So Shoe0nHead, everyone's favorite bunny-girl,
has put out a video in which she…
That is not what I meant.
There you go.
So Shoe0nHead made a video in which she talks
about a certain dilemma she experiences…
Whatever.
She talks about a dilemma that she has as a liberal who is part of the anti-SJW camp.
So, we have a damsel in distress here.
This looks like a job for Zarathustra's Serpent.
After all, this is what I said I would do
on this channel: help define true liberal
views, and distinguish them from the regressive
left.
The problem June talks about here is experienced
by many liberals nowadays, and is the main
cause for what I've been calling the passive
regressives, those people who are liberals,
but are being taken for a ride by the regressive
left because they don't want to be called
bigots.
June is more aware than the passive regressives,
and she can sense where liberalism ends and
anti-liberal radicalism begins, but she's
still finding a hard time explaining it.
So, let's try to help her with her dilemma.
So, first of all, June, and all those who
feel like her, let's remember that being an
out-of-touch bigot is not the only danger
we should beware of.
History has showed us that a much bigger danger
comes from those leftists who believe they
know what human society should look like,
and try to impose that image on the rest of
us.
So not every so-called "progressive" change
is a good change, and as a liberal, you must
resist your natural inclination to support
such changes, and maintain your critical thought.
The liberal thing to do is to keep the door
open for the possibility that the proposed
change is good, but demand evidence first.
In my video titled 'What's Right and who's
Left', I defined leftist thought as a way
of thought that wants to improve society and
make it more compatible with the ideals of
Enlightenment, such as freedom, justice, equality
and peace.
But I distinguished between the liberal left
and the radical left.
The liberal left understands that human nature
isn't perfect, so we can never achieve a society
that fully lives up to these ideals.
We therefore don't try to create an entirely
new system, but work within the democratic
system, try to detect places where it can
be improved, and push for change in those
particular places.
The radical left, in contrast, believes that
the natural human condition is to live in
a perfect society, and it is just the current
system that is preventing us from living in
that Utopia.
So wherever there is inequality and injustice,
the radical will not blame the faulty human
nature for it, but claim that it is the result
of the oppressive system.
The radical does not want to improve the system,
but to bring it down and establish a perfect
system instead.
Most people understand by now that radical
leftist thought is not practical, and only
leads to bad results.
But now, I pointed out, we have a new kind
of left, the regressive left.
I've defined the regressive left as a sly
version of the radical left, in that it does
not openly advocate for utopia, but still
judges society by radical standards.
For instance, the regressives define today's
Western society as a "Patriarchy", even though
there has never been and society that gave
women more freedom and equality.
This is because they do not compare it to
the past, but judge it against the utopian
ideal.
Similarly, they define it as a rape culture,
even though it is by far the safest society
ever.
Again, this is because they do not judge it
by fallible human standards, but against a
utopian state in which there is no rape.
But since they do not explicitly call for
a revolution that will lead to utopia, they
manage to confuse many liberals and make them
believe that patriarchy and rape culture are
a real thing.
And since liberals don't want to support oppression
and rape, they become passive regressives,
unknowingly supporting radicals.
To prevent ourselves from falling into this
trap, we need to use critical thought on every
issue deemed "progressive", and follow its
logic to the end, to see if it answers a real
problem, or stems out of the belief that our
society is oppressive.
So, with that in mind, let's see what got
Shoe0nHead confused.
The 
video June uploaded is part of a longer Q&A
livestream that she did, and in this part
she was commenting on Bill Nye's new television
series.
The series is dedicated to science, but in
the episode discussing sexuality, Bill seemed
to be promoting the idea that there are more
than two sexes and more than two genders.
I've already made an extensive video on this
subject, so here I am going to be more succinct.
Let's begin with clarifying the terminology,
since June seems to be confused about the
difference between gender identity and gender
expression.
And I noticed that her boyfriend Armored Skeptic
also seems to be confused about it in the
video that he made on the subject.
I suppose many others are confused as well,
and I don't blame you, so let's do that first.
So, first of all, there's biological sex.
That's easy to understand.
There are certain anatomical components that
determine our biological sex, such as genitals,
chromosomes, hormones and more.
If you are male, there is a certain range
in which these components will typically be
manifested in your body, and for females the
range is different.
