All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2022 - Louder with Crowder
45:24
Biological Males Should Not Compete in Women's Sports (Part 1) | Change My Mind
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I think it is harmful for the trans athletes to be told, like, if they identify as male, that they are not.
Yeah.
Um, and so I see that... Wow, you just said male.
Uh-huh.
That's sex, that's not gender.
Oh, sorry, whatever is the gender term.
No, you can't keep it straight, can you?
I mean, it's, I will... Because it's silly.
It's a little silly, isn't it?
No.
It's time for another installment of Change My Mind, the series where we rationalize our positions on controversial topics.
Now, today's subject is a hot one in the news lately.
Biological males in women's sports.
A Victoria woman who won a world championship in master cycling has been hit with a wave of backlash because she is transgender.
New Zealand has chosen the first transgender athlete to compete at its Olympic Games.
It's also reignited a debate with critics who say it's unfair.
Transgender swimmer Leah Thomas breaking barriers and records.
Sports Illustrated calls the college senior the most controversial athlete in America.
The beauty of Change My Mind is that almost invariably, productive dialogue takes place and people generally leave feeling better than they came, which is exactly what happened here.
But not everyone from the tolerant activists left was so happy about, you know, conversation.
What's the message of radical trans liberation at work?
What does it mean?
I'm not here to talk to you, Steven.
No?
No one?
Radical trans-liberation now?
Look!
I'm slightly chocolaty.
This one's still a mystery to me.
We're still trying to identify the gender.
Is it male?
Female?
Z-male?
Trigender?
Either way, I was greatly inconvenienced.
If you figure it out, comment below.
The point is, some people just don't know how to use their words.
Unlike this person, Isaac, with whom I had a conversation that, uh...
Was a little more productive.
Isaac, Stephen, nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you.
So, Isaac, I don't know, I know you said you've watched the show.
Yes.
Okay.
So I don't know how familiar you are, kind of, with this, but the idea is that we, you know, sit down with people, hopefully where it's a rational discussion, on what are sort of controversial topics.
And often people have rational discussions, you know, on topics that are, oh, okay.
It's easy to have a rational discussion or it's easy to rationalize your position.
The second it gets into something that may be emotionally charged, we throw it out the window.
So that's what it is in the bottom line.
Today's topic, I do not believe that biological males should be allowed to compete in women's sports.
Obviously you disagree to some degree.
Yes.
Feel free to, you know, make your case and change my mind.
Okay.
I guess my first point of contention would be with the wording of the statement, um, biological males should not compete.
I'm curious as to why it would be biological males and not trans women should not compete, because I feel like there is a distinction there, even if it is, you know, maybe an arbitrary one in your case.
Well, how is it not arbitrary?
How is it not?
Oh, you mean the distinction between trans?
Yeah.
So when you say that, for example, I could use either term interchangeably.
Yeah.
Biological males is something that everyone would understand.
Yeah.
So why is it so important to you that that terminology be changed?
Yeah.
I feel like a lot of the times people use, like, biology as this sort of, like, constant, you know, obviously I'm sure you believe, maybe I'm wrong, that biology is a binary, and that there's male and female.
And that it's just like that, is that correct?
And that you can be one or the other and that there's no... As a general rule, there are obviously radical exceptions to the rule, like intersex people or people with, you know, androgen resistance or stuff.
But we're talking about, you know, 0.01% of the population.
So yes, obviously, and obviously even people who believe in the transgender ideology have long agreed that biology exists in a binary.
Oh, for sure.
Not gender, but biology.
Yeah, no, definitely.
So if we agree that biological sex is, or at least, would you agree with my presumption here
that certainly what's being taught on school is that gender and sex are different, and the
primary difference is sex is biological and gender is societal?
Yeah, I would agree with that.
Okay, alright.
So, I, okay, so, sorry, continue with your point as to why you would prefer it be worded
with trans women versus biological males.
Because I do believe that as far as expression goes, like obviously there is that difference that you're talking about.
And even in trans women, a lot of them who do compete in sports, there is obviously the hormonal like, you know, estrogen and like all the treatment that they go through, which Actually, no.
alter their physical sort of like ability to compete in these sports and
so to save biological men instead of trans women sort of indicates that there
is no difference when I think there probably is you know you know I would
argue maybe I'm misunderstanding your point you just said that gender is
Yeah.
Sex is biological.
Yeah.
So the reason I am saying it's biological, males, is because this is biological, right?
Males.
Yeah.
But then you're saying you would rather see trans women, which is societal.
It's not biological.
Sports are separated by biology.
That's why there are male-female divisions, and up until recently, male-female divisions, men's and women's divisions, they were always separated by biology.
And you're suggesting that it would be more conducive to an accurate assessment here by using a gendered term rather than biological.
Okay, I see your point now, yes.
So I would concede to you on that, as far as like the distinction I'm finding with the wording, if that is sort of your, you know, Well, I want to understand your position, because you just said that gender and sex are different.
Yes.
And my issue is with... I don't care if someone wants to identify, right?
If they want to identify as a woman in society, that's a totally separate issue.
We're talking about sports, which have been separated by biological sex.
Okay, that's interesting.
We're talking about biological males who are now dominating biological females.
Okay, so...
My point of contention with what you just said there would be that biological males are dominating biological females.
