Gender DEBATE | Is GENDER a social construct? Stephen Woodford vs Colin Wright

--

--

0:00 Intro
2:07 Defining terms
27:00 Initial points of disagreement and agreement
47:35 Gender stereotypes
1:12:35 Stephen’s questions for Colin
1:34:05 Further definitions
1:55:50 Further characterising the discussion

[omygodihaveadog]

I see alot of hate towards this type of debate style in the comments, they seem to be longing for a more heated and further reaching conversation. However, this particular debate was good at forcing comprehension of the other persons view. Would love to see the continuation of this conversation. Keep up the great work.

[Nick-ingn]

I don't think I've ever seen a debate like this. Slow, meta-reflective and ensures that every step is done intentionally by both sides. I think you did an excellent job, Stephen and appreciate your intellectual diligence

[Gill]

Truly a goddam breath of fresh air to watch a debate where the goal was so clearly to increase/gain understanding and not score rhetorical points on an opponent.

[jacobbria]

I’ve never made a comment on a YouTube video before - but I just wanted to let you know this format was AMAZING. Best way to make actual substantive arguments

[titucolceri]

Best debate format ever. Some actual headway was made in this discussion. better than standard debate format. 10/10 will listen to others like this in the future.

[WolfNinja]

Stephen gave a definition for male:

"Someone who lives up to a social construct that is typically associated with phenotype, aesthetics, and behaviors."

When Colin gave Stephen an example of a female who was very masculine, Stephen was not able to use his definition to define if that hypothetical female was a man or not but instead defaulted to asking the person (Self identification). Later Stephen says he does not buy a self identification view. That was pretty contradictive:

C: "How would you classify a female who just had all of the behavior and aesthetics with that we typically associate with being a biological male. Just the most masculine person you can imagine"
S:"Yes, so if you had someone that had very masculine secondary characteristics, they didn't live up the to the aesthetics that is typically associated with women and they didn't have the behavior that is typically associated with women. I can account for that, because my definition is 'they typically associate with this'."
C:"What would you call that person? Is that person a woman?"
S:"I'd ask them. I would just go 'what's your pronouns'. Or I would make an assumption like your self... and if they would correct me I would go 'thanks, that is fine'."

Questions to Stephen if he sees this:
1. When you have the definition for mammal, then the exceptions must be specified or explained in a defining matter. Otherwise you no longer have a concrete definition right?

2. If the female was an identical twin. The twins have the same phenotypes, aesthetics and behaviors except one says they are a woman, the other a man. How would you classify them with your definition.

3. What is the difference between your preferred "Gender abolition" stance, and Colins stance that there is no difference between sex and gender. How would that not be pretty much the same conclusion?

Thank you for the well structured and civil conversation. I enjoyed watching this :)

[kipsimpson]

This conversation underscores why societies are so divided politically. Communication - REAL communication on emotionally-charged topics - it takes *work*. And like a lot of the work that is required in order to move things to a better state, it is the opposite of clickbait and does not lend itself to zinger soundbites.

Patience. The emotional discipline to deploy a spirit that seeks to understand a different point of view. Having the ability to separate opinion from identity/character (either in self or in one's "opponent"). This short list and more requires maturity and a clear mind, and I think because these things are a lot to ask from people who have been told that their opinion is just as valid as anyone elses, so many people just go, "Yeah... blah blah blah, nerds! I'm just going to save time and follow my anger." Watching this, I can think of so many opinionated people who love arguing for hours about politics, they would tune out after 90 seconds of this because it isn't car-crashy enough. Not mean enough.

[xAaronzzz]

I LOVED this debate style. Ive never seen such a format. My only criticiem was plan for a longer debate. We got so close... And then had to move on due to time constraints, AFTER Identifyng the disagreement.

But YES to the style and format. I subbed very quickly

[DIABOLICAL-]

One of my favorite debates ever. Slow. Analytic. Careful. Actually digging into what both sides think.

All arguments should be had like this. They would actually get people somewhere when all the arguments are laid out on screen.

[marycross]

One time someone commented about me falling into cult behavior saying,
"Sure you can be sitting at home thinking that you’re never gonna be dumb enough to fall for people like this but in reality they’re very manipulative and it’s hard to stop yourself"
but I really do believe what she said, because people can claim to be rational atheists thinking they are not going to fall into cultish behavior but they are doing it.

[geoffreyulreich]

Phenomenal debate format. Much more enlightening than the typical debate format with all the gamesmanship that comes with typical debates.

[jeremyful]

Maybe I’m stupid but is it weird they ask what a man is but assume everyone knows what phenotypes aesthetics and behaviors means

[ryanwitt]

Need that flow chart used in more debates! Great stuff.

[steelmanning_skeptic]

Just imagine where we would be as a civilization if this was the predominant format of public discourse...

Thank you for this amazing content to all 3 of you. I was at a point where i though this type of discourse has gone extinct. I've got new hope :)

[pyromusicman]

I actually agree with Colin about the "escape hatch". On the one hand you are saying you don't agree with the "self-ID" version of gender, but when pushed about how you would regard a person with 100%male 2ndary sex characteristics and female gametes, you say you'd just ask them, which is referring to Self-ID.

If you don't agree with with "self-ID", there has to be at least 1 person to whom you would say "sorry dude, but despite your self-ID as a woman, you're a dude." If there isn't even one person, including one with 100% 2ndary male sex characteristics but female gametes, you seem to agree with Self ID and use it as an escape hatch.

I see what you are saying about gender abolition, but to be trans-affirming, there have to be at least 2 genders and, therefore, something to transition from and to. For your view to make sense there has to be such a thing as a 'Male Woman' and a 'Female Man.' And I think that makes total sense if cashed out correctly.

I think all you have to do here is update your definition to include Self ID as a necessary, but not sufficient condition for gender.

But that would only make sense if the other characteristics included in the definition can aggregate to override Self-ID in some scenarios. Which would make room for all the other objections Colin is raising, in that we might suggest to a person, "hey, your Self-ID doesn't match everything else, maybe your Self-ID is wrong." Or, perhaps more succinctly, suggesting to people that they are a different gender bc of their secondary sex characteristics and offering gender affirming care.

[marne-leerossouw]

I love this kind of debate. It's clear, non-heated, non-argumentative, fair and well done. Thank you for this.

[tonycairns]

The key point in this debate is at 1: 06 mins, when it becomes clear that Stephen wasn't committed to providing a definition of man or woman substantively, and is basically a relativist in referring to biology. Any argument for 'utility' is thenceforth something of a comedy show.

[ClayManIon]

Steven, you'll probably never read this, but thank you for setting this high standard on debating. And thank you for having these conversations.

[SloMoMonday]

I'm ashamed to admit that all my understanding on this topic is based on online and media discussion. The fact that it took 2 hours to get a base line on definitions and arguments highlighted that there's a lot more to unpack. Great discussion, moderation and production from everyone involved.

[isoutoforbit]

Thank you Stephen for having this conversation, I have certainly been critical of your recent videos on trans issues but this discussion clarified your position greatly.