respecting my identity. It's the same thing. It's identity. It's not the same thing. It's very different because they have different impacts. They have different impacts psychologically. There's different impacts of it psychologically. What's the different impacts psychologically? I'll give you a chance to respond, Will, but then I do want to let our friend First Amendmenter out of the jail here. So, Will, go ahead, and then we'll also have PFW in just a moment. Go ahead, Will.

So invalidating someone's personal identity in a cultural setting with social aspects is very different, much more psychologically impacting than trying to just deny someone's legal terms socially, right? That's very different. No one is going to mind if you...

disregard my legal identity, it doesn't matter because my legal identity will still uphold in the court system, right? But my personal identity, which is much more cultural, much more social, if you deny that, then that can impact me socially, which can impact my personal feelings about how I live, what kind of friends I can make, who I can become friends with. It's very different because of those reasons. Yeah, so my identity... First Amendment, no. No.

I love how First Amender, when he's put on mute, he's going to launch into his screen share. He's going to get his message across one way or another. First Amender, I need you to stop sharing. Jake, I'll give you just a super pithy response, and then I want to get Alex back in. First Amender, we'll get you out of jail here. Really pithy, Jake, and then really pithy from Alex, and then from First Amender.

Yeah, so my identity as Lord, which is actually an identity, it affects me legally, it affects me socially, it affects me in a plethora of different ways, actually. So by your standard, once again, that it can hurt your fee fees, it hurts my fee fees, if you don't call me a Lord, and it has a wide ranging set of effects on me. So short and pithy. Oh, we'll go to Alex.

Yeah, I think you guys said something interesting earlier. You said that if you know for a fact that Jake is actually going to be more suicidal, if you don't call my Lord, it is hate speech. Then the thing is, is that you don't believe him. So what if I don't believe a specific trans person is going to have suicidal thoughts after misgendering them, then it's not hate speech either. Right?

I would agree with you, Alex. And the difference is that transgenderism has an extended history of how gender dysphoria can affect mental health, right? There's a very clear common...

They kind of can go hand in hand with each other because gender identity can cause isolation in a community, right? If your entire community is isolating you, is rejecting you, is not approving of your personal opinion just about yourself, that can feel isolating and that isolation, that social disapproval is what causes those negative feelings. That is not the same as not calling you my lord. That is not the same as mis-

labeling your legal term, that's not the same thing at all. This is a gender identity. Personal subjective opinion is different than a legal identity. It's very different. Okay, but the key point is that if I personally don't believe this specific trans person is going to have suicidal thoughts or suffer any harm, then I'm not misgendering them, right? That's not hate speech when I misgender them, right? It would still be hate speech because you are more likely to hurt them. But you said before that it would not be, that you would agree with me. No, but if you...

But we know it is, right? I know you're painting a picture. But what if I know a specific trans person is not going to actually... Like, I have some evidence in my mind that's actually not going to cause them suicidal thoughts. Then I would say, sure, sure, it's not them. All right, we'll go over to First Amender, who's been waiting for a long time in jail. Go ahead, First Amender. All right, let me see if I can...

I apologize. I didn't realize that that was just going to just do that. So my apologies in advance. I just need a little bit of time, right? Longer than like 10 seconds, if I can. If I can just please have that. Okay. I just need everybody's seconds.

All right. Yes. So here's a, here's a paper from PubMed. I've linked one of your moderators to please post this also inside chat so people can see it. This is an example of the neuroanatomy of the transgender identity, a man, a mega analytic findings from the Enigma transgender persons working group, right? Under the results, um,

you could see transgender persons differed significantly from cisgendered persons with respect to their subcortical brain volumes and surface area, but not cortical thickness. Contracting the four groups, transgender males, transgender women, cisgender men, and cisgender women,

we observe the variety of patterns not only depended on the direction of the gender identity as in towards male or towards female, but also on the brain measure as well as the brain region examined. There is a literal physical understanding of the existence of trans people. That is exactly what this paper is telling you. Okay. And so what, now that we understand that empirically trans,

It is a thing, right? It's not just your fee fees. It's not being called Lord, right? We can move on to like the actual argument, right? All right. We'll go ahead. Yeah. Well, I'm empiric. I'm empirically a Lord. That's actual, actual fact. Um, let me, let me ask you, I'll actually send the documentation off to James if you'd like, but, um, no, share it now for everybody. Uh,

I don't have it on me right now, but I can get it sent. That's for sure. No, no. I want it sent now, right? Otherwise, I don't believe you, right? Because you said that you were self-harming, but you don't have anything on your arms. I want to give Jake a chance. You're a liar. You're a liar. So is a trash person lying if they don't have their unique?

Fogel, I don't know why you don't believe me because this is my identity and you're meant to just believe me. If somebody identifies as a rubber ducky, Fogel, would you affirm their identity? If it said that they were going to really hurt themselves, if they wanted to be identified as a rubber ducky, would you affirm that?

I had to put him in mute. I can give him a chance to answer, but of course, it might be more than one word that he uses to respond. Go ahead, First Amender. This is ridiculous. Like, I have to sit here and I have to argue. Answer the question, Thugger. No, I'm tired of dealing with these right-wing chuds day in and day out. They sit there and argue the same stupid right-wing argument talking points, and they don't actually argue real freaking points. I bring up real, actual...

empirical basis behind the point. You can't rebut it. I bring up how Lord is not the same thing as talking about someone's gender identity. I bring up how a person's respecting someone's gender identity doesn't actually can actually cause physical harm to the person. And it is not the same when being called Lord, you asshole, you're just being a dick. That's all you are. You don't have an argument, present your paper or shut up.

Okay, listen, Fogel, I understand you're angry. Present your paper or shut up! Fogel? Is that what you were saying? Fogel? Alright, let's give Jake a chance to speak.

I want to ask you if you would hold a transgender person to the same standard, Fogel, because clearly you want me to show evidence of my identity. And actually that is adding to the systemic discrimination that the Lord community faces on a daily basis. So would you ask a transgender person to show you their documentation if they didn't pass? If it was a man who looked like a man and didn't pass as a woman, but he claimed to be a woman, would you ask them for documentation or would you just accept it?

Present your paper or shut up. Where do you see the empirical basis of being called Lord exhibiting itself at a neurochemical level? Show it. Show it. Provide it. Provide it. I want actual fucking paper. It's so frustrating that I have to sit here and deal. Okay, I'm sorry. It's nothing personal, First Amender. I just want to kick it over to it. It looks like we've come to a stalemate.

Let's go over to Alex and William. Alex, I'll give you a chance. Thoughts?

Yeah, absolutely. So I think we're witnessing some pretty grade A hypocrisy here. If me or Jake were to say this to a trans person, show us your penis, show us your DNA test right now, right? We would be considered massive bigots, hate speech, all that crap, right? But for some reason, this time it's different. Let's do another analogy, okay? One that may hit closer to home.

Let's say I believe I'm black because according to my 23andMe, I'm 1% black, right? I don't look black, but I feel like I'm black. I identify with the black community, identify as being a black person. Is it hate speech if you refer to me as white? Let's hear from William. All right. So race is very different than gender, right? Race is not always just summed up to be a psychological phenomenon in the mind.

And race is, it's very, it's, there's many different dimensions you could go with it. Do you, are you passing as black? Are you not passing? Are you African American? Are you from Africa? Is your ancestry from Africa? Do you have all these other factors? Are you from the black community in America? What, I mean, just because you're a light-skinned black person, are you still black? So there's many different ways you could approach that. And,

It depends, right? Do I have good reason to think that this is going to really, really affect your identity? Is it important to you? And if it's extremely important to you, then I don't, it doesn't matter because it's just an identifier. Now, does it mean that you were African American? Does it mean your ancestry is one way? Does it mean you pass as black? Not necessarily, but race is

It's different than gender. It's not the same. So it's not a good example, not a good synonym. Well, actually, there's a lot of overlap because race, we can agree, is at least partially genetic. And so is your gender, right? If you're born with an XX chromosome, you're much more likely to identify as a woman.

If you were born in Africa, you're much more likely to identify as black. So there's actually, I think it is very analogous. I don't see why, in your opinion, gender is something that's purely mental, but there's a strong correlation between your chromosomes and what gender you're going to identify with. It's a very strong correlation. So I don't think you can just sweep this analogy under the rug.

Yeah, but that strong correlation doesn't equate, right? You don't have to have it. And again, like race, if you really, if I, again, if I have a very strong feeling that this is extraordinarily important to you, if I feel like you are in mental distress, if I feel like you need support, and that is the thing that's going to support you and help you out of some kind of mental issue that you're going through, I don't have a problem calling you whatever you want to be called.

Because I care about you as a person and I respect you and I have empathy towards you. And that's what we should do towards the transgender community. I'm not saying – I agree we should have empathy towards people. But then I don't think it's hate speech if you don't call them by their preferred gender or specifically use – I understand the point you're going to make. Specifically use a different gender than they believe themselves to be because you could very easily believe –

that you're not causing them harm and you believe there's only two genders and you believe they're delusional you believe that they're lying potentially right let me ask you this what if you do think what yeah go ahead what if you do think it's going to cause them harm by calling them the race that you don't think they are what if you actually think it's going to cause them harm alex are we talking about race or gender it doesn't matter

Okay, if you believe that you are causing someone harm by calling them the other gender, then I would argue, specifically if you believe that person is going to be caused harm, then yeah, it could fall under hate speech in that case.

Look at this common ground. I love that. Man, you and me, Alex, we're best buds. And Jake and First Amendment, we all got to make a difference. Bob wants more blood. We have to go back to First Amendment. First Amendment will be the best man at my wedding. He's a great guy and I think potentially a best bud of mine. I think the problem is... Just on this particular issue, we don't particularly agree. But we're like...

Seth McFarlane. What's his name again? We're like Jonah Hill and McLovin in Superbad, just trying to go to parties together and stuff. We're two peas in a pod. I have no idea what this has anything to do with the actual topic.

I've shown you papers regarding the neurobiological links of being transgender. Obviously, there's nothing of the sort regarding being called Lord, so it is disanalogous, so we can leave that. But understanding that a person's

A person doesn't choose their neurochemistry or their neurobiology. So if they feel that they are that, and that let's say that they are receiving gender dysphoria by not being gendered their proper gender, right? Then yeah, what you're doing is that you're revoking their very identity and their dignity. And so therefore it would be hate speech. You are deliberately trying to misgender them in order to get an ire out of them in order to frustrate them.

Right. That's what you're doing. And you doing exactly that, trying to want to be called Lord. Sure. I'll even engage with this. I'll even engage with what you just said, First Amendment. So if it is.

If it is about that, first of all, I don't care about the neurochemical. It actually doesn't make a difference in this regard because just say somebody has a very strong Christian or Muslim belief if they're a very religious person. And for that reason, they don't want to call this person by their fake gender or by their fake sex identity. Great. Use they-them pronouns. It's not that big of a deal. Anyways. Use they-them. There's nothing in the Bible.

Or the Koran, or the Tanakh, or the Bhagavad Gita that says, I like the ad-harm, but again, just use it then. It's not that hard. Just don't be a dick. But I'm pretty sure in multiple of the religious texts, it literally does tell you to not be a dick. You would like to be treated, right? Okay, just to be sure we can hear each of you. I do want to kick it into 60 second timers here. So, Jake, you've got 60 seconds. Go ahead.

So I know McLovin is terrified of his argument, and I can see why, and that's why he started to try and filibuster the debate, and he's just given me the finger, which I think is actually probably might be considered hate speech with his logic. But anyways, if somebody does hold very strong religious beliefs and they don't want to use bad English and say they, them, which is just bad English, by the way, and they don't want to call somebody by their fake gender identity based on their feelings, and if that is the case...

And if they feel a deep anguish about having to do that, and if there are billions of people on earth who would suffer this same anguish as there are, and that's provable, then if it makes them really upset and if it makes them feel like they are oppressed and if they are actually existing in somewhat of a minority, then by your own standard, then you would be engaging in hate speech by trying to make them affirm your gender. Yeah.

Okay, you got 60 seconds as well for Submender. No, because I've already explained that. I've explained it directly. I've made you understand how this works. I've explained the entire concept to you. For some reason, you completely just ignore it and just double down on wanting to be a dick.

I don't know what else I'm supposed to say to you. It's such a shame to see... Yeah, you're enacting in hate speech. And yes, I'm enacting in hate speech right now towards right-wing chuds. I hate right-wing chuds. I hate them so much...

And I wish that they would like, I don't know, pick up a book and read instead of like watching Matt Walsh and Fox News all day and getting their opinions from that. Pick up a neurochemistry book. Pick up a neurobiology book. Pick up a psychology book. Pick up a fucking gender studies book. Pick up literally any fucking book, any book, any freaking book. So that way you could stop with the stupid arguments. Any book, any book whatsoever would disprove what we're saying. 16 seconds.

