Neil deGrasse Tyson's Thoughts on Transgenderism
Summary
TLDRThe transcript discusses the intersection of science and gender politics, challenging the notion that gender is separate from sex. It debates the impact of transgender athletes on women's sports and the biological differences between sexes. The speaker emphasizes the importance of scientific truth and societal freedom, questioning the teaching of gender spectrum in schools as unscientific. They propose a future for sports based on hormonal balance rather than gender and argue for scientific inquiry without legislative constraints, advocating for the protection of individual freedoms.
Takeaways
- ๐ฌ The script discusses the intersection of science and gender, specifically the debate over whether gender is separate from sex.
- ๐๏ธโโ๏ธ It raises concerns about the fairness of transgender women competing in women's sports due to potential biological advantages.
- ๐งฌ The speaker argues for a scientific approach to understanding gender and sex, emphasizing the binary nature of mammalian sex.
- ๐ค The script questions the scientific basis of the 'gender spectrum' and whether it should be taught in science or sociology classes.
- ๐ The future of sports in a gender spectrum world is considered, with the idea of competing based on hormonal balance rather than gender.
- ๐ซ The speaker expresses concern about scientific findings being used to legislate and restrict freedoms.
- ๐ There's a mention of a study on 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria' and the controversy surrounding it, highlighting the tension between scientific inquiry and societal norms.
- ๐ The script acknowledges that people express themselves on a gender spectrum, which is a social fact, but its scientific classification is debated.
- ๐๏ธ The importance of a free society and the role of the constitution in protecting rights, even in the face of scientific discovery, is emphasized.
- ๐ค The speaker suggests a need for a balance between scientific discovery and the protection of individual freedoms, advocating for science to inform but not dictate legislation.
Q & A
What is the main concern regarding the scientific discussion of gender and sex?
-The main concern is that discussions about gender and sex should be based on scientific data, which suggests that mammals, including humans, are typically binary in terms of sex. However, the argument that gender is entirely separate from sex complicates this, leading to debates about the fairness of transgender women competing in women's sports.
What is the current societal stance on gender expression and biological sex?
-Society generally accepts that people express themselves on a gender spectrum, which is a social fact. However, there is a debate about whether this expression should be considered a scientific fact or a sociological one, and how it should be taught to children.
Why is the topic of transgenderism and sports contentious?
-The contention arises because there is a lack of consensus on how to fairly integrate transgender athletes into sports that are traditionally segregated by biological sex. The concern is that allowing transgender women to compete with non-transgender women might give an unfair advantage due to physiological differences.
What is the speaker's opinion on the role of science in society?
-The speaker believes that science is a potent path to discovering objective truth and that scientific findings should be openly discussed and debated. They argue for transparency and the importance of scientific inquiry, even in contentious areas.
What does the speaker suggest as a potential solution for sports segregation in a gender spectrum world?
-The speaker suggests that instead of specifying male or female sports, competitions could be based on hormonal balances, which could be a more equitable way to ensure fair competition.
Why is the study of gender dysphoria and its potential rapid onset within peer groups controversial?
-The study of rapid onset gender dysphoria is controversial because it challenges current narratives about gender identity and could potentially be used to justify restrictive legislation or policies, which many view as a threat to individual freedoms.
What is the speaker's view on the necessity of studying controversial scientific topics?
-The speaker believes that even controversial topics should be studied scientifically. They argue that society should be able to handle the findings without legislating against people's freedoms, suggesting that a free society should be able to manage such information responsibly.
How does the speaker feel about the potential for scientific findings to be misused by politicians?
-The speaker expresses concern that scientific findings, especially in sensitive areas like gender and sexuality, could be misused by politicians to restrict freedoms. They advocate for a balance where science can operate freely, but politicians must protect individual rights.
What is the speaker's stance on the biological versus psychological origins of being gay?
-The speaker is indifferent to whether being gay is biological or psychological, emphasizing that the answer should not have any legislative or legal consequences. They argue that people's freedoms should not be restricted based on scientific findings about sexual orientation.
Why does the speaker argue for the importance of distinguishing between science and societal norms?
-The speaker argues that distinguishing between science and societal norms is crucial for maintaining individual freedoms. They suggest that while science can provide objective truths, societal norms are subjective and should not be constrained by scientific findings.
What is the speaker's view on the role of the constitution in protecting rights?
-The speaker views the constitution as a safeguard for individual rights, suggesting that it should protect people from potential restrictions that could arise from scientific discoveries that might be used to justify limiting freedoms.
Outlines
๐๏ธโโ๏ธ The Intersection of Science and Gender Identity
The speaker discusses the debate over the scientific basis of gender versus sex, particularly in the context of transgenderism. They argue that gender theorists often claim gender is separate from biological sex, and this perspective is used to support the idea that transgender women should be able to compete in women's sports without disadvantaging biological women. The speaker disagrees, asserting that there is a scientific basis for sex differences in mammals, and that societal norms around gender expression should not dictate scientific understanding. They also touch on the broader implications for freedom of expression and the role of science in education, suggesting that children are being taught ideas about gender that may not be scientifically grounded.
