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

[moleculo]

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.  

the problem is, as @Snotbubblespointed out above, that "woman" has some distinct legal definitions - i.e. title VII, and I'd toss in title IX as well.  It's more than just language.  I don't have answers for all of those questions.    

My entire point in this thread, which it seems has gotten carried away, is that man/woman can be more complex than most of us old guys are comfortable with.

 

[Dez89]

the problem is, as @Snotbubblespointed out above, that "woman" has some distinct legal definitions - i.e. title VII, and I'd toss in title IX as well.  It's more than just language.  I don't have answers for all of those questions.    

My entire point in this thread, which it seems has gotten carried away, is that man/woman can be more complex than most of us old guys are comfortable with.

It really can't.  Don't dismiss it as being an old guy or old-fashioned, then you just play into their hands.

 

[unckeyherb]

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?

 No.  because she is not talking about the .1% with female genitalia and x and Y chromosomes.  She’s talking about every day run of the mill children as young as babies (her words) that express a different gender and affirming said gender thru hormone blockers and eventually surgery.  You keep going back to this as though she isn’t being clear in what she is saying.  

 

[Westerberg]

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.  

It seems that way of speaking is not serving us anymore, though.

I'm inclined to believe that a big part of this issue comes down to how we think about language. I'm of the mind that meaning in language comes from use. Wittgenstein and all that. We play language games and the meanings of words arise from these games. As such, a hot dog is not a sandwich. That is, you're not going to do a good job of getting a hot dog if you ask for a sandwich. You're playing the "asking for a hot dog game" wrong. Similarly, if you see a person that looks like a woman and refer to them as a man, that's probably going to cause problems for you. 

 

[moleculo]

It seems that way of speaking is not serving us anymore, though.

I'm inclined to believe that a big part of this issue comes down to how we think about language. I'm of the mind that meaning in language comes from use. Wittgenstein and all that. We play language games and the meanings of words arise from these games. As such, a hot dog is not a sandwich. That is, you're not going to do a good job of getting a hot dog if you ask for a sandwich. You're playing the "asking for a hot dog game" wrong. Similarly, if you see a person that looks like a woman and refer to them as a man, that's probably going to cause problems for you. 

Is this settled?

ETA: Looks like 2:1 for no.  Is that enough for a conclusive determination?

 

[Manster]

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.

Preach brother!

 

[FairWarning]

the problem is, as @Snotbubblespointed out above, that "woman" has some distinct legal definitions - i.e. title VII, and I'd toss in title IX as well.  It's more than just language.  I don't have answers for all of those questions.    

My entire point in this thread, which it seems has gotten carried away, is that man/woman can be more complex than most of us old guys are comfortable with.

Isn’t this where science comes into play?  How do insurance companies determine?  

 

[BladeRunner]

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.

Post of the year?  At the very least this should end the debate with a common sense and logic reason,  as it should.

 

[Dez89]

Post of the year?  At the very least this should end the debate with a common sense and logic reason,  as it should.

It should, but we have a country full of idiots.

 

[GordonGekko]

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?

VIDEO: Woke Politician Turns Into Stuttering Mess When Confronted On Claims That Some Women Have A Penis! Jun 18, 2022 Black Conservative Perspective

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said the "vast majority" of women do not have a penis as Labour members disagree over transgender issues. But added that there are a "small minority of individuals" who are born with "a gender they don't now identify with", and they should be treated with "respect". Speaking in Bury following his party’s local election campaign launch, the Labour leader said: “Biology matters and, for the vast majority of women, what matters is biology – we all understand that, we get that, that’s common sense."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BYg32-ge0s

Direct Headline: Sir Keir Starmer refuses to answer when asked whether a woman can have a penis

Sir Keir Starmer refused to answer the question of whether a woman can have a penis in the latest Labour Party confusion over the transgender debate...Yvette Cooper and Anneliese Dodds, two of Labour’s frontbench MPs, both declined to give a definition of a woman on International Women’s Day earlier this month....Speaking to LBC’s Nick Ferrari during a phone-in, Sir Keir, the Labour leader, was asked multiple times whether or not “a woman can have a penis”....

“I don’t think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run....”

....JK Rowling accused Sir Keir of “misrepresenting equalities law”. The Harry Potter author, who has raised concerns about the impact self-identification could have on women’s safety, claimed Labour “can no longer be counted on to defend women’s rights”....

By Dominic Penna 28 March 2022 4:30pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/28/keir-starmer-refuses-answer-whether-woman-can-have-penis-latest/

*********

"Do you genuinely think you'll be elected to government if you can't answer this question straight?"

"No one is calling for people to be abused."

"Stating facts is not abuse"

Greg Forman aka Black Conservative Perspective runs into the same issue that Matt Walsh did in "What Is A Woman?", in that when directly asked, knowing a camera was in their face and this would be public record, politicians are refusing to answer. Because they can't defend their position and they know it will cost them lots of votes.

Forman also points out that the average working class voter has no reason to vote for a politician, someone chosen to be given public trust to handle large scale issues to protect the entire community, who can't even address some very basic concerns in a reasonable and practical way.

