Neil sitting there like “bruh I’m an astrophysicist, why am I here” 😭😭😭

Producer: How close should you and the guest be sitting? Ben: Yes.

Neil is saying "Don't obsess on transgenderism and don't use science to fuel radical ideas" but trying to not say it out loud

Person: **disagrees** Ben Shapiro: "Time to talk faster."

I've never seen a man watch his own words so carefully in a conversation.

"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” ― Milton Friedman

I love how Ben tries to pull Neil towards his arguments and how Neil instead doesn't buy into his biases and so eloquently difuses his focus to the reality of what constitutes science and sociological realities present in our world today. Brilliant!!

Neil really got me thinking towards the end. He implies people have formed a mental connection between the discovery of an objective truth and a societal outcome based on that finding. I think that understanding that people think that way makes a lot of what's going on right now make a lot more sense. People have agendas and so they want to discover the objective truth they agree with so that their agendas can be pushed. Meanwhile, they want the opposite of their objective truth to never get discovered, so the enemies' agendas can't get pushed. I quite like Neil's solution of finding an objective truth and then not allowing that truth to oppress anyone. It reminds me of a Carl Jung quote I really like: "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."

WOW! Inviting a guest on a show, with a different point of view ,and letting them express their view! That's an interview. Thank you!

Idegaf about the arguments, the fact that they’re both so civil is just a breath of fresh air honestly

Why their knees so close!?!!?!?

Neil is at a whole different level intellectually.

Neil is very dishonest here. He is trying so hard not to offend people and the way he try to dodge the question by answering with question. He switch to talking about "People Expression, People freedom". Yes. Neil. We already knew that. Still Great Video.

I don’t think this is even a debate. It’s literally just Neil talking about “culture wars” and making sure Ben doesn’t get a catchy soundbite out of him

NDT way of thinking in this dialogue feels to me so much more unique, probably the most detailed, observationally aware and justly humanitarian way I’ve heard anyone talk, politically speaking, about transgenderism.

"So why aren't you a libertarian?" Because I'm smart and I don't need a word to hide behind.

I'm glad I'm watching a normal debate with no insults being thrown around and actual points being made.

This is a great example of how debating should be handled.

Ben calling himself a “libertarian” is the funniest thing i’ve ever heard

"if we live in a free country, as we tell ourselves, it shouldn't matter" thanks Neil :)

“I’m happy to opine on this” The most uncomfortable he’s ever looked

This is so valuable! Finally a discussion with two people with opposing views that is not a shouting match. This type of discussions is what society needs. It invokes critical thinking

I just watched a civil debate, no yelling, minimum interruptions, and no disrespect. Amazing.

Neil said a whole lot, didnt really let Ben respond, and Neil still went nowhere with his answers and questions aside from he doesnt want new laws based on what science discovers which is also stupid. He also talks a lot about taking rights away from people specifically the trans community, but playing in pro sports isnt a right, and going into any bathroom isnt a right, and using any locker room isnt a right but giving people who identify as woman the right to invade these spaces takes away the right of the women since they have those spaces SPECIFICALLY to be safe, away and private from men. The whole point of women sports was to give women a chance to play professionally and make money.

“What are you trying to accomplish (by telling the truth)?” - A scientist.

Neil is "happy to opine on this." And adds, "why do we give a shit about this?" And, "freedom to behave in any of these ways, should not concern you at all" And, "I don't see anything meaningful solutions" And, "People express themselves on a spectrum." And, "what are you trying to accomplish by asking yourself, is it science or is not science?" Neil was sooooo uncomfortable with this topic. I am a Ben fan, but I agree with other comments that he should have hit harder on this. This was one of Neil's most unscientific interviews ever.

All I know is that whenever I talk about science, people on both the political left and the political right get upset-for different reasons-because the science doesn’t support their political prejudices. I’d rather spend my time with people who neither seek to silence scientific inquiry nor twist it into excuses to violate the rights of others. Doesn’t seem like much to ask.

He is so afraid of the backlash and cancelling that he is not even responding to simple question. Basically everything he said is "It exists so... it exists"...

