reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers on whether school policy penalizes students for misusing pronouns and whether such penalties amount to harassment or suspension. The first speaker raises the core question: “For clarification, is this the policy that's used if a student misuses a pronoun they are suspended? An intentional. Yeah. That's part of the definition, bullying.” They illustrate the concern with a hypothetical: if a student’s parents raise their child to respond to a female with she pronouns, but that student says “I want to be something else,” will their child be suspended for that? The implication is that misusing or resisting pronoun usage could trigger disciplinary action under the policy. The chain of reasoning then states: “Oh yeah that would be harassment.” The speaker expresses disbelief upon learning that students might be suspended “because they are using the wrong pronoun,” stating they were aghast and did not realize that such suspensions occur. The subsequent line shows a pushback from another participant: “Should be disagree with you saying that's incorrect.” This introduces a contest over whether suspending for pronoun usage is correct, but the rebuttal immediately pivots to a claim about biological facts: “Well, one is biologically facts.” The conversation asserts: “It's actually XX chromosomes, XY chromosomes. Those are facts. We can't change those. It doesn't matter what our opinion is. We can't change those things.” The speaker emphasizes that these chromosomal facts are immutable. From there, the speaker clarifies their main question: “Those are immutable facts. And I'm wondering, are we what I'm asking, my question is, are we suspending students for immutable facts? That's what I'm asking. Not for making it as genuine.” In sum, the exchange presents a concern that disciplinary actions related to pronoun use might target individuals based on disagreements about gender identity and pronouns, and it juxtaposes this with a claim about immutable biological facts (XX and XY chromosomes) as a basis for questioning whether suspensions are being applied to immutable facts rather than to conduct. The dialogue frames a tension between policy definitions of harassment and a set of assertions about biological determinism, seeking to determine whether suspensions are being imposed for immutable factual claims rather than for misbehavior.

I was teaching a class when this person came in calling me "sir." I am not a gentleman. Are you a woman? Do you menstruate, give birth, or lactate? It matters. I'm not playing games. I'm not a man, and your transformation isn't my business, but you're not women. Stop. I am respectful, but you're homeless people taking over the bathroom and yelling. You don't seem to understand you have a right to call me a man. We respect people, but you don't. I'm a paramedic. It doesn't matter. You're a sad human being. I'm a woman. The internet will teach you how to respect people. Just so you know, you're being recorded in Trump's America.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 for some history regarding their gender dysphoria to help with writing a letter. Speaker 1 explains that when they were in school, they wrote an essay expressing their discomfort with their biological sex and how they felt. However, people dismissed their feelings because they appeared to be male.

Transgender boys benefit from free tampons in bathrooms. Speaker 1 argues that only women menstruate, based on chromosomes. Speaker 0 counters that trans men and non-binary individuals also menstruate. Speaker 1 insists that they are women dressed as men, while Speaker 0 questions the definition of a man. They debate the distinction between sex and gender, with Speaker 0 asserting that they are different. Speaker 1 disagrees and accuses Speaker 0 of making up conclusions. Speaker 0 argues against denying someone's identity, while Speaker 1 denies being hateful. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 accusing Speaker 1 of being hateful.

The speaker expresses frustration about being misgendered and reacts strongly with disbelief. They attempt to correct the misgendering but are unsuccessful.

Speaker 0 expresses a desire to be respected for their unconventional choices, including killing from above and without reason. They accuse those who don't accept them of being intolerant and ask them to examine their privilege. Speaker 1 shares their personal experience of being born as a tank but feeling excluded from the numerous gender options available today. They question the purpose behind constantly inventing new genders.

The conversation revolves around the topic of transgender children and the use of medical interventions. Speaker 1 argues that there is no such thing as a transgender child and that they should be accepted as they are. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that some children may benefit from medical interventions if they choose to pursue them. The discussion becomes heated, with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of promoting child abuse and Speaker 0 accusing Speaker 1 of spreading misinformation. The conversation ends with both parties expressing their differing views and a lack of trust in each other's arguments.