You are trying to hedge this issue on rare cases and anomalies. But that's not the heart of what Matt Walsh is covering here. Walsh is discussing a clear widespread pattern of social indoctrination where as he says, and as Foreman says, means if you disagree with this very narrow singular narrative, then you'll be publicly labeled a bigot and then immediately attacked and then all measures will be taken to silence you and demonetize you.

You can't fight perceived intolerance with more intolerance. No more than Biden can fight inflation by creating even more inflation.

STATING FACTS IS NOT ABUSE

 

[moleculo]

VIDEO: Woke Politician Turns Into Stuttering Mess When Confronted On Claims That Some Women Have A Penis! Jun 18, 2022 Black Conservative Perspective

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said the "vast majority" of women do not have a penis as Labour members disagree over transgender issues. But added that there are a "small minority of individuals" who are born with "a gender they don't now identify with", and they should be treated with "respect". Speaking in Bury following his party’s local election campaign launch, the Labour leader said: “Biology matters and, for the vast majority of women, what matters is biology – we all understand that, we get that, that’s common sense."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BYg32-ge0s

Direct Headline: Sir Keir Starmer refuses to answer when asked whether a woman can have a penis

Sir Keir Starmer refused to answer the question of whether a woman can have a penis in the latest Labour Party confusion over the transgender debate...Yvette Cooper and Anneliese Dodds, two of Labour’s frontbench MPs, both declined to give a definition of a woman on International Women’s Day earlier this month....Speaking to LBC’s Nick Ferrari during a phone-in, Sir Keir, the Labour leader, was asked multiple times whether or not “a woman can have a penis”....

“I don’t think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run....”

....JK Rowling accused Sir Keir of “misrepresenting equalities law”. The Harry Potter author, who has raised concerns about the impact self-identification could have on women’s safety, claimed Labour “can no longer be counted on to defend women’s rights”....

By Dominic Penna 28 March 2022 4:30pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/28/keir-starmer-refuses-answer-whether-woman-can-have-penis-latest/

*********

"Do you genuinely think you'll be elected to government if you can't answer this question straight?"

"No one is calling for people to be abused."

"Stating facts is not abuse"

Greg Forman aka Black Conservative Perspective runs into the same issue that Matt Walsh did in "What Is A Woman?", in that when directly asked, knowing a camera was in their face and this would be public record, politicians are refusing to answer. Because they can't defend their position and they know it will cost them lots of votes.

Forman also points out that the average working class voter has no reason to vote for a politician, someone chosen to be given public trust to handle large scale issues to protect the entire community, who can't even address some very basic concerns in a reasonable and practical way.

You are trying to hedge this issue on rare cases and anomalies. But that's not the heart of what Matt Walsh is covering here. Walsh is discussing a clear widespread pattern of social indoctrination where as he says, and as Foreman says, means if you disagree with this very narrow singular narrative, then you'll be publicly labeled a bigot and then immediately attacked and then all measures will be taken to silence you and demonetize you.

You can't fight perceived intolerance with more intolerance. No more than Biden can fight inflation by creating even more inflation.

STATING FACTS IS NOT ABUSE

Once again, you are looking at things purely they the lens of partisan politics.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So has anyone here seen the movie?

 

[jon_mx]

So has anyone here seen the movie?

Several segments posted on YouTube by the creator.   It is bizarre that experts on the subject of gender studies get so upset by a simple question of which they are experts on.  Saying it is complicated, blaming social constructs, giving circular definitions before getting frustrated and calling him a bigot. 

So much of what is passed off as 'science' today are ideas which can't handle scrutiny especially when it comes to sex and race.  Decades were wasted searching for the elusive gay gene to attempt to prove homosexuality was purely genetic, now genetics somehow don't even matter.  Law and science are being taken over by extreme leftwing politics.  

 

[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 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.

Once again, you are looking at things purely they the lens of partisan politics.

Direct Headline: Man denied giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant

A Scottish man was turned away from a blood donation center because he refused to indicate whether he was pregnant...Leslie Sinclair, a 66-year-old father of two, had donated some 125 pints of blood over five decades before he was barred from his altruistic efforts during a trip Wednesday amid a push for new donors....Sinclair, of Stirling in central Scotland, was told to complete a form asking whether he was with child or had been pregnant in the last six months, prompting him to reply that the question did not apply to a man in his late 60s...

...“I am angry because I have been giving blood since I was 18 and have regularly gone along....I’m very happy to do so without any problem....I told them that was stupid and that if I had to leave, I wouldn’t be bac,...And that was it, I got on my bike and cycled away...”....Sinclair told a staffer at the Albert Halls clinic in Stirling it was “impossible” for him to be pregnant, but soon learned that he needed to answer the query in order to give blood. He now has no plans on returning to the donation center....

.....The denial came amid a push by England’s National Health Service last week to bring in more than a million blood donors over the next five years following a decrease during the pandemic...The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has also announced plans to recruit 16,000 new donors in the next year, but anyone who considers giving blood will be asked if they’re pregnant to “promote inclusiveness...”....“Whilst pregnancy is only a relevant question to those whose biological sex or assigned sex at birth is female, sex assigned at birth is not always visually clear to staff...”

