The Political Controversy Of Matt Walsh's Documentary "What Is A Woman?" (6/8/22 9:42 PST) (1 Viewer)

[GordonGekko]

VIDEO: Matt Walsh Revisits His What Is A Woman Interview With Dr. Forcier  Jun 3, 2022

Matt Walsh revisits the interview he had with Dr. Forcier during the filming of his documentary What Is A Woman?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdDB8wU73NA

Forcier: Telling that family, based on that little penis, that your child is absolutely 100 percent male-identified, not matter what occurs in their life – that’s not correct…

Walsh: Have you ever met a 4-year old .... who believes in Santa Claus?…Would you say that this is someone who maybe has a tenuous grasp on reality....

Forcier: They have an appropriate 4-year old hand on the reality that’s very real for them....

Walsh: Agreed. Santa Claus is real for them but Santa Claus is not actually real....

Forcier: But Santa Claus does deliver their Christmas presents...

Walsh: Well yeah, but he’s not real though...

Forcier: To that child they are...

Walsh: But I see a child who believes in Santa Claus…but say this is a boy and he says I’m a girl . This is someone who can’t distinguish between fantasy and reality, so how could you take that as a reality?

Forcier: I would say that as a pediatrician and as a parent I would say how wonderful my 4-year old and their imagination is....

Walsh: One of the (puberty blockers for children)drugs used, is Lupron right, which is used to chemically castrate sex offenders....

Forcier:  I don't think we should continue this interview....Again, I'm a physician, and I give medication, you are choosing exploitative words...

VIDEO: Representative Mark Takano gets very nervous with Matt Walsh Jun 3, 2022

Representative Mark Takano, during an interview for the documentary What is a woman? Matt Walsh asked him why women should share locker rooms with men.

"And you're not going to find out..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZj9LkcFrhk

VIDEO: Matt Walsh: “What Is A Woman?” Clip Reaction Video! Fascinating. Jun 8, 2022

Matt Walsh: “What Is A Woman?”

Dr. Patrick Grzanka: "Why do you ask that question?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XmdMJ3hbtg

VIDEO: Crowder on "What is a Woman?" Documentary | Louder With Crowder Jun 7, 2022

Matt Walsh asks nearly impossible questions to the left. The answers will leave you speechless!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VszcfrG6-xw

"What Is A Woman?" Reviews With Short Clips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9lGvRdjIio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jWX7d1WNlc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH_Vza10bgM

https://youtu.be/18tfP98VFfQ?t=682

********

Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire has received numerous death threats for his recent documentary "What Is A Woman?"  Ben Shapiro claims The Daily Wire received a massive cyber attack to stop the premiere of the documentary on it's opening night. 

So, to you, here's your chance to answer from your perspective in detail - What Is A Woman?

I'll leave this here for others to discuss.

 

[George Costanza]

Dude revels in being a bigot. Every time I see him appear on Fox News, or read a tweet from him, I think to myself: "What absolutely horrible take is this a##hole going to take now? I know it's bound to be the worst one possible." His entire schtick is to poke the liberals, nothing more. One of the worst people out there...

 

[rockaction]

Been seeing this on Twitter, thanks to Matt Taibbi. I can't say I've heard anything even remotely good about Matt Walsh, even from mainstream centrists and mainstream rightists. I'd have to either watch the film on its purported merits or read a review by somebody I trust. I think the minefields associated with this are potentially too great to hold a true and well-earned opinion about it. 

 

[unckeyherb]

Dude revels in being a bigot. Every time I see him appear on Fox News, or read a tweet from him, I think to myself: "What absolutely horrible take is this a##hole going to take now? I know it's bound to be the worst one possible." His entire schtick is to poke the liberals, nothing more. One of the worst people out there...

Totally serious question, can you give me your three top bigoted quotes from Matt Walsh?  And please be specific,, don’t just say “he’s bigoted towards trans people”.  
 

thanks

 

[BladeRunner]

Totally serious question, can you give me your three top bigoted quotes from Matt Walsh?  And please be specific,, don’t just say “he’s bigoted towards trans people”.  
 

thanks

I would like to know this as well.  A lot of times this turns out to be nothing more than, "I disagree with his politics so I'm going to demonize him even though it's not based in reality and on anything specific".

Y'know, the typical  we see from the left side of the aisle.

 

[moleculo]

********

Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire has received numerous death threats for his recent documentary "What Is A Woman?"  Ben Shapiro claims The Daily Wire received a massive cyber attack to stop the premiere of the documentary on it's opening night. 

So, to you, here's your chance to answer from your perspective in detail - What Is A Woman?

I'll leave this here for others to discuss.