60 seconds. That's not true. He didn't make an argument. That's the problem though here, James. He actually didn't make an argument. He just said, I hate right wing chants. Oh, I hate right wing chants because I can't get laid. Yes, I do. Because they're like you and they like to be hateful towards people. And when I bring up the actual facts behind it, they completely ignore it. And then they could just double and triple and quadruple down. So I'm just going to just quickly though.

So it's okay for you to use hate speech, but it's not okay for me or for anybody else to use your perceived hate speech. But it's okay for you to do it. Yeah, yeah. It's called the paradox of tolerance, right? You're probably already aware of that. I do not tolerate the intolerant. You're an intolerant bigot. You're a bad person. You wake up in the morning. You're like, I want to be a piece of garbage in the morning. You're like, man, I really just don't like trans people. They make me upsetting spaghetti. And I really that they would just rather not exist.

And so I'm going to be a giant douche online so that way I can make some money and that a bunch of people like me, like you're literally a horrible person. You are not on the right side of history here. You're going to get, you're going to lose this debate.

Um, anyways, so if we're talking about, uh, if we're talking about hate speech, I'm actually the only one who's been misgendered here. And you actually were the one who denied my identity. Lord is not a gender. It is my identity. For the final freaking time. It is not a gender. It's my identity. Can you stop double and triple and quadrupling down on the dumb argument? First off, I do have to give Jake a chance to speak too. Yeah. I'm going to rip this dude's head off.

You could try. I don't know how well I'm ready for you. We can't let it go that far because YouTube Terms of Service won't allow this. It's not an actual physical threat. Jesus. Go ahead, Jake. Oh, I just muted everybody. Sorry about that. Okay. Go ahead, Jake, now.

Yeah, well, I mean, with his paradox of intolerance, by my standard and with that standard as well, I don't tolerate people who are intolerant of intolerant people. So I don't tolerate you, and that's why it's OK for me to use hate speech. I'm actually not going to come down to your level and use sort of physical threats and all these sorts of things. But, yeah, I don't tolerate that either. And that's hate speech, and I don't appreciate it. Anyway, since you're so educated and since you read so many books, First Amendment, what's the scientific method for...

Okay, first, Amandro, I'll give you a chance to respond. Let's see. William looks like he's compelled to respond as well, though. He's just going to giggle it now. William, what does Google say is the definition there? I'm not googling nothing completely unrelated to this topic. But I do want to ask you a question that is related to this topic. What's the scientific method, Will? If you knew that it was not related to this topic. That's a question that I just asked. Can you answer my question? What's the scientific method? No.

So if you knew a speech was going to be harmful to someone's health, if you knew some form of speech was going to be harmful to somebody. Just to be sure that we're... Hold on one sec. I was under the impression, William, that you were kind of aroused by Jake's question on science. So I do want to... It's fair that

Does anybody want to... Is there no one that can give a definition of science in this debate? William, if you don't want to, first amender, are you open to that? How about this? Put your hand up if either of you are up for defining science. Okay, go ahead, William. Although I don't think it is relevant. You have the hypothesis. You create a hypothesis. You test the hypothesis and you

form a conclusion based on your tests. So anyway, now I would like to actually talk about the debate topic. So if you knew a certain form of speech was going to genuinely harm somebody, Jake, would that be considered hate speech in your opinion, Jake? If you knew it was going to harm them, or if you had really good reason to believe it was going to harm them,

No, it wouldn't be hate speech because you actually have to have hateful intent for that person. Because in this case, if I was to misgender this person and I was just making a truth claim, it wouldn't be hate speech because I'm just making a truth claim. But you don't need to make that type of truth claim that you believe is going to harm them. You could make a truth claim that doesn't harm them, such as using gender neutral pronouns or just using their name. So why would you use a pronoun that you know is particularly likely to harm them knowing their psychological conditions?

Because my first and foremost concern is the truth. Yeah, so use gender-neutral pronouns. So I'm making a truth claim, and I'm not going to use they, them, because it's incorrect English. So I'm just going to use the gender pronouns that I assigned to them. Why not their name? Which...

Well, because I'm not going to adjust my language for somebody. Oh, but I thought it was all about the truth of their imagination. I thought it was all about the truth for a second, Jake. And now you're changing it. And now you just say, oh, you don't want to talk in a way that that's going to make them feel comfortable. Well, that's that's really hateful, Jake. And it seems like you actually want to go out of your way to use language that's going to make them feel uncomfortable. Actually, that does not sound like any form of love I've ever heard of.

Listen, Will, if I was going to go out of my way, then I would be going out of my way to remember Zim and Zura and all of these crazy different pronouns. And that's actually not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is just speaking the way that I would speak to everybody and treating everybody the same and equally because I'm a very respectful person. And I like to treat everybody the same and with dignity and with and based on truth. And if I was going to be going out of my way, somebody if somebody is asking me to use alternate pronouns, that's actually making me go out of my way.

So if someone accidentally missed, if you accidentally misgendered somebody and they said, oh, I'm a woman, not a man, you misgendered me. Are you going to not respect that? Or are you going to or are you going to respect that and use the pronouns that they tell you to use? So like I've already told you, I'm going to go based on the truth. And how do you know that there is a hateful intent there? But you don't know the truth, Jake.

Well, I do know the truth. You can observe what sex somebody is by just looking at them. Excuse me? That's my truth claim. Have you never looked at a person that you thought was a man or woman and made a mistake? Have you never done that in your whole life? Is that impossible? It's possible to be tricked. Alex? So therefore...

Truth claim is subjective Alex Like I said it's possible to be tricked Right? So how are we going to know the truth then Jake? It's possible to be tricked And if there was somebody who I literally could not tell If they were a man or woman And they said to me oh you got my sex wrong Then I would say okay sure I would trust their judgement But if it's a 6 foot 4 guy with an Adam's apple Who comes over and he's got a penis bulge And he says to me it's ma'am I'm not going to respect that I'm going to say no it's not

But if they look more like a woman, you would. No, no. If I think they're actually, I don't know what you're laughing at, Will. This is actually very simple. You just contradicted yourself. If they look like there actually could be a woman, which is very, very unlikely, then sure. If I actually can't tell, because unlike the rest of the population, Will, you guys are the only ones who seem to be actually confused about this. But on this topic, though,

Why won't you respect me? Because I've already told you that calling me Lord is actually going to be respectful, but you've been unbelievably disrespectful. You haven't been called me Lord once. So why won't you give me the same respect? Can I just please, let me try something. Let me try something. Yeah, Alex doesn't have the chance to talk.

Yeah.

That is not my argument. I'm saying that if you revoke basic humanity, like if we're sitting here arguing on whether or not like healthcare ought be a human right, that's a completely different discussion. You're literally revoking someone's basic humanity, their very dignity, right? And you're waking up in the morning with that clear intent, right? So both me and Will feel that it

it causes harm to misgender somebody. Most people don't seem to believe that. I feel that that is the case, and Will also feels that that is the case, right? So let's at least agree to disagree that I'm assuming you do not feel... Do you feel that it causes harm to misgender somebody? Yes or no? Yeah, I think it can in certain situations. Okay, so if it can... Thank you. Okay, wait. All right, so...

All right. But it can't be hate speech because it's a case-by-case basis. Correct. Wait, that's good. That's good. But then you're saying that in some cases it can be hate speech. Let me actually respond to your question. And it depends on what I believe about that person, whether I believe that this is going to cause them harm or not. So if I'm not intending to— Okay, so I want to delve into that. Can I respond to your question? Yes. Okay.

Okay. Well, you seem so exasperated. I just want to answer your question. No, because, because I want to drive on the concept of intent. I know you're going to, you're going to have a chance in about 10 seconds if you just be patient for a second. So yes, if I believe, so it comes down to what my intent is, which is what I was saying from the beginning, right? Hate speech requires intent. And if I don't have intent, right?

to cause someone harm if i don't have that intent if i am just like jake i believe in two genders and i'm just trying to be uh truthful then it is not hate speech it could be rude it could be impolite but it's not hate speech that's the backup that contradicts what jake said before because jake said even if you believe it's going to cause harm it won't have different opinions okay all right hold on hold on so i want to see real quick so i want to i want to okay

I don't feel that intent is actually necessary. Okay. So let's say, for example, let's say if your speech empirically causes harm on someone, right. And you didn't intend for it to harm them. Right. Do you think that like something like that would still be punished? Yeah.

Right. Like from a societal standpoint. So like a good example is like, let's say if I'm like 15 years old, right. If I was 15 years old and I just don't understand the consequences of my actions. Right. I yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Three people die due to trampling. Right. Do you honestly believe that I hold, I hold no culpability to that? Well, that is illegal. You're not allowed to do that.

Okay. No, no, no, no, no, no. So here's the thing. I'm not, I'm not, I want to sever the concept of legality and morality here. Right. I'm saying like to you, Alex, right. Do you feel that the person holds some level of culpability there?

I think that's an irrelevant question. No, it's really not. I just need you to answer this question. You can think it's irrelevant. I just need you to answer the question. Just take a deep breath, dude. I will answer the question. It's just really hard for me to answer a question when you ask a question and then I start answering the two seconds like, what about this?

Okay. So once, once again, what I've been saying is that for it to be hate speech, right? He needs to have the intent to cause harm. So for gendering, just be quiet for two seconds. Someone could be hate speech if you intend to cause them harm. But if you don't intend to cause them harm, it is not hate speech. Could it still be from some people's perspective that, that even though you didn't intend to cause harm, that causes harm, right? Uh,

Could this, from some people's perspective, be like you might seem culpable? Yes, but that would not make it hate speech. We're talking about hate speech. We're not talking about like social consequences. Cool. So I'm asking you again, right? If I was 15 years old, I yelled fire in a crowded movie theater, right? Kills three people as a result.

I'm not talking about legality. I'm saying, do you think that 15-year-old ought to be held morally culpable for their action? What does morally culpable mean? Are they responsible in some way? According to who? You! I'm asking you! I...

You, please, just answer the question. Please pay attention. According to me. Yes, according to you. Literally blow a vein. Yes, I'm blowing a vein because I have to spell this shit out and I have to get it down into less than two syllables per word and it drives me insane. So please, if you're yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, do you feel that the 15-year-old should be held morally culpable, as in responsible?

If that 15 year old had no idea, like let's, let's say he was like, no idea. They're 15. They are, they have no idea.

Do you want me to answer your question? So you want to just ramble and then I can speak afterwards. We can do what I just, because I've already, I've already entailed it. If that 15 year old has no idea what they're doing, right. They just, for whatever reason, I have no idea what they're doing. Then no, I wouldn't say they're morally culpable. Right. But if they had an idea that they're going to cause harm or they had that, they, they, they were taught that and they had that idea that they were going to cause harm by doing that, then yes, they should be morally culpable.

I've got a question, Alex, that's very relevant. I have a very relevant question in this situation. If I was some kind of religious extremist and I was talking about needing to convert every single other religion to my religion and that they need to do it or else they're going to suffer potential consequences, and I believe I'm going to help them by doing that, is that hate speech? No. No.

It's not. Even though I'm saying their religion is invalid, I'm going to make them believe what I believe no matter what, and I'm not going to tolerate anything else. That's not hate speech to you? Yeah, because you don't have hateful intent for the person. If you have hateful intent and you hate them, then that would be hateful, but it's not hateful. You actually think that you're doing them a favor, so no, it's not. You have a bad definition of hate speech. So this is at least interesting. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me say something. Let me say something. Alex said something interesting. I'm on definition. I'm just going to quick.

Okay, let's go over to, sounds like First Amender, you had something to say. If it's really short and pithy, you promise? You have to be, it's got to be pithy. Go ahead.

So, Alex, you said something very interesting, right? You said, okay, if they understood in some way, right, that it will cause harm, then they would be held morally culpable. Okay. Well, I can, so if I provided, say, papers that show that deliberately misgendering does cause,

cause harm on those individuals, then you would be morally culpable by harming and misgendering them, right? No, because I don't believe I'm going to cause them harm. But what if I can empirically show that?

Can you show me that if you can show me that this specific person I'm talking to, well, I'm talking to, let's say, whatever, Nancy, right? And if you can show me like concrete evidence that me misgendering Nancy, specifically her, is going to cause her to commit suicide five minutes after, if you can prove that somehow, which I don't know how you would be able to, that I could, I could actually. Yeah, it's an unfalsifiable claim. I could make the same argument regarding the fire, right? We have no,

way to know whether or not people will actually trample. Maybe everybody gets out perfectly safely, but maybe sometimes that they don't. Does that still, I mean, it still holds moral, you are still culpable. And the fact that there is like, even that particular

Potential of a dice roll, right? That is, that would be, I still feel like there's a level of moral culpability there. So I'm going to ask you again, if I can empirically show you that it causes harm to deliberately misgender people, then would you at least concede that it, that, that since it causes harm, maybe you shouldn't do that? Well, there's a big difference between me not doing that and it being hate speech.

