This Liberal Feminist Didn’t Expect To Agree With Charlie Kirk

[00:00:00] Hi Charlie, how's it going? Good. Um, so [00:00:04] I want to preface by saying that I'm on [00:00:06] the left and I just say that so that I [00:00:10] can hopefully prove to everyone here [00:00:11] that not uh every single person on the [00:00:14] left has lost their mind on this [00:00:16] particular issue that I'm going to talk [00:00:18] about, which is going to be sex and [00:00:20] gender. So, there's a lot of ways I [00:00:23] think we're going to agree here and [00:00:24] maybe a couple ways we're going to [00:00:26] disagree, but um I do feel that gender [00:00:29] is maybe this term that gets used in at [00:00:32] least five different ways by people from [00:00:36] various sides. So, maybe to eliminate [00:00:38] some of that ambiguity, we could start [00:00:41] by saying what you mean when you talk [00:00:44] about gender. [00:00:45] >> Okay, so great question. I believe there [00:00:47] are no genders. It's a category that [00:00:49] does not exist. There are two sexes and [00:00:51] unlimited personalities. Cool. So, we [00:00:53] conflate personalities with gender and [00:00:55] there are two biological sexes. [00:00:57] >> Yeah. So, I'm fairly on board with that. [00:00:59] I find it very persuasive slogan. Um, I [00:01:03] want to ask about two potential [00:01:05] alternatives that people want to give [00:01:07] that I also find plausible as to what [00:01:09] gender is. So, the the first alternative [00:01:12] would be that gender is real but [00:01:15] harmful. And so I we can maybe talk [00:01:18] about your motivation in a second for [00:01:20] saying it's unreal. But maybe the second [00:01:22] alternative would be that it's just [00:01:24] literally a synonym for sex. So maybe [00:01:26] let's say what's your motivation for [00:01:28] saying it's unreal? [00:01:29] >> Well, it's not even a motivation. It's [00:01:30] let's look at where do you know where it [00:01:32] came from? It's not it's not trivial. [00:01:33] >> Yeah. Like sociology in the money. So [00:01:36] yeah, this term did not exist prior to [00:01:38] the 1960s and that was happening all [00:01:40] throughout this new school of thought of [00:01:43] transgender. There's like a social [00:01:45] construct that's arbitrary, but that [00:01:47] itself is not what makes it unreal, [00:01:49] right? It [00:01:50] >> it was introduced as a unnecessary [00:01:52] category. The point being is that it [00:01:54] actually has no bearing in biology. We [00:01:56] can't measure it. We can't witness it. [00:01:57] We can't see it. And yet we ascribe it [00:02:00] all the time. And we've kind of fallen [00:02:01] into this semantic trap over the last 40 [00:02:04] or 50 years. [00:02:05] >> No, I see what you mean. But that it [00:02:07] like is not based in anything that is [00:02:10] sort of physical. It's entirely [00:02:12] >> bingo. And that so that's a gnostic [00:02:14] belief. So [00:02:15] >> okay, but in the same sense something [00:02:17] like law or money is a social construct, [00:02:21] right? But we don't want to say [00:02:22] >> not necessarily. So I don't how how is [00:02:25] money a social con? It's a [00:02:27] representation of value. You can measure [00:02:28] it. You could see it. You could trade [00:02:30] it. You could speculate on it. [00:02:32] >> We could see consequential effects of [00:02:34] soal gender. [00:02:35] >> Hold on. You can see effects of a [00:02:36] personality. See, we're getting back to [00:02:37] the personality. You don't you can't [00:02:39] actually witness gender. You can't look [00:02:41] at chromosomes. You can't look at [00:02:42] genitals. You can't look at brain [00:02:43] structure. You can't look at [00:02:44] testosterone levels. There's gender is [00:02:47] simply a replacement synonym for [00:02:49] personality. [00:02:50] >> I totally [00:02:50] >> personalities change. But let me prove [00:02:52] it. Go ahead. I'm sorry. [00:02:53] >> Well, when we define gender as gender [00:02:55] identity or whatever this means, this [00:02:57] nebulous thing, I agree that it's like [00:02:59] this just isn't real. But regardless, [00:03:02] maybe we can move on slightly because [00:03:04] I'm already sympathetic to that idea. [00:03:06] So, my next question would be the way [00:03:08] you go about defining sex. Um I think [00:03:11] this came up earlier that you want to [00:03:12] use uh uh chromosones as the criterion [00:03:16] on by which we define sex. So obviously [00:03:18] we get into some of the interex [00:03:20] objections. Maybe just first do you [00:03:22] think that's a problem at all or you [00:03:23] have that? [00:03:24] >> It's an exception