Speaker 0 argues about genetics, Speaker 1 shifts to brain scans. Speaker 0 threatens violence. Speaker 2 mentions a criminal case involving a transgender person. Speaker 3 corrects someone on their gender, leading to a heated exchange.

This speaker rails against transgender people in the women's bathroom, opening with, "This new world where these people wanna go into the women's bathroom with your guys' children, and we're gonna think that this is okay." "That's the root." They say, "You can be whoever the fuck you wanna be," then urge listeners to imagine mothers at Disneyland as "this thing comes in the women's restroom" and ask, "Are you out of your fucking mind? Are you out of your mind?" They insist, "But I'm a woman. Look. I'm wearing the dress. It's pretty hot." They ask, "do you want this person in the women's restroom? I don't, and I'm a male." They claim "society is trying to make that acceptable" and lament, "I'm sick to my stomach." The remark concludes with, "That is a grown man with a mustache telling Charlie that he wants to be called a she."

A person is confronted and accused of being a transphobe who believes "trans kids should be cis kids." The person asks what makes a child trans and what gender is. Another person states you are born trans and gender is a spectrum, like a rainbow. A trans person says the person is playing god and "it fucks kids up." The trans person says the person should be ashamed and that they matter. The person being confronted asks someone to call the police, claiming assault. The trans person says the person is abusive and is spewing hate, not even knowing what gender is. The trans person encourages people to come down and tell the person that trans kids have rights. The person states they are waiting for police because they were assaulted.

Speaker 1 expresses that the situation is traumatizing and asserts that as a woman there is a space reserved for women. She questions the right of a transgender person to be in that space, stating, "he has a penis. A full and testicle. Okay? And and I don't care what it it's a man. You got one? You're a man." She argues that if they entered the men's section based on anatomy, it would be a man, and notes that they may not like women, but that for her and many other women, they do not feel comfortable and "it's not okay." She adds, "I'm sorry to talk to Okay? So well, I yeah. Yeah. You're sorry. You should be, sweetie, and you're out of alignment, and this is not right." She implies the other person is out of alignment and suggests attention to the situation, even commenting on the other person’s personal circumstances: "it must be hard not being a real man. Try it." She urges that every woman get all of their information. Speaker 0 responds, discussing a security guard who said that this is not allowed. Speaker 1 disregards the security guard's stance, insisting she does not care what the security guard says. Speaker 0 clarifies that the security guard doesn't want to be involved, and Speaker 1 insists that the guard should not have been present or allowed in the space. The exchange centers on whether a transgender person should be in the women's space and the authorities' stance on access. The discussion highlights discomfort, boundaries, and perceived inappropriateness from the perspective of Speaker 1, while Speaker 0 defers to the security guard's position. The dialogue ends with an emphatic consolidation of their stance: "Exactly. Thank you. Exactly. No."

The speakers are discussing the idea that transgender women do not exist. One person argues that if something racist was written on a door, it would be understood why it shouldn't be there, but the concept of transgender women is different. The other person tries to explain that not all people are born with the same gender identity, but the first person insists that a man can never be a woman. They both acknowledge a big gap in understanding between them.

I went to physical therapy at 7 in the morning and got misgendered by someone I had already told my pronouns to. I reminded them that my pronouns are they/them, and they acknowledged it. However, I had to repeatedly explain to my physical therapist that I didn't want to do an exercise that made me uncomfortable due to gender dysphoria.

Speaker 0 checks if the gender list has been updated, expressing frustration that there are 63 genders listed but not their own. Speaker 1 apologizes for assuming their gender. Speaker 0 insults Speaker 1 and claims to identify as an attack helicopter. They explain their desire to have surgical modifications to resemble a helicopter and request to be called a pilot. They demand respect for their right to harm others.

The speaker criticizes the medical industry and doctors for their lack of knowledge and understanding regarding trans rights and gender affirming care. They address a person named Barbara who suggests treating them as a female. The speaker, a trans guy, explains that they have undergone surgery and hormone therapy, which has transformed their body. They argue that it is dangerous and transphobic for Barbara to insist on treating them as a female. The speaker plans to report Barbara to the medical board for negligence and ignorance, emphasizing the importance of treating people based on their actual bodies and identities.