Fair enough. But I'm just trying to figure out if I can empirically show it that it causes harm, would you stop doing it? Well, I don't necessarily do it to begin with. Okay, fair enough. I'm saying... I don't go around misgendering people. Okay. I just don't think... Because, again, because of the points I made five times. It's actually pretty easy though as well. If you want to look at the fire in the movie theater one, is there a fire, First Amendmenter?

What? Yeah, a person's suicidal ideation is certainly an instance of that fire, yes. No, no, I'm saying if they're yelling fire, is there a fire? Oh, there's not a fire. They're just doing it. So they have malicious intent to actually harm people. Well, they may just think it's funny. And they're lying about it as well. They might just think it's funny, yeah. Yeah, so if they're lying and they have malicious intent, then yeah, sure, they should be held responsible. Sure, yeah. Cool.

Do you see the point Jake is trying to make? How is it disanalogous? Right. What you're doing, right? Okay. Is that ultimately by not respecting someone's gender, right? What you're doing is that you're discriminating against them based off of their, their sex orientation. No, it's not because it's an understandable difference between sex and gender, right?

We understand sex and gender are two different things. No, you feel that way. You feel like they're two different things. That's not a feeling. I literally showed you the neurobiological responses and how it exists. So it's not my fee-fees anymore. Stop saying it's fee-fees. It's not fee-fees. If I could show a physical portion of the brain that physically changes, then yeah, it's not. I think we're on the same page that it's not about fee-fees.

but I do want to hear from Jake. So go ahead, Jake. Yeah. I feel like first amendment is going to start shaking some pom poms or something. If he keeps on saying Fifi's so many times in a row, but yeah, exactly. So,

So, I mean, if there's no intent there, that's what we're saying. So the fire in the movie theatre analogy there was not only very boring, but it was also just not a good analogy because if you're yelling fire in a movie theatre and there's no fire, then you're lying about that and you have malicious intent. But if I am misgendering somebody, I completely reject that you think that there's a difference between sex and gender, so therefore you think that that's true. I reject that flat out. So...

I feel, I know what you feel, but I feel like it's just me making a truth claim. So if I feel like it's me making a truth claim, because that's what this argument is all about, is about how we feel. If I feel that way, then the intent isn't there. So it's not hate speech. It's actually very simple, first of all. All right, first of all, I'll give you the same minute. And then I actually want to go back to William because he hasn't gotten to speak for a long time. First of all, if you've got a really pithy, I'll give you like 30 seconds, 45 seconds, like what Jake just had. Can I ask a question so we can move on from that one?

First Amendment, are you game? So if... Well, I have a minute, I guess. Like, Jake, the snake. The problem is there is a difference between gender and sex. You refuse to acknowledge snake sex.

Right. You're not acknowledging that rattlesnake. Right. I'm showing you the difference. OK, if you can imagine manly woman and womanly man, what is that incongruence? If gender and sex are the same thing, why does that why can you imagine that in your head?

Sure. So, um, first amendment, if there was a fire and the kid yelled, wow, another question, you're going to do another question to answer a question. Wow. Amazing. Nice dodge. I do like the dodge. I really wish you would just like go and answer the question. Whenever Fogel's losing the debate, he just, he just, he just, uh, filibusters and he just goes, it's actually quite annoying. Rattlesnake. Why don't you actually argue the position? Lord Snake. Lord Snake.

So if there was a fire in the movie theater and then the kid yelled fire and then people got trampled, would he then be culpable for that? First Amendment or I'm going to let you out of jail. Are you ready? I didn't hear the full hypothetical. One more time. Yeah, so I know you're confused and you're acting like you didn't hear it, but if there was a fire and then the kid yelled fire and then people got trampled as a result of that, would he be culpable? Yes. He would be culpable for that? Yes. Yes.

So intent is doesn't necessarily I mean, it can lessen a sentence, but for sure, like intent doesn't necessarily mean that you're like off the hook just because you don't realize it. Right. Like if you're literally telling somebody like K.Y.S. in it on on like YouTube and then they end up like like actually harming themselves, then, yeah, you would be culpable.

So in this instance, when you're specifically misgendering somebody where you can cause harm on that individual and I can empirically show that it causes harm on the individual to misgender them, then yeah, what you're doing is that you're basically revoking their very mortality. I need to talk to you.

The reason why it's hate speech is because you're attacking, threatening, or discriminating against them based on their sexual orientation. That's the problem. Stop spurging so other people can talk. You're saying that if there is a fire, and he's making a truth claim. I hate people who want to revoke human rights. I hate them. I hate them so much. They drive me insane. I really do not like them. When I hear this and you arguing this position, it really pisses me off.

Okay, so if there is a fire and he's making the truth claim and he's telling people that there's a fire and then in the stampede, even though he has done the right thing by telling people there's a fire, then he should be held culpable for the deaths of those people. So just to let everybody in the audience know, if there's ever a fire, guys, don't yell fire. I didn't hear the part where you said that there's an actual fire. If there is an actual fire, obviously you have to tell people that there's a fire.

Can you stop, like, with the personal attacks? I genuinely want to have an actual conversation, right? But when you come in and you come in and you just, like, do your stupid, like, oh, Lord, this Lord. Like, it's fucking idiotic, right? I'm sitting here showing you the empirical. Yeah, because I'm showing the empirical study and you won't change your opinion. You won't change your argument. You can't adapt. I agree.

I'm showing you the reality of the situation. And by the way, there are studies that do show that it empirically causes harm to deliberately misgender trans people. Yes. So doing that, that literally causes that harm. You're revoking them based off of their literal identity. It is assumed that when you walk outside and another person identifies you, your identity is taken into account, right? And Lord, it is not part of your identity. That's stupid.

What's stupid about it? I hate this. Tell me what's stupid about it. Because it's not the same as gender. Well, hopefully I'm never in a crowded cinema with you with a fire, First Amanda. Hopefully I'm never in that situation. Yeah, I'm just leaving quietly while you, I don't know. This might be a good opportunity. William has been very patient, very patient man, tremendous patience. William, have you got anything you want to share? I'm going to put you on unmute.

Thank you. So, Jake Rattlesnake, I wanted to ask you a question, but I don't want to give you the floor, so I'm going to just assume your answer. If we yelled...

fire in a crowded theater and I hate everyone in the theater and it causes them to get hurt. Is that hate speech? I don't think anyone would call that hate speech. Hate speech isn't necessarily about you hating the people you're talking to or you're talking about. Hate speech has to do with the contempt you have for people that you may be talking about. Hate has to do with potentially spreading certain kind of feelings towards other people.

Hate has to do with marginalizing certain groups, even if you don't necessarily hate them. And that's why I brought up that scenario of if I need, if I have a driving urge to convert every single person of every single religion and I will not acknowledge their existence unless they convert to my religion and I love them because I want to do that for them, that is dangerous.

Really easy to call that hate speech because you are completely denying these people's validity. You are not acknowledging what they truly believe. You won't let them believe what they want to believe. That is very easily definable as hate speech. Your definition is not the commonly used one. I would not go with, oh, you need to. This is my one chance, dude. This is my one chance. I got like two seconds to talk this whole debate. So give me one moment here. Your definition is messed up, Jake.

Okay, you said a lot there. But yeah, we can take it one by one if you want. Or I mean, let me ask you this, Will. Just say, if studies show that it hurts people's feelings to call them fat, but it made society vastly more healthy at the expense of a few fat people, and it reduced all of this harm, would you do it?

That's a very different situation. It really depends on how much harm it's going to give them. I mean, like, if you're talking about harassment of fat people, then no, I don't like that either. First Amendment. First Amendment. Come on. Okay, so it really depends, right? Have you ever heard of those who walk away from Amalas? It presents the situation of if it harms one person but it helps everybody else, is it going to be worth it? Well, it might depend, right? How much are you harming these people?

Are you harming them to the point of unaliving themselves? Okay. Maybe it's not worth it, right? It depends. It's not that simple. Just to let you know again, the studies show that if you call a few of these people fat, it makes society vastly more healthy. So if you're looking at it from the utility, the utility points in the direction that calling these people fat reduces harm greatly. You haven't described how much harm it's done to the people. You haven't described it. Also, there's no study that shows that.

No, but you haven't described how much harm it's done to those individuals. If it's going to drive them to harming themselves, then maybe it's not worth it. If it's, oh, it just hurts their feel-fees for a few seconds, then it makes everyone happy, then maybe it is worth it. It really depends how severe is the harm. You're not specifying because that would introduce nuance, and you don't want to acknowledge that.

What do you mean I don't want to acknowledge that? I'm just asking you a pretty simple question. It makes society much, much more healthy. And then you're trying to say here, well, then the extent to which it could hurt the people who are fat. No, I'm saying for a very, very small few people, it hurts their feelings. Yeah.

But for society, it makes them it makes society a lot more healthy. You haven't read those who walk away from Amala. So if there was one child in one basement somewhere and you're torturing him 24-7, but it makes the entire city perfectly wonderful and healthy. Is that worth it? Utility wise? Why don't you answer my question? It's proving the point that the nuance, you're not presenting the nuance, right? You're not showing how much nuance there is. How much is it harming the people, right?

Jake, answer me. You presented the hypothetical. How much is it harming them? How much is it harming who? The fatties? Yes. Yeah, it makes them feel sad. How much?

It makes them feel really, really sad. Okay. Like depressed. They can't get out of bed. They can't get out of bed, but then millions of people are healthy. Like it might ruin their life. Yeah. For this small amount of people, it ruins their life. But for the vast majority of society, they're much more healthy. They've got more sunlight. They're exercising. Their family lives are better. Their work lives are better. I don't want to abandon. They're not fat. I don't want to abandon a few people.

Right? I'm not going to abandon them. And I think we can take those few people and we can all become healthy together. How about that, Jake? I don't think we need to sacrifice those few to save the men. So Sunshine and Rainbows and John Lennon's Imagine all sitting around. It's called working together, Jake. It's called working together and trying to build a better future. It's called not answering the question is what it's called. It's building a better future. Well, no, you're not liking the answer to the question, Jake, because you don't want to acknowledge the nuance that reality has in these complicated situations.

And if you disregard people's personal identities, it is considered hate speech in most contexts. And just because you want to make your own definition of hate speech says you have to hate the individual if you want to commit hate speech.

That's not how most people define the word. And in most contexts, I think you'll find it is. I think that you'll find that intent is actually very important. And whatever's in somebody's heart is actually very important when it comes to hate speech. If you're making a truth claim, however, then that's very different. That's just what you guys haven't been able to contend with tonight. It's actually, I was actually expecting better tonight, but.

Why can't you make a truth claim and also not misgender them, Jake? Because then you wouldn't be making a truth claim, Will. No, of course you can't. You can use non-gendered language, Jake. I've said that to you 10 times and you don't listen. And that's okay. You don't want to listen because you don't want to admit the reality of the situation. You can use they, them pronouns. You can call them by their name. Very simple, very basic. You can accept these people into your society and not have to feel like you're lying to yourself or whatever thing you're

mental gymnastics are doing. You can do that, respect them, you can respect, I've answered it and you just don't want to listen to it. You don't want to listen. That's another one of your problems. You don't want to listen, you don't want to acknowledge the nuance. So there are so many more people who are going to be harmed by misgendering people and you don't want to acknowledge those harms.

And there are so many more people who are going to be harmed. Didn't I, didn't I just give you a hypothetical where a lot more people were going to have their harm reduced. If you call people fappy, you wouldn't do it. Yes. Harm isn't a binary, right? Harm is a spectrum. It's how much you're harmed. It's not, are you, are you not? Tell me, tell me the, tell me the spectrum of harm.

Well, you could, like you said, just you could feel bad for a moment. You could feel bad for the rest of your life. You could feel so bad that you want to stop existing on this world. Right. Those are not the same equivalences of sadness. You would agree, obviously, Jake.

Yeah. Okay. So there's a spectrum of sadness. So when you consider that spectrum and you have to consider, okay, how much harm am I putting on this one person versus how much harm am I putting on the other people? If just because it's a small number of people doesn't mean it's going to win because the amount of harm you can put on them is far more severe. So you'd say that the ultimate harm is death, right? If it is death, if this person like unalives themselves, that would be the...

the ultimate form of harm, right? Maybe they could consider it. So then if the whole, well, the whole population is much less healthy, which means much more death, life expectancy is going down. People have terminal illnesses and you won't call someone fat to avoid that. Look at all this. We provide them what they need in order to, in order to maintain a healthier lifestyle. Right. But we don't go out of our way to harass somebody for being fat because

You understand the difference, right? When you're specifically misgendering somebody and they're asking you to not misgender them, you're deliberately going out of your way to harass them. You are literally impacting and creating hate speech by propagating that. Yes. Oh, first amendment answered the question less than well. I didn't think that was possible. But anyways, back to Jake should have a turn. Sorry, I think Alex should have a turn. Go for it. Alex is a nice young man. Let's make sure he's.

unmuted you alex go ahead nice young man i didn't even have a choice i was muted for like 10 minutes sorry it was an accident you're good you're good i'm gonna i want to change gears slightly because i feel like we beat this horse to death uh specifically for some vendor i am someone who wants to see liberals stop losing every election you're doing such a massive disservice to your own side you're playing right into the angry leftist snowflakes role and turning off literally every undecided

It's an opinion, which I think is very cold, not relevant to anything. But OK, I mean, I guess if you want to just like first amendment, just because Alex has been waiting for like 10 minutes, let's give him a chance.