Gender expression is also pretty easy to understand,
and it means the way that the two genders
typically express themselves, like wearing
a dress if you're a woman and wearing a tie
if you're a man.
Gender expression is mostly a social construct,
although part of it is probably based in biology.
The fact that men and women tend to express
themselves differently emotionally, for instance,
is partly a social construct, but probably
also partly the result of their different
hormonal makeup.
Where it gets confusing is when it comes to
gender identity.
The claim is that along with our biological
sex, we also have a gender identity, the way
in which we psychologically perceive our own
gender.
This observation is mainly due to the existence
of transgendered people, those who feel that
they are of the opposite gender of their biological
sex.
It's a weird thing for most of us, but it
does make sense to me.
I think it is perfectly reasonable that part
of our human psychology is the perception
of our own sexuality.
It is part of our sense of self, which most
of us don't think about because it is natural
to us, but with some people it is…
Can you please concentrate?
Dear viewer, we are trying to have a serious
scientific conversation here.
We can't do it if you keep trying to imagine
June in bunny-girl outfits.
Please show some respect.
Alright?
Good, now where were we?
So, as I said, it makes sense that we are
also born with a gender identity, which is
part of our psychology.
And it also makes sense that occasionally
nature gets its wires crossed, and creates
organisms whose gender identity is opposite
to their biological sex.
And so we get people who feel alienated to
their anatomy, alienated to the gender they
were assigned at birth based on their biological
sex.
Those are what we call transgendered people.
But now, we have the non-binary people, who
are taking it a step further.
They claim that there are many gender identities,
not just male and female.
They claim to have a different gender identity,
which makes them feel alienated to both the
male and female definitions, and demand that
we recognize their gender.
To corroborate their demand, they claim that
there are more than two biological sexes,
so why wouldn't there be more than two genders
as well?
They also claim that biological sex, gender
identity and gender expression are completely
independent from each other.
And it seems like Bill Nye is supporting these
claims.
Now I am a philosopher, not a scientist, so
why do I feel like I have the authority to
speak on this issue?
Because this really has nothing to do with
science, but with something else.
And June, intuitive as ever, senses what this
is really about.
Exactly.
This isn't about science, this is about misuse
of language.
Let me explain.
The claim that there are more than two biological
sexes is based on the existence of intersex
people.
Those are people whose anatomical components
are not all compatible with one of the sexes.
So, for instance, one can have male genitalia,
but not XY chromosomes.
Therefore, claim the non-binaries, we can't
say that they are male or female, so they
must be a different biological sex.
But this is not how our language works.
In everyday language, there is no exact definition
for any term.
Rather, it works on the concept of family
resemblance, where every term covers a range
of different items.
Some of these items are typical to the family,
others are atypical, but they all belong to
it.
So if you have most of the components of a
female anatomy, but you are missing a uterus,
or you have male gonads, that simply makes
you an atypical female.
But you are still a female.
Scientists who explore intersexuality may
create their own taxonomy to classify different
types of intersex people, but that doesn't
mean that as a society we need to treat them
as different.
The only thing that would justify creating
another category for them is if they present
a different sexual function from male or female,
or if their sexuality is manifested differently.
I have seen no such examples, so we are left
with the two biological sexes.
Non-binary people also like to point out that
there have been human societies that did define
more than two genders.
Yes, but that was because these societies
were not liberal.
They had a strict definition of male and female,
so if someone's anatomy or gender expressions
did not obey these definitions, they created
a different category for them.
Usually, that also meant that they ascribed
other traits to them, and basically imposed
an identity on them.
This is exactly the kind of thing that a liberal
society is trying to avoid.
As liberals, we do what we can to prevent
the relegation of curiosities to a different
category, and to get society to regard them
as belonging to one of the existing categories,
as nothing more than atypical exemplars of
that category.
Now let's go back to Shoe's dilemma.
She's worried that in her rejection of the
non-binaries' demands, she is acting the same
as those who in the past rejected the demands
of LGBT people to be recognized in their divergence.
Can we point out to a difference between the
two cases?
Well, let's think about what the LGBT people
were up against.
They were in a situation where they were alienated
from their nature, as society imposed on them
an identity that was not in accordance with
it.