๐ฌ The Role of Science in Understanding Gender Spectrum
The speaker continues the conversation by emphasizing the importance of objective truth and scientific inquiry. They suggest that if people express themselves on a gender spectrum, this is a societal fact that should be studied scientifically. The speaker acknowledges the controversy surrounding studies on gender dysphoria, such as the rapid onset gender dysphoria study from Brown University. They express concern about the potential for scientific findings to be misused to limit freedoms, advocating for a balance where science can inform understanding without leading to harmful legislation.
๐๏ธ Science, Politics, and Freedom
In this final paragraph, the speaker reflects on the relationship between scientific discovery and political freedom. They argue that while science should be free to explore all areas, there is a need to protect individual freedoms from potential legislative overreach based on scientific findings. The speaker uses the example of sexual orientation, suggesting that whether it is biological or psychological should not affect legal rights or freedoms. They conclude by advocating for a society that values both scientific inquiry and personal liberty, aligning themselves with libertarian principles.
Mindmap
Keywords
๐กTransgenderism
๐กGender Theorists
๐กBiological Sex
๐กHormones
๐กSteroids
๐กGender Spectrum
๐กIntersex
๐กRapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)
๐กFree Expression
๐กScientific Inquiry
๐กLibertarianism
Highlights
The left is accused of militating against science in the area of transgenderism.
Gender theorists argue that gender is entirely separate from sex.
The debate over whether transgender women should compete with non-transgender women in sports.
The assertion that mammals are binary in terms of sex, with exceptions for intersex or genetic defects.
The importance of segregating sports by gender and the implications for transgender athletes.
The freedom of individuals to express their gender identity in a free country.
The unresolved issue of how to handle sports in a world recognizing a gender spectrum.
The idea of competing in sports based on hormonal balances rather than gender.
The concern that children are being taught about the gender spectrum without a scientific basis.
The argument that people express themselves on a gender spectrum as a social, not scientific, point.
The question of whether the expression of gender identity should be taught in sociology or science classes.
The acknowledgment that people identify how they want to identify, but the biological aspect remains a scientific question.
The study from Brown University suggesting a phenomenon called rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
The controversy over whether certain scientific topics should not be studied due to potential societal implications.
The fear that scientific discoveries could be used to legislate and constrict people's freedoms.
The argument for bringing out all the science and letting politicians hash it out, versus the risk it poses to freedoms.
The need to shield and protect people's freedoms in the face of scientific discoveries.
The debate over whether being gay is biological or psychological and its potential legislative consequences.
The libertarian perspective on the balance between scientific discovery and individual freedoms.
Transcripts
it seems like the left is militating
against
the the advent of science one of those
areas is is the area of transgenderism
uh the the argument that is typically
made
by gender theorists is that gender is
entirely separate from sex uh you've
seen the argument made that it makes
no difference on average if men are
stronger than
women are and that if we were to allow
transgender women to compete with
non-transgender women then this would
somehow not disadvantage biological
women and this seems to me absolutely a
scientific that if we're actually going
to have a discussion about
gender and sex that that should be based
in data which suggests that
mammals are in fact binary in terms of
their sex unless you have
intersex birth defects typically or
genetic defects
i'm happy to opine on this um
this only matters
because today we
segregate most
nearly all sports by gender
otherwise why do you even give a
what's what someone identifies with so
this is we live in a free country
and with consenting adults and people
free expression of who and what they are
man adult level i agree with you i think
it doesn't matter what you teach and so
there's the
there's the the matrix of of
you know what you are biologically how
you express yourself who you choose as a
sexual partner
if we actually live in a free country as
we tell ourselves
people's freedom to behave in any of
those ways
should not concern you at all
nor are they requiring that you behave
that way
okay this is for their own freedoms
because we live in a free country
now what is unresolved here is
what do you do with sports it's
unresolved
and i've followed that closely and i
don't see any
i don't see any meaningful solutions to
come down off of that
um we know that hormones manifest
differently in different people and have
just the whole thing with steroids
steroids are hormones
right and we rallied against steroids in
professional sports because it gives you
an undue advantage
so i i've tried to think of what the
future
of sports would be in the world of a
gender spectrum
and it may be you don't specify whether
it's a male or female sport
you just take measurements of what your
hormonal balances are
and so you compete based on your mother
this is thought i had i don't know
i don't know where it's going to land
the wnba won't be in business for very
long
if that's the case it would just be uh
you'd have to
you'd have to find some way to compete
people against each other
if you still care that sports is an
interesting activity i guess the area
where it does come up
in a non-sports area i don't know so it
would be
you talk in your book about the
education of children and teaching
children about science and right now
children are being taught about the
quote unquote gender spectrum which is
not
scientifically based that is a that is a
theory based
idea no wait wait wait wait wait hold on
people express themselves on a spectrum
so you learn that that's right that's
that that's that's a social that's a
social point not a scientific point it's
it's meaning we express ourselves in
based in different languages that's
something you teach in science class or
