It's painful to watch, but remember these are the people who told you to trust the science. So Bill Maher and Neil deGrasse Tyson kind of went at it, you know? Neil deGrasse Tyson is like the McDonald's of scientists, and he's like the Ronald McDonald of

scientists. No, he's the McDonald's in general, kids of scientists. The Jared, he's the Jared of scientists. There you go. And Bill Maher is always, I hate, he's always a daylight in a dollar short, right? But now he's, he acknowledges that, hey, we've gone so far with the left to

say that there's no biological advantage between men and women in women's sports. And the left keeps saying these are not issues we care about, yet they still try and stand behind the policy. And you'll see this with Neil deGrasse Tyson. He could very easily, considering how much

he's mocked Christians and, and, and you know, monotheists for a very long time. It should be just as easy for him to say, yeah, okay, there's obviously a biological difference between boys and girls. Yeah, but he refused to concede that on the Bill Maher show. It's painful to watch, but

remember these are the people who told you to trust the science. This is in Scientific American, yeah, less than a year ago. 'Inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes, but of biases in how they are

treated in sports.' That's nuts, and it sure ain't scientific. And it's in Scientific American. And that's why the Democrats lost the election. It's true, Bill. Every 20 minutes on your platform you come up with another reason why the Democrats lost. You already, you already

have the answer they lost the election so anything you say is why they did it engage with the idea here what I'm asking is Scientific American is saying basically that the reason why an NBA WNBA team can't beat the Lakers is because of societal bias what you're

saying is not Scientific American says that an editor for Scientific American says that who no longer has the job the scandal is not her tweet the scandal that was like a year ago was it which one was a year ago I think a year ago women

still couldn't beat men in basketball or any other sport and it wasn't because of society say the truth Neil you don't see a problem long distance swimming women might actually have the oh my god oh one example look into that yeah maybe long distance swimming yes okay yeah what

else I've looked into it well I'm going to file you under part of the problem yeah here's the thing he's such an arrogant prick he goes I've looked into it it's always I know something you don't know okay what do

you know about boys and girls males and females that allows you to suggest that there's no biological advantage for males I've looked into it okay tell me what you found Neil and people tell you you're not a scientist you're right I'm

not but I've got it in front of me he makes the one okay Grant I'm the one exception long-distance swimming because it's really the only area where a higher body fat percentage allows for more buoyancy all right okay you're not talking about a serious competitive

Sport you're talking about basically Jack Lane swimming two yachts across the English Channel, it's a gimmick, okay? When he says I don't know that there are biological advantages uh for men, let me rattle these off for you really quick: bone density, lung capacity, body fat

percentage, percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers, the testosterone average levels in the male versus female body. For a man, it's between 300 to 1200 nanograms per deciliter, for a woman, it's 20 to 70. You're not hearing that wrong.

300 to 1200 nanograms per deciliter for a woman it is is 20 to 70. In other words, the walking human pin cushion on the Mr. Olympia stage, roided out of his mind, does not enjoy the hormonal advantage over any man in this room that we enjoy over the

average woman, and it's not even close. So you looked into it Neil, you looked into it. Tell me what it is that you found. I'm tired of this gatekeeping BS, and it's anti-scientific when he talks, oh we don't know, okay? All right, so that's

empirical. Let's go to the anecdotal then. We talk about medals and records. 900 medals from over 600 female athletes, records have been set by biological males in female sports. Weightlifting for men, running 200 meters, 300 meters, you look

at swimming, you look at whether it's 200 yards, whether anything. Every example, hey if you like this video, we're probably like-minded and you may enjoy some more content. You can click that video, watch another one, uh or tune in weekdays at 10:00 a.m.

eastern cuz we're like we're the same you and me we're kindred spirits

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a Big P*ssy

CrowderBits

스포츠의 생물학적 성차에 대한 닐 드그래스 타이슨과 빌 마허의 논쟁에 대한 비평.

빌 마허와 닐 드그래스 타이슨은 스포츠에서 남성과 여성의 생물학적 차이에 대해 의견을 달리합니다.

마허는 좌파의 생물학적 차이를 부정하는 것을 비판하며 그들의 주장과 정책 사이의 불일치를 강조합니다.

타이슨이 과거 일신론자들을 비판한 것은 스포츠에서 생물학적 차이를 인정하지 않으려는 태도와 대조적입니다.

생물학적 고유성을 부정하는 사이언티픽 아메리칸의 기사는 과학적 결함의 예로 인용됩니다.

불평등이 생물학이 아닌 사회적 편견 때문이라는 이 기사의 주장은 터무니없는 것으로 간주됩니다.

사이언티픽 아메리칸의 기사와 그 의미에 대해 토론합니다.

마허는 이 기사가 민주당의 선거 패배에 기여했다고 주장합니다.

이 토론은 사회적 편견이나 생물학적 차이가 남녀 간의 운동 경쟁에 영향을 미치는 주요 요인인지에 초점을 맞추고 있습니다.

사이언티픽 아메리칸 기사와 그 저자를 둘러싼 논란에 대해 언급합니다.

장거리 수영은 체지방이 높은 여성에게 도움이 될 수 있는 잠재적 예외로 제시됩니다.

닐 드그래스 타이슨의 주장과 주장에 대한 분석.

마허는 이 주제를 철저히 조사했다는 타이슨의 주장에 이의를 제기합니다.

이 문제를 연구했다는 타이슨의 주장에 의문이 제기됩니다.

타이슨의 장거리 수영 예외는 경미하고 비정형적인 사례로 기각되었습니다.

스포츠에 참여하는 남성의 구체적인 생물학적 이점(골밀도, 폐활량 등)이 나열되어 있습니다.

남성과 여성의 테스토스테론 수치에 상당한 차이가 있음을 강조합니다.

경험적 및 일화적 증거를 제시합니다.

마허는 타이슨이 증거를 무시한 것을 '게이트키핑 BS'와 '반과학적'이라고 비판합니다.

여자 스포츠에 출전하는 생물학적 남성이 획득한 메달 수가 그 증거로 인용됩니다.

동영상은 시청자가 더 많은 콘텐츠를 시청하도록 유도하는 클릭 유도 문안으로 마무리됩니다.