I have not seen that play out.
Obviously there's a few cases here and there, but I could easily just make the argument that Leah Thomas came in 8th in one of her races and came in 5th in another one.
And set the record in one.
Yes, for sure.
And set the record with a time that would have ranked not even in the top 500.
Yeah.
Right, not even the top 500 male rankings for the 500 meter.
Not even the top 800 for the 200 meter, which I believe is what Leah Thomas won.
You're saying the record he set when he was racing women?
The record he set as he raced with women, yeah.
Would not even register.
Ranked in the top 500.
And how does that further your point?
Well, the point is there, this is someone who was competing as a male, was a middling to low end of the pack male, and is now a champion female.
My argument to that would just be that the reason why he was middle of the pack was because he was on hormones.
No, not before.
He had begun to transition while he was competing against men, as far as I was aware.
No, and certainly, and if you would argue that, it would certainly only be at the tail end, not for the entirety of his athletic career.
Uh, no, no, not for the entirety.
Right.
But when you're looking at those middle-of-the-pack numbers, I believe, and obviously it's just your word against my word, so... Right, I understand.
I'm not gonna, like, stay on this point.
No, and I appreciate it.
Yeah, yeah.
And I try and make all the references publicly available, so when this goes up... Sure, yeah, yeah.
Because I can just easily get something wrong.
For example, I could be mixing up the 200 and 500 meter.
I know that he won one of them.
And it's kind of, you're missing the forest for the trees and you want to get caught in the grass.
Yeah, exactly.
Because there are many, many examples of biological males dominating biological females.
There are over 80 examples of women who either lost out on opportunities You have Mary Gregory, I believe, in powerlifting.
You have women's cycling, a record that was set.
You have examples across the board in weightlifting, in cycling, in swimming, in track, not to mention combat sports where women can actually be physically harmed.
So, it has happened quite a bit.
Now, granted, it's such a small percentage of the population.
What I want to avoid is, and I mean this genuinely, I'm not just blowing smoke, you seem like a sharp guy.
You know, that intellectual fallacy of appeal to novelty, right?
That argumentum ad novitatum is what they call it, but appeal to novelty, which means, well, since we haven't done it yet, therefore there are no consequences.
Well, it's just because we haven't done it yet.
This is very, very new.
And where we have implemented these types of policies, we've seen an unbelievable differential between the biological males and women.
It's just we've only been doing this for a few years.
It's like saying, well, there are no negative consequences to a 90% income tax.
Not yet.
But if we implement it tomorrow, and it takes five years to see all the bankruptcies, it's not really an argument.
Where we have implemented it, we have seen quite a few examples.
But it is on a smaller scale, because it would have been considered absurd five years ago.
And it's hard for me to contextualize that 80 number that you gave, because I do not know what the total is, so it's a hard number rather than a percentage.
So it's hard for me to take that at face value.
Let's say it's not that much.
It's still more than one.
Sure, yeah.
And then we can get to my issues.
For example, you mentioned hormones.
So I want to make sure that I understand this, because I think you're actually arguing what a lot of people argue, and I can understand why people would think this way, that if a biological male undergoes hormone replacement, that they no longer would have the biological advantages inferred.
I'm not necessarily saying that.
Obviously, that is the majority, but it's obviously not in every case.
So, if someone did not undergo hormone replacement therapy at all, you would be against them competing against women?
I actually don't know.
It's a very nuanced situation.
Well, then why bring it up?
Oh, just because, like, as far as, like... Because you brought that up as one of the first things.
Yes, just in the case of, like, oh, these people are just dominating and whatever, and in the case of, like...
I don't think in my mind there's a perfect answer to this sort of... because in my mind there's a couple different options.
while he was on hormones.
But my greater sort of, because you do bring up a good point,
which is that it is more than one, like who is going to be harmed.
And I don't think in my mind, there's a perfect answer to this sort of,
because in my mind, there's a couple of different options.
It's either you.
Okay, like what?
Exclude transgender people entirely from competing.
And that's not what I'm suggesting.
Just compete with their biological sex.
Right, yeah.
And then there is the other option of letting them compete with their biological sex.
I believe you do run into the same problems, which is that if you are to let biological women compete with transgender men who were once women, you're essentially pitting women against, in your mind, other women who are just basically doping legally.
Because they're on hormones, or they're taking some sort of testosterone, or something like that.
So you run into the same problem when they're competing as, like, who they were assigned, what their gender was biologically at birth.
You see what I'm saying?
Are you saying a biological woman?
Yeah.
Competing?
Against a trans man, who was previously a woman.
Hold on a second, hold on a second.
Let's just stick with the term biology here, because you're using gender terms.
So, a biological woman.
Yes.
Competing against a biological... Uh, woman.
Yes.
Who is on, like, you know... Steroids.
Yeah, or testosterone, which would improve their performance.
So it runs into the same problem in my sense.
Which is exactly what we're allowing with the trans athletes.
So the reason I bring that up is because, I don't know if you know this, but the International Olympic Committee doesn't require any hormone replacement therapy at all.
None.
And what happened with Leah Thomas, and this was shocking to me, was, now a big reason
that the IOC does that is they say, well we punt it to the organizations of the individual
sports.
