Philosophy Tube is Egregiously Wrong

In the past I've made videos responding to Philosophy Tube, but is this just me disagreeing for the sake of argument, or do the errors I point out suggest a genuine issue with Philosophy Tube's presence on YouTube? In this video I explore some key errors from two Philosophy Tube videos to make the issue clear.

Here are some useful links as promised at the start of the video:

_____

_____

_____

00:00 Introduction
03:28 The Bell Curve
12:23 Perfomativity
14:17 Radical Scepticism
22:13 Conclusion

[KC_Streams]

I'm seeing a few people defend PT's point on the bell curve by saying that PT didn't mean what was actually said. Because, as I showed in the video, what was explicitly said is that you'd get two overlapping bell curves if you graphed the spectrum of sex against the spectrum of height. Everybody seems to be in agreement that claim was wrong.

But some people are saying that what PT actually meant was just that the variation found within males and females leads to overlap where sometimes males might have traits more typically found in females and vice versa. This is a valid point and one I wouldn't disagree with.

However, in my view the fact that Philosophy Tube was in the vicinity of a far more legitimate point and still said something utterly false actually makes the argument even worse. The video was only 6 minutes. PT could have dedicated some time to checking the script and making sure there were no obvious errors. The fact this error wasn't redrafted suggests an intellectual issue in that PT wasn't able to recognise there was an error

But while I'm here, a few people have also pointed out that within Judith Butler's conception of Performativity, there is an idea that non-verbal acts of communication can constitute performing the act of identifying as a man or woman, which would make philosophy tube right. Indeed if nothing else I was wrong because the written word is a way of communicating beyond a speech act. So there we go. Probably shouldn't have had that section in the video, since you can probably tell by me spending the smallest amount of time talking about it, it wasn't my top criticism. Originally, my plan was just to talk about the bell curve and hyper scepticism. Honestly, I might actually edit out the performativity point later on

[buolindo]

A lot of Philosiphy Tube fans in the comments coping

[chronicguardian]

Have a like for the algorithm. You've stepped in the hornets nest for this one: topics of the ideologically possessed will rarely be discussed with reason.

[JoshuaColeman-xz]

You know, I'm a philosophy tube fan, and have been for 9 years, but I stopped watching when I noticed these serious, egregious errors. I didn't say anything because ... it's youtube and I don't take much of it seriously. I do the same with most of math youtube as well. Se la vi.

[alinastarkov]

why is everyone misgendering abby here. It truly discredits anything you guys are saying.

[rimjobsteve]

Kinda weird to specifically use a photo of someone pre transition in a thumbnail when they’ve been out for like three years

[arlolarso]

Olly: here is an illustrative graph to show that sex is a spectrum
The graph: illustratively binary

[Fergit_]

a doubt a philosophy tube fan would be interested in correcting errors

[juliekring]

Not sure how youre supposed to graph gender vs. sex. What is being measured such that it can be reported as numerical data? Reported self identification? Instances of specific behaviors?

You can't predict how a graph would look without explaining the data collection for that graph. An outsider also cant assess whether that prediction is correct without the method of data collection, because they wouldn't be able to identify sources of bias. If you had a study of self reported gender identity with 500 participants from UC Berkeley, and a study of the tendency to wear make up across 500 people in the South, you would have very conflicting data on whether gender is a binary or a spectrum.

Without all that information the argument boils down to gender is a spectrum because I said so. Its strange to me that anyone who wanted to change hearts and minds would be willing to put that argument out into the world.

[StuntedSlime]

How many gender points is woman? I'm trying to graph the gender spectrum.

[turtlemagic]

I'm a fan of PT. You are correct. I've always thought their trans arguments were skewed. I don't know if they've ever portrayed themself as objective on the matter.

[kronosDking]

KC, to seriously answer your question about how people can follow someone who makes such egregious errors, I believe it is because people who believe in gender ideology almost never come to it due to serious thinking on their part, but because it makes them feel good to be perceived as "compassionate" and to be a part of a community. That is kind of all there is to it, in my opinion.