Yeah, let's add on him for five minutes. Sure. I think, okay, I know you just want to do all the rambling yourself. I think I think it's just a really important part of this thing, which is whether like people like first amendment should even be representing trans rights, or they're just doing more harm than good to their own cause. I think that would just be an interesting thing to explore since I feel like we've kind of reached a stalemate on this specific subtopic but hey it's up to you James. First amendment or what are your thoughts.

But that entire thing was just a dumb ad hom and has nothing to do with what I had said or what I have argued or the neurobiological findings. I showed everybody in the chat that it exists. And then we're talking about the existence of trans people. And then we're also showing how misgendering somebody can, in fact, cause harm. And so if it can cause harm by deliberately misgendering them, then yeah, it would technically be hate speech.

Hating on a fat person for being fat and deliberately being hateful towards them for being fat is also hate speech. These are all hate speech. Do you think you're helping trans people and trans rights?

I don't know what I'm doing. I think I'm screaming at a wall, left in day in and day out. And there are people that will never ever be convinced of the argument, regardless of anything. And hopefully there are people that are at least in the chat that can see some level of reason and want to establish human decency on the internet. All they see is like a stereotype of like an angry liberal snowflake.

What are we talking about? I don't care. It is just, yes, exactly. It's just a dumb ad hom. Correct. I'm personally trying to insult you. I'm not actually trying to personally insult you. I'm just trying to explain to you the irony of like, I don't actually think this applies to will, but the way you present your side actually does more harm than good to your side.

I just have very little tolerance towards people who are hateful, towards other people who want to revoke basic human rights. Like, yes, I'm extremely disrespectful to people like that. Yes, I'm extremely inflammatory towards people that want to spread hate speech towards other people and that they inflame other more

hate speech. I mean, there are laws on the books right now that are being discriminatory towards trans people and we have to sit here and have the stupid discussion as to whether or not that misgendering somebody is hate speech. Obviously it's hate speech. No one forced you on here. No, I just, I hope, I hope there's a minority of people that can see reason. I hope. I can only hope. I don't see that that would be the case for Alex, especially for Jake the Snake.

Do you actually care if you're actually progressing? I do care. I do care. A big goal of these people that we debate on here are trying to make us look bad. So we have to make sure that we don't let them get to us, right? They're going to say things that purposefully try to insult us. The problem is, Bill, my only issue is... With the exception of some social issues. My only...

I mean, we could probably have a decent discussion. My only problem is, Will, is that I don't feel like, here's the thing. Democrats and the left-wingers have been intensely very respectful towards people on the right, right? And the problem is, is that these people don't play football.

fair, right? They will lambast you. They will ad hom you. They will not provide a single study. They will just double, triple and quadruple down on the same horrible talking point over and over and over. And here's the problem. They want to revoke the

basic human rights. That's basically what we're talking about, revoking basic human rights. And so I'm supposed to sit here on one side where one side argues for basic human rights and the other one wants to put trans people in a blender. No, I don't respect you. Not only am I not going to respect you, I'm going to treat you like garbage because you're a garbage human being by treating people like garbage. Yes, you're a bad person. Yes. Let her down.

Yes, and I don't believe that we should treat bad people as if they're good. No, no, no respect for right-wing chuds. No respect. Oh, so I'm right-wing even though I vote. All right. I hate to interrupt Alex. He was saying that even though he voted Democrat, I think he was saying, but I do want to give a chance to any last thoughts before we go into the Q&A, gentlemen.

As Jerry Springer would say, if we want to draw together the threads of this, any final thoughts from anybody? Jake, 30 seconds each. Yeah, I just wanted to say that I think that Fogel is actually one of the most hateful people I have ever met. We have seen a genuine meltdown tonight, which has not only been very entertaining, but just the absolute hypocrisy that we have seen in this debate is unbelievable.

Basically, what Fogel thinks is that hate speech is okay when Fogel does it. Basically, just on his own preferences, if Fogel thinks it's okay to be hateful, then you can be hateful. And that's how we can define hate speech because he's been extremely hateful tonight. And I think that the whole entire chat and the whole entire audience can see that. So basically, what it comes down to is whatever Fogel thinks is hateful is hateful. So I reject that, Fogel. Okay. We'll go over to... We'll just...

striate it we'll go to first amender my guess is you don't agree with that what are your thoughts yeah the dumb ad hom that doesn't have anything to do with the topic yeah correct i don't agree with it yeah it's a dumb ad hom and has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the situation you're evoking basic human rights among trans people and you're a bad person for it yeah and i don't believe i should respect you we'll go over to this uh alex fellow here he is patiently waiting look at him nice young man here you go alex

I appreciate you calling me a nice young man multiple times in a debate. Yeah, I mean, I think that it's pretty clear that the other side did not prove their argument. There's not even that much distance between me and Will. I think we actually agreed on a few things. There is a lot of difference between me and First Amender.

Once again, just the point that I've been making is that hate speech requires hateful intent. And so while misgendering someone could be hate speech, if you're intending to cause them harm, if you're not, if you're someone who just believes there's two genders and you're just basically pointing out your version of the truth, then that is actually not hate speech. Also, the reason I brought that up is because it is just to me blows my mind.

how people like first up mender who want to support trans people and want to support like left-leaning causes actually wound up doing so much more harm to those causes than actually benefiting them because whenever they talk with this kind of rhetoric whenever they talk with this kind of rhetoric all it does is just take every normie every person and just massively massively turns them off from whatever the fuck the side is and it's just like for someone like yeah kick it over

Look, William is patiently waiting, but at the same time, simultaneously, he wants to speak. Go ahead, Alex, give you a chance to wrap up.

Yeah, so I was just saying it's just like frustrating to me, someone like that, who's on economic issues very much on the left, and like wants to see Democrats stop losing every single fucking election. When I come across people like First Amender, who I don't have enough information on whether he actually has bad intent or not, but who's objectively, from my perspective, just causing so much more harm to liberal causes, just filling into the role of just the typical- I want to go to William. On her left wing snowflake. Go ahead. William, go ahead.

Alright, so I think I was pretty clear of my points is that basic human respect is abiding by someone's gender pronouns. It's very easy to do and honestly if you really really feel in your heart you can't do it, you can just use gender neutral pronouns or just use their name. You can respect them and not gender them at the same time that we live in this world. It's amazing. But more respect would be just abiding by the pronouns. It doesn't cost you anything.

But to the meta conversation from Alex, I think what First Amendment is doing is great by coming on here, talking about these topics is very important. I praise him. I think we should have more liberals doing this. I also think at the same time, we should we have to know that we're coming into these debates with, you know, cards against us. They're going to try to make us look bad. We have to try to keep our cool and we have to be be.

be strong when they're pushing up buttons and trying to discredit humanity, trying to say the most slimy things you can imagine. You still got to stay strong and not let them get to you. Otherwise, it doesn't make your side look the strongest. I do want to mention before we jump into the Q&A,

Folks, I already mentioned it, but I have to mention it again in case you forgot. DebateCon 5, our two-day debate conference put on by Modern Day Debate is this Saturday and Sunday in Newark, New Jersey. If you are anywhere near, folks, you got to come. Check out the link in the description box right now.

Now, to get your tickets, some ticket types have already sold out. So don't put this off. It's going to be huge. We are excited to see you there in person. See these debates happen. It is going to be a lively event. And with that, we're going to jump into the Q&A. Don't want to say thanks for your questions, folks. This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where

Where do you even start? Talkspace. Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you.

Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com. Save $80 with code SPACE80 at Talkspace.com. Say thank you to all our speakers. I know it's always lively here. We have a lot of...

Rough and tumble debates, blood sports, but they're all good sports, so we do appreciate them being here. This first one coming in from WrongfulRage says, Shocker! Misgendering is not hate speech. If you disregard religious people by telling them God isn't real, are you committing hate speech, or are you merely projecting your worldview upon them? First Amendmenter of...

Um, I mean, saying God isn't real. I, I don't believe it's hate speech, uh, because I don't believe that it's like your very identity. However, I think like, if, like, if I'm going into a church or whatever, or like people just believe in that really heavily or say, for example, if like, you know, like if they're, if they were in a precarious situation, it's like a drug user or something and like proclaiming to them that God doesn't exist. It could absolutely be hateful. Sure. Yeah.

So you're saying that you're making a truth claim, First Amender? Is that what you're saying? Even though it hurts the person, you're making a truth claim so as not to hate speech? Is that what you're saying? Well, God doesn't exist. It's true that God does not exist. But I mean, regardless of the fact, I would still treat them with respect.

I hate to do this, gentlemen, but we have so many questions that we have to keep the rebuttals to a minimum because there are a lot. People have been so pumped about this debate. I've got to tell you, the audience has been rocking in the live chat. The poor man's poet 33 says, let's effing go, Jake. Rattlesnake crew is in the house. Show these soft.

Fuck you, soy boys. We are A and D. I'm sure they mean that with love. WrongfulRage says, why is emotional blackmail acceptable when it comes to misgendering people who are merely confused, when it's never acceptable under other circumstances, i.e. relationships, family, or in business? Because we're talking about harassing people on the basis of their identity.

I think they were. I think they were agreeing with us. It is harassment. Wrongful rage. Why is emotional blackmail? Oh, we got that one. Sorry about that. Gentlemen, we can't have too many rebuttals. They say, telling me I have to recognize someone as a gender I don't believe they are causes me harm. Why don't you care about the harm to me?

Use they, them pronouns. You don't have to. You don't have to acknowledge their gender. Use they, them. Use their name. Easy. Yeah, very easy. You don't have to acknowledge it. Blake says, question for the yes side. If someone is a pedo and gets suicidal, if they can't touch the little ones, do we allow them to touch the little ones to curb their suicidal thoughts?

No, you're harming children. You're harming children. I think the question should be rephrased. Are we allowed to call them pedo? The harm that results from letting them do that far away is the harm that you would cause by calling them a name they don't like or whatever. Let me just rephrase it. We're not talking about letting them touch. Obviously, everyone agrees you wouldn't. But what about just calling them pedo? Even that caused a massive, massive suicidal thoughts. But just me calling them pedo, which is what they are.

If you're doing it to a point that they want suicidal ideation, then maybe you kind of have to identify them in order for them to not cause harm in the future. Like, I don't, yeah, I'm sorry. You're talking about a group of people where they're physically causing harm to people. But like, if you're talking about like, oh, like, should it be easier for someone to come out as a pedo and then like allow for easier rehabilitative processes so that way less kids get harmed? Absolutely. Absolutely.

So just quickly, first, Amanda, so you're saying that you should do it, actually, because if you shame them to a certain extent, then they will be less likely to perpetrate what they're doing, which is harmful to society?

I don't think that's true. But that's what you just said, though. No, that's not what I just said. You said that you should be able to call them that because if you call them that, then they won't do what they were doing. That's not what I said. I didn't say that at all. Okay, so you think that you shouldn't be able to call them a pedo then if it hurts them? What? I mean, if you're talking about somebody who just got out of prison or whatever and is trying to get their life...

Going out of your way to call them like a pedo in order to like get them to lose their job is horrendous. Yeah, that's a terrible action. Like I believe that, I mean, unless if, I don't know, is there kids involved though? Like, are they working at a daycare? Then yeah, I would not consider that to be harmful, right? I'm mitigating the harm here is kind of my point.

Me getting the harm to the pedos, okay. To people, to people in general, overall, society. This is the way the culture's going. Says Alex has no moral grounding. Jake, however, knows God's truth of two genders that cannot be changed. His truth does not fit the definition as it implies intent. Sorry, girls, live to simp another day. Okay.

You don't have a rebel? I'm not religious, that is true. But it is interesting. Okay, but nonetheless, they're strange bedfellows if Jake happens to be religious and PWF happens to not be, and they're nonetheless in agreement on the trans issue. I understand the Shakespearean reference there, but bedfellows we are not, my friend. This one, though.

This one from Retro Royster, Ryster Gaming says, why are these soy boys getting so worked up defending men wearing dresses? Yeah, because I'm not talking about men wearing dresses. I'm talking about people's very identity and revoking that identity. It is assumed that when you walk outside that your identity is respected. And so I would like to be treated how, how, or how others would treat me. So it's the same situation. Like I just treat them with respect.