I am one of those weirdos who believes that people have rights and freedoms, including the right of self-definition. These rights are unalienable, endowed from our Creator.  Further, I respect the rights and freedoms of others to define themselves as they see fit.  Asking to define "what is a woman" implies that others can't make that definition on their own accord, and that's not something I'm comfortable doing.

so my answer to your question - none of my damn business.

 

[BladeRunner]

I am one of those weirdos who believes that people have rights and freedoms, including the right of self-definition. These rights are unalienable, endowed from our Creator.  Further, I respect the rights and freedoms of others to define themselves as they see fit.  Asking to define "what is a woman" implies that others can't make that definition on their own accord, and that's not something I'm comfortable doing.

so my answer to your question - none of my damn business.

+10 Virtual VirtuesTM awarded. 

You're a really good person and everyone deserves to see that. 

Of course, throughout recorded history and up until a few years ago the question "What is a woman" would've been met with laughter and derision because, well, there never was any question.  But now we've got people that seem to have completely forgotten even the most basic of human biology, nature and history, all in an attempt to accrue some kind of virtue, IMO.

Follow the science *.

* Unless it doesn't prove your assertions.  Then don't follow it.

 

[moleculo]

+10 Virtual VirtuesTM awarded. 

You're a really good person and everyone deserves to see that. 

Of course, throughout recorded history and up until a few years ago the question "What is a woman" would've been met with laughter and derision because, well, there never was any question.  But now we've got people that seem to have completely forgotten even the most basic of human biology, nature and history, all in an attempt to accrue some kind of virtue, IMO.

Follow the science *.

* Unless it doesn't prove your assertions.  Then don't follow it.

I'm not sure the science is as clear as you assume.  is gender determined solely by genitalia?  What about those born with both or indeterminant?  Is gender determined by genetics?  What happens if someone has an 2 X chromosomes but also a penis?

 

[unckeyherb]

I am one of those weirdos who believes that people have rights and freedoms, including the right of self-definition. These rights are unalienable, endowed from our Creator.  Further, I respect the rights and freedoms of others to define themselves as they see fit.  Asking to define "what is a woman" implies that others can't make that definition on their own accord, and that's not something I'm comfortable doing.

so my answer to your question - none of my damn business.

That’s all fine.  Demanding that everyone around you accept your modified world view is a bridge to far.  Affirming feminine male children as self identifying as female or masculine female children as identifying as male is too far.  Allowing biological males, that were obviously males last fall, to compete as women against women in sports is too far.  

It should be noted that, while people like you may find it offensive to ask “what is a woman”, it should be a relatively easy question to answer.  However, everyone interviewed in this movie not only struggles to answer, they all don’t answer and usually demand that the interview is over.  And I’m not talking about some purple haired 17 year old Wesleyan undergrad.  These are doctors, surgeons and professors of women's studies at university.  

 

[unckeyherb]

I'm not sure the science is as clear as you assume.  is gender determined solely by genitalia?  What about those born with both or indeterminant?  Is gender determined by genetics?  What happens if someone has an 2 X chromosomes but also a penis?

Do you think those extreme outliers, like the very ends of the margins, are representative of what is being discussed?

 

[moleculo]

That’s all fine.  Demanding that everyone around you accept your modified world view is a bridge to far.  Affirming feminine male children as self identifying as female or masculine female children as identifying as male is too far.  Allowing biological males, that were obviously males last fall, to compete as women against women in sports is too far.  

It should be noted that, while people like you may find it offensive to ask “what is a woman”, it should be a relatively easy question to answer.  However, everyone interviewed in this movie not only struggles to answer, they all don’t answer and usually demand that the interview is over.  And I’m not talking about some purple haired 17 year old Wesleyan undergrad.  These are doctors, surgeons and professors of women's studies at university.  

that should tell you that it's much more complicated than what you learned in 7th grade.  

 

[BladeRunner]

I'm not sure the science is as clear as you assume.  is gender determined solely by genitalia?  What about those born with both or indeterminant?  Is gender determined by genetics?  What happens if someone has an 2 X chromosomes but also a penis?

Thanks for proving my point. 

Like I said, throughout recorded history and up until a few years ago this was a very basic and simple answer to a question NO ONE asked.  The fact that you have to ask it shows, IMO, that you're purposefully doing it to muddy the waters and pretend like this is a very complex question all to push The MessageTM.  It isn't a complex question.  It never has been and isn't now.

 

[moleculo]

Do you think those extreme outliers, like the very ends of the margins, are representative of what is being discussed?

I think they exist in a higher frequency than you assume.  There are probably lots of different causes.  Here's the first one I found  - Swyer syndrome.  Affects 1 in 80k people.  That's not a lot, but it's probably 4k Americans.

 

[unckeyherb]

that should tell you that it's much more complicated than what you learned in 7th grade.  

