Matt Walsh asks trans activist 'what is a woman'..

We know what a trans inclusive society looks like because it exists in places like New York and California. And whilst there may be elements of that that you don't like it is a world away from the horrifying aspirations of the likes of Walsh and his fellow travellers. Look into what happened to women in Franco's Spain if you want an idea of what a religious hard right government looks like. Should such a regime emerge again then all this fretting about who can call themselves a woman, and toilets and what words maternity clinics should use, and people being 'silenced' and even prisons and sports, will fade into insignificance as women are once again turned into unpaid domestic and sexual servants and women who dissent are tortured in prisons.

So you fear the swing back @barleybadminton? The swing back to the right that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills knew was inevitable. Sorry but you begged for this perhaps without realising but you did. Did you honestly think TRA and the left who aligned with them could keep threatening and terrorising and cancelling everyone into silence. I think you really did. Let's just hope the right are "kinder" than you were. I'm not massively hopeful though. I just hope that all the leftists who were shoved out are still somewhere in the centre (I know I am) and can help restore some balance.

You are promoting an extremist who is part of a movement that seeks to destroy every gain feminism has made over the last century. A movement that is prepared to use violence to meet those ends. And believe me, if they ever manage to get near power then trans women in changing rooms will be the least of women's worries

And yes, I agree this is the TRA handbook.

It's a recruitment exercise for the extreme conservative right

I’ve waited for the left to notice that women and girls are being harmed by the TRA ideology but they haven’t. Instead, anyone raising concerns has been called a bigot, likened to erstwhile homophobes, racists and the like.

The left has left me behind. I’m not sure I could vote for a Conservative party but while lefty parties are shouting “TWAW” I’m done with them.

This should be a wake up call for TRAs in America. Loudoun county and its exposure happened before an election for governor in Virginia that the Republicans won.

Swing suburban women decide elections, they would prefer not to have their daughters raped in bathrooms by boys in skirts and then have this covered up.

“Nice equality you’ve got there, be a pity if anything happened to it”.

So women shouldn't support this point he makes because otherwise the sky will fall down. In other words, shut up about gender ideology.

Mr Blobby, you have it in one.

Well how do you know you're not one when you can't define what one is?

Lol, excellent point!

"I hope you'll respect my adjectives..."

That really made me laugh!

Great work by MW in bringing the Loudon Country bathroom rape to a much wider audience, and for his committment to the truth that biological sex is real, for refusing to use 'preferred pronouns' and also for giving a shit about kids affected by this.

Brilliant work by him there bringing some of these issues to wider attention in the states.

I RTFT and it humbled me. I would never have that much patience notbadconsidering

Lol Barley. Do you ever read back what you write? So transparent. So women shouldn't support this point he makes because otherwise the sky will fall down. In other words, shut up about gender ideology.

Not happening.

You are promoting an extremist who is part of a movement that seeks to destroy every gain feminism has made over the last century. A movement that is prepared to use violence to meet those ends. And believe me, if they ever manage to get near power then trans women in changing rooms will be the least of women's worries.

I'm confused Barley. This seems to describe gender ideology? If you don't believe in supporting a specific view because of the furher implications you think it can have, why would you support any aspect of gender ideology? e.g. refusing to define what a woman is?

As soon as you realise that this is just a religious belief you understand that you can never argue logically with any activist. Science and biological fact is not allowed.

"I can't define what a woman is because I'm not one". Well how do you know you're not one when you can't define what one is?

@nolongersurprised

The enemy of my enemy is a problem for later...

I agree what a pp said about Matt Walsh’s voice helping, especially when up against a transwoman trying to sound like a natal woman.

Where I think he and Posie Parker are effective is they don’t care about hurting people’s feelings, or appeasement to “sound reasonable”. This is more confronting to people with PP because she looks so traditionally feminine and yet refuses to succumb to female socialisation. PP has accepted that the left has left her so doesn’t try to #bekind and Matt Walsh is a conservative so doesn’t even have to pretend to buy into any of the trans ideology.

I’d love to see them debate together (tenured be on the same side, obvs)

And her in interviews is hilarious, there was one clip I saw where they brought out a trans person who tried to get Posie laughing and she was so cool/cold in response the discomfort of the other guest and interviewer was palpable... awesome!

A major issue is the attempts to make it as if the "left" are responsible while it is so clear that the pro-trans crowd are so incredibly deeply conservative/authoritarian in their ideology:

Solid gender roles that must be conformed to,

eradication/erasure of homosexuality and homosexual influence on society,

group labeling, with instant and permanent judgments based on that group ID,

social exclusion/social assassination,

work exclusion and job assassination,

using new laws to compel speech and chill debate,

ultra tribal political positioning,

group think/ideological worship of the "acceptable" concepts,

treating those who opt out of the pro-trans ideology as pariahs/traitors/apostates.

Basically it is just a new religion.

For foolish and hard of thinking people.

Along with other boards that should read

You ought to go and post in AIBU, you'd love it there
Already do, and chat too, along with others.
Thanks for the recommendation though

That's what you took from it? I got an attack of the vapours over a word used?!