You keep on using this word revoking first amendment. And that's. Yeah. You're revoking human rights by denying people's identity. If you believe that that is your identity. Like I believe that I'm a Lord. If somebody doesn't call me a Lord, I'm still going to be a Lord, right? I've already showed you empirically how that's not the case and how they're disanalogous. Stop doubling down on the dumb argument. Why don't you make an argument? And that you provide no rebuttal. Instead of just getting grumpy about everything. I gave you the argument. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Jake, the broken record. Jake, the jukebox.

We'll jump in. That wasn't very good, Will. That wasn't very good. What an appropriate name. A snake. You guys didn't come up with an argument. Come up with an argument. This one from MadeByJimBob says, First amender. Is it hate speech if the neurologist tells someone they have a trans brain if they don't experience having a trans brain?

That's fair. It is not transphobic because now we can then exhibit the difference between an internal gender characteristics to what can be observed externally. Obviously, there's multitude of factors, not just like this specific portion in a person's brain, right? Gender characteristics.

is complex and there's a lot of different factors that go into it, right? It could be an endocrinological response. It can happen as early as, you know, even at before birth, these endocrinological responses, there can be societal factors that are involved. It's complex. Gender is complex. So your brain study, it doesn't matter then? First amendment, is that what you're saying? Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Because it's complex, then therefore brain study no matter.

What a dumb thing to say. I love it how every time you get absolutely destroyed, Festamanda, you just get grumpy and you just say, oh, don't do it. Yeah, because it's idiotic. It's a dumb thing to say. Yes, it's dumb. It's a very dumb thing. High tier stuff. It's very high tier. As high tier as you. Paul Marshall says, Jake absolutely killed it. Great job. First time, Jake. And

Can't wait to see more debates with you. And Samuel Taheed says schizophrenics harm themselves. Call them Lord. This one from Retro Reister Gaming says made by Jim Bob can quote a cis woman identify as a trans woman. Get Christo to call in.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what cis woman means it literally means that you have the same gender as your sex. So if you're a trans woman, then you would not be cis anymore. So yeah.

And I don't identify as cis, actually. So first amendment is a hate speech if you call me a cis male and I don't identify as a cis. It just means your gender aligns with your sex. You are cis. I reject that. So is that hate speech? Because that's not my identity. It's just the terminology that is used regarding specific neurobiological responses. What's your gender, Jake? What's your gender? My sex is I'm a male.

That's not what I asked you. Oh, look, you don't understand what gender is. What a shocker. Yeah, he doesn't understand it. I'm a man. Sex is different from gender. There you go, Will. I'm a man. Good one. But Will, they can imagine the difference between manly woman and womanly man. They can immediately know what that is. But if they didn't understand the difference between sex and gender, then it would be equivalent to me saying hot cold. But you can imagine.

Imagine womanly man, and you can imagine manly woman. So what is that incongruence? What do you call that incongruence? A womanly man is observable. And I know a womanly man when I see one. Yeah, so something doesn't align with their typical sex, right? I know. What is that something? I don't know. You tell me, First Amendment. How many fingers? It's called gender. Welcome.

I'm sorry. How many fingers do humans have? Snake, you gross. How many fingers do humans have? I hate these people. I hate them. I hate them. I know you do. That's actually good. It's hilarious. Yes. I love these guys. I love these guys. I'm willing to admit when I'm being hateful. How many fingers do humans have? This one from Rachel Wilson says, please ask.

Mr. First Amender, how long he has been a member of the Lollipop Guild? What does this mean, First Amender? You like candy? I'm assuming that's from the Wizard of Oz trope, because I'm short. I'm 5'11", not that short.

Let's see. 5'11 in heels, maybe. Only if I build the Tumunchkins from Wizard of Oz. This one from Tentos Hemerson. That's what we were talking about. 5'11 in heels and makeup, maybe. He's pretty tall. Look at that. Tentos. Tentos says, McLovin is mad he's getting wrecked by an Aussie. I can relate. I would be too, especially if all I had was my harm.

and seethe. Also, if Lord isn't a gender, how many are there? What makes it one? I didn't get the last part. The final part. If Lord isn't a gender, how many are there? And what makes it one? What makes something a gender? I would love to take that. If my intro didn't really specific... You'll probably have a better answer than me. I really tried to break it down in my intro. There's two different categories. There's gender identity and there's gender...

expression, right? Gender identity is an internal, subjective viewpoint of yourself. It cannot be wrong because it is your own opinion about your own identity. There's no wrongness in that. Gender expression is dictated by your society. There's masculine, there's feminine. And whatever the society dictates as masculine and feminine is what it is going to be. It's an intersubjective reality and it's

You can have it both ways. You can be a masculine woman and a feminine man. There's no rules contradicting that. Yeah, so how many genders are there? That's what he asked. It's a spectrum. So there's an infinite number. It's an infinite number. Okay. Because it's a spectrum. If you know what a spectrum is, I would love to explain it to you, Jake. Do you want me to explain it? I want a number, Will. How many are there? Oh, I told you the concept is an infinite number. And to the stupid chatter's question, then why is Lord not a gender, Will? It's...

It could be your personal gender identity. I don't think. Then I want you to respect it, Will. I want you to call me Lord. And you have been engaging in hate speech. I don't believe that there are. Again. I don't believe that there are infinite genders. I believe that there is a bimodal distribution of sex and gender identity that typically aligns with male or female. But there exists somewheres in between that.

sometimes it can be entirely social and so it could be say non-binary so i just illicit that there's three this one coming in from do appreciate your question grim knack says mclovin is fuming get them jake let's see they say raw dog says when did they then go from plural to meaning singular stop trying to change the english language hashtag rattlesnake hashtag my lord

Wow, they're not figuring this out. Language lives in the other person. It's not a stagnant thing. Language is not a stagnant thing. I will agree with you on that one, Will. Ah, me and Alex are best buds.

I think, yeah, we have more agreement than probably disagreement. We certainly have chemistry. Dan Goldstein says, First Inventor is hateful. It's hateful for you to not... Yes, to transphobes, I'm very hateful. Yes. Wait, do you think I'm a transphobe? Real quick. Sorry, go ahead and finish. Do you think that Alex is a transphobe?

I don't know. Maybe. This one from Gold Dangled Scene says, First Amender, is it hateful for you to not bet in the crystal and also for you to not affirm Lord Rattlesnake's identity? Do better. Again, Lord is an agenda. I don't know what you're talking about. Answer the question about the crystals, dude.

I don't know what the hell the crystals is. Is this some stupid right-wing chug fortune nonsense, or is this some actual stuff? How do you not understand that? He said, how is it offensive to not get in the crystal? I don't know what that is. It's a dog whistle. Don't acknowledge it. Got it. I don't want to explain this. Anyway, let's move on. I can't explain this. Andrew likes to collect crystals. He thinks they have power. This one from Retro says, Christ is Lord, and Cole Marshall says, great job making the leftist spurrg

Jake, not one step back. What the fuck? Why is everyone saying, oh, go Jake, go Jake. Where's go Alex? What the fuck?

Jake has... Because you're agreeing too much with this. That's why. That's why. You're being too reasonable. You have to be like a right-wing chud piece of garbage. You get up in the morning and you're literally just like, ooh, I'm going to drink. You have tears in the morning and you got to be like that. I thought that was a potential transfer. They taste so sweet. So sweet tonight. This one from Gentleman Damon says, I'm a psych NP. I think that means nurse practitioner. I have done GAC.

but I don't do it for free. Unless you're my patient, I'm assigning you the pronouns that fit my perspective of you. How do you like them apples? First, a mender. I don't believe that you're a psychologist. What? This one from Carlos says, Jake, one in the open. Thanks, Modern Day Debate, for hosting Lord Rattlesnake, King of Australia.

Let's see. Wrongful Rage says, why should we believe those that don't even know the scientific method? You sociological studies, your sociological studies suffer from a big problem. They can't be replicated. First, soy mender. That's also not true. And secondly, I did not even list a sociological study. I listed a neurobiological one.

By the way, there's more than just that. There's multiple fields of study that show the same exact thing in completely different fields of study. The facts are on my side here, regardless of whether or not it is in vogue is irrelevant. So first off, if you did a scan of my brain and you saw that I had some of those qualities that you listed that would be in the trans brain, would I be a trans woman?

You could be, but I would ask you what your gender was. Yeah, I say no. Because your internal gender, because obviously how you feel internally can only be really explained by you. We don't really have any way to scan you and confirm that you're that. Yeah, we just have to kind of ask you because it comes down to your phenomenology.

So once again, once again, he's just, you've just, you've just, they're not irrelevant. They show existence. They show the phenomenology existing on an empirical level, but yeah, it's complicated. Gender is complicated. It's not a perfect binary like you're requesting, but it is valid. So,

So I understand, First Amendmenter, that what you want to do is you want to spurg out and say, you want to go into full on judge mode. I'm pointing out the facts. You just don't like it. And you just say, ooh, soy jack. We're literally in idiocracy right now. No studies. Literally just being a right wing chud. And you just repeat it, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat. And you never argue it. It's ridiculous. James, can I make a point?

Can I make a point? Just a super brief point, just because I know that all the questions are First Amender. But Jake, what have you got? Yeah. So, you know what, First Amender, Fogel, maybe I am too stupid to understand this, but, you know, I'm just going to say that your studies...

are actually irrelevant based on your own logic and you've said that many times here because I just asked you if I could become a trans woman if I am a trans woman if it shows that in my brain and then you said no it's based on how you feel so once again first amender I reject your studies

This one from Even Lord says, established titles have been discovered that they buy no land and they plant no trees. They're a Chinese Hong Kong based company. Sorry, my Lord Jake. That doesn't change the, that doesn't change anything. But yeah, thanks for not misgendering me. This one from Raw Dog says, to verify the truth, you have to

Yep. Okay, this is weird.

Let's see. First offender is not... First offender has not offended anybody. This one, Austin Graham, that we know of, says, Daddy, quote, said, you throw like a girl, unquote. Mama said, quote, you can be whatever you want to be. Neither taught you, quote, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. What are you guys talking about? Marcus Antonio says, First offender, shave your arms, bro. Daddy mender, chill.

Oh, someone's calling you daddy. First Amendment. How much do you like that?

uh i i don't i don't i don't know i don't know i just listen i mean i i get like it's all fun and games was like it it really does genuinely it's very very upsetting knowing that there's like this many people that just want to revoke human rights and just seeing like all of the hate online it's i don't know it's it's honestly it's it's really upsetting to see because it's like

I don't know where the United States has gone. I mean, we're going to look at this 30 years into the future and realize like all of this nonsense was wrong, right? What's a human right, First Amendmental? I would appeal to the negative rights of inalienable rights of life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. Yeah, and what makes trans rights a human right?

Trans rights are a human right because you're talking about their identity, their very dignity, their ability to get the health care that they need and literally discriminate them on the basis of their sex and their gender. And where do they get these human rights from? I believe it comes from human reason, but others will tell you it comes from God. So you believe that it comes from purely your perception, basically? Not my perception. I said human reason, not my reason.

Right. So it comes to your perception because you have no actual way to ground that. If you don't believe it comes from God, if you believe it comes from human reason. This is a completely different discussion and we're in Q&A. Like, holy crap. I mean, if you want to have that discussion, we can have a debate regarding that. But yeah. Rights are a legal term dictated by the government. Okay. So we shouldn't have trans rights for people in Ethiopia then? They should have the government give them rights.

But their government says they shouldn't, so... Yeah, they don't have rights, but they should have rights. Okay, but their government says they shouldn't, so if it comes from the government, then the government's correct, right? I didn't say the government's correct. So then it comes from your perception, Will. Come on. Come on now. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So then, why don't you say that from the start? It comes from my perception. It comes from Will's perception. Well, it's also a legal term. It's also legal. Oh, you're missing the nuance yet again, Jake. Shocker. Oh my god. Please, I can't wait. Tell me the argument.

You missed it. There's different contexts of how rights can be affirmed. There can be legal rights. There can be personal rights. There can be religious rights. Yeah, it's not as simple as you think the world is, Jake. There's complicated things in the world that make it scary. Yeah, it seems like you're the only one who has been able to grasp complicated topics tonight, Will, unfortunately. I wish it were, because it would have been a bit more challenging. This one from WrongfulRage says, So first a matter, do we need to start issuing gender papers?

Hold on. Just lost the screen here. They said, that way we can verify these people's claims of gender affirmation. Because that sounds shady. You're bad at this. Like, harmfully bad. Stop it. It's already on your license, dude. What are you talking about? First Amendment? I'm so sorry. I just, I was reading something. Can you repeat very quickly? They just said, like, hey, should we have people...

have gender papers. It says that way we can verify these people's claims of gender affirmation. He says, that sounds shady. Kind of like, you know, who had papers in the past? Don't say the word. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. That's very weird. Like, but it's already on your license. We have gender on our license. So we already have the papers. No worries. Well, we only have fair enough options, right? Well, that's fine. You did. It's fine.