No, it’s not.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think they exist in a higher frequency than you assume.  There are probably lots of different causes.  Here's the first one I found  - Swyer syndrome.  Affects 1 in 80k people.  That's not a lot, but it's probably 4k Americans.

Intersex conditions are all (I think) caused by various developmental abnormalities.  They don't have anything to do with gender identity.  The overwhelming majority of trans women are just as male as you and I are. 

 

[unckeyherb]

I think they exist in a higher frequency than you assume.  There are probably lots of different causes.  Here's the first one I found  - Swyer syndrome.  Affects 1 in 80k people.  That's not a lot, but it's probably 4k Americans.

But these are not who we are talking about and you know this

eta I see @IvanKaramazov already said the same

 

[Stealthycat]

women fought so hard for equal rights and somehow now, a very small % of men wanting to be women has been embraced, celebrated and now?  being woman is a choice, a frame of mind .... everything has changed, women are now no more special than a man  (and they always have been in so many ways) and I find that incredibly sad 

 

[moleculo]

Intersex conditions are all (I think) caused by various developmental abnormalities.  They don't have anything to do with gender identity.  The overwhelming majority of trans women are just as male as you and I are. 

My point is that there is a non-zero percentage of our population for whom it is medically difficult to determine gender.  Is that number so small that it's not worth discussing?  Maybe.  Where do we draw that line?  1 in 100k?  1 in 1k?  1 in 100?

 

[moleculo]

But these are not who we are talking about and you know this

eta I see @IvanKaramazov already said the same

how would I know this?   how would anyone know this?   It's a medical condition, which again...none of my damn business.

 

[unckeyherb]

how would I know this?   how would anyone know this?   It's a medical condition, which again...none of my damn business.

Because you are posting in a thread about a specific documentary entitled "What is a woman" and you are posting with some confidence that you know what you are talking about.  I presumed you watched the movie, as a response to said confidence.  Having presumed you watched the movie, I similarly presumed you were aware that the people in question, the people to whom he is inquiring about their transitioning, are not intersex or people with developmental abnormalities or Swyer syndrome.  He is mostly questioning the push of gender-affirmation of kids under the age of 18 and more broadly the inherent problems with gender ideology and its real world affects to things like sports, where males are being allowed to dominate females in sports that up until last week were intentionally divided up by sex.

ETA:  That is how you would know this.  Obviously.

 

[moleculo]

Because you are posting in a thread about a specific documentary entitled "What is a woman" and you are posting with some confidence that you know what you are talking about.  I presumed you watched the movie, as a response to said confidence.  Having presumed you watched the movie, I similarly presumed you were aware that the people in question, the people to whom he is inquiring about their transitioning, are not intersex or people with developmental abnormalities or Swyer syndrome.  He is mostly questioning the push of gender-affirmation of kids under the age of 18 and more broadly the inherent problems with gender ideology and its real world affects to things like sports, where males are being allowed to dominate females in sports that up until last week were intentionally divided up by sex.

ETA:  That is how you would know this.  Obviously.

I posted an answer to a direct question from the OP.  The movie was presented as background.  If viewing that movie was a prerequisite to the question "So, to you, here's your chance to answer from your perspective in detail - What Is A Woman?", then I stepped out of line and I retract my reply.  

 

[glvsav37]

Each of those clips was like watching Borat...just with the roles reversed. 

 

[unckeyherb]

I posted an answer to a direct question from the OP.  The movie was presented as background.  If viewing that movie was a prerequisite to the question "So, to you, here's your chance to answer from your perspective in detail - What Is A Woman?", then I stepped out of line and I retract my reply.  

Fair enough.  In a thread titled "The Political Controversy Of Matt Walsh's Documentary "What Is A Woman?" I guess, yeah, watching the documentary is kind of a pre-req

 

[rockaction]

Somebody should have started humming the Bee Gees and said, "You mean you want to know what is more than a woman, don't you?"

More than a woman 
More than a woman to me...

 

[GordonGekko]

I posted an answer to a direct question from the OP.  The movie was presented as background.  If viewing that movie was a prerequisite to the question "So, to you, here's your chance to answer from your perspective in detail - What Is A Woman?", then I stepped out of line and I retract my reply.  

I generally provide my own analysis when I start a top level thread.  I didn't in this case.

Part of the reason is, as a retired Tier 1 Media Optics professional closer, something Matt Walsh does very well in "What Is A Woman?" is use effective silence. It's not just a basic intermediate interviewing technique, it's also used in sales, marketing, advertising, leadership, command, negotiations, etc, etc.