The speaker asks the other person if they are gay and criticizes them for being weak and electing Justin Trudeau. They express anger towards the trans community and claim that being trans is a mental illness. They also mention not wanting their kids to be taught about different genders or sexual preferences. The speaker sees the other person as an enemy to the world.

Trans women are women, but the speaker disagrees. They argue that nobody confronts the speaker's opinion and questions why anyone would want to be close to a trans woman. The speaker insults the trans woman, saying she doesn't look or act like a woman. The trans woman defends herself, stating that many people accept and support her. The conversation becomes heated, and the speaker asks the trans woman to leave their store. The trans woman mentions that some people find the situation hurtful, but the speaker dismisses their feelings, claiming not to care at their age. They mention their service in Vietnam as a reason for their indifference.

The speaker is asked about a previous statement regarding having a gay son. The speaker deflects the question and insults the interviewer. The interviewer then brings up the speaker's comments about the trans community and asks if they will continue to address it. The speaker goes on a rant, calling the trans community an infection and expressing opposition to teaching about gender diversity. The speaker concludes by labeling the interviewer as the enemy.

Transgender boys benefit from free tampons in bathrooms. Speaker 1 argues that only women menstruate, based on chromosomes. Speaker 0 counters that trans men and non-binary individuals also menstruate. Speaker 1 insists that they are women dressed as men, while Speaker 0 questions the definition of a man. They debate the distinction between sex and gender, with Speaker 0 emphasizing that gender is about identity. Speaker 1 claims that those who disagree are labeled as hateful, but denies harboring hate. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being hateful towards transgender men. The conversation ends unresolved.

I'm a biological male in a dress. Should I be punished for what I wear? You should act like a man because you are one. Those affirming your belief you're a woman are lying and disrespectful. It won't help you. Masquerading as a woman infringes on women's rights to their own spaces. You don't have that right, no matter how sincerely you believe you're a woman. Translation: I am a man in a dress. Should I be punished for what I wear? You should act like a man because you are one. Those who support your belief that you are a woman are lying and disrespectful. It will not help you. Pretending to be a woman violates women's rights to their own spaces. You do not have that right, no matter how sincerely you believe you are a woman.

Speaker 0 asks about the price, to which Speaker 1 responds with $69. Speaker 1 then asks about the pronouns Speaker 0 goes by. Speaker 0 questions why it matters and Speaker 1 explains they need to attend a gender queer protest. Speaker 0 asks for the protest time, but Speaker 1 gives a vague response. Speaker 0 then asks how many genders there are, and Speaker 1 estimates around 930. Speaker 0 insults Speaker 1, who doesn't care and mentions having Speaker 0's clothes. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has always lived there, and Speaker 1 explains it's their trans wife's place. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 married a man, and Speaker 1 confirms it. Speaker 0 repeats the question, and Speaker 1 says it's up to interpretation.

A speaker questions why a two-year-old child was asked about gender identity and preferred pronouns at a pediatric appointment, pointing out the child's age and limited understanding.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 about their pronouns. Speaker 1 identifies as "they/them" and Speaker 2 is interrupted before stating their pronouns. Speaker 2 then asks about the number of genders, and Speaker 1 expresses the need to address the issue seriously. Speaker 0 interrupts and says "enough." The conversation ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 asks, "What is a woman?" Speaker 1 says they are unsure how to answer the question. Speaker 0 states that a woman is an adult human female and that men cannot become women. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1's party of violence and erasing women, further claiming they don't respect women. Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 a bigot, misogynist, and sexist.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of spreading propaganda and not providing education. Speaker 1 questions if Speaker 0 will target the transgender community next. Speaker 0 interrupts Speaker 2, apologizes, and insults Speaker 1's understanding of the topic. Speaker 1 points out Speaker 0's lack of knowledge.