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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