I'm actually not a huge fan of Matt Walsh. He is a Conservative but I'm not generally keen on his style, pacing and his engagement tone in general. However I think his general approach is extremely effective in this case ( mostly because Dallas Sonnier produced this film, his style is all over it) and within this topic. He waits people out, because many people within this spectrum of discussion ( especially the educators and "experts" and health care professionals) are used to counter narratives that only work in a verbally combative situation.

Natural counters for anyone driving "Identity Politics" almost always line up with escalation of hostility. It's why the "cancel culture" is so pervasive. It's not discussion, it's not thoughtful, it's not give and take -  it's just pure brute force that's been wedged as socially acceptable by threatening careers and livelihoods.

I've provided enough video, short clips and background material to gauge most of "What Is A Woman?" without posting the actual full documentary.

This is an opportunity to give your answer as you have, which you already did.

And then watch all the videos listed above, as presented, and give your answer again. That answer might still line up as before. Or something might have changed. Either way is fine. And if something changed, even if slight, then Matt Walsh has achieved his goal. Not that you agree, but that the exploration of his perspective can be more than just tolerated.

That's fair.  That's more than fair.

Something to consider is what I just posted is 10,000 times more fair than what many radical leftists have given me here in the last year and half. And given that's true, because it is true, what does that say?

Matt Walsh might be exactly what some people believe - Someone trying to monetize the open pathway to provoking other people.

But does he have a point? Are some of the questions he raise valid? Are they worth discussion? Did he provide something where viewers had an opportunity to learn something new from the people he interviews?

Just because some people are offended, it doesn't mean they are right.

Just because Matt Walsh can be offensive, doesn't mean he's wrong here. Not in absolute terms.

So, as a Conservative ( well probably a fiscally conservative leaning Libertarian in the PSF realm, since so many posters have been driven away in all the years I was gone) , I invite you to watch the videos, consider your thoughts and share them.

 

[moleculo]

I generally provide my own analysis when I start a top level thread.  I didn't in this case.

Part of the reason is, as a retired Tier 1 Media Optics professional closer, something Matt Walsh does very well in "What Is A Woman?" is use effective silence. It's not just a basic intermediate interviewing technique, it's also used in sales, marketing, advertising, leadership, command, negotiations, etc, etc.

I'm actually not a huge fan of Matt Walsh. He is a Conservative but I'm not generally keen on his style, pacing and his engagement tone in general. However I think his general approach is extremely effective in this case ( mostly because Dallas Sonnier produced this film, his style is all over it) and within this topic. He waits people out, because many people within this spectrum of discussion ( especially the educators and "experts" and health care professionals) are used to counter narratives that only work in a verbally combative situation.

Natural counters for anyone driving "Identity Politics" almost always line up with escalation of hostility. It's why the "cancel culture" is so pervasive. It's not discussion, it's not thoughtful, it's not give and take -  it's just pure brute force that's been wedged as socially acceptable by threatening careers and livelihoods.

I've provided enough video, short clips and background material to gauge most of "What Is A Woman?" without posting the actual full documentary.

This is an opportunity to give your answer as you have, which you already did.

And then watch all the videos listed above, as presented, and give your answer again. That answer might still line up as before. Or something might have changed. Either way is fine. And if something changed, even if slight, then Matt Walsh has achieved his goal. Not that you agree, but that the exploration of his perspective can be more than just tolerated.

That's fair.  That's more than fair.

Something to consider is what I just posted is 10,000 times more fair than what many radical leftists have given me here in the last year and half. And given that's true, because it is true, what does that say?

Matt Walsh might be exactly what some people believe - Someone trying to monetize the open pathway to provoking other people.

But does he have a point? Are some of the questions he raise valid? Are they worth discussion? Did he provide something where viewers had an opportunity to learn something new from the people he interviews?

Just because some people are offended, it doesn't mean they are right.

Just because Matt Walsh can be offensive, doesn't mean he's wrong here. Not in absolute terms.

So, as a Conservative ( well probably a fiscally conservative leaning Libertarian in the PSF realm, since so many posters have been driven away in all the years I was gone) , I invite you to watch the videos, consider your thoughts and share them.

I typically don't like watching videos for this kind of thing.  I'm impatient and a skimmer - I find it difficult to do that on video.  I also like to cross-reference and look up other things while reading.  I am aware youtube has a pause button, but I find it easier to do so while reading.

But i digress.  Because I did comment on your post without watching the videos, and because I was called out on that, I will go back and watch the videos.  You are correct - it's more than fair.  But I won't be able to do so until late tonight.

 

[unckeyherb]

Somebody should have started humming the Bee Gees and said, "You mean you want to know what is more than a woman, don't you?"

More than a woman 
More than a woman to me...

All I see is Johnny Five dancing with a young Ally Sheedy.

 

[Manster]

I'm not sure the science is as clear as you assume.  is gender determined solely by genitalia?  What about those born with both or indeterminant?  Is gender determined by genetics?  What happens if someone has an 2 X chromosomes but also a penis?