He was trying so hard to avoid answering the question because he knows the answer but knows he will be heckled by leftists for giving the answer that science will say

Neil is trying so hard not to get cancelled lmao

I did my bachelor's in psychology in India and I am currently studying special care education in Montreal, Canada. And one thing mentioned to me in either of the courses is that "if a child thinks that he's not being loved by his parents, irrespective of it being true or not, it's the child's reality". So similarly, if someone identifies oneself as a male or female gender it's their reality. Shoving the so-called truth down their throat won't help. However, since it's personal to a transgender person they shouldn't try shoving their truth down other people's throats too. The school's calendar shouldn't be changed based on what one's closet looks like. A man identifying as a woman shouldn't go to the women's washroom, because of someone rapes another women it's gonna bring shame to trans community only. Sports shouldn't have any influence coz a man identifying oneself as a woman still has more bone density and strength. Nothing true to be found. Truth is only as true as seeker's intention. Let whoever be whatever! Be kind, be polite, and most of all be accepting.

I’ve never in my life considered a debate between these two men. This is immensely fascinating.

They bring this up so often, like they accidentally date a transgender woman and are now angry that they couldn’t notice it before that one night

I like that Neil is having a civil argument, whilst Ben doesn’t really have an argument, but is still civil. I wish people could talk like this more.

He is talking like a cult leader, lots of words but ignoring the actual question. What a cop out, NDT.

This is definitely where I lose Neil… he is wimping out so bad it hurts. He does not want an opinion on this because its way too scary for him.

Absolute fact: Ben gets owned by Astrophysicist.

"Why do you give a shit?" Very scientific, Neil.

Riddle: When is a scientist NOT interested in facts? Answer: When they are leftists afraid of speaking facts for fear of being canceled.

20 seconds in and I can see Ben knows he’s getting no where.

I don't understand Shapiro's logic in trying to be explicitly Scientific. Sociology and Psychology are social sciences, gender expression is not outside the realm of science. Science is about discovery and so this new phenomenon of gender expression in the western world shouldn't be shut down as nonscientific rhetoric. We're trying to figure it out and explain it and accept individuals that identify with it because it exists as a social phenomenon whether you like it or not.

Ben sounds like I’m watching the video at 2x speed, and then Neil sounds like I’m watching the video at 0.5x speed

NDT: "This only matters because today we segregate nearly all sports by gender." REALITY: "Sports segregated by gender, Prisons segregated by gender, Restrooms segregated by gender, Biology segregated by sex, Medical diagnoses segregated by sex, Legal charges against violence also segregated by sex" NDT: I can't find a significant solution (regarding the sports situation). REALITY: "if we can't find a significant solution. Why does that happen?"

This is the first time I’ve seen Neil not have an argument, he kinda just rambles to the conclusion of “who cares”

Neil does an incredible job of pointing out the biases we hold when attaching labels to ourselves. That being said, hats off to Ben for not regulating the comment section and posting the video in the first place when an overwhelming majority is in favor of Neil.

Great to see two people with very different political perspectives sitting down in this days and age and having a civilised debate.

"why we even give a shit" Neil got my ass there

“Why does this matter other than sports” Uhh…how about bathrooms/locker rooms, private schools/classes segregated by gender, and to use a recent example, beauty contests.

Hahaha, Neil spanked Ben so hard. Ben is used to arguing with teenagers and not adults that actually know what they are talking about. Well done Neil.

this conversation did not went the way Ben wanted it^^

It’s terrible cringe watching him squirm around the obvious

Was this a surprise topic for Neil? He seems completely unable to discuss this both scientifically and rationally.

I agree with both sides of the argument. The thing about freedom (particularly when it exists alongside equality) is a two-way street. If everyone is free to express themselves however they please, then you are free to go through life acting like a cliche example of the opposite sex if that’s what you choose, and simultaneously, other people are free to react to your choices however they choose. Freedom comes with a price: and that price is growing a thick skin and accepting other people’s criticism of the more obscure among your free life choices. Otherwise there is, by definition, at least some degree of oppression involved. How you choose to live your life is up to you. How other people respond to it, is not.

Why is Ben so obsessed with this issue it literally does not effect him or his wife as far as she’s concerned Ben is a Ken doll

Question to scientist about science: Answer: 'Let's ignore the SCIENCE and talk about sociology'

Ben: Are transgender women biological women? NGT: Why does that matter ? What are you getting at? lolololol

You know shits goin somewhere when the scientists talk politics and the politicians talk science.

