CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 0:16
Show kickoff and distilled mead ("honey shine") tasting
Joe and Colin open the episode with Colin’s homemade distilled mead—how it’s made, what it is compared to whiskey/rum/brandy, and why it’s a uniquely ‘crafty’ spirit. Joe tastes it and offers a characteristically blunt review, setting a loose, comedic tone before the heavier topics.
- •Mead explained as a honey wine; distilled mead positioned like whiskey (distilled beer) or brandy (distilled wine)
- •Colin’s process: ferment mead dry, run it through a copper pot still
- •Joe tries it (100 proof) and reacts to the harshness
- •Quick discussion of flavor notes (honey/floral) versus alcohol burn
- •Transition from small talk into Colin’s writing and public work
- 0:16 – 2:47
Maynard Keenan’s mead and Colin’s motivation for distilling
Joe connects the mead discussion to having tried mead at Maynard Keenan’s vineyard, while Colin explains why he’s more interested in distilling than drinking mead itself. The conversation frames Colin as a hands-on tinkerer who enjoys experimentation—an early hint of his ‘skeptical’ orientation.
- •Joe recounts trying mead at Maynard Keenan’s place in Arizona
- •Colin describes tasting ‘honey’ and ‘floral’ notes in distilled mead
- •Distilling as a craft: hard to replicate what bees produce in honey
- •Practical how-to steps for home distillation
- •Light banter that tees up Colin’s Substack title
- 2:47 – 9:26
Reality’s Last Stand: Colin’s case for two sexes (and why it’s controversial)
Colin introduces his Substack and his central argument: biological sex is binary (male/female) and not a spectrum. Joe jokes about cancellation, but the discussion quickly turns serious—Colin claims academics face chilling effects when stating what he sees as basic biology.
- •Colin’s thesis: two sexes; sex is not a spectrum
- •Chilling effect in academia around publicly affirming binary sex
- •Joe references prior on-podcast arguments about abolishing male/female categories
- •Colin contrasts how scientists talk about sex in animals vs humans
- •Introduction of ideological roots Colin attributes to queer/critical theory
- 9:26 – 11:44
Defining sex biologically: gametes, anatomy, and ‘edge cases’
Colin lays out the technical definition of sex via gamete type (sperm vs ova) and explains how that maps to individuals, even when someone isn’t producing gametes at a given moment. Intersex conditions enter as the typical counterexample, and Colin argues they don’t negate the broader binary classification.
- •Sex defined at population level by gamete type/size (sperm vs ova)
- •Individual classification based on reproductive organization, not momentary gamete production
- •Common objections: adolescents, infertility, chromosomal variations
- •Intersex discussed as rare and often used rhetorically to imply a spectrum
- •Joe distinguishes ‘spectrum of traits’ within sexes from redefining sex itself
- 11:44 – 15:02
From New Atheism to ‘Atheism Plus’: the bridge to modern social justice politics
Joe asks why sex/gender and identity topics dominate culture now; Colin traces a lineage from the New Atheist movement to social-justice-infused activism. They discuss how ‘Atheism Plus’ imported moralized language and factionalism, foreshadowing broader institutional shifts.
- •Colin’s background: New Atheism, debates against creationism/intelligent design
- •Atheism Plus described as atheism merged with social justice priorities
- •Joe recalls conferences as heavy virtue signaling rather than skepticism
- •Claimed ideological throughline: appropriation/privilege language moving into new domains
- •Setup for the event Colin says accelerated the split: Elevatorgate
- 15:02 – 23:58
Elevatorgate and the collapse of shared norms inside movements
Colin recounts the Elevatorgate controversy (Rebecca Watson/‘Skepchick’ and Dawkins’ ‘Dear Muslima’ response) as a major inflection point. The story is used to illustrate how internal moral panics fracture communities, producing purity tests and long-term institutional fallout.
- •Elevator interaction reframed publicly as harassment; online backlash escalates
- •Dawkins’ sarcastic ‘Dear Muslima’ comment becomes flashpoint
- •Factional split: ‘classic skeptics’ vs ‘super woke’ activists
- •Colin argues New Atheism never recovered from the schism
- •Parallel drawn to later campus conflicts and broader social movements
- 23:58 – 27:46
Discrimination, language takeover, and why the debate keeps escalating
They explore how ‘discrimination’ is rhetorically conflated with ‘prejudice,’ complicating practical category-based decisions (like sports). Colin argues activists win by controlling language—especially by collapsing sex into gender identity—while Joe describes constant shifting rules for ‘allowed’ speech.