By Joshua Rhett Miller June 20, 2022 10:51am

https://nypost.com/2022/06/20/man-denied-giving-blood-after-refusing-to-answer-if-he-was-pregnant/

**********

What if someone dies?

What if someone who needs blood because they are in a medical emergency cannot get blood because it's more important to push Identity Politics and to "promote inclusiveness" than to try to head off a massive shortage of donated blood since the start of the pandemic?

You've made it clear. I'm a "partisan" over videos you won't watch or fully watch, articles you won't read, and reference/contextual material you won't examine. This would be easier if you just said you wanted me silenced and you consider me wrong just for being a Conservative.

I just pointed out where this issue now creates conflict in actual potential life and death for average everyday people. But you can only be you and you can only stay in line with your sense of ethics.

If you say you are going to do something, then do it. That's about integrity. What you do when no one is looking and won't cost you in your day to day life to betray your word is a function of actual principle. You want a bi-partisan statement? There's one for you.

 

[moleculo]

Direct Headline: Man denied giving blood after refusing to answer if he was pregnant

A Scottish man was turned away from a blood donation center because he refused to indicate whether he was pregnant...Leslie Sinclair, a 66-year-old father of two, had donated some 125 pints of blood over five decades before he was barred from his altruistic efforts during a trip Wednesday amid a push for new donors....Sinclair, of Stirling in central Scotland, was told to complete a form asking whether he was with child or had been pregnant in the last six months, prompting him to reply that the question did not apply to a man in his late 60s...

...“I am angry because I have been giving blood since I was 18 and have regularly gone along....I’m very happy to do so without any problem....I told them that was stupid and that if I had to leave, I wouldn’t be bac,...And that was it, I got on my bike and cycled away...”....Sinclair told a staffer at the Albert Halls clinic in Stirling it was “impossible” for him to be pregnant, but soon learned that he needed to answer the query in order to give blood. He now has no plans on returning to the donation center....

.....The denial came amid a push by England’s National Health Service last week to bring in more than a million blood donors over the next five years following a decrease during the pandemic...The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has also announced plans to recruit 16,000 new donors in the next year, but anyone who considers giving blood will be asked if they’re pregnant to “promote inclusiveness...”....“Whilst pregnancy is only a relevant question to those whose biological sex or assigned sex at birth is female, sex assigned at birth is not always visually clear to staff...”

By Joshua Rhett Miller June 20, 2022 10:51am

https://nypost.com/2022/06/20/man-denied-giving-blood-after-refusing-to-answer-if-he-was-pregnant/

**********

What if someone dies?

What if someone who needs blood because they are in a medical emergency cannot get blood because it's more important to push Identity Politics and to "promote inclusiveness" than to try to head off a massive shortage of donated blood since the start of the pandemic?

You've made it clear. I'm a "partisan" over videos you won't watch or fully watch, articles you won't read, and reference/contextual material you won't examine. This would be easier if you just said you wanted me silenced and you consider me wrong just for being a Conservative.

I just pointed out where this issue now creates conflict in actual potential life and death for average everyday people. But you can only be you and you can only stay in line with your sense of ethics.

If you say you are going to do something, then do it. That's about integrity. What you do when no one is looking and won't cost you in your day to day life to betray your word is a function of actual principle. You want a bi-partisan statement? There's one for you.

That's a stupid position for them to take and I won't defend it.  If you are as long in the tooth as you claim, you know that bureaucracies often go too far and I applaud your efforts.  Not sure how that article applies to the rest of your post, or is this a handy jumping off point?

Yes, you are a partisan hack.  Go read most of your posts.  The vast majority either discuss electoral implications, or call opposing viewpoints "radical". 

But don't, for any second, assume I want your voice silenced.  I don't... At all.  I want opposing viewpoints magnified because that's what keeps us honest.  This place becomes a self-reinforcing echo chamber otherwise and I value alternate viewpoints.  And I would never think someone is wrong *because* they are conservative.

If your point here is to call me out for not watching the rest of that video - you win.  I haven't done it... Yet.  And I don't even have a good excuse, other than heavily edited " gotcha" videos aren't all that interesting.  But just for you, I'll do it.

Edit: I can't.  Original video, which I was 1/2 way thru, is now set to private and I can't watch.

I'm not going to watch the rest of the clips from the original post. Pick one, and I'll give a reaction.

 

[jon_mx]

Trans people are most suicidal 7 years after transitioning.  These surgeries are  experimental and have a very high infection rates of around 33 percent which results in long term health issues and often in death.   These is no evidence that these surgeries promote peychological health in their patients. Hormone blockers do irreversible damage to children.  Why are there teachers who push this idea of gender identity onto children and do so without any parental knowledge.  They are in essence practicing medicine.  Even doctors are not really doing their job.  They are not questioning or providing their opinion.  They are trained to affirm whatever the child feels.  That is not medicine, that is insanity. We went from gender disphobia being extremely rare condition of something around 0.01 percent, to around 2 percent today.  Children are being manipulated about topics they don't understand and then given the authority to make life altering diagnosis of their own condition.  This whole topic is obscene.