And you and I both know, of course, being on campus, I think you're probably to the
left of center, but I don't think you're someone who believes in stifling speech or ideas,
you know, or shutting people down.
I think that would be a bad thing.
Yes, exactly.
But we both know that smaller sports organizations are more prone to succumbing to the pressure
of activist groups, right?
So the IOC says, we'll punt it to these organizations.
With the NCAA, what happened, and I'm just using this because it's the most recent example, what happened is the NCAA had rules that said, you know what, we're going to go up to the national swimming organizing body.
I believe it's USA Swimming.
I may have that wrong.
I think it's USA Swimming.
He said 36 months of hormone replacement therapy.
Okay.
The NCAA said, mm, we're not going to do that.
You just have to tell us you're doing 12 months of hormone replacement therapy.
Okay.
And you just need to submit one test within four weeks of competition, and you're only allowed to have the testosterone levels twice that of a normal female.
Okay.
I believe it's five, either nanomoles per deciliter, or five nanograms per deciliter.
And they allowed it to 10.
Is that like a ceiling?
It's a ceiling.
So you can't go past that?
You can't go past, but for a trans athlete, you can't go past 10.
Okay.
Which is two times that of a woman.
So it would be like you going into a sport.
Have you ever played sports?
I have, yes.
Okay, so what sport?
What's your sport?
Basketball.
Oh, basketball, okay.
So, yeah, you can't find a juicer in professional basketball, right?
No.
No, of course not.
They're all natural.
Yeah, yeah.
Um, but, uh, it would be like telling LeBron James, or it would be like telling I don't follow college basketball, but whoever's good in college basketball, it'd be like saying, okay, look, look, you're not allowed to do steroids, you say you're not doing them for 12 months, and then within four weeks, you just submit a blood test where you only have two times the testosterone levels of your male counterparts.
Okay.
You know, we always talk about steroids in sports, right, and how it's become easier to beat these sort of tests, and the tests become more elaborate.
This is a cheat sheet to transgender males, to biological males, claiming to be women, on how to cheat.
It's, we're only going to need a test within four weeks, and you're still allowed to have two times the levels.
And even then, you know, what's also important is, And I understand what you're saying.
I guess I don't know what your position is.
My position is biological males compete with biological males, biological females compete with biological females.
That was a position of even modern transgender activists until just really two, three years ago, because all sports are different.
That's biology.
Now we're at a point where we're trying to make the argument that, well, if they undergo hormone replacement therapy for a year, they don't have the... And that's also not true.
The medical literature, this isn't up to date with the data, they only lose about 5% of their strength.
We're talking not just strength, we're talking about ligament strength.
I will say, it varies a lot.
It's about 5%, according to the medical literature.
They lose about 5% in 12 months.
Okay, I've seen it as high as 7.
Okay.
The most legitimate study that I've seen, the most legitimate study is five.
It also depends on what you're measuring, like physical strength or endurance.
Physical strength, muscle area, total muscle volume, muscle density, connective tissue strength, for example, male connective tissue strength, ligament strength, tendon strength is 80% higher, red blood cell count, VO2 max, overall lung capacity, lever arms, longer, I mean, bone density.
The list goes on and on and on.
These don't go away with 12 months.
They don't even go away with two years.
Yeah, I mean, I would argue things like wingspan, bone density, all that stuff is the same.
But, like, certain, you know, rather than looking at... Oh, you'd argue bone density is the same between a male and a female?
Oh, no, I was saying after you are on hormones for a while, your wingspan, things like that, that sort of, like your height is not necessarily going to change, although that does happen sometimes, I think, but I don't think that's a result of being on estrogen.
You're saying, yeah, your wingspan wouldn't change, exactly, you would still enjoy the...
Sure.
But, I do think there are certain physical attributes that do change.
Like, as far as, like, you know, like, strength is a big... Like, there'd be, like, how many push-ups you can do.
There's studies where they'll test pre- and post-transition.
It gets lower.
Yeah, yeah.
It evens out.
It evens out pretty much.
Not in the studies that I've seen.
No.
I guess so, yeah.
And this is another one where we can just go back and forth.
Your word, my word.
I don't really want to camp out on that, you know?
Right.
I think we can just sort of agree to disagree.
Well, I think the data is pretty clear and I think, look, let's say that you're correct.
Yeah.
Let's say that there are studies out there that show after a year of testosterone suppression, everything is the same.
Let's assume that's correct.
I don't believe so, but let's assume it's correct.
Still doesn't bring us to a solution, does it?
Um, not a very clean one, no.
So what are you suggesting?
I'm saying that biological males compete with biological males.
Because I believe someone also needs to advocate for biological females.
That's why Title IX exists.
Yeah.
Um, your suggestion is...
My suggestion is to let, like, trans athletes play with... So, like, I just say let trans men compete in men's sports, and let trans women compete in women's sports.
Right.
So when you say trans men, again, you're using a gender... So you're arguing that gender and sex are the same?
Uh, no, not necessarily.
Well, because you're saying let trans men compete in men's sports, let trans women... What you're really saying is biological males who identify as women compete in women's sports.
And sports are separated by biology.
There's no getting around that.
Oh, there has been.
Yeah, but it's not like a constant war of nature or something like that.
That can change.
It has been a constant.
For a very good reason.