- •Reframing ‘discrimination’ as sometimes necessary categorization (e.g., kids’ leagues)
- •Critique of headlines that omit ‘biologically male’ when discussing trans inclusion in women’s sports
- •Joe’s ‘forced compliance’ framing and fear of job loss for stating biological claims
- •Colin’s ‘language takeover’ claim: sex terms increasingly used as identity labels
- •Institutional dynamics: self-censorship and asymmetric enforcement of norms
- 27:46 – 38:31
Trans women in women’s sports: fairness, puberty advantage, and IOC incentives
The discussion narrows to elite sports, using Laurel Hubbard as an example. Colin and Joe argue that male puberty confers durable performance advantages not erased by testosterone suppression, and they debate why governing bodies adopt inclusion policies despite widespread public skepticism.
- •Laurel Hubbard case and the perception of unfairness in women’s categories
- •Argument that fairness should compare athletes to their counterfactual (without enhancement), not just to other competitors
- •Female categories framed as controlling for male-puberty advantages
- •IOC policy discussed (testosterone thresholds, self-declaration) and why it ‘sounds scientific’
- •Claimed institutional incentives: DEI framing, activist pressure, and reputational risk
- 38:31 – 48:16
The evidence debate: what longitudinal studies say about hormone suppression
Colin cites recent sports medicine literature indicating modest declines in strength/lean mass after testosterone suppression, with trans women retaining advantages relative to cis women even after extended treatment. They argue critics dismiss or ignore the data when it conflicts with preferred conclusions.
- •Sports Medicine (2021) review: typical ~5% strength/lean mass change after 12 months
- •Performance gaps by sport often 10–50%, especially in explosive/upper-body strength
- •British Journal of Sports Medicine findings: advantages persist even after 36 months
- •Discussion of ‘bias’ accusations against authors and why that’s not a true COI
- •Joe’s claim that institutions market ‘inclusion’ while downplaying competitive integrity
- 48:16 – 56:08
Pronouns, non-binary identity, and redefining sexuality by ‘gender identity’
Joe and Colin pivot to language and identity categories: neopronouns, they/them, and the conceptual leap from sex-based attraction to attraction based on declared gender identity. Colin describes being told his own views imply he’s ‘non-binary’ and recounts absurd-seeming logic about bisexuality/pansexuality.
- •Colin’s stance: willing to use common preferred pronouns; rejects/limits neopronouns
- •Non-binary framed as ‘not identifying with assigned gender,’ expanding the trans umbrella
- •Identity definitions tied to stereotypes of masculinity/femininity
- •Redefining homosexuality/heterosexuality as gender-identity-based rather than sex-based
- •Social incentives (‘brownie points’) and category inflation critique
- 56:08 – 58:59
The ‘genderbread person’ and the sex-spectrum model taught in classrooms
Colin introduces the ‘genderbread person’ graphic as an example of how sex is reframed as sliding ‘maleness/femaleness’ based on secondary traits (voice, hair, body shape). He argues this confuses primary sex characteristics with secondary sex traits and risks validating stereotyped or bullying logic.
- •Genderbread chart: ‘femaleness/maleness’ slider replacing male/female categories
- •Sex described via traits like voice pitch, body hair, hormones, chromosomes
- •Primary vs secondary sex characteristics explained and why conflation matters
- •Biker vs cyclist analogy: vehicle (primary) vs gear/culture (secondary)
- •Concern about educational use and downstream conceptual confusion for kids
- 58:59 – 1:06:57
Cancel culture up close: Panics and Persecutions and the mechanics of online mobs
Colin explains Quillette’s compilation of cancellation stories as a corrective to claims that ‘cancel culture doesn’t exist.’ Joe and Colin argue that small, coordinated groups can create outsized institutional pressure, driving self-censorship and reputational fear across workplaces and academia.