There's always outliers......but what's happening to our youth is something different.  That's the whole point of what Walsh is doing.

 

[The Big Donkey]

Somebody should have started humming the Bee Gees and said, "You mean you want to know what is more than a woman, don't you?"

More than a woman 
More than a woman to me...

made me think of this

 

[Snotbubbles]

I am one of those weirdos who believes that people have rights and freedoms, including the right of self-definition. These rights are unalienable, endowed from our Creator.  Further, I respect the rights and freedoms of others to define themselves as they see fit.  Asking to define "what is a woman" implies that others can't make that definition on their own accord, and that's not something I'm comfortable doing.

so my answer to your question - none of my damn business.

Even if I agree with everything you say, there are laws on the books that protect "women" (14th Amendment, Title VII, etc.) and therefore, the question, "what is a woman" needs to have a definitive answer so that the laws as written may be applied to an individual.  The legal system can't take the "none of my damn business" approach.  

 

[moleculo]

Even if I agree with everything you say, there are laws on the books that protect "women" (14th Amendment, Title VII, etc.) and therefore, the question, "what is a woman" needs to have a definitive answer so that the laws as written may be applied to an individual.  The legal system can't take the "none of my damn business" approach.  

good point.

 

[moleculo]

I typically don't like watching videos for this kind of thing.  I'm impatient and a skimmer - I find it difficult to do that on video.  I also like to cross-reference and look up other things while reading.  I am aware youtube has a pause button, but I find it easier to do so while reading.

But i digress.  Because I did comment on your post without watching the videos, and because I was called out on that, I will go back and watch the videos.  You are correct - it's more than fair.  But I won't be able to do so until late tonight.

@GordonGekko - I was able to get about 1/2 of the first video last night..  I apologize, I hope to get thru all of the rest.  My initial thoughts are that the woman is trying to explain some complex concepts while Walsh refuses to even try to understand.  Instead, he mocks her and asks ridiculous questions that show he has no interest in understanding what she has to say.  Reminds me a lot of the PSF, to be honest.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm actually not a huge fan of Matt Walsh. He is a Conservative but I'm not generally keen on his style, pacing and his engagement tone in general. However I think his general approach is extremely effective in this case ( mostly because Dallas Sonnier produced this film, his style is all over it) and within this topic. He waits people out, because many people within this spectrum of discussion ( especially the educators and "experts" and health care professionals) are used to counter narratives that only work in a verbally combative situation.

Natural counters for anyone driving "Identity Politics" almost always line up with escalation of hostility. It's why the "cancel culture" is so pervasive. It's not discussion, it's not thoughtful, it's not give and take -  it's just pure brute force that's been wedged as socially acceptable by threatening careers and livelihoods.

This is spot-on by the way.

I know a bunch of people who are Marxists, of one flavor or another.  If you ask one of those people to stand in front of a podium and explain why Marxian views on economics (say) are correct, they can calmly and patiently explain their viewpoint and make an affirmative case for it.  They'll go on for hours this way if you let them.  You can ask questions, and they'll answer you directly without getting mad or defensive.  Marxism is mostly wrong IMO, but it's a confident and muscular ideology that isn't afraid of being questioned. 

Woke progressivism is nothing like this.  These people hold the views that they've been told to hold by whichever group happens to be most marginalized at the moment, and nobody ever stops to ask if those ideas make sense or even harmonize with one another.  They get no pushback whatsoever in woke spaces, so they haven't been battle-tested.  When you tug at the slightest thread, you trigger a bunch of defensive cognitive dissonance and just get ad hominems in return.  I think a lot of progressives know this, and that's why they don't want to give this ideology a name -- it's an embarrassment.  It's a flaccid ideology that rightly lacks self-confidence, but unfortunately has resorted to bullying instead of just receding into the background.  

When you get rolled so easily by Matt Walsh, you might stop and reflect on where you lost your way.  But that won't happen.

 

[Boston]

This is spot-on by the way.

I know a bunch of people who are Marxists, of one flavor or another.  If you ask one of those people to stand in front of a podium and explain why Marxian views on economics (say) are correct, they can calmly and patiently explain their viewpoint and make an affirmative case for it.  They'll go on for hours this way if you let them.  You can ask questions, and they'll answer you directly without getting mad or defensive.  Marxism is mostly wrong IMO, but it's a confident and muscular ideology that isn't afraid of being questioned. 