Gay people felt attraction to people of their
own gender, but society did not allow for
the existence of an identity that acts according
to that attraction.
And trans people felt alienated to their anatomical
body, and to the gender they were assigned
based on it.
Therefore, they were miserable, and society
had to be changed to stop their misery.
And now, non-binary people claim to suffer
from the same problem.
They claim to have a gender identity that
makes them feel alienated to our society.
But here I have to ask them: what are you
alienated to?
You do not claim to be alienated to your body,
and there is no behavior or expression that
is forbidden to you.
So where's the alienation, where's the oppression?
When you listen to them for a while, you realize
that what they are actually saying is that
they are alienated to language.
They don't want a language in which one term
covers a large variety of instances, but a
language in which every one of them will have
a label that defines them in their uniqueness.
So it is their language against our language,
and they claim to be oppressed because we
refuse to adopt their language.
But what obligation do we have to adopt your
language?
The only way you can get me to adopt your
language, is if you can show me that it is
based on reality.
And that's indeed what the non-binaries are
trying to claim.
They claim that they naturally have a different
gender.
When you ask them to corroborate this statement,
they answer that this is how they feel inside,
and since we don't have their experience,
we can't tell them that they are wrong.
Well, I'm sorry, but if you are making statements
about objective reality, you cannot corroborate
them based on your feelings.
As I've shown in another video, identity is
something that has to be earned.
If you want me to accept that you have a certain
identity, you will have to base it on objective
reality, and use reason to convince me.
I have no obligation to accept your identity
just on your say so.
Take Shoe0nHead, for instance.
She identifies online as June Lapen.
Or is it Lapayn?
Lapinay?
I don't know, and it doesn't matter, because
I seriously doubt that that's her real name
anyway.
In other words, I don't accept this identity,
because it doesn't seem reasonable to me.
If you're wondering why I have such doubts,
it is because lapine, in French, means a girl
bunny, and… oh no!
Ok, forget it, let's move on.
Now, as a liberal, I am open to the possibility
that there is something behind these non-binary
identities.
I don't mind at all if they create a subculture
based on this non-binary taxonomy that they
have created, and I will defend their right
to have that subculture.
Except it's not just a taxonomy, is it?
It is a hierarchy.
They claim that their gender identities are
oppressed, and demand that we change our language
and change our system to incorporate them.
And this is where we learn that they are not
liberals, but radicals.
They begin from the axiom that our society
is oppressive, and create their identities
based on that.
But, true to the regressive model, they hide
their radicalism.
They claim that they are not aiming to radically
transform our society, but merely want us
to accept them into it.
They will tell you that it will have no effect
on the rest of us, and will just allow them
to be who they want to be.
But, is that really the case?
Bingo.
Once you 
start classifying people in different categories,
you are partitioning them into different identities,
and limiting their freedom.
If we allow the non-binaries to have their
way, we would all lose some of the freedom
that we have now.
Since their variance is ultimately manifested
through gender expression, it means that we
will lose our freedom to express ourselves
in certain ways, because it might get us labeled
as a gender that we are not.
That is why they are regressives: they are
threatening to take us back to darker times,
to regress to a society that is less free
and tolerant.
As liberals, therefore, we must resist this
trend.
Ok, I hope I helped put things in order for
any confused liberal out there.
Before I go, I would like to apologize to
Shoe0nHead for the way my subscribers behaved
during this video, repeatedly trying to imagine
you as a bunny-girl.
Bunch of perverts, the lot of them.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
And, again, if any of you non-binaries thinks
that I am wrong, please tell me about it in
the comments.
But first, you should know my gender and pronouns.
As my viewers know, I have already announced
my gender once, but since then I have gone
through some more self-exploration, and realized
I am something else.
I am master-gender.
Master-gender is like a master-key, it can
be any gender at any given time.
Which is great for you because it means that
I can be any gender that you are, and can
understand what you are going through.
Another thing about master-gender is that
it can be either binary or non-binary.
So when I am talking to a binary person, I
am binary myself, and my pronouns are he and
him.
When I talk to a non-binary person, I am master-gender,
and my pronoun is MyMaster.
So, if you want me to use your pronouns, this
is how you should refer to me.