to the rule. I mean [00:03:25] you and I would both agree that a fully [00:03:27] formed human being has two arms and two [00:03:30] legs. But if someone is born without [00:03:31] arms that would be a deformity against [00:03:33] the rule. So, if I can give you an [00:03:35] account that's going to uh successfully [00:03:38] categorize every case and not have to [00:03:40] deal with exceptions, would that not be [00:03:42] preferable? [00:03:43] >> I I would be interested. [00:03:44] >> So, my opinion would be that sex is the [00:03:47] orientation towards a developmental [00:03:49] pathway that did, does will or would if [00:03:53] not for some developmental or uh genetic [00:03:58] abnormality result in the production of [00:04:00] large or small gametes. So, this is in [00:04:03] terms of reproductive, reproductive [00:04:06] function, and I think this definition [00:04:08] might better account for some of the [00:04:10] interex cases. [00:04:11] >> Did you come up with that? [00:04:12] >> Uh, no. I'm not sure who originated it, [00:04:15] but there's [00:04:15] >> No, I had to think about it. That's the [00:04:18] one of the more um deep definitions of [00:04:21] sex I've ever heard. [00:04:22] >> Sure. I not trying to put you on. I I [00:04:25] also want to be very clear is that the [00:04:27] the trans activists want us to dwell on [00:04:30] the exceptions and the radicals and the [00:04:32] fringes when for almost all of human [00:04:34] history look there's XX chromosomes and [00:04:37] XY chromosomes and as a result of that [00:04:40] we are what has made male and female [00:04:42] separate and distinct and beautiful [00:04:44] those differences have been completely [00:04:46] eroded where now men are acting like [00:04:48] women and women are acting like men and [00:04:50] we're in societal chaos and confusion. [00:04:52] So when you say that men are acting like [00:04:54] women and women are acting like men, I [00:04:56] don't have a problem with that so long [00:04:57] as they don't actually claim that by [00:04:59] acting in a way it makes them become a [00:05:02] woman or something. [00:05:03] >> So I don't have a public policy problem [00:05:04] with that, but I have a major cultural [00:05:06] problem with that. [00:05:07] >> Is it a secular objection? [00:05:08] >> It's both. I mean, first let's just look [00:05:10] at the data. So women are acting more [00:05:12] like men. What does that mean? That [00:05:14] means that they're taking longer to [00:05:15] procreate. So they get to age 30 or 35 [00:05:18] are having kids. By the way, young [00:05:19] ladies in the audience, just so you [00:05:20] know, if you do not have a kid by 30, [00:05:22] 50% chance you'll never have a kid. That [00:05:24] is the data, just so we're clear. And [00:05:25] the unhappiest people in the world, the [00:05:28] unhappiest people in the world are [00:05:31] careerdriven, urban dwelling single [00:05:34] women. They are incredibly unhappy. [00:05:36] That's not Charlie Kirk saying that. [00:05:38] That is all the data that's showing [00:05:39] studies that say happy, very happy, very [00:05:41] unhappy, who's on anti-depressants, who [00:05:43] is not. And so you just look at the [00:05:45] data. Why is that? We would argue from a [00:05:48] data analysis and then eventually a [00:05:49] biblical analysis. We don't have to look [00:05:50] at the biblical one. We can just look at [00:05:51] data that there's something natural [00:05:53] within us and young women actually want [00:05:56] to get married and have kids a lot more [00:05:58] than society even allows them to. And a [00:06:00] lot of young women are being forced to [00:06:02] go find a job, move to Dallas, work for [00:06:04] some corporate firm, you know, freeze [00:06:06] your eggs, take birth control, get a [00:06:08] bunch of cats, and wait till you're 31. [00:06:11] and it creates a cycle of misery when in [00:06:14] reality they might have found a really [00:06:15] good guy when they're 24 and they [00:06:17] probably should have formed a life with [00:06:18] that guy. [00:06:19] >> That's I I see your perspective. I'm [00:06:21] just going to say I'm very against any [00:06:23] sort of gender norms. But to one last [00:06:26] thing would be do you think it's [00:06:27] possibly a practical strategy to embrace [00:06:30] my line of saying that there is no wrong [00:06:33] way to be a man or a woman because [00:06:34] that's a much easier pill to swallow for [00:06:37] the person in gender ideology. [00:06:39] >> No. All right, fair enough. Well, final [00:06:41] thought is that no child is born in the [00:06:43] wrong body. So, thank you. [00:06:44] >> I agree. You're a very smart man.