Woke progressivism is nothing like this.  These people hold the views that they've been told to hold by whichever group happens to be most marginalized at the moment, and nobody ever stops to ask if those ideas make sense or even harmonize with one another.  They get no pushback whatsoever in woke spaces, so they haven't been battle-tested.  When you tug at the slightest thread, you trigger a bunch of defensive cognitive dissonance and just get ad hominems in return.  I think a lot of progressives know this, and that's why they don't want to give this ideology a name -- it's an embarrassment.  It's a flaccid ideology that rightly lacks self-confidence, but unfortunately has resorted to bullying instead of just receding into the background.  

When you get rolled so easily by Matt Walsh, you might stop and reflect on where you lost your way.  But that won't happen.

It is the natural extension of political correctness...PC on steroids...if you question them, you are a bigot, a phobe or whatever else they need to call you to shut you up.

 

[moleculo]

This is spot-on by the way.

I know a bunch of people who are Marxists, of one flavor or another.  If you ask one of those people to stand in front of a podium and explain why Marxian views on economics (say) are correct, they can calmly and patiently explain their viewpoint and make an affirmative case for it.  They'll go on for hours this way if you let them.  You can ask questions, and they'll answer you directly without getting mad or defensive.  Marxism is mostly wrong IMO, but it's a confident and muscular ideology that isn't afraid of being questioned. 

Woke progressivism is nothing like this.  These people hold the views that they've been told to hold by whichever group happens to be most marginalized at the moment, and nobody ever stops to ask if those ideas make sense or even harmonize with one another.  They get no pushback whatsoever in woke spaces, so they haven't been battle-tested.  When you tug at the slightest thread, you trigger a bunch of defensive cognitive dissonance and just get ad hominems in return.  I think a lot of progressives know this, and that's why they don't want to give this ideology a name -- it's an embarrassment.  It's a flaccid ideology that rightly lacks self-confidence, but unfortunately has resorted to bullying instead of just receding into the background.  

When you get rolled so easily by Matt Walsh, you might stop and reflect on where you lost your way.  But that won't happen.

I don't disagree with you, but "identity" is much more personal than "economic system".  It's inherently different to discuss who someone is than how they think an economy should be organized.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't disagree with you, but "identity" is much more personal than "economic system".  It's inherently different to discuss who someone is than how they think an economy should be organized.

Old-school feminists, civil rights advocates, and supporters of gay rights weren't like this.  

Andrew Sullivan could write long-form articles explaining to conservatives why gay marriage is good and why they should support it.  Woke people can't tell you what a woman is.  That's an incredibly stark contrast.

 

[moleculo]

Old-school feminists, civil rights advocates, and supporters of gay rights weren't like this.  

Andrew Sullivan could write long-form articles explaining to conservatives why gay marriage is good and why they should support it.  Woke people can't tell you what a woman is.  That's an incredibly stark contrast.

is it possible there is some recency bias at play? I mean, this was almost 30 years ago.

Or maybe social media amplifying outrage?  Give everyone a soapbox, and you will see a lot of angry people shouting.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

is it possible there is some recency bias at play? I mean, this was almost 30 years ago.

Or maybe social media amplifying outrage?  Give everyone a soapbox, and you will see a lot of angry people shouting.

Ask yourself if a popular show on network television could openly poke fun of Pride Month in 2022, and you'll see that things are different today than they were when Seinfeld was on television.  Jerry Seinfeld himself has talked about this sort of thing before, in terms of not being able to do comedy on college campuses.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Discussion of outliers is nothing more than a distraction to this topic. Statistically meaningless and even if given weight doesn't even matter. 

"What about intersex" isn't a real question. Because by asking about them, you are already answering the question. They are intersex. Great, now back to the discussion. 

 

[unckeyherb]

Discussion of outliers is nothing more than a distraction to this topic. Statistically meaningless and even if given weight doesn't even matter. 

"What about intersex" isn't a real question. Because by asking about them, you are already answering the question. They are intersex. Great, now back to the discussion. 

It’s not unlike the, “what about incest” argument w/r/t abortion.  This accounts for something like .5% of abortions but it always seems to come up in those debates as though it’s a really representative cross section of abortions.  

None of the people that Matt Walsh are talking about (and also none of the folks on the other side of the conversation) are intersex so it’s really just a red herring to avoid the conversation.  
 

 

[unckeyherb]

@GordonGekko - I was able to get about 1/2 of the first video last night..  I apologize, I hope to get thru all of the rest.  My initial thoughts are that the woman is trying to explain some complex concepts while Walsh refuses to even try to understand.  Instead, he mocks her and asks ridiculous questions that show he has no interest in understanding what she has to say.  Reminds me a lot of the PSF, to be honest.

When he asks the Doctor a ridiculous question like, how a boy is to know whether he is a boy or a girl and her response is, “it’s a constellation”, I think it’s totally fair to assume the person answering is either being absurdly coy, or actually malevolent.  Both options are based on an ideology that is not rooted in science.  That she is a doctor that takes pride in prescribing hormone blockers and chemical castration drugs to 16 year olds is galling.  She should, at a minimum, be mocked.  