It's the same reason we have weight classes.
It's the same reason we have age divisions.
It's not like gravity that you can't, you know what I mean?
It's a construct that we can morph if we find the social utility for it.
You see what I'm saying?
And what would the social utility be?
To upending based on sparse or non-existent clinical data that you're mentioning.
What would the upside be to allowing biological males to beat biological women?
Because you know it's not going the other direction.
You and I both know that, right?
There's the lab study and then there's the real life study.
Biological women are not competing and beating biological men in sports.
It's only going one way.
Biological differences between men and women, in general, do exist, right?
And so I'm definitely not going to argue with that.
But when you bring trans people into the equation, I'm looking at it from the perspective of what is going to... It's like a harm reduction type of perspective that I'm coming at from.
So, it goes back to my earlier point, which is, even if you wanted to say, okay, biological men and biological women compete in separate sports, and then Like, it doesn't matter if you transition over or not, you have to compete with who you were biologically assigned with at birth.
It still just creates the same problem where women who want to transition to men have to compete against women and then it's not fair to the women who are getting, you know, beat up on by this transition, like this trans man who is taking hormones and is taking... Well, they shouldn't be allowed to compete.
Okay, so you're saying... Is that your opinion?
Yes, a woman who is taking Anabolic.
Yeah.
Effectively.
Right?
It's transitioning to...
A woman who's taking anabolic...
Well, a woman who's taking anabolic.
Sure.
Let's boil this down to biological terms.
A woman who's taking testosterone.
Sure.
No non-trans identifying woman is allowed to do that.
They're banned from sport.
Okay.
It's illegal.
Okay.
Should be illegal regardless of how you identify.
Okay.
They shouldn't be allowed to beat up on women, just like a woman shouldn't be allowed to
take anabolic steroids and beat up on women.
Okay.
And that is a fine position to hold?
It's not my position?
That's a harm reduction position.
It is, for sure.
So that's my harm reduction position.
Yeah, it is.
What's the harm reduction you're saying?
Your harm reduction model?
Yeah.
I would like as many people to participate in sports as possible while still keeping, because like you said, trans, like the trans community is a fairly small one.
This is not a sort of an epidemic or a pandemic like some maybe make it out to be.
It's a small- It's not yet.
It's not yet.
Because it's very new.
I would rather not act on it.
And if it does change and it becomes a really big problem, then maybe we can readdress how we sort of go about this.
So let a problem that all data would indicate is likely going
to happen and even the small sample sizes that we have, allow that problem to run its course, allow it to rob women
of opportunities, allow it to create- Once it does become a problem, then we can address it.
bones like we've seen in women's combat sports because we don't know how bad it'll be yet
and then reverse course if it gets worse.
My argument would be that it is not a problem yet.
Once it does become a problem, then we can address it.
But as of right now in the current moment, I don't see it as being probable.
So I think in your harm reduction you are failing to take into account one large group
Okay.
You're taking into account a very small group of people and you've, I don't think you've mean, but you've conflated gender and sex, which is why modern gender theory is one I disagree with because it's not a tenable position.
Sure.
Because everything that you have discussed is basically equating gender with sex at that point.
That's the only way you can argue that people who identify a certain way should be able to compete with people who are biologically female.
But, let's say it's 1% of the population that's trans.
Okay?
In your harm reduction approach, who are you ignoring?
Well, I'm assuming from your perspective it'd be biological women, right?
Yeah.
But you would have to sort of explain to me why that is the case, if it is 1% of people who are trans.
Well, what's the purpose to sports?
Why do we play sport?
I mean, that's a great question.
I don't know.
I don't have a philosophical answer for you.
What's the goal in sport?
To win, I'm assuming?
Yes.
Okay.
That's the only goal in sport.
I mean, you know, have fun along the way, maybe.
I don't know.
Yeah, sure.
Have fun along the way.
Camaraderie.
But when we're talking about sports and high-level sports, like NCAA, it's not fun.
It's not fun to be a champion at that point, right?
It's a very difficult life.
They've sacrificed a lot.
They've trained a lot.
They've run into many complications of people who are not trying to be excellent in their field.
I think we would both agree with that, right?
It's not really a fun life to be an NCAA silver medalist.
It takes discipline, for sure.
To be an Olympic silver medalist and then get your ass kicked by someone who was a man two years ago.
Yeah.
So the purpose is to win.
Now, that's why sports exist.
The NCAA, right?
Collegiate sports.
What opportunities do those provide?
Would we both agree that they're significant?
Oh yeah, for sure.
Scholarships, paths to careers, coaching.
So beyond the actual physical harm which can take place in certain sports, with biological men competing against women, What about all the economic harm?
What about all the opportunity costs for these women who've trained their whole lives and they miss out?
Because far more of them will be affected than transgender individuals who don't even compete in sport.
What do you mean by that?
What I mean is if we have 1% of transgender individuals, right, in the population, and not many of them are competing in sports, I'm talking about a harm reduction strategy that at the cost of all of the other women in these sports who are vying for these opportunities, we are acquiescing to biological males in the name of harm reduction.
But it's actually probably the most harmful thing we can do.
For women's sports, for female sports.
I guess my argument for that would just be that, you know, you're talking about, you're framing it in a sense that, like, trans women are taking opportunities from biological women, I assume is the point here.