The same way Ben can't understand why someone is gay is the same feeling that gay guy has wondering why Ben cares so much... isn't that crazy?

The amount of cope in the comment section is UNREAL ! And what are people using to counter hard facts ? FEELINGS !!! You can't make this shit up

Neil "feels" Ben "facts" Neil "I'm a scientist" "factual statement about societal opinion" Ben "yes, but reality " I'm paraphrasing, of course, but you get the point.

Neil deGrasse Tyson rocks.

I'm glad Neil came at this with the idea that it doesn't matter in most regards because it's a free country and someone's choice on how they live THEIR life.

Ben thinking he is a libertarian is hilarious

"People express themselves on a spectrum." People do a lot of things, like reading Tarot cards or raiding "haunted" places, that does not bring what they do to the realm of science.

Both these men are sitting uncomfortably close to each other

That was excellent. Neil’s point that it is true and real because it manifests, was so simple, yet so powerful. There really was nothing else to debate after that. I’ve never seen Ben Shapiro so quite.

“We need a way to protect people’s freedoms” Unless we’re talking about 2A rights. -Neil Degrasse Tyson

This is rich. He doesn’t hesitate to bash Deism on the basis of science but when science undisputedly establishes a truth he brings up excuses. So now Sports is a higher factor than evolution for him. “Looking for truth” my a$$.

Shapiro: *rigid application of science and preexisting definitions to support his own beliefs* Neil: *acceptance of the reality in front of him, and curiosity about it without personal imposition over it* . I appreciate the exchange of ideas, and it's nice to see that hot topics don't need to blow up out of proportion. Yeah, we need a different way of separating sport categories, but that's so unimportant to society, that limiting personal freedom over it seems absurd. ALL sports had their rules changed multiple times: change them once again and go on with our lives.

Ngl, I tried writing 20 different comments to this to try and not get myself cancelled due to daring to have my own opinion on the matter and its extremely hard. Kudos to Neil for taking this matter on.

Civilized with a touch of humor, as all things should be.

Came for the “he’s afraid of being cancelled” comments Was not disappointed

The thing is that the wrong description of a woman or man is being taught in schools. Woman or Man under its definition has always been socially clear what it is and that it is defined according to the biology of the person even before birth. Just because someone doesn't feel identified with their sex doesn't make the word "man" or "woman" suddenly change its definition. So we must base ourselves on objective facts about their meanings and therefore a trans-woman is not a woman but a man who has changed into a woman, by definition, whether it offends you or not. Another solution may be to change the entire meaning of these terms "woman" and "man" and use their use according to how someone identifies, but still, therefore there should be a name that refers to the gender with which that you were born before you could even reason and identify whether you identify with your own gender or not, let's call it "in-fact-men", "in-fact-women". (I find this solution to make things more complex and confusing than they should be) Under this new implementation you could then argue without being able to deny in any way that a trans-women is an in-fact-men, and therefore they will most likely feel offended again. So this shows that we are re-defining the meaning of words not by their truth but by whether they are offended or not (by feelings), a rule which if we applied it to all fields we would have a confused society and we would all be moving away from reality (aka true) instead of discovering it and getting closer and closer.

It’s amazing to see even kneeling to the pressure to speak “accordingly””. He tried to not be emphatic on talking about plain scientific truth. He dodges direct simple questions, which is not his usual. Sometimes he responds asking a question as if they should not even be talking about this, but well….they are.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo

Ben: “transgenderism is a…” Neil: “IF YOU VALUE MOUNTING CLIMBING “

Loved this. Study everything figure it out. Politicians stay out of it. I'm all for people believing and expressing themselves as long as they dont try and FORCE their beliefs on me. Emphasis on force. Open debate is fine. I love how Shapiro and Grasse agreed and disagreed but stayed civil and understood the others point of view respectfully. People lack respect now a days. Respect is about believing the other person isn't trying to be malicious just because they disagree with you, in a debate.

Neil: We live in a free country. Ben: I want to make decisions for everyone, based on my religion, morals and personal feelings.