[exori]

I might be wrong, but with the graphs I think Philosophy Tube was imaging something like "gender on the X-axis: e.g. *most feminine possible* at the left moving to *most masculine possible* on the right. By showing two bell curves she could be saying that although the average of this "gender identity/presentation" variable is different for females and males, the most masculine-presenting females may still be "more masculine" than the most feminine-presenting males in terms of gender identity? The major issues here are assuming that this one-dimensional gender-identity variable could be represented with a single number and even granting that, that it should follow a normal distribution like height. She also mentions that sex is also 'on a spectrum' which makes no sense to me given that there are clearly two colours on the graph and I was assuming one for each sex.

[Seethi_C]

“When we graph height against sex”

Uh, no that’s not what that graph is. Sex is nowhere to be found on either axis. The two humps represent the average heights of males and females.

[Zabroch]

Really liked the new direction of making a shorter, more concise video. It feels easier to watch and allows me to keep my eroded attention span in check. I wanted to say that one of the reasons I really like your content is you putting the effort to steelman the opposing argument. I am personally tempted to just call what I find ridiculous ridiculous ("Bell Curve") and move on, but you tear the logic and presuppositions behind these arguments completely apart. Cheers

Oh yeah, and Philosophy Tube is, to put it in a charitable way, completely out of their depth, and talking out of their arse.

[slushisimcambi]

When your psych major friend tries to use math to prove a point.

[ithraldharzul]

Wile I would not consider myself a Philosophy Tube fan exactly, more a casual consumer of some of her content (don't recall watching the videos in question here for example) I would say your first issue taken (the graph) is in bad faith on your part. Your second issue taken (in regards to dismissing hyper skepticism only to engage in it) is an accurate issue.

In regards to your first point, the graph. I claim that your argument is in bad faith because while you are correct the graph presented is the wrong variety you seem to have deliberately missed the intended point of the given statement. It was clearly used a quick visual to maintain viewer engagement and generally get a point across not to be used as a real graph. The correct graph would have looked something like a circle containing the set of all possible physical sex expressions. Then create another circle containing the set of all possible gender expressions. Inside each set draw a shape that captures the characteristics of a given individual, e.g. type of gametes, chromosomes, hormone levels, hormone insensitivity/sensitivity for the first circle, and for the second circle presentation traits e.g. manner of dress, cultural idioms that are gendered, etc... Assuming both sets are ordered from male or masculine in the top half of the circle, and female or feminine in the bottom half of the set when these two sets are superimposed it will show conformity or divergence for the given individual based on their physical characteristics vs their interaction with society. This far more complex but accurate example would take to long to explain as such it's forgivable that an inaccurate but easily understandable graph was substituted.

As to your second point, you are completely correct the video should have been going through sources* followed by explaining why the conclusions of said sources strongly support trans people. I suspect the video in question was not made in bad faith, but rather from the perspective of a transwoman arguing from her perspective based on how elements in society generally present their arguments against trans people to trans people, which can be summed up by: "but you might be wrong, so don't permanently alter yourself". Which is a hyper skeptical stance that is often put onto trans people of all flavors by those around them. Frustration with this request being levied upon Abigail by others likely led to her conclusion of placing on others the statement "but I might be right so leave me alone." It was clearly written from a point of personal pain which interfered with her ability to notice the discrepancy that's obvious to anyone who hasn't been in that particular place, or who has closely known someone there. So not bad faith, just an understandable mistake to make while in a compromised mental state due to the surrounding society.

*sources:
• Medical transition works

• ⁠80% of individuals reported significant improvement in dysphoria


• ⁠78% of individuals reported significant improvement in psychological symptoms


• ⁠72% of individuals reported significant improvement in sexual function


• ⁠Positive results across the board, even in 15-year followups


• ⁠"Wellbeing was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population."


• ⁠Quality of life rises dramatically with 'gender-affirming treatment


• ⁠Long-term follow-ups:






• ⁠"Shown to correlate with improved psychological functioning"


• ⁠Levels of depression and anxiety which closely matched levels reported by cisgender children


• ⁠Puberty blockers are safe and reversible

• ⁠Hormone blockers are the only treatment used on adolescents and are completely reversible.