They are.
I would just say that it's not sort of a, if you want to make, because I do think there is going to be harm done either way, I will agree, but I think it's sort of a, it's more of a one-to-one thing, you're making it seem like biological women are going to be hurt exponentially more.
When it's like, if a trans woman takes a biological woman's place,
that's a one-to-one sort of trade-off.
I mean, one or the other is going to take that place of the other person.
So, it's just depending on who you want to favor as.
And it just comes down to, I believe, like, what you view.
Like, the women's sports thing is sort of a microcosm of the bigger sort of trans...
Like, you know, it pivots on what you're opinion.
Well, it shows that modern gender theory can't hold water.
Oh, why is that?
Well, because I've been even at this school and other schools where I said there are only two genders.
Right, changed my mind.
And people go, well, no, no, gender is separate from sex.
Yeah.
Okay, let's go with that.
Yeah.
But now you're sitting here arguing gender and sex are interchangeable.
Um, I wouldn't argue they're interchangeable.
Well, you are arguing that in the realm of sport.
Um, not necessarily.
No.
Okay, then please clarify, because I just heard you say that biological males I see what you're saying now.
which is a gender term, right?
Trans women is not a biological term, that's a gender term.
So you say people of a gender should be allowed to now identify with whatever sex they choose to compete with.
I see what you're saying now. So I would like to clarify that then.
Okay.
Um, people who identify as men should be allowed to compete against each other.
People who identify as women should be allowed to compete against each other.
I make no biological distinctions there.
So a separate division?
No, not a separate division.
I just think that it brings us back to the same issue.
You're saying biological males who identify as trans women, a gender term, brings us right back to the same place, should be able to compete against other people who are separated by sex.
There is only an exception For the modern transgender theorist, right?
Everywhere else it's separated by biology.
No.
I can't compete against women just because I don't say that I'm a woman.
Yeah.
I could tomorrow.
Yeah.
Um, well, so...
One, just to that point, I don't think that is something that is really happening.
People are just being like, I'm a man, I'm just going to say I'm a woman and go compete against women.
I don't think that is a thing that happens.
I do believe it is legitimate.
People who are legitimately trying to transition who want to compete in these sports.
How do you know?
Because, I mean, look at Leah Thomas, look at all the examples that you yourself have cited.
I have not seen an example of a person doing that, yet.
And if that does happen, again, then it becomes a problem and we forget a way to address it.
Yeah, it has happened.
And again, just because it hasn't happened yet, that's the, you know, argumentum ad novitatum, that's the appeal to novelty, logical thought.
Well, it hasn't happened yet.
This isn't even, because I do want to go back to the thing you were saying about the men and women, the biological.
Yes.
I don't understand how your position is tenable if gender and sex are separate.
So, my only point that I would like to make is, when you say men's and women's sports, I would like that to just simply mean people who identify as men, people who identify as women.
But it doesn't.
Not right now, no.
But it could.
And it doesn't because of biological differences.
Sports are separated due to biological differences.
They are right now, yes.
And there's a reason for that.
For the safety of women.
Um, well, and then it just goes back to the same argument.
We kind of are going back to that.
No, no, it's not going back to the same argument.
You haven't addressed it.
For the safety of women.
Well, we went back and forth on the data of does it actually harm women in the sense of, like, because, I mean, obviously, you mentioned, like, broken orbital bones and all that stuff in combat sports, which injuries are going to happen in the realm of, obviously, an orbital bone is a pretty serious, I mean, that's a bad one, but injuries are going to happen in the realm of combat sports, citing that as being as dangerous to women.
Let me ask you this, because maybe we're just, do you not believe that there would be more injuries occurring in contact sports if biological men just competed, if there were no men and
women's divisions?
Do you honestly not believe that that would drastically increase the chances of injury?
Well, you know, I think...
Come on, we have people who are walking CTE, right?
The lifespan of an old lineman is somewhere in their 40s or 50s in the NFL.
These are 315, 340 pound men, and they're still having to deal with being hit.
Do you honestly believe that if we didn't have men and women's division,
that a woman, a female quarterback being sacked, that a female lineman, you don't, you really don't think
that there would be an increase in dramatic injuries?
No, there would. Yeah, definitely.
But I would like to note that, like, obviously...
It hasn't happened yet.
Well, of course there is, you know, differences in men and women,
like, you know, a big linebacker versus a small...
But, I would like to point out that whenever you do talk about, sort of, biological differences between- Why do you do this?
Uh, sorry, yeah, I don't know, that's a stupid- yeah, but whenever you talk about- What, do you mean to do this, or was that accidental?
Let's not read too deeply into it, I don't think it's really anything that much- Well, no, hold on a second, is it- is it- cause I- I am saying, I'm being- I- I think it matters.
Biological males.
Well- But you did this.
Yeah, so let me get to the point.
Is that when you do talk about biological distinctions, what you're really saying are physical, chemical distinctions between people, right?
Like, I could say that, oh, a 6'6", 230 pound linebacker versus a college freshman of the same
age who's 5'5 and 180 pounds or whatever is not going to be a fair matchup.
But they're both men, but when you say biological differences, you're talking about physical, you know, competitive advantages that people have regardless of biology.
I mean, sorry, regardless of what they are assigned at birth, as far as gender goes.
