Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues

[Ferrocyanide]

Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMYV0LQBEBs
By Progressive Perspective
Length = 16:25


Ben Shapiro asks “Is so and so scientific” or “How do you determine scientifically that a person is a women” or something like that.
He wants something that is true.

I have heard similar argument from those that are anti-transgender. I remember someone saying that in biology class, we learned that when the 23 rd chromosome is XX, then it is a female and if it is a XY then it is a male.
That mostly applies to humans. There are cases where someone can have XY and be born as a female.
This notion of the shape of a chromosome indicating the sex of the creature has a certain word that I can’t remember.

Also, it is not present in other creatures.


Truth isn’t something that is exclusive to science. So, nobody is forcing us to decide whether someone is a man or a woman based on science.
So in the case of Ben Shapiro that says at some point “But that is not scientific!”, so what.

BUT THAT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!
Humans have decided to classify people into male and female groups to do sports. That is not scientific.
In some sports, you have categories by weight: lightweight, middle weight, heavyweight. That is not scientific.
In some sports, you have categories based on age: Age 5 to 7 is in group A
Age 8 to 10 is in group B....etc That is not scientific.

This notion that males have more testosterone than females might be a fact but using that as a policy in a sport is not related to science.
Also, there is variation with the amount of testosterone between athletes.
The amount that a certain person has probably depends on a few factors like genetics, body size, nutrition, maybe the environment and exercise.

There are all sorts of genetic and whatever factors that effect a person. Maybe people from a certain region should only compete with their own group just to be fair.


Or, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, don’t classify people into groups and let them all compete together. Let the athlete decide with if he refuses to compete with a person or not.
Or like in school, measure their ability and then put them into groups. For example, measure their running speed. People who can do 20 to 22 km/h go into Group H.

[zebo-the-fat]

I really don't care what equipment you have in your pants, I'm more interested in what you have between your ears.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like watching a rerun with these nuts. Shapiro and his ilk believe that a scientific description of sex gives them cover for a culture war front over gender - which does have a scientific description, that they also reject, as a part of that same culture war.

[Belacqua]

Ben Shapiro asks “Is so and so scientific” or “How do you determine scientifically that a person is a women” or something like that.
He wants something that is true.

This has also caused a schism among the [formerly] high-profile atheists. 

Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and Stephen Pinker have all resigned from the Freedom From Religion Foundation because they take a view similar to Shapiro's. They think that there must be a scientific, objective way to determine who is male and who is female. 

P.Z. Myer, who also used to get a lot of attention at atheist conventions and places like that, has stuck with the FFRF and agreed that a trans woman is a real woman. He and his allies have become quite vocal about it, calling Dawkins and Coyne "trash." Considering they all used to hang out together, it looks as though some friends are now not so friendly any more.

Coyne has insulted the FFRF with the worst word he knows: "religion." He claims that "wokism" is a new religion, with a set of unprovable beliefs that one must claim to believe if one is to be a good person, and that he can't sign up because he needs objective evidence for his beliefs.

[Fireball]

I encourage people to go to Pharyngula at Freethought blogs and read what PZ actually said.

[arewethereyet]

Bel's going to repeat the same things over and over again. Blah, blah, blah...as per usual.

[Belacqua]

I encourage people to go to Pharyngula at Freethought blogs and read what PZ actually said.

Me too.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/...-among-us/

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/...oundation/

Here is his fellow anti-Pinker blogger, using the word "garbage."

https://www.pinkerite.com/2025/01/garbag...coyne.html

Is "The Friendly Atheist" Myers? I'm not sure. Anyway, it was this blogger who used the word "trash." Myers used the word "rot."

The trash is taking itself out.

https://archive.md/p5OEc#selection-1157.88-1157.119

[Belacqua]

Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson

Tyson used to be a scientist, I guess, but in recent years he's become more of a media guy and FREQUENTLY says incorrect things about history. 

Shapiro has no real qualifications that I know of. 

Debate among working scientists or university-level science professors seems more likely to be worthwhile.

[Silver]

Why don't they just add Rowling to the debate, really turn it into a farce.

[Belacqua]

Why don't they just add Rowling to the debate, really turn it into a farce.

It's the high-profile people like Rowling who make the debate a significant issue in our time. I don't think anyone serious opposes gay rights any more, or racial equality. (I mean, there are still troglodytes, but no one of Rowling's fame who would speak up to oppose those things.) 

But there are still people like Dawkins and Coyne who remain unconvinced, and are capable of making arguments that are more than simple insults. 

There's the case of Maya Forstater, for example, who sees herself as a feminist and who is also "gender critical." She is not a raving loony, although we may of course disagree with her conclusions. Others with similar views are listed in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism

As always, I think these things need to be debated with reasons and rational arguments, rather than a simple pronouncement about what Correct Thought demands. If someone were to make a simple demand like that, telling us what we MUST believe in order to be Good People, it would be truly Orwellian. People should be able to support their conclusions.