 

[moleculo]

When he asks the Doctor a ridiculous question like, how a boy is to know whether he is a boy or a girl and her response is, “it’s a constellation”, I think it’s totally fair to assume the person answering is either being absurdly coy, or actually malevolent.  Both options are based on an ideology that is not rooted in science.  That she is a doctor that takes pride in prescribing hormone blockers and chemical castration drugs to 16 year olds is galling.  She should, at a minimum, be mocked.  

why do you think she  "its a constellation" means she is being absurdly coy or malevolent?  

My interpretation is that a constellation is a lot of discrete data-points that, when viewed in totality, paints a picture.  A single star does not define a constellation, and just like any single characteristic does not determine gender.  And, that absolutely can be rooted in science (I cited an example above).

 

[moleculo]

Discussion of outliers is nothing more than a distraction to this topic. Statistically meaningless and even if given weight doesn't even matter. 

"What about intersex" isn't a real question. Because by asking about them, you are already answering the question. They are intersex. Great, now back to the discussion. 

I think the conversation has gotten off track.  No one said "what about intersex". 

I brought up a condition where women (female genitalia) have an X and Y chromosome. As far as I know, they are not considered intersex.  I posed that as evidence of an underlying medical condition that might make gender classification difficult.  In this case, diagnosis via examining chromosomes would give you a different answer than a physical examination.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

why do you think she  "its a constellation" means she is being absurdly coy or malevolent?  

My interpretation is that a constellation is a lot of discrete data-points that, when viewed in totality, paints a picture.  A single star does not define a data point, and just like any single characteristic does not determine gender.  And, that absolutely can be rooted in science (I cited an example above).

Because -- in practice -- literally nobody thinks that it's difficult or even remotely challenging to tell the difference between men and women.  Doctors don't need to consult anybody to determine the sex of 99.9% of humans that they deliver.  Neither do nurses.  Neither do parents.  

You can tell the difference between a cat and a dog right?  I mean, you don't think that's a challenging game that would require any practice on your part to prepare for, I assume.  But it's not actually all that easy to articulate exactly what the difference between cats and dogs is in everyday English (try it -- you'll see what I mean).  The problem here is not that cats and dogs are actually the same or that "cats" and "dogs" are just social constructs.  The problem is that language sometimes struggles a bit to keep up with human cognition.  That's the problem that you're encountering here.

 

[moleculo]

Because -- in practice -- literally nobody thinks that it's difficult or even remotely challenging to tell the difference between men and women.  Doctors don't need to consult anybody to determine the sex of 99.9% of humans that they deliver.  Neither do nurses.  Neither do parents.  

You can tell the difference between a cat and a dog right?  I mean, you don't think that's a challenging game that would require any practice on your part to prepare for, I assume.  But it's not actually all that easy to articulate exactly what the difference between cats and dogs is in everyday English (try it -- you'll see what I mean).  The problem here is not that cats and dogs are actually the same or that "cats" and "dogs" are just social constructs.  The problem is that language sometimes struggles a bit to keep up with human cognition.  That's the problem that you're encountering here.

99.9% is doing some work here.  This doctor specializes in that last 0.1%.  Can you recognize why she would think the answer is a bit more complicated?

 

[Jayrod]

I am one of those weirdos who believes that people have rights and freedoms, including the right of self-definition. These rights are unalienable, endowed from our Creator.  Further, I respect the rights and freedoms of others to define themselves as they see fit.  Asking to define "what is a woman" implies that others can't make that definition on their own accord, and that's not something I'm comfortable doing.

so my answer to your question - none of my damn business.

I think this is the EXACT root of the problem.  Definitions are not an individual right, never have been and never should be.  I've never heard of this before and if you and others believe it we have found the culprit.

If I run around calling myself the President of the United States, that could cause some problems (and I believe is illegal if I try to pass myself off as such to others).  If I say I am a black man, that could cause some problems (as as white as they come).  If I say I am an angel of death sent to kill everyone, that can cause some problems.

Sure there are innocuous ones like saying I'm the reincarnation of Elvis or a potato pancake that don't really cause any trouble for others, but there is no right of self-determination for a myriad of reasons.  You are what society agrees you are.  You can have a lot of say in that, but you aren't the final word.  And while gender isn't as dangerous as the first group of self-definitions I chose, it isn't innocuous for many of the reasons this is a debate today (bathrooms, sports, legal issues, etc.)

I'm a middle-aged white man because that is what society has labeled me as.  I didn't choose it, but it is a fact and a fact that everyone around me recognizes and acts accordingly.

"Saying" I'm something else doesn't change the facts no matter how much I want it to be true.

