I usually avoid the YouTube comments (always good advice), but I noticed that my video on “The Fallacy of Biological Sex” has accumulated over 50 comments — I know, that’s pathetic, but I am a baby YouTuber — so I was going to dive in and clean up and maybe even answer some. Then I thought…I could make a spectacle of it! That’s the YouTube spirit!
So this afternoon, as a break from grading, I thought I’d browse them live at 3pm Central time, right here.
This may be a terrible mistake, but I figure I needed more practice configuring live streams, so let’s go for it.
I am SOOOOO looking forward to this.
Wanna join in? Drop me an email.
I’ll try to remember the time. Should be interesting. I must watch the video first.
I briefly considered asking to join in, while I was adding a pair of mail filters for a domain that ignores unsubscribe requests, but given my calm, resting blood pressure is 180/110, I really don’t think I want to risk reading or hearing the asinine comments.
Thanks, PZ! I don’t think I showed up as someone who was watching, and I didn’t comment, but it was really fun to hear people talking science and reason!
What I can’t figure out is why this is even a problem.
If somebody who, on first contact, I would perceive to be a woman wishes to be identified as a man, or vice versa, OK, I can do that. Treating them in accordance with their wishes just strikes me as basic human kindness; and it’s not like I’m being asked to do anything difficult (sheesh).
I observe that there are many who just can’t come to grips with even the existance of folks who are in some way different from themselves, but I’m totally befuddled as to why. Could it have something to do with failing to understand that it’s variation itself that’s the norm?
Unrelated to the topic: thank’s for asking the other participants to identify themselves. I already read Pervert Justice once in a while; and I’ll check out Geeky Humanist and Impossible Me shortly.
Kind of feel like asking the dude Unsallion, or what ever it was, how many “clothing styles” one should “cater for”, or diets, or choices in the types of cars someone drives, or… What the F even is the question/point being made by this? Why the F is acknowledging that, for example, not everyone likes peanut butter, but they might like almond butter, become an insurmountable obstacle, over insisting, in the context of my example, that everyone has to “choose” between liking it, or not liking it, and no other options should be available?
I mean, maybe it would be easier if the only “options” in life where just “bread or tortillas”, but I don’t see any grocery stores finding it unreasonable, or too difficult, or utterly disastrous, to have 30 different kind of bread, and also tack on scary things like Nan Bread, while also having 10 different sizes and varieties of tortillas.
Why the F does the world have to “cater for” lots of genders in the context he is using. Or, better question, from a purely capitalist one, since so many of these people are real super into capitalism, is why the F wouldn’t it be a good idea to try to do so? I would think the distinctions, even if you think they are somehow artificial, would be, “gasp!”, profitable.