Regardless of what biology determines them to be at birth.
Do you believe that biological male and biological female is assigned at birth?
Or do you believe that the gender assigned at birth is what can be changed?
Because this is very new.
You need to understand this.
The students I spoke with two years ago at this school, the professors, never in their wildest dreams would have said biological sex assigned at birth.
Are you suggesting that sex is being assigned rather than being intrinsic?
Because that's a whole new thing.
No.
The chromosomes that you are born with are the ones that you have and it's not a socially constructed thing.
You have those chromosomes.
It determines a lot about your physical makeup and stuff like that.
But, you know, and obviously there's intersex people and it's a spectrum and all that and it's
not a binary but it is intrinsic it is biological you can't you know
Just say that you don't have these certain chromosomes and but I don't think that's the argument people are making so
that would be mine You know
Well, you don't think what is the argument every single person this country thinks that it's unfair for biological
males to compete against biological females Not in the realm of competition.
I'm just simply saying, I don't think anybody is making the argument that you are not born with chromosomes that give you certain, you know, like, that differentiate you from biology.
Well, absolutely.
Yeah, sure.
and your position is untenable.
Yeah.
Because you're saying there is something that is innate, there is something that is intrinsic, right?
There is something that's immutable.
But we need to throw that out the window as it relates to sports and go by gender, which is societal.
I see your point, but the problem is that...
Sports are not separated by how you identify.
They are separated by immutable physical characteristics for the reason of safety and fairness in competition.
Can we agree on that?
That's why they're separated by biology.
I might agree, but if you're going off of specifically... So your definition of why they are separated is immutable physical characteristics for people's safety.
I would just make the argument, in fairness, right?
I would just make the argument, okay, so we should have smaller men and women compete against each other, and women who are at a better physical, because you, I mean, you would acknowledge that.
We do.
We have Division 1 versus Division 3, and we have weight classes.
Perfect example.
Sure, yeah, exactly.
But you would not cross the biological lines to, like, the gender, you know, the sex.
No, because the difference is so vast.
I mean, not for everybody, though, right?
I mean, because if you want to make the argument that it is for the safety of people, I think there's a lot of women who can beat up.
It absolutely is.
It's unbelievably, the gap is so much larger between men and women.
It's not even close.
I mean, you can look at the, again, when you're looking at just Leah Thomas as a recent example, talking about 503rd, I believe, in the 200 or 500-something place, if that time were posted by when he was still competing as a man, not even top 800 in the 500.
Right, it's a huge, and you're talking about winning one of them, placing fifth in another, it's not even close.
I mean, even just, do you think Serena Williams and Venus Williams, do you think they would do well against top guys?
Oh no, I should actually clarify that.
Do you think they would even do well against middling guys?
Um, I'm not sure about middling guys, but I will say at a high level, there is a complete difference between men and women as far as like physical advantages.
My point is the best female athletes in the world aren't even close to middling to low-end male athletes.
Can you substantiate that claim?
Yeah, Venus and Serena Williams, they played tennis against a guy who was ranked 204th, I believe, and he beat both of them in one afternoon.
And he was a drunk.
I feel like that's an anecdotal, maybe, point to make, right?
It's not an anecdotal, you just asked me, can I point to an example, and then the empirical would be, okay, so the empirical would be the times that I just gave you for Leah Thomas, right?
I can give you other examples like Mary Gregory in powerlifting, the squat.
World record female squat versus male squat is a 400 pound difference.
When you're talking about men in the same weight class who are competing against each other, you're talking about infinitesimal amounts of weight.
You're talking about 2-3 pounds.
You're talking about the world record deadlift going up, if you're lucky, by 4 pounds maybe every two years.
That's the level of competition.
The difference between a man and a woman is over 400 pounds.
I just gave you the times, right, the empirical, as far as the swim times.
You could actually look at every single swim time, track time, right, decathlon time.
You could look at every single shot put.
You could look at every single long jump, high jump.
You could look at the verticals.
You can look at connective tissue strength, like I said, which is about 80% higher in men's.
You can look at all those.
That's the empirical.
Sure.
And I'm giving you an example of the two best female tennis players who have ever existed.
We're both just Absolutely washed in an afternoon by a drunken 200-something ranked guy.
Yeah.
Come on.
It's a big difference.
Well, yeah, I mean, I would say in a high-level competition... Let's not do the college thing.
This is a big, big difference.
Yeah, yeah.
In a high-level competition... No, high-level women against low-level men.
It's not even close.
Well, and, you know, to be honest, I don't know if that super matters to the... The best female athletes in the world get routed by adolescent boys.
Do you know that?
The world women's... The world female soccer champions, they lose, almost always, to high school boy teams.
Um, so I don't know if that's super... I feel like we're kind of getting off on a separate path here as far as, like... Well, no, I'm just addressing your argument where you said, well, the difference is depending, and I said, no, no, it's such a huge chasm between biological males and females that that's the reason they're separated.
I was addressing your point.
I would still make the argument that the chasm is not as big as you make it out to be, but my word against your word, I don't want to look anything... I would argue that it is not as big as... because obviously, I asked for Evidence, and there is a lot of, I'm sure, specific examples.
Assuming that I'm not lying.
Oh, I don't think you're lying.