This one from Grimnack says, bro, First Amendmenter is going to start crying. I have to be real. I know that First Amendmenter gets so much shit, but I do admire that he shows up here, even though he gets so much flack from the audience. Not all the audience, but some. And he still shows up. And I have to say that's admirable is that most people, like for real, most people, doesn't matter which party you're

They would not do that. Most people would be like, they got a taste of it once and they're like, oh man, so many disagreed with me. So many called me soy boy. So many blah, blah, blah. Most people would not be willing to come to face it. I agree with this so much. Keep fighting the good fight. I'm like an endless bound of energy. The more people hate me, the more power I get.

I believe there's something different in you because, like I said, regardless of political party, I do think that most people, they really won't show up for that more than once. Penn Nublet says, per constitutional, but back to roasting you. They say, per constitutional attorney Robert Barnes, if there's a fire and you yell fire to alert others, you cannot be held liable as you are alerting people to great danger. Cope and seethe, amender.

Yeah, you really got done there.

Sorry, one more time. I'm reading the chat hate on me. I don't even understand their point. What are they trying to get across here? Sorry, can you just quickly one more time? I apologize. I get distracted with these chats. Stop reading all the hate, First Amender. All right, all right, all right. I'm trying. All right, I apologize. Go ahead. Per constitutional attorney Robert Barnes, if there's a fire and you yell fire to alert others, you cannot be held liable as you are alerting people to great danger. Hope and see, First Amender.

Oh, okay. So that was a misunderstanding that I had that Jake said, where I thought that it was under the assumption that there was not a fire. But yes, I agree with you. You're correct. Yes. By telling people that there's a fire when there is a fire, then yeah. James, do you think your audience is more skewed to the right? They are. I bet they are. 100% they are.

I would say lately we've definitely become more skewed to the right at modern day debate. I think largely because of a character named Andrew Wilson. Because we've had Andrew on again. We've got a good relationship with Andrew again. And I think also I'm not trying to diss anybody. I think that

sometimes like uh people some pockets of those on the far left they see some of the messages from andrew wilson and they're like i won't you know i'm not even going to be here anymore i will leave and so like uh they take off not all first amenders here but i think a lot of them are like you know this is bad chat but they run away that's lame but this one coming in from do appreciate it

Funny Farms says, if I want to cut my arm off with body dysmorphia, affirm my decisions or you will be, quote, on the wrong side of history, First Amender. These are a disanalogous point. You're talking about somebody who has a body dysmorphia and that is the current medical efficacy is not to affirm that. You basically need to help them out. That requires a great deal of psychological effort.

I'm not 100% super read on what the exact methods are. I'm read about the methods regarding trans people and the current medical efficacy for treating gender dysphoria is gender affirming care. So no, they're not analogous. And also just quickly, James, I did send you something on Instagram that I would like you to put out. Yeah, I saw that. It's some sort of lewd photo. What is it? No, no, no. Have a look. It's a proof of his earlier claim that was in doubt. Okay.

Okay. If you could, if you could share the screen, this one, uh, well, I can't, it's not easy for me cause I can't log into my, uh, on my work computer. Basically I can just verify it. It's a, it's proof that he's a Lord. I believe that he posted on Twitter, Jake, Jake rattle SNK. I'll post a photo on, on Twitter for those of you who are confused. You got it. I,

I also last question. Not the last. We've got a number of questions. This one wrongful raises. What is what right is being imperiled free speech or delusional nature of individuals confusion? I would err on the side of free speech. Do we stop children from talking to invisible friends or do we allow it?

The answer is, is that it is not a delusion because we're referring to the difference between sex and gender and how you can exhibit sex.

specific differences in gender that can be shown at an empirical level. This is shown endocrinologically and it also can be shown neurochemically as well as neurobiologically, right? There's multiple fields of study that came to the same conclusion that sex is not equal to gender, right? So it is not a delusion. It is not make-believe. It has basis in the hormonal chemistry of the human body.

This one from Tina L. Says, question for each. Will you, in one sentence, define hate speech? Well, yeah, I suppose we'll give each person a chance to define hate speech with just one sentence.

Sure, I can go. Hate speech is speech that is intended to cause harm to a specific person. That's probably what it would be. Yeah, it would be more specific, sorry. It would be hate speech is speech that is intended to cause harm based on something similar to race, gender, ethnicity, and things that are similar to that. There we go.

You got it? Yes. Speech that comes from a place of hate. What a shocker. Their definitions are way oversimplified, especially Jake's. You gave us one sentence, to be fair. Alex, you did good. Not Jake, though.

You just lost the debate. My definition is any kind of communication. Let me speak, Jake. Let me speak. Hold on for a second. Have self-control over your body for a second, Jake. Okay. Any kind of communication in speech, writing, or behavior that attacks or uses pejorative, disapproval, or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are. In other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender, or other identifying factor. Thank you.

Wow, you said a lot of words, Will. I thought you were done, Jake. I thought you were done. That does make yours true because you said a lot of different words. If you're being abusive or threatening speech with the express intent of prejudice on the basis of your race, religion, sexual orientation, or any grounds that are things that you can't control. Yeah, Jake is afraid of nuance. This one, they also asked,

There's a man in an abusive relationship, and he's made to change to a woman. So let's say Alex is in a relationship. He's got a girlfriend. And let's say his girlfriend was abusing him and says, like, Alex, you have to turn into Alexandra, or I will abuse you if you don't. They say, which pronouns cause less harm? Call him Robin, a female name, or Chase, a male name.

But this girlfriend's a monster. Leave. You just leave. You leave. Like what? Well, you're forcing somebody to change their gender? No, absolutely not. It doesn't really happen when you date like Latinas. They don't really, they want masculine guys. Not yet. But let's say Alex said it did happen. You're forcing someone to change their gender. You just leave. Just wait, Alex.

I would agree with that. But let's say Alex kind of goes along with it. He's kind of afraid of the abuse, so he's like, okay, I'm just going to embrace Alex. Okay, let's make me a fucking analogy. Call an abuse hotline? Yeah, this is abusive. It's just abuse. I'll put my heart in her place. I'll give her the... I'll come and give Alex a simp intervention. I would ask Alex what he wants me to call him. How about that?

I would respect his identity. Wow. First Amendmenter, any thoughts? On this analogy? I mean, it just – I don't know. It's hard for me to kind of like figure out this analogy without thinking about a realistic scenario. Understanding, I guess, playing within the ridiculous analogy, I mean –

I mean, Jesus, is this like an Amazon woman? You can't beat her up either. You can't do anything. You're just supposed to. My girlfriend's five feet. Five feet. I can beat her up. Yeah. I just, I don't know. It just, it's too, it's too far fetched for me to like imagine an answer, I guess. Someone's going to clip that. Why beat her up?

My girlfriend's five foot. I can beat her up. Is he lying? She really is five feet. Spit that fire, Jake. Will is coping hard. That's so messed up. They say respect seems to be a one-way street to the left. Why is that?

uh does he mean that the left is more respectful or less respectful no it means they were they they asked to respect but they don't give it um i think some people on the left absolutely are guilty of that but not all people on the left that's from you guys want to respond you can i mean i think we're trying to respect them to first amendment since before should we be tolerant of intolerance how far are we going to bring that right you know there's a limit and

Yeah, I'm not. I'm just intensely intolerant to intolerant people. I don't think you can have a tolerant society if you tolerate the intolerant because what happens is that the intolerant take over and then there's no tolerant people remaining. A la modern database chat.

And I'm, I actually, yeah. You chase away the tolerant people, all you're left with is a bunch of fucking horrible right-wing chuds breaching their fucking intolerance, and then all you end up with is a bunch of intolerant people. Yeah, that's what happens. How do you not see how you contribute to this dynamic? How by becoming overly... No, I'm here to fight back. I'm here to fight back. But, but, but,

You're only causing more people to disagree with you. I don't care. I don't care. I will literally, I, I, I'm so tired of being the polite Democrat. That's just going to be there and be like, Oh,

Let's hear the other side. Literally, dude, the argument is there's two arguments. One wants to argue in basis of human rights and the other one wants to put brown and trans people in a blender. Like, no, we're not on the same level. We're not. We never were. We argue basic human rights. It's ridiculous. Like you're just strawmanning the other side completely. Yeah.

Yeah, obviously it's not literally a blender. It's called hyperbole. It's not even close to that. It's called hyperbole. But what is true, right? What is empirically verified is the fact that they are denying medical care on basis of being trans. By the way, completely unconstitutional because that is their sex.

Right. We are literally we are literally pushing them out of spaces. They can't be in basic public spaces without getting harassed day in and day out. And it's horrendous. Y'all, everybody who's anti-trans, it's fucking horrendous. You guys are gross. You guys get up in the morning. You're like, man, I want to be a hateful piece of shit in the morning. And then you will go do that. It's disgusting. I hate it. I hate pretending that we're on the same that we're on the same level. We're not.

This is just your- I have a theory that I think that First Amendmenter is just trying to get some pussy, honestly. And that this is why he gets so irate about all of this sort of stuff. What the fuck are you talking about? That's just my theory. That has nothing to do with anything. I think that that's what it comes down to. I never said anything saying, well, if there's any girls that like me, maybe you will hit me up and say no. I never said anything like that. But what I did say is that you're invoking basic human rights. I hate it. I hate it. I hate pretending that you're on the same fucking level. You're not. I-

Someone will touch a pee-pee one day, First Amendment. Don't worry. Someone will touch a pee-pee. You are falling into the trap every time, First Amendment. You gotta hold yourself. This one coming in from StupidNotFunny says, Talking about hate speech, First Offender, here's the one who has talked about hating people and wanting to physically harm someone all over words and his fee-fees. Get a grip, soy boy. You are so bent.

Yeah, let's try it one more time. Okay. That wasn't a physical threat. Obviously, I don't want to literally rip their head off. Right. So let me just figure it out so you can get your little 80 IQ brain around it. Right. That you can actually realize that I'm just offering some hyperbole there. Obviously, I don't physically want to rip their head off. Jesus.

This one from Terrell Simmons says, can Alex please get closer to his camera? And Chase Hogarth says, for Fogel, should I pretend the homeless schizo ramblings I hear in inner cities are true because denying them would cause internal harm?

Because, well, this is also not analogous because you're talking about internal harm as opposed to external harm. Somebody harming themselves because of not affirming their gender is an external harm. If I take you at good faith and just replace the internal with external, then constantly

Kind of. Yeah. Yeah. Like if you're like not affirming that homeless person and it causes them to like harm themselves and you know, it harms themselves, then yeah. Yeah. You should try to do what you can to avoid that. Sure. People do it with Alzheimer's. People do it to people with Alzheimer's. They just affirm it and let it go because to disagree can cause more harm and doesn't benefit anybody.

This one coming in from do appreciate it. All four of these people are basically just throwing their poop at first amender, but I'm going to read it. Marcus Antonio says first offender loves talking about himself. Funny farm says today's takeaways leftist love control, not rights. You guys want to respond to that one?

Yeah, there's different type of leftists. There's leftists, there's social leftists, there's SJWs. It's just, yeah, just people, everyone, every party wants control. I think the right is better at it, unfortunately, but yeah.

I used to be a libertarian. Before that, I was a Republican. I've switched to a Democrat because I kept reading. That's literally what it was. I just kept on reading and then realized that the empirical science is in favor of trans people and gender being different from sex.

And then I became immediately disgusted by how many people that are super anti-trans. Just like I feel it's almost as if like basically the equivalent, at least from from my mind, is like like if we had an argument regarding like black people and whether or not that they deserve to be using the same water fountain as white people and whether or not that it's racist to say so. It's actually at that level in my head. Well, in your head, but not in reality.

Well, I do believe that in reality, it will be realized within the next 20 or 30 years or so. Well, go to Harlem, if you will, First Amendment, and go and compare them to trans people and see how well that goes for you. Compare their struggle to trans people and see how well that goes for you. I'm saying it wasn't about water fountains then, and it's not about bathrooms now. It's the same exact problem. Webster says good people care about others. Some are not good.

This one from Dr. Tetanus says, are the chuds in the room with you right now, First Amender? And ThePoorMan'sPoet33 says, you have to speak the way I want. If you don't, we'll take your job, publicly shame you, and in some countries jail you. The Tolerant Left.

I don't believe in creating laws that prevent you from being able to speak. I mean, I do take my name seriously, but just so you're aware,

Right. A company is not beholden to the First Amendment. The First Amendment, it covers a lot of things. It covers the separation of church and state. It covers the right of free speech. Obviously, I don't believe that there should be a law that prevents you from saying hateful things. But I also don't think that you're like free of consequence just because you're like.

being a piece of garbage. If you're a piece of garbage, I think people should call you out for being a piece of garbage. Like that's it. And so me doing that, that's, that's what I'm doing. Let me comment on this. So no one here is a freedom of speech absolutist. That whole comment was just, it's just a way to try to appeal to certain people, but no one is a freedom of speech absolutist. Everyone here would advocate for some kind of limitation of speech in some form. There's no, no one here believes that in genuine, genuine faith. That is true.