NDT isn’t making sense here. Just because there’s some “spectrum” of something, that doesn’t mean we can’t make abstract fact-based generalizations about specific points within that spectrum. All light exists on a spectrum, yet blue is distinct from red is distinct from green is distinct from orange. Male becomes different from female at *some point* in that spectrum, and science should be used to explain that reality, not to justify throwing our hands in the air and pretending that there’s no distinction.

Neil doesn’t belong in this discussion, as a science guy, he’s all of a sudden post modernist talking about this?

Ive also noticed that the same people talking about being worried that the constitution will be changed are the same people trying to change the constitution. Weird.

Ben Shapiro was way too softball and polite on this one, Neil didn't even answer any of the questions, he was constantly stuttering and tripping over words to dodge them!

Now this is how two people with opposing views should talk to each other. What a better world we’d live in of we did more of this.

Why does society treat neil like hes smart, he takes 30 seconds finish a half ass sentence

Wow I haven't seen many people making Ben Shapiro look like the less smart person on the chat. Absolutely amazing

Neil was just rambling trying to avoid losing his leftist teen following on TikTok, he can't lose the last shred of his popularity. Very disappointed Mr. Tyson 😢

The cope in this comment section is deliciously hilarious.

“I don’t care what the science says when it comes to public policy and peoples freedoms”. Its an equivalent to “I dont care what the religious texts say when it comes to public policy and people’s freedoms. “

There should be no debate on transgenderism and sports. It is well documented in the scientific literature the advantages males gain during pubescent androgenization are for the most part, irreversible. Adult transgendered females (either by castration, hormonal blockade, or both) lose only modest (5%) amounts of lean body mass and explosive strength, attributes important in most sports. As long as we are dividing sports into male and female categories, adult transgendered females should be deemed not eligible for female sports. That being said, I believe gender dysphoria is a real clinical and biological entity and that there is a Darwinian explanation for it. I also believe that many patients with gender dysphoria can be helped with gender reassignment surgery. We should be tolerant of this biological phenomenon and allow for legislation and funding to help those with gender dysphoria.

People sharing their thoughts without screaming and loosing their cool. This is what I call CLASS😎

AND he gets frustrated when Ben asks him questions he cannot answer or does not WANT to answer. 😆😆😆 He's as bad as Bill Nye. 🙌🏻💯

I love Neil's point towards the end, people seem to be under the impression that what science currently "says" (i.e. the scientific consensus on any particular topic) is 100% fact and all there is to know on it. What a lot of people don't realise is that science is an activity in discovery, and science is necessarily incomplete. If something happens in the world that science doesn't have an explanation for, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it means that scientists need to study it and find out why they were wrong and update the information. TLDR; if the scientific consensus doesn't match up with reality, then it's up to science to change to fit reality, not the other way around

This was a very hard-nosed butting of heads... like to of those rams that like almost kill each other doing it- yet so polite and civil. Even while like sooooo contentious and adamantly opposed, they maintained a sense of respect and civility. We NEED this kinda conversation more in our society.

I’m tired of hear Neil’s answers that aren’t answers at all.