I think all of those examples that you gave are very well, this could be true.
But again... The empirical and the anecdotal, right?
You recognize that I gave you the empirical, what can be measured in a lab, what can be measured as far as times across the board.
Yeah.
And then the anecdotal of the best female athletes competing against middling drunken men and still losing in female soccer teams.
Yeah, and I'm fairly more confident that those, the lab, the numbers that you give are not totally accurate.
Yeah, okay.
And then as far as like the individual cases, They are individual cases, so I'm not gonna, you know... So we'll discount the empirical, and discount the anecdotal, and now it's the broad, and now it's the brutal, and nothing is safe, Isaac.
That's good.
That was a good framing you just did.
But I would say that I would discount the anecdotal, yes.
I will acknowledge that.
But the empirical, I do believe, like, I have seen a lot of evidence that points towards my point of view.
What if you're wrong?
If I'm wrong, then I would be okay with it, because I feel like I would have at least tried to protect the rights of all people to play sports, unlike you.
Well, I mean, you were the one who said that you would not let trans men compete in sports.
You mean women, you mean biological females who are taking drugs?
Yes.
For the same reason?
Yeah, you just can't take anabolic steroids in the sport.
Yeah.
Now, if you're advocating that we should allow anabolic steroids in sport, fine.
How about it?
No, I'm advocating that.
Which by the way, I'm not even necessarily against.
Yeah.
Oh, you're not?
I'm not even necessarily against it.
No, I think either we need to have really, really strict testing across the board, or no testing and let the game begin.
Is that reasonable?
It's gotta be one or the other.
We have shitty testing right now that people can bypass.
Yeah, yeah, for sure.
Yeah, well, honestly, I don't have a super, like, hard and fast opinion on that, specifically.
Oh, I have very strong opinions on that.
It would probably be a lot of fun to see a bunch of great athletes go up against each other, but... Especially sports like baseball.
Who cares?
Oh, yeah.
I mean, I don't watch baseball, so that would be... You just want to watch them hit home runs.
They're not hitting anybody.
I would watch baseball if that was the case, so I think it wouldn't be over on that one.
Okay, alright, that's fine.
Baseball would be less boring if we just let them...
Let them roid.
Yeah, exactly.
You know what?
It's like the Tour de France.
Did you see that?
The Tour de France, you know, they just excoriated, you know, Lance Armstrong.
Oh.
And I don't remember the number.
Because, you know, now they can retroactively go and test the samples.
Really?
With modern testing methods.
Yeah.
And they tested all of the other guys who he beat, you know, who sued him and were complaining.
And they had to go down to, like, number, I think it was 14, to find someone who was clean.
And now none of the records, none of the records are being set.
They were all set a few years ago, so.
No, it makes a big difference.
Yeah.
And by the way, you know what's interesting about that?
The difference of a man on steroids, picture the most jacked out dude on the bodybuilding stage, does not enjoy anywhere near the exponential hormonal advantage that a male enjoys over a female.
Arnold in his prime does not have a hormonal advantage over you that you do over her or her or her.
It's that big of a chasm.
I could probably concede to that.
I think that's probably maybe true.
I don't think it sways my... because I guess my question to you would just be, how do you address like the Leah Thomases and all the like transgender athletes who want to compete?
Your opinion is strictly, just so I'm clear, biological.
I'll give you two.
Okay.
So one is, and you're not going to like it, and you're going to think I'm a dick, you were competing as a man two years ago, you continue to compete as a man.
Okay?
That's the only fair way to do it.
Or, if I go along with the idea, which you have presented, and your peers here have presented, and your professors have presented, that gender and sex are different, then you have to change it based on gender, and create a third division?
Let me ask you this actually, it might help.
How many genders are there?
How many genders are there?
More than two?
I don't know.
More than three?
Why does it matter, I guess is my question.
Then you have to just create as many divisions as there are genders.
So one of those two.
You compete based on biology, like we always have, because it's what's safe, it's what's fair, it's what protects women.
Or, if you want to go with sort of modern gender theory, which I don't agree with, but I would allow for it in sport where, okay, I think Facebook has you up to 50-something genders now, maybe even be higher than that.
Great, 50-something sports divisions.
Compete in those against your gender.
It feels a bit, like, hyperbole to me, because I don't feel like there is a cry for that, for there to be 50.
No, of course there isn't.
They want to beat up on women.
Yeah, but I'm saying, I'm addressing your point that you're making currently, which is that I don't think that is an issue or a problem or anybody is calling for that to happen.
Create a third one where all the people can take all the hormones they want.
Is this your solution for the problem?
It's one of two.
My solution is you go with biology, because sports have been separated by biology.
If we need to protect trans athletes, I don't really know what that necessarily means.
I don't know how they're going to be harmed by not being allowed to dominate women at a swim meet.
Create a third division.
I mean, I would argue trans people do get the target of hate crimes fairly frequently, more so than your average person.
It's not a hate crime to not let them compete.
Oh no, I'm not talking about... I'm just talking about hate crimes in general.
If you want to talk about the protection of trans people.
But how are you protecting them by putting women, biological females, at risk?
I don't see that as a form of protection.
Well, so I think what it all kind of comes down to, and this is why I think that at the end of the day, women's sports are sort of a... and this is not me sort of conceding, because I still do, but at the end of the day...