This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? Two seconds is loads here. Nick Mercer says, for the cause. Thanks, Nick, very much. And this one from Dr. Tetness says, the chuds are back in town. Okay. Even Laura says, chud bros, we can't stop winning. Lefties big sad. First Amendmenter, are you sad?

No, I'm angry. Okay. This one from Kevin Blackwell. Thanks for your generous super chat. It says, how does First Amender know that the changes in the brain aren't the same as cancer or a parasite and something that should be fixed? Cancer is real and physical, just like your trans brains. Can he show...

The paper that proves it isn't a disease. Because this is not a cancerous tumor and there are differences in the way the human body grows at an embryonic stage that can differ quite radically based on the hormones you receive at a very early age. It just happens. Genetics are weird. They do weird stuff sometimes. And this is just an exhibit of a weird thing that happens.

This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Know your realm, says Leprechaun. Raw Dog says, what makes you an Irishman, First Amender? Leprechaun? Like, I have an argument regarding the disproving God with the usage of leprechauns, but I don't know what that is. Raw Dog says, what makes your feelings more important than mine? It hurts me to lie.

And don't lie. Use gender neutral pronouns. Correct. Yeah. If you feel like you're lying, use gender neutral. It's easy. It's not hard. Poor man's poet says his first amendment or trans is the voice modding after my lucky charms. First. No, I'm not born male. This has come up before. And yeah, I'm not. I'm not. I'm I'm I'm I'm bisexual, but I don't know why that has anything to do with anything.

This one from Witsit Gitsit says, if someone is schizophrenic, do you agree enabling their delusion would actually be cruel? Stating uncomfortable truth is an act of love, not hate. So I don't believe that you're telling the truth by not affirming someone's gender because I'm referring to the difference between gender and sex. If you can understand that gender is different from sex, then you're not lying.

It's not cruel. Car Camp says, McHayton versus Jake. Not one step back, brother. Not one. So some sort of slang the young people use nowadays. This one from Wrongful Rage. You're not cool enough, James, to understand. It's something that all the kids are using. I'm a boomer here. Wrongful Rage says, Alex, did you do something that invokes our praise? Oh.

I think they think you're playing the middle too much, Alex. They're like, oh, oh, I'm Alex. Oh, I voted for Biden. I'm a lefty. I think they're criticizing you for that. Yeah. So that's what right wing chucks do. They like to...

They like to harass people that don't agree with them even slightly. And they're literally like a bee swarm that will literally engulf you, Alex, because you're slightly agreeing with Will and I. And you're being like, how dare you be even remotely reasonable? You have to be a right-wing chud like them, a bunch of fucking NPCs.

Yeah, I don't feel harassed or really give a shit. Yeah, if you like my arguments, cool. If not, then whatever. This is not really a topic I've ever thought about. So it's not my strongest topic. But yeah, I don't know why they're hard on you. I would have thought that they would be excited to have like a person who votes Democrat on their side because it's like a very persuasive, like rhetorical, you know, credential to say, look, we've even got somebody from your side on our side.

It's because he's a product of the KGB and he's a Soviet spy and people are just suspicious of that most of the time. That must be it. I used to be, but I've switched over to Venezuela. They're actually, the girls are hotter, so. They are good, the Venezuelan girls. Andy says, how do First Amendment will ground their harm principle?

How do I ground harm? I mean, harm can be measured. It hurts. Harm can be measured psychologically. Can we see you, not your pussy, First Amendmental? Thank you. You don't like my cat? My cat's cute. I want to see your pussy, dude. Harm can be measured psychologically, and there can also be other, plenty of other metrics that can be used to dictate what harm means.

Marcus Antonio says, first offender, you can't be, quote, so tough and intolerant, then turn around and be a victim when the other side claps back. It's weak AF. I'm not running at all. I am on Discord all the time, taking on anybody that wants to debate. I host a show on Thursdays, debate some more. I show up here, I debate some more. I ain't running, bro.

This one coming in from Dr. Tetness says, the Chud Coalition of America and Australia are going to cause First Offender to have a spurge-induced aneurysm. RRU. I don't know what that means. I'm glad we could help. This one from The Tanner Nation says, First Offender, which statement is more indicative to you? Quote, I feel like a man. Or,

I have actual male reproductive organs. Both of those are correct. But also, at the same time, there are people where their external genitalia do not match. Right? You got it. James, how many of these do you have? It looks like you have a million. Questions? Oh, we...

I say we got 10 right here. 10 here in the list remaining. Tentos Hemerson says, you can't stop the base chads. First offender, we will overtake you, out-debate you, and out-procreate you. Christ is God. Thanks for coming out, though GG.

All right, cool. So you believe in a fake thing. You want to harass somebody who's trying to argue you the reality. And then your argument is talking about another fake thing. Got it. Amazing. Yes, he deserves his right to speak. And then they say, Will, what are your thoughts?

I'll take his right to speak away. No, I'm just kidding. I think he's a fine lad. He's just a little lost on a couple of things, but I'm willing to help him no matter what. I won't give up on you, Jake, no matter how confused you are. I think I'm doing just fine. Thanks, Will. Oh, I see. He's confused again.

This one from Dr. Tetness says, got that one. Nick Mercer, thanks for your, they said, Marco Antonio said, first offender, white knights himself yet again. I don't know what you think, like white knight or whatever. Like, I just argue for human rights and people get upset. Like, you're mad that I want to uphold basic inalienable rights of all individuals. Like, you're a monster. I don't know what,

And then you're just like, oh, here's this label. White Knight, you're a bad person now. Like, fuck you. Juicy. Okay. Okay. Nothing. All right. This one from, pardon, I do want to remind you all, we do have several more questions, but I do want to say it early.

Our guests are linked in the description box. What are you waiting for, folks? You can always find their links. Don't forget that. That's included at the podcast. All of these debates are on the Modern Day Debate podcast within 24 hours of them being live. Hello Outsider says, 2 Timothy 4, 3-4 says, is transgenderism in a nutshell?

This one from Wrongful Rage says, poor William, two of the worst partners back to back. Do you remember the three laws of logic or should we lose hope in you? Was that to Will, to me, or to Will? It was Will, it was Will, and it was meant to insult you. Got it. Go ahead, William, defend your partner.

Look, First Amendment, I really, like we said before, and I'll say it again, the fact that he comes out here and advocates is the most important thing. Could he improve his methods? Maybe. But so can everyone else. I can improve mine. We can all improve on the way we do things. We should strive to improve. But the fact that he comes out at all is very admirable. So what's the three laws of logic, Will? Are you talking about the are you talking about Aristotle? Is that Aristotle? No.

No. Will? What are the laws of logic? What? No. I'm almost positive that was Aristotle. Excluded middle, law of non-contradiction, and... And then what was it? The law of identity. I don't know the other one. Identity. There you go. See? This is called teamwork.

This is teamwork. You need to get teammates to tell you. A quiz doesn't really make somebody right or wrong. You're just trying to lambast the point like, oh, see, they don't know what they're talking about because you can't actually address the fact that transgender people exist and how it's hate speech. It's a stupid thing. Everyone knows they exist. No one's denying it. Don't care, Chud. That's one coming in from...

KF, thanks for your super chat. I didn't see your question, though. Emily A says, it doesn't matter what hate speech is because First Amender has shown that hate speech is acceptable as long as you hate them. This has been disturbing. Yeah, intolerant people.

Yeah, yeah, I hate on intolerant people because I don't believe that you can have a working, tolerant society if you just hate all the tolerant people and then all that's left is a bunch of right-wing chuds that just hate anything that don't agree with them. Y'all are a bunch of NPCs and you're on the wrong side of history. This one from Rachel Wilson.

says first amender has secret king syndrome he thinks smart boys like him should run everything and he's mad that he will never beat guys like jake by reading books and he says she says does reading books does not entitle you to a higher place in the hierarchy first offender

I would rather have smart people running the government than like somebody who does not read and literally speaks at a fourth grade level and a bunch of right wing chuds sit around and say, see that guy? He talk kind of like me. Yeah, no. Yeah, I'd rather have smart people actually run things.

Yeah, I'll actually grant that, First Amanda, and I'll just say that, you know, I don't read so good, and I have never learned to read, and I wouldn't be able to if I tried, and I do speak like a four-year-old. But unfortunately for you, First Amanda, you just got absolutely demolished by that guy for two and a half hours. So I think it says more about you, buddy. Okay, Snake. Oh, good one. This one's coming in.

Sleepy Neal. Oh, that reminds me, though. Rachel Wilson. Thanks very much. Rachel will be at DebateCon 5 this weekend. So if you want to meet both Rachel and you can see on the bottom right of the screen there, Andrew Wilson takes on Craig McNeil. That's in Newark, New Jersey, this weekend. Get your tickets linked in the description box. What are you waiting for? This one from Sleepy Neal says, First Amendmenter, can men PMS? I'm asking for a friend. Can men PMS? No.

Interesting. Tapio says, First Admitter, just dropped the charade already and admit you love P. Thorn. That's what this is all about, right? Love what? No. I think they're saying transgender explicit materials. No, I just sympathize with trans people because I realize that most people like to revoke the human identity of trans people. I'm very staunchly in favor of basic inalienable rights, and that's why I'm very, very passionate about this.

That's why I sat down and I read and learned about all these things. Yes. This one, Tanner Nation says, my question got skipped. Tanner, I'm 100% sure that I read it earlier. Tapio says, First Amendmenter just dropped the charade already. He must have been going to the bathroom. Tapio says, Tech VR says, what was the gross soda brand that we got you to try in like eight subs for First Amendmenter?

Yeah, so I have this contest that I'm doing. Basically, if I get to 400 subs, I know that doesn't seem like a lot, but I got to start somewhere. And so when I get to 400 subs, I'm going to be streaming a thing where I'm drinking a bunch of really gross sodas by this company called Lester's Fixins, or I call it Uncle Lester's Soda. Yeah.

they're really freaking gross. He's got like a Buffalo wing soda. There's like a mustard soda. There's a ranch dressing, black olive soda. And anyways, so I'm going to be, yeah, I'm going to be doing that because it does look like we're going to be meeting our goal. You got it. This one coming in. Do appreciate it. Tina L says, this was a real world example, believe it or not. Domestic abuse. You just walk away, but misgendering and hate speech is harassment. Yet the problem. Uh,

I'm sorry, one more time. I was looking at chat. I promise that I wouldn't do this. You remember earlier, they said, if let's say Alex, his girlfriend was verbally abusive toward him until she got him to buy into the ideology and think that he was a woman trapped in a man's body.

Okay. So that Alex becomes Alexandra. They're saying, remember that they say domestic abuse, you just walk away, but misgendering and hate speech is harassment. Get the problem. Well, both of these are terrible situations. Like, I don't know, like, like I wouldn't want either of these things to happen. So you should walk away from your partner too. If they misgender you. Yeah, for sure. I think they're saying like,

I think they're kind of saying like, well, why wouldn't you affirm Alexandra? Call it like, say like, yes, you are Alexandra. Like, why would it matter if the source from which Alexandra started? You have to involve me. This is all about Alex. It's like, it's a sign of endearment, Alex. I just, I love you. So lucky to be chosen. They're saying, shouldn't you like support that trans person in either case?

Like it shouldn't matter if it was the result of her like abuse leading up to it. I don't know if that's what they're trying to get at. It's hard to tell. Derek says, Derek Stallwood says first amendment mentioned the empirical science of trans people. Empirical science led to eugenics. First amender. Does this, does his moral worldview rest on empirical science?

Yes. So sometimes science can be wrong, but what's good about science is that it changes its opinion or its findings based on new evidence. Yes, I agree with you that there has been bunk science for that. I do not believe that that is the case for trans people because there's more and more discoveries that are being made in favor of the trans experience. This one coming in from Sweet Pea.

Chris O'Mines says, what exactly makes an identity, quote, a gendered one, if it's just a subjective view of yourself? How is atheist Christian not a gender under this view? You're talking about like a worldview as opposed to like someone's identity. Well, it's someone's perception of what they think gender means. If they think gender means one thing, then...

It's hard to disagree because it's your own intersubjective, your own subjective opinion about yourself. You can't prove them wrong, right? Because it's their own opinion. I can't, you can't prove that I like the color red, just like you can't prove that I think I am a woman. Yeah. I mean, you just kind of have, like you're talking about a person's phenomenology or their internal experience or qualia for short. It's not really possible to get that without just asking. You got it.

This one from blah, blah, blah, 1196. Will and first amender. If you internally identify as a woman, but I externally identify you as a man, why does your internal subjectivity prioritize over my external subjectivity or vice versa?

Oh, it doesn't. So typically how you determine somebody to be man or woman is that you exhibit a series of characteristics that determine that are typical of that of male or female. So like you observe these things like their face, their body type, you observe like the fat distribution, all of these within about like less than half a second. And then you make that assumption from there.