Oh, I see now.... It seems that you took offence at... uh, the insinuation that you might have likeminded friends.

Really? You must have a deep enjoyment of being offended. You ought to go and post in AIBU, you'd love it there.

I think it's fairly likely the Democrats lose the next presidential election in large part because of it.

I have similar suspicions. The Democrats will not be helped by the pervasive attitude among their activists that because they identify as the party of "people of colour", they actually are, regardless of what "people of colour" think. I am going to introduce Barley and others to a startling, radical new concept. People of colour are not the Borg. They are individuals.

One feature I notice is common with gender identity adherents is that they tend to pay lip-service to other movements (e.g. improved accessibility in workplaces and public places, or anti-racism initiatives), and then identify as activists for that movement. Then they feel entitled to the support of everyone from that community, and goodness, don't the slurs start flying when anyone doesn't. Example If you, as an adherent to gender identity mindset, happen to tweet something about improving accessibility, you don't become entitled to the support of all disabled people. Disabled women can also be feminists, and they're not reneging on some kind of bargain with you if they disagree with trans activists.

No left-wing party is entitled to the votes of black women and men, disabled women and men, or anyone else. Parties need to earn the votes of the marginalised groups they claim to represent.

Yeah, it was the word pals I '' took to the fainting couch''
FFS.
That's what you took from it? I got an attack of the vapours over a word used?!
Ok then.

argh bolding fail. the first sentence above is bb's bizarre hissyfit about the word "pals"

It's all just such fucked up - '' people who support trans rights or campaign for them are all in cahoots and pals!''

I can't believe you took to the fainting couch about the word "pals." fucking ridiculous. Don't you have any pals who are trans activists? You should make some; it's good to have friends who share your hobbies. And when you do, please tell them to stop being such useful idiots for the religous right. Thanks awfully.

Then maybe trans activists should stop giving the likes of Matt Walsh the opportunity to score cheap and easy points by appearing like the most reasonable and well-adjusted person in the room.

This times 100. Those pushing men in women's sports, prisons, etc are the ones most in control of this situation. They could immediately pull the rug out from under Matt Walsh and co by not advocating for dangerous nonsense.

Personally, I think the US right wing have been remarkably restrained on this so far. To some extent because it's taken time for the public to be conscious of exactly how bad and insane the TRAs are. There's always the danger that in describing what they're proposing you sound like the crazy one.

But the public are noticing, and are going to be increasingly receptive to people opposing it, so the right wing will be winning more and more because of it.

I think it's fairly likely the Democrats lose the next presidential election in large part because of it.

because they assume said people's skin colour is fake tan.

Yes. Fake tan is a good example of how far some posters and activists over stretch.

And the reason for that is these people are very dangerous and if they ever achieve real power will destroy the lives of women and LGBT people and people of colour.

Take the plank out of your own eye, TRAs, their allies and adherents are doing a damn fine job of that as we speak.

By amplifying these voices and laundering them through gender critical feminism you are supporting them in their wider aims.

Oh FFS.

Stop over egging every thread you come on.

Shall we start listing all the prominent people that support extreme trans rights and just what else they have said too.

Who shall we start with?

Wasn’t Montgomery posted as an appeal to authority the other day? Shall we start there? And the mocking female toilet habits on twitter? Or shall we move straight to some of the US academics?

This man, who has his own motivations, has pointed out some obvious truths. The truth is, if you define woman using such circular logic and allow anyone to be a ‘woman’ you are doing it to allow males to identify as females, and vice versa. You are not doing this for the benefit of the sex who use that term to describe themselves. We have already had several prominent extreme trans activists claim even the word ‘female’.

There was no substance in that male ‘educator’s’ argument at all. It was again an offensive use of female medical conditions to prop up an untrue statement.

Frankly, if a movement relies of these untrue statements and forcing words based on scientific definitions to be redefined to mean the opposite, it has no solid foundations.

That is not the responsibility of the vast majority to ignore and help prop it up.

That is ultimately what Matt Walsh is saying.

If you don’t like the truth, however aggressively stated it was, that is your issue. Agreeing with him and sharing his videos to discuss, however robustly people wish to discuss them, is not a statement of support for any other of his views unless people wish to support their other views. Which is their prerogative.

By amplifying these voices and laundering them through gender critical feminism you are supporting them in their wider aims.

What a simplistic way to approach the world.

And the reason for that is these people are very dangerous and if they ever achieve real power will destroy the lives of women and LGBT people and people of colour.

Unlike many trans activists who couldn't destroy the lives of "people of colour" if they wanted to, because they assume said people's skin colour is fake tan.

If we are going to be using the guilt by association card, then unfortunately you are going to rack up a lot of people who send women rape threats to your side of the ledger, barley. Plus an assorted grab bag of spokespeople who are extreme porn advocates (J. Fae), alleged sex offenders and paedophile apologists (J Bradley, A Challenor, P Tatchell) convicted criminals (P Lees) etc etc.

Or, you know, we could just not do that. People here are mature enough to realise that agreeing with someone on one topic does not make us accountable for their actions, complicit in any of their endeavours, or in accord with them on any other topic.