- •Book premise: many ‘small’ cancellations never become visible data points
- •Self-censorship as the unseen half of the phenomenon
- •Examples of seemingly minor communities (e.g., Instagram knitting) becoming targets
- •‘Othering’ and specialized jargon as tools for moral accusation
- •Social media enables flash-mob coordination and institutional escalation (emails to employers, departments)
- 1:06:57 – 1:45:53
Is this engineered? Social media manipulation, institutional capture, and meaning voids
Joe speculates about adversarial manipulation (fake accounts, narrative shaping) and how fear of pile-ons erodes democratic culture. Colin adds an institutional-capture model (self-selection in hiring), then offers a broader thesis: as religion declines, some people fill the meaning gap with identity-based moral movements.
- •Joe’s concern: coordinated bot/fake-account campaigns can steer public opinion and intimidate dissent
- •Colin’s ‘institutional capture’ dynamic: hiring filters and ideological self-reinforcement
- •Comparison to religion-like features: orthodoxy, heresy, excommunication
- •Meaning-making thesis: declining religion leaves a vacuum; identity politics can fill it
- •Advice to minimize identity attachment to avoid ‘identity crisis’ when debating ideas
- 1:45:53 – 1:53:15
Psychedelics, religion, and the ‘anesthetic of familiarity’
They switch gears into psychedelics—Colin’s mushroom experiences and Joe’s broader reflections on altered states, DMT, and practices like Kundalini yoga. The conversation becomes a meditation on how humans form spiritual frameworks and how awe/novelty can reset perception.
- •Colin’s psilocybin experiences: intense insight feelings followed by sober reevaluation
- •Joe on DMT as a challenge to strict materialism; endogenous DMT curiosity
- •Kundalini yoga claims: potentially inducing DMT-like states via breathing/movement
- •Psychedelics as religious sacraments and possible origins of spiritual traditions
- •Dawkins’ phrase ‘anesthetic of familiarity’ and psychedelics restoring wonder
- 1:53:15 – 2:11:42
UFO/UAP debate: skepticism, pilot testimony, and ‘fun’ uncertainty
Joe argues recent UAP reports and military footage resist easy debunking, criticizing overconfident dismissals. Colin stays cautious, preferring human-technology explanations over aliens, while both agree the subject is captivating precisely because the uncertainty remains.
- •Pentagon-authenticated footage vs ‘aliens are real’ misinterpretations
- •Joe’s emphasis on pilot testimony (e.g., Fravor) and sensor/instrumentation sophistication
- •Mick West-style debunking criticized as insufficiently informed about military systems
- •Hypotheses: black projects, advanced drones, adversary tech, or unknown phenomena
- •Fermi paradox and distance constraints as context for extraterrestrial speculation
- 2:11:42 – 2:25:42
Science communication, Carl Sagan, and why universities feel ‘unsalvageable’
They close by praising science popularizers (Sagan, Tyson, Dawkins) and criticizing academic stigma against ‘popularizers.’ The conversation returns to institutional problems: DEI statements, HR filtering, social-media screening, and how these dynamics shape hiring, tenure, and the future of universities.
- •Defense of science communicators as essential to public understanding and curiosity
- •Carl Sagan anecdotes (cannabis pseudonym, popularizer stigma, SETI involvement)
- •Colin’s desire to move beyond culture war but feeling pulled back by stakes and scarcity of voices
- •Universities: DEI statements as political litmus tests; HR gatekeeping before departments review candidates
- •Social media discoverability reduces viewpoint diversity; tenure incentives filter out ‘bold’ dissenters
- 2:25:42 – 2:43:09
Can the university be saved? DEI screening, self-censorship, and tenure’s paradox
Joe presses on whether universities can return to viewpoint diversity; Colin is pessimistic, describing systematic barriers that prevent heterodox candidates from even being considered. They conclude that tenure is increasingly granted to those least likely to use it, reinforcing conformity rather than protecting academic freedom.
- •Prospects for reform vs need for alternative institutions
- •Mechanics of ideological filtering: DEI scoring, online vetting, reputational ‘liability’ fears
- •Colin’s hiring story: supportive department chair but HR blockage due to public writing
- •Critique of DEI as superficial demographic diversity that ignores viewpoint diversity
- •Tenure paradox: bold thinkers are screened out before tenure; conformists remain