Life isn't fair and we can't do and be whatever we want.  Selling anything contrary to that to society is dangerous to both the individual and society as a whole, yet that is exactly what liberal society is doing.  They are telling people that they can improve their lives and be happier if they get this right of self definition.

A woman is a woman because we have a scientific definition of a woman is that includes her physiological makeup.  Trying to mix that up and completely redefine it so some people who are either confused or happen to be an extremely rare exception to the rule get to self-define is not healthy and actually helps no one. 

Prove to me that a person being able to choose their gender and their pronouns actually helps that person live a better life over the long run.  Look around you and you'll see, they aren't actually happier and they aren't actually better off...they just have something else to be upset or unhappy about.  Pronouns don't change who you are inside and relying on them to do that and giving that indication to children and adolescents is doing them a great disservice.

 

[moleculo]

I think this is the EXACT root of the problem.  Definitions are not an individual right, never have been and never should be.  I've never heard of this before and if you and others believe it we have found the culprit.

If I run around calling myself the President of the United States, that could cause some problems (and I believe is illegal if I try to pass myself off as such to others).  If I say I am a black man, that could cause some problems (as as white as they come).  If I say I am an angel of death sent to kill everyone, that can cause some problems.

Sure there are innocuous ones like saying I'm the reincarnation of Elvis or a potato pancake that don't really cause any trouble for others, but there is no right of self-determination for a myriad of reasons.  You are what society agrees you are.  You can have a lot of say in that, but you aren't the final word.  And while gender isn't as dangerous as the first group of self-definitions I chose, it isn't innocuous for many of the reasons this is a debate today (bathrooms, sports, legal issues, etc.)

I'm a middle-aged white man because that is what society has labeled me as.  I didn't choose it, but it is a fact and a fact that everyone around me recognizes and acts accordingly.

"Saying" I'm something else doesn't change the facts no matter how much I want it to be true.

Life isn't fair and we can't do and be whatever we want.  Selling anything contrary to that to society is dangerous to both the individual and society as a whole, yet that is exactly what liberal society is doing.  They are telling people that they can improve their lives and be happier if they get this right of self definition.

A woman is a woman because we have a scientific definition of a woman is that includes her physiological makeup.  Trying to mix that up and completely redefine it so some people who are either confused or happen to be an extremely rare exception to the rule get to self-define is not healthy and actually helps no one. 

Prove to me that a person being able to choose their gender and their pronouns actually helps that person live a better life over the long run.  Look around you and you'll see, they aren't actually happier and they aren't actually better off...they just have something else to be upset or unhappy about.  Pronouns don't change who you are inside and relying on them to do that and giving that indication to children and adolescents is doing them a great disservice.

good response.  I appreciate it.

My response is to your last paragraph.  Much like you claim we don't have the right to self define (and I concede - that's a good point), we don't have the right to happiness either.  We do, however, have the right to pursue happiness (per the D of I).  It's irrelevant if you or I think people choosing their gender and pronouns gives them a better life - they have that right to pursue that if they think its the right path for them.

 

[Dez89]

Been seeing this on Twitter, thanks to Matt Taibbi. I can't say I've heard anything even remotely good about Matt Walsh, even from mainstream centrists and mainstream rightists. I'd have to either watch the film on its purported merits or read a review by somebody I trust. I think the minefields associated with this are potentially too great to hold a true and well-earned opinion about it. 

Matt Walsh is awesome.

 

[Dez89]

I think this is the EXACT root of the problem.  Definitions are not an individual right, never have been and never should be.  I've never heard of this before and if you and others believe it we have found the culprit.

This is how they control the culture, by controlling and changing language to meet their needs.  For example, gender only had one definition for 10,000 years up until about 8 years ago.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

good response.  I appreciate it.

My response is to your last paragraph.  Much like you claim we don't have the right to self define (and I concede - that's a good point), we don't have the right to happiness either.  We do, however, have the right to pursue happiness (per the D of I).  It's irrelevant if you or I think people choosing their gender and pronouns gives them a better life - they have that right to pursue that if they think its the right path for them.

I agree with all of this, by the way.  

I know this seems pedantic, but if a male tells me "I want to live my life as a woman," my response is okay, fine, knock yourself out.  Who am I to stand in your way?  If that same person were to say "I am a woman," it triggers a philosophical objection about the nature of sex and how we describe gender identities, and it also changes our language in a way that makes it difficult to talk about sex.  I've argued elsewhere that I think "making it difficult to talk about sex" is the exact point of these language games, but even if it's just an accidental byproduct, that's still pretty bad.  

A person might argue that I should just get over it and live with this terminology because really what's the big deal.  But then it's just as valid for me to argue that TRAs should get over it and just live with the same language that's served us well for several millennia.