is that something that you teach when
you're teaching language
um so whether
the fact that people want to express
themselves on a spectrum
on a gender spectrum whether that fact
is something you want to put in a
sociology class
or in a science class
maybe that remains to be determined but
it is a
real fact about real society of course
nobody's denying that people
identify how they want to identify so so
so the question is what is the
relationship of that to
biology meaning right the argument is
made that trans women are women for
example
and what that seems to mean is that
trans women are
identical to women now people want to
say trans women are not biological women
obviously that is the case but people
don't seem to want to say that
although that is obviously
scientifically true trans women are not
biological women biological women are
biological women but where are you going
with this what
what is your what is your what are you
trying to accomplish
by asking yourself is it science or is
it not science it's how
it's people in society but this is this
is a perfect example of an area where
suddenly it doesn't matter to say things
that are just true like why is it why is
it
bad or wrong i have another way to
to approach this um i care what is
objectively true in the world as a
scientist
um but let me not say even as a
scientist i just simply care what is
objectively true
and science happens to be a pretty
potent
path to invoke
to find out what is true and
so if people express themselves
on a gender spectrum and that is an
actual thing in an actual society
if we have not fully explained that
scientifically that's an interesting
frontier to study
if you want to say it's only
sociological
then it's the purview of the social
sciences
i don't care who studies it it's an
interesting fact about society
that's worth learning about if to make
it to fight someone and say it's not
biological it's just your this is
it's real and it's there well because
it's real because it manifests but
it it is real because it manifests but
the question of
the of how to classify manifestation is
a scientific question
meaning that for example there's a
there's a woman over brown university
she came out with a study that suggested
that there was a phenomenon called rapid
onset gender dysphoria in which
a member of a particular group would
suffer from gender dysphoria
and this person's immediate peer group
would suddenly have an
onset of gender dysphoria this paper was
so controversial that brown tried to
pull it
and then was was forced to re reassign
it later
you see this sort of that's a different
question what you're asking now
is are there some topics that should not
be studied
scientifically right and is there some
taboo
and sam harris speaks a lot about this
yes and
um i think the concern is
if you study some topic that's a hot
button topic
and you bring scientific methods and
tools to it there
we don't trust i'm interpreting here i
think
we as a society don't trust
that people in charge in a free country
won't try to legislate something that
will constrict people's freedoms
in the face of that information i think
that's the fear
well isn't that it's a fear i mean and
isn't that you don't trust
our own ability to govern ourselves in
the face
of what could be some information
relative to other right
other kinds of issues isn't that a bit
of a problem yes
yeah it's not it means it's not a free
society it's not a society of free
inquiry which i think you need
ultimately
but um yeah my general take on all of
this stuff from climate change to
gender dysphoria to all these issues is
bring out the science and then let's
hash it out
i think that the problem i'm seeing on a
lot of sciences what is your motivation
why why does that matter it matters
because if you have political power
you could end up creating legislation
that subtracts
freedoms from people who previously were
enjoying the same freedoms as you
the history of that exercise and make a
better argument it doesn't end well
well but the the history of which
exercise bring out all the science and
let's hash it out
i'm saying if you bring out all the
science and the politicians hash it
out the history of that exercise is a
recipe for disaster
if it involves discoveries
that put people's freedom
as defined in our constitution at risk
but now you're arguing for limitations
on areas of particular study
no i'm arguing on we need a way
to shield we need a way to protect
people's freedoms
in the face of whatever gets discovered
scientifically
so i i i'll give you i mean i agree i
think that's what the constitution is
for is to guard rights from
but we're always i mean people who want
rights are always fighting others who
are saying they don't get the rights
from the constitution
this is a daily challenge on the
progressive left
it is a daily challenge right here's an
example i was
i forgot how i ended up getting this
phone call it was some magazine that
serves the
gay community and they want i remember
why because they wanted my opinion
on um
there was some they wanted my opinion
about whether being gay was biological
or matter but there's that new study
that came out this is psychological
right okay right
and i said i
don't care which it is
it find out what it is fine
but the answer to that question
should have no consequence
on legislations or laws because for
example suppose it's suppose it said
it's purely biological okay then you say
oh that explains it let's suppose it
says it's purely psychological
what are you going to do now i say well
now you can you're going to go to the
the
the re-orientation camps or whatever
those are called where they realign you
because they say it's psychological
rather than biological
all of a sudden people start behaving in
ways in society
that want to constrict the freedom of
expression of who and what people are
and that is a danger so maybe there
needs to be a line in the sand let
science do what it does
but politicians keep us free
yet there's so many politicians that are
doing the opposite of that so why aren't
you a libertarian
i'm a libertarian come over here just
okay the line is right here
join me over here
Browse More Related Video
What Ben Shapiro JUST DID to WOKE CULTURE is INSANE!
Letโs All Get Past This Confusion About Trans People
Understanding the Complexities of Gender: Sam Killermann at TEDxUofIChicago
How Feminism's Ideals Led to Gender Chaos in Women's Athletics
HOMEM HรTERO SE RELACIONA COM MULHER TRANS?
Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)