If then somebody told you, well, my gender is that of this, and then you perpetuate just being a hateful person, then yeah, you're just kind of being a dick. Like, yeah. So I would also agree with...

most of what first mentors say, it doesn't, what was it? It doesn't out compete or what was the word that was? Yeah. It doesn't like, yeah, there's no like competition. Yeah. It's not a competition of who it's just, how do we respect each other? That's the question. How should we communicate to each other that conveys respect?

both ways. If I ask that you affirm my gender, that was in telling you that's how I would perceive you to respect me. If you don't want to affirm my gender, that's your choice. And if you want to, you know, give me a little bit of respect, but not lie to yourself, you don't have to affirm my gender and you don't have to use gendered language at all. Just use my name. It's that easy.

This one from Marcus Antonio says, first amender, didn't say you run. You said you play victim. I don't understand what this is. I play victim. Oh, they're saying didn't say you run. I said you play victim. I mean, I don't consider myself a victim.

Mark says, Jake Rattlesnake is good-looking, smart, tough, and measured. I hate him, but not really, though. Love you also, Jake, from Melbourne. Wow. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Eleazar Perez says, first offender, if an underage girl said she was into you and she would off herself, you know what I mean? Like...

oh my god i talked to the police i talked to i talked to to the parents to the psychologist like what let me explain this twisted example they say if you didn't get with her would you catch your first offense to save her no i'm talking to the parents immediately this is a mess that's probably a problem but what if you could talk to the parents what if you couldn't

What? I'm leaving. I'm running. I'm running. Nope. Abandoning the trolley problem? Yep. I'm leaving. Whatever happens, happens. That ain't my responsibility. Nature tickets course? Damn. Okay. This one coming in from Eleazar Perez, his first offender. We got that one. Raw Dog says, so gender neutral is plural pronouns. Is this because they have multiple genders in their mind? Hashtag my lord.

No, it's just a filler word that because we don't have better language. Hello, Outsider says if men can't PMS, then trans men aren't men.

Yeah, that's the thing. I was going to disagree with you, First Mender. I would argue a trans man could PMS because men is an identity. Oh, I thought they said just men. OK, I see. I see what you're saying. No, you're right. You're right. A man can PMS because a man can be a trans man. Gotcha. Gotcha. Yeah. I guess I just was just assuming.

They were referring to the sex man, not gender. I would call him male. This one, coming in from, do appreciate it, Rachel Wilson says, Jake is smarter than the angry man. He just thinks he's smarter because he reads books. Well, I write books. Am I smarter? You don't care about human rights. You want revenge on more successful people. First offender. So...

I do care about human rights. I started like my political journey, like as a Republican switched to a libertarian because I was so staunchly in favor of people's basic inalienable rights. After reading John Locke, I was like, dude, this guy huge, right? I read Rothbard. I read Mises. I read

I mean, I was neck deep in it. And even to this day, like even now as a Democrat, very much in favor of basic human rights,

I read a book called Brain Gender by Melissa Hines, and then I realized that there was a lot more scientific basis to trans people than everybody realizes. I was like, this can be exhibited in multiple fields of study, and I just see a lot of people that want to revoke the basic rights of trans people, and it's incredibly upsetting. You're a libertarian for some number? No, no, I'm a Democrat.

This one used to be, though. Nolan Richards wants his first amender. You cite brain sex differences to affirm gender exists, yet say they don't define their self-identity. How do you reconcile that? You cite brain sex differences. Sorry, one more. I'm trying to make sure I get the question right.

You cite brain sex differences to affirm gender exists, yet you say those differences don't define their self-identity. How do you reconcile this?

Well, because you're talking about a complex phenomenon, a person's gender. And the only way that you can really fully 100% tell is that it's their internal sense of how they feel. Obviously, we have to take them a bit at their word because you're looking into the phenomenology of that individual. We can look at telltale markers that are typical of that for trans people and exhibit the biological differences between

that are exhibited of people who feel that they are trans. And they're just, that, that just shows that there's a hormonal and a neurochemical link behind the phenomenological response. Does that make sense? Like, yeah, I mean, I don't know, but I'm just, maybe that went over. Everybody said, I don't know. Nolan Richards. Yes. They're like, if you don't, if it doesn't make sense to you folks, it's,

Then you're not as smart as first amender. All right. It was a word salad is what it was. It wasn't word salad. It made perfect sense. It was a word salad. Yeah. When you have big words, it doesn't mean that it's word salad, right? It just means big words that require you to think a little more. You're intentionally obfuscating something. You've been absolutely right. I'm not obfuscating. I literally defined phenomenology to you clearly qualia or internal sense experience as

You can follow along from there. If you don't understand, let me give it to you for the dumb people in the comments, okay? So what he's saying is that there are all of these other factors that go into gender expression and go into gender. However, what it ultimately comes down to is how you feel and how you self-identify. That's not true. So if you have all of the other factors, but you still feel as though you are something that doesn't... Is it not attributable to those factors? That's not true. You are still not that thing. So...

Yeah, that's a strong man of the argument. I'm just simply pointing out that, hey, there's all these people that say they feel like that their gender is different from their sex. What is going on? Okay, let's study them. Can we observe that there are physical differences in comparison to cis people? The answer is no.

Yes, among many different fields of study. The neurobiology, the endocrinology, the neurochemistry, as well as the biology, all of these show these exhibited traits. So that's what I'm referring to. Tenobolet says, no, amender, science does nothing, says nothing, and interprets nothing. Humans do. Science cannot say anything is wrong.

Science disproves things all the time. What do you mean? Of course it means things. He's saying morally wrong. Science can't say anything is morally wrong. That's correct. You cannot derive an is from a not. But, I mean, I can talk about... It's referring back to the eugenics argument, what they were talking about. Gotcha. I apologize. I'm sorry. It's late. I'm tired. Tim Jibling says gender is ternary, right? Gender is three things. Ternary.

I'm assuming that they're referring to my initial thing where I said it's male, female and non-binary. Yeah, probably. Yeah, that's what I exhibit. I mean, I don't know. I have heard like entirely social constructs where it goes outside of the bimodal distribution. But yeah, that's what I would say. I think it's a spectrum that can have more than just male or female. KF says first offender.

Science doesn't have opinions. James, can you do me a favor? Can you just change it to just say First Offender instead of First Offender every time? Actually, I've been changing it from... I have committed no crimes. I've been changing it from... I have committed not a single crime. And it's like, they're just like...

Like throwing me in the bus saying like, oh, I'm an offender. Like what? Like a sex offender? Or like, I don't understand. That was projected. Actually, I was already changing it. They were saying first offender and I was changing it to first offender. I'm sorry. Are you serious?

Not all of them. Why do you do this, James? It just makes it more fun. He's not a pervert. He's not. Look at Alex. He's doing something over there. I don't know what's going on. I think you can unmute yourself, no? No, you can't. Really? I was just muted for like a solid 15 minutes. But yeah, go ahead.

First Amender. He's not a pervert, you guys. Says, Heck VR, Jake, you do realize established titles is owned by a Chinese corporation? Oh, we got that one. They also said, Wicked Wally says, Jake, I repent of my lack of faith in your fine nation. I seek the king's forgiveness and declare myself an Australia inquirer. Oh, yeah. You have been forgiven.

This one coming in from Tim Jipping says, Jake, gotta yell fire when you see a flame. Am I right? Yes, exactly. What does that mean? Well, it means if you see a fire in a crowded theater, you probably shouldn't not say fire because you're scared that you'll be culpable for people being killed in a stampede. I misunderstood your position. This was under the assumption that there was no fire and I've clarified it multiple times and now you're doubling down. So weird.

That's pretty interesting. Okay. Now, our dear friend First Amender has gotten most of the shit tonight. William, I tried to give you some, but there's just not that much to work with. Only joined to troll says, how can you say trans women are literally women while simultaneously admitting that gender is literally just an identity or feeling?

Yeah, I mean, if you understand the difference between gender and sex, then this question doesn't really work. The question didn't make sense. Yeah. Like, that's the whole point. It is a feeling. So you are a woman if you feel like you're a woman because it's an identity. But we're referring to the gender, right? Not the sex. The sex never changes. Well, you can change your sex too. Anatomical sex changes. You can change aspects of your sex. Maybe you can't change your chromosomes yet. Yeah.

I don't think we would ever be able to, to be fair. One day. From Andy, they say, some say using quote-unquote wrong pronouns causes psychological harm. But how do you determine what truly counts as harm rather than just discomfort or disagreement? Your quote-unquote harm principle is just circular. So it's not a matter of disagreement.

You're disagreeing about their very identity, and it literally causes their gender dysphoria to get worse by being surrounded by tons of hateful people that say hateful things and don't affirm their identity. This increases their overall suicidal ideation. This empirically reduces their quality of living, their right to life, their liberty, their pursuit of happiness. Many different inalienable rights get revoked by doing this.

You got it. This one from Retro Reister Gaming. It says, First Amender, Jesus loves you. He can help you with your anger. Turn to him. He's the truth, the way, and the life. Yeah, there is no God. There's no Jesus. There's none of these things. None of this exists. It's just, yeah, it's nonsense. It's literally, if I told you, turn to a leprechaun. Only joined to troll. Says, how can you say...

No, did we just read this? They say, how can you say trans women are literally women while simultaneously admitting that gender is literally just read that. All right. Sorry for Rachel Wilson says first offender. Okay. I have to read it if she says it. She paid the money. Thanks. Great. He said, have you had intimacy with a trans person? Did it affect your perspective on the topic?

I've not had intimacy with a trans person. I don't look at any trans porn. I just, I'm very, I really genuinely am very big on human rights, right? And I see that there's a lot of hatred towards trans people and seeing all of the hatred, they're revoking the basic right of their lives. So I fight against that vehemently. Michael Dresden, thanks for your question. Is that...

William, would you have relations with a transfusion? Listen, you're married. You're married, right? I am married. So you're off the hook. I guess I can't answer. Sorry. It could be a threesome.

Well, let's go to the next one. I never thought it could be worse, but here we go. Alex found a way. Chance Johnson says, if you quote unquote feel like a woman that would just be make-believe. When I was a kid, I felt like a fireman a lot, but I'm not. So you can't just say you are something because you quote unquote feel like it.

This is just confusing sex and gender. Fireman is not a gender identity, and I've exhibited the empirical basis that exists of trans people. Mitch Greer, I think this is our last one. They say, question for the panel. Do you support HRT for children under the age of 18? Human hormone replacement therapy, if anybody forgot. Does your answer change if the child consents and the family doctors support it?

No, I don't support it for anyone under 18. After you're 18, you can do whatever the fuck you want with your own body. HRT is not recommended to minors only in very, very specific circumstances. Uh, I think what you're probably referring to is hormone blockers. So that way they can become 18 as an sexually androgynous person and then make an informed decision as an adult. Uh, that's typically what happens. Um,

Yeah, I mean, it's not recommended hormone replacement therapy because it leads to irreversible results.

you really need to be 100% sure before you go on HRT. And so hormone blockers is probably what you're referring to. This actually reduces the need for needless surgeries in the future because if they do end up actually feeling that they're a man or woman's body as an adult, then they don't necessarily need things like mastectomies or fat displacements

surgeries, which are often very invasive and risky. And so this can be mitigated through hormone blockers. Yeah. You got it. Want to say folks, all of our guests are linked to the description. They're the lifeblood of this channel. They really, I mean, obviously I'm not just saying that because these channels is like this debate wouldn't exist if they weren't here tonight. It doesn't have to end here. You guys have obviously enjoyed it. We've had a lot of people watching tonight for a long time.

Great opportunity. Click on their links below. Learn more about their views, even if you disagree with their views. By the way, people are always like, oh, debate. I don't know if they really change minds. First of all, there is actually empirical research that has found that, yes, they do. But even if they didn't, there's such a value in debate because you have this thing called education. You at least learn about the other side's position, and that's good in and of itself. But I do want to say thank you to our guests, William, Firstamender, and

Jake and Alex, it's been a true pleasure to get to host you guys tonight. Thanks, man. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, guys. Thank you. Not going to take any of this personally. Appreciate you guys all coming out tonight. Yep. Thanks. Good to meet you guys. Excellent. I'll be back in just a moment, folks, to let you know about upcoming debates, including Newark, New Jersey, this weekend.

Tickets are linked below. Stick around and I'll share more about that in just 10 seconds. Newark, New Jersey is where Modern Day Debate's next debate conference, DebateCon5, is happening, including debates like Dr. Lawrence Krauss against inspiring philosophy Mike Jones on Saturday, February 15th, and Andrew Wilson against atheist Craig McNeil, as well as other debaters, including David Wood and apostate prophet. So click below to grab your tickets right now.

right now as some ticket types have already sold out. You don't want to miss out on this cultural moment that's starting Saturday, February 15th in Newark, New Jersey with two full days of debates. So click below to grab your tickets right now so you don't miss out.