Damn Neil is trying so hard not to get canceled 🤣

The law of human equality is the basis for equal rights, but the difference between a right and a privilege is that rights are for everyone, while privileges require merit. And anything that requires a certificate or registration number, is by definition a privilege, rather than a right. Which is why marriage is not a right, but a privilege instead, because having a marriage certificate is by definition a privilege the same as having a driver's license is a privilege, rather than a right. So, because marriage is a privilege, rather than a right, it will mean that there is a criteria in place that must be met before a certificate can be granted. But the lower the criteria is, the lower the merit that’s required in order to obtain a marriage certificate; Meaning that gay rights to marriage lowers the criteria for marriage, rather than increasing it to higher standard. So, because a married couple can file for adoption, it will mean that it is the rights of children that are being neglected in order to hand out privileges to same sex couples, which is a crime against humanity, because an adopted child has a God given right to a proper mother and father according to the correct definition of what a male and female is so that the child’s conscience is not conflicted at an early age by a same sex couple pretending to be mommy and daddy in order to fulfil their depraved sexual fantasies involving a child. Laws in society should be a reflection of Biblical morality, because it is Biblical morality that defines what is right and wrong, rather than law. So, anything that is Biblically defined as amoral, should never be defined as a legal right, which includes gay marriage, because being gay is defined as amoral on the basis that being straight is morally correct universally according to the male and female principles of God’s creation. Today, we have the New Atheist movement telling us that it’s okay to be gay, and that it’s okay to abort unborn children, and that these unborn children are just animals for the slaughter anyway. When in reality, this is the same kind of backwards logic as Baal worship historically, because the justification for this has come out as being the need for more rights to freedoms with their own body in order to pleasure themselves with in front of society, when society includes young children as well. According to the US Pew Research Center for National Statistics, 94% of atheists are in favour of gay rights to marriage, while the Biblical interpretation of marriage has been defined as being for one man and one woman only. Which not only means that the New Atheist movement of today is by definition a gay rights movement, but also, it means that it is the Bible that requires defending from a legal premise, rather than the evolutionary theory of ape to man, which happens to be the current basis for an individual's denial of morality. *Quotation: David Thorstad (October 15, 1941 - August 1, 2021) was an American political activist who co-founded a number of homosexual rights groups and was a former President of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance. In 1977, Thorstad founded the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights. He later engaged in pedophilia and pederasty activism with the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), of which he was a founding member. Thorstad described himself as a bisexual pederast and atheist who was active in Trotskyist (Communist) politics for some years. For more than six years, he was a member of the Upper West Side branch of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and a staff writer for its newspaper, The Militant. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophilia and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve what it considers coercion. The group no longer holds regular national meetings, and as of the late 1990s (to avoid local police infiltration) the organization discouraged the formation of local meetings. Around 1995, an undercover detective discovered there were 1,100 people on the organization’s rolls. NAMBLA was the largest group in International Pedophile and Child Emancipation (IPCE), an international pro-pedophile activist organization. In December 1977, police raided a house in the Boston suburb Revere. Twenty-four men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of the statutory rape of boys aged eight to fifteen. NAMBLA serves as a conduit for an underground network of pedophiles in the United States who use their NAMBLA association and contacts therein and the Internet to obtain and promote pedophile activity. In April 2013, the hacktivist group, Anonymous, prevented NAMBLA’s website from being accessed as part of an operation dubbed “Operation Alice Day.” The timing of the attack coincided with Alice Day, a Pedophilia Pride Day celebrated by a small group of pedophiles and their supporters on April 25. - Source: Wikipedia Encyclopedia (David Thorstad). So, it is thereby definitive that rights are being removed from citizens in order to grant privileges to a minority of people who are denying basic moral principles, because adopted children are being exposed to amoral sexual behaviour at an early age due to lobbying efforts by atheism, which was the very same legal issue that caused NAMBLA to become a hidden atheist society. While the other clear indicator which demonstrates that rights are being removed from citizens in order to grant privileges to a minority of people who are denying basic moral principles, is the application of the evolutionary theory from the United States government, because it is the United States government that is openly discouraging people from learning about their Creator so as to describe an individual person as having derived from the animals instead, when nothing robs a person of their God given voice faster than being equated with a dumb animal. A Supreme Court judge is not above the law, but interprets the law instead, and any laws that favour sexual immorality, such as gay marriage or reduced sentences for pedophiles for example, are to be refuted by the Biblical principles of universal morality. And the one event that still bares witness to the fact that Biblical morality is the basis for law in Western society, is the affair that occurred between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky who were shamed publically for the practice of adultery, which is how Biblical morality works from the premise of law.

These two are fascinating together. I’m not usually aligned with Shapiro’s beliefs but I do admire and respect how objective and purely factual he is above and below those beliefs. In this video, he is so focussed on scientific outlook that he has shifted Tyson over to taking a humanitarian stance in spite of science. It’s surprising and it makes my respect for these two surge. I didn’t see the whole interview, but I have a feeling Shapiro is going to respond to this by saying people on all sides of any argument deserve those same rights, but those who are opposite him would disagree. So the question remains on two different fronts: 1) where do we draw the line on a claimed gender’s legitimacy? and 2) how do we stop drawing the line on who deserves basic human rights?

This shows that in life, you should always find well spoken people with opposing views from yours, rather than hang around in an echo chamber.

I love this. Two people with different opinions debating like rational human beings. This is the world I want to live in. No angst, just two people having a respectful conversation about a controversial topic.

Neil was being super careful on his support for Transgenderism and not wanting to compromise the audience he speaks to and supports him. Very Careful.