It's very important, I think, that you affirm somebody's gender identity as they identify with it.
So I think it is harmful for the trans athletes to be told, like, if they identify as male, that they are not.
Yeah.
And so I see that... Ah, you just said male.
Uh-huh.
That's sex.
That's not gender.
Oh, sorry.
Whatever is the gender term.
No, you can't keep it straight, can you?
I mean, it's... Because it's silly.
It's a little silly, isn't it?
No, I am... Let me get down to a point.
For you to say you said trans men before, you... Hold on, this is... And I want to wrap this up here.
Because this isn't a gotcha.
This is me trying to... I don't fully understand your argument.
And then as long as I can respond after, you can... Well, because we do have to get going.
So I think you just presented your kind of closing sentiment here.
But it matters because the very first thing you did when you sat down, Do you remember what it was that you said?
I don't know.
You said you had a problem with the wording.
Uh-huh, yes.
And the problem that you had with the wording was that I kept saying biological males.
Yeah.
Right?
Yeah.
And you said we should use the term trans women.
Right?
Yeah.
But right now you just reverted back to saying they identify as females, males.
So you yourself, the biggest problem that you had when you sat down here It wasn't the biggest problem.
It was the first thing I said, but it wasn't the biggest problem.
Well, you said that your primary issue was with the wording.
I don't think it was primary.
I don't think that's what I said.
Okay, it's the first issue.
It's the first grievance that you issued, right?
But right now, you just committed the same sin.
I don't think so.
I mean, maybe I got my words mixed up, but I'm not going to sit here and claim that, like... You didn't get your words mixed up.
You were being very articulate.
And I think you've been articulate this whole time.
I think we disagree.
Well, thank you, yes.
But I really do think that you've been articulate, and I think you've been, um, I mean, you're probably the kind of, I don't know, you're probably not old enough to say, I would grab a beer with you, and we could sit there and talk.
I'm 21, so, yeah.
I don't know, sometime we could sit down and grab a beer.
But, um, you just did the same thing.
And that's my point with this.
I just don't think there's any intellectual consistency to it whatsoever.
You can't say, well, the term trans woman, because it's gender, it's different from sex, and then say they're allowed to compete with biological females, and then you just, and you've done this several times, you just said who identify as female or identify as male.
Yeah.
And that's my point, is it's an untenable position.
And I don't think it's about protecting trans women, to use your term now, see what I did there?
I think ultimately you need to look at the consequences that harm biological women, and they deserve those same opportunities.
My final point, I'm not gonna sit here and claim that the language is not confusing, or that all this stuff is not very new and uncharted territory.
I am not the most educated person in this.
Just because I do not understand something fully does not mean I should dismiss the validity of it.
You know, because obviously there are a group of people who, like, this is very important to them.
And just because, you know, I get mixed up on language... And there's an even larger group of people to whom it's important, and that's biological females.
Sure.
No, I'm just talking about the trans issue specifically.
But why not take into account biological females?
That's my point.
You don't seem to be concerned with them.
Oh, no, I'm not.
Listen, I'm not even addressing the sports thing.
I'm addressing what you were talking about with the language issue, which is that I am, you know, still learning a lot of stuff about this.
I am not the most educated person on it.
The language is confusing.
It's hard to integrate.
But at the end of the day, the complaints that people are levying are valid and it's something that I think people should approach with an open mind and just try their best to understand rather than shut it down immediately.
I think that's kind of where I stand on it.
Just because it is something that is new to you and maybe seems nonsensical, does not inherently disqualify it from being bad.
It's not new to me, it's something I've studied pretty extensively, and I do believe it's nonsensical.
And I would certainly say, if not the term nonsensical, it is absolutely untenable.
It's an untenable position to say that sex is biological, gender, Well, look at that.
I don't find the arguments particularly compelling, but respect, genuinely, to Isaac for sitting down with me and making his case like an adult.
Which reminds me, I wanted to ask you.
Have you had this discussion with people in real life?
Which arguments have you heard that were the most compelling as it relates to biological males competing in women's sports?
Just comment below.
And if you like what you see, hit the subscription button or consider tuning in Monday through Thursday 10 a.m.
Eastern for the full Daily Show.
Live.
That's 10 a.m.
Eastern.
Live.
And I mean yes, live.
That's actually live uncensored.
Back to the topic at hand.
Other times with these discussions you have to realize that some people have no interest I mean, what's the point of sports?
these topics openly and honestly. Like this guy.
It's a win.
Is there a woman who would like to speak to him?
And that miracle, my friends, is coming tomorrow.
So if you want to see more, smash the like button, comment below, bookmark the channel.
Come back tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Hold on a second, let me ask you, hold on a second.
So, I'm gonna give up my seat now.
Is there a woman who would like to speak to him?
And that miracle, my friends, is coming tomorrow.
So if you want to see more, smash the like button, comment below, bookmark the channel.
Come back tomorrow at 10am Eastern, just like every other day.
Hey everybody, if you like the clip you just saw, go ahead and smash that like button.
Smash it!
Also, feel free to go ahead and share it.
Why not share it with people you like or you don't like?
Landau Smash!
Landau Smash.
Crowder Smash.
Black Widow.
▲
Export Selection