• ⁠"Does not support an adverse impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy on cognitive performance"


• ⁠"Our results suggest there are no detrimental effects of GNRHA on EF"


• ⁠"Relives [sic] distress for trans adolescents" "Is reversible"


• ⁠"Poorer psychological well-being before treatment"


• ⁠"Behavioral and emotional problems and depressive symptoms decreased"


• ⁠Hormones blockers are not new: "Since the mid 1990s..." "The Royal College of Psychiatrists, in 1998..."


• ⁠Many more studies:












• ⁠Puberty blockers aren't harmful to bone density




• ⁠Puberty blockers don't cause osteoporosis or sterility


• ⁠Transphobia is real



• ⁠46% felt discriminated against or harassed within the past year for being trans

• ⁠29% felt discriminated against when it came to looking for employment

• ⁠70% hid being trans during schooling before becoming 18 years old

• ⁠55% had an incident of violence within the past year in part or whole because of them being trans

• ⁠The ~40-50% suicide rate is fake, it's the attempt rate


• ⁠The suicide rate is undocumented.

• ⁠Discrimination is harmful

• ⁠The attempt rate rises for people who:

⁠• ⁠Lost a job due to bias (55%)

⁠• ⁠Were harassed/bullied in school (51%)

⁠• ⁠Had low household income

⁠• ⁠Were the victim of physical assault (61%)

⁠• ⁠Were the victim of sexual assault (64%)


• ⁠Other factors include:

⁠• ⁠Gender-based victimization

⁠• ⁠Discrimination

⁠• ⁠Bullying

⁠• ⁠Violence

⁠• ⁠Being rejected by the family, friends, and the community

⁠• ⁠Harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public

⁠• ⁠Discrimination and ill-treatment at health-care system


• ⁠Many more studies











• ⁠Social/familial support helps: it can decrease the likelihood of a suicide attempt 57% -> 4%





• ⁠Chosen name/pronoun use does the same:

[STOPjammietime]

Great video - absolutely love the shorter format btw. You could maybe go through some older videos and re-edit them to distil them down to their most salient points, to accommodate the short attention spans of modern humans (including unfortunately myself).
One thing that irritates me about PT's hyperscepticism argument is the assumption that GC people have some sort of shortage of the capacity to believe in things. It's precisely because I am aware of the realities of womanhood or of sex in general that I am sceptical of gender identity ideology. I believe in what is empirically, logically, statistically observable, which is exactly why I don't believe in gender ideology. It's not because I sit here all day thinking I live in the sodding Matrix

[pipichi]

18:36 I actually didnt agree with your definition of hyperskeptcicism. Tbh Im not sure what exactly you mean by that anway, i assume its more along the lines of pyrrohnism. The phyrronian does claim that they dont know anything, but they dont then conclude that they must know nothing. They believe the only doxatic attitude towards propositions is suspension of judgement. Note, This principle applies to the proposition itself too. Im not sure if the claim of phi tube is that possibility entails true, but if it were, it would be a different stance than that of pyrrohnism

18:55 I think the statement pt tries to say is that if trans people could exist, then it is no longer justified to immediately dismiss any request that depends on their transness.

Edit: ok so phi tube does define pyrrohnism in the video. And it agrees with my definition and not with yours. I wonder why u didnt include that?

The syllogistic argument goes something like this

Most people dont believe trans people exist
If you dont believe trans people exist, a person arguing for a proposition using the premise that trans people exist can be dismissed due to the antecedent being unsatisfied
Advocation for trans rights requires a premise that trans people exist
Therefore,
Most people can immediately dismiss the requests for trans rights

It doesnt claim that all people are skeptical of trans existence, nor does it say possibility implies truth like you claim

Also i didnt say but the double normal distribution def needed some more explaining. Idk what was meant by that.

[Xokoy]

I've had PT come up on my homepage a few times, but every time, I find their content extremely dry. After a few videos it clicked. They don't participate anything to the ideas themselves. They might spout some far left talking points, but otherwise, all they do is they have some elaborate scene, they'll ask a question, then give some citation for, and some citation against it, change scene and repeat until the video ends...this seems to be a lot of their content...there's no personality...no part where they actually engage in non-political parts of the ideas, no speculations about what their ideas on the topic are. Watching PT is like watching a parrot. Repeat some citations and political talking points, and as you've pointed out, I don't think that there is a whole lot understanding of what's being said going on.