Matt Walsh 'What is a Women?' trailer released

Well said @FourTeaFallOut

I suppose that the second type of person you describe would also argue for book burning/banning on the same basis. Probably the type of person who wouldn’t want wives or servants reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover… or the Bible in the vernacular.

Sure, if Matt Walsh was a violent criminal, a terrorist or responsible for genocide I would have reservations about watching/reading his work.

However having views I strongly disagree with does not put him into any of the above categories. I interact with any number of people who hold opinions in opposition to mine every day, life is the richer because of it.

I love yoga, including the woo.

I have a lot of strong opinions, if I tried to live by only interacting with people who share all of my values I’d be a hermit.

It's an interesting debate. I think that in both this trailer and the other clip that's done the rounds, Walsh comes across as thoughtful and articulate, and it's quite a shock to discover he has such reactionary views on other topics.

It's an illustration of the weirdness of this particular debate, and it's proving confusing for a lot of us. Traditionally, there are a set of subjects where the stand you take marks you out as progressive or reactionary: abortion, gay marriage, taxation, capital punishment, minimum wage, maternity leave and so on. Most of the time if you know a person's view on one of those issues you can pretty accurately guess their views on the others.

The trans issue is different. Why? It's because the so-called progressive left have collectively adopted a position that is literally insane. That's all you can say about it. The idea that humans can change sex, or that there are more than two sexes, or that sex is a spectrum, or that a violent male criminal who puts on a dress and calls himself Stephanie should serve his sentence in a women's prison is insane. Unlike topics such as abortion or gay marriage, there is absolutely no possibility of having a reasonable debate about it because the people who believe in this stuff are far outside the outer borders of rationality.

So there are really two groups of people opposing gender ideology. One is people on the right who aren't experiencing any peer group pressure to believe in this, because it's not part of the package of things right-wingers believe in. The other is people on the left who are still capable of independent thought - and have the courage to say so. It's much harder if you're on the left to speak out about this stuff, which is why much of the opposition, particularly in the US, is being led by the right. It's an easy win for them. All they have to do is not be insane.

And that's what makes it really important that those of us who do have progressive views continue to speak out about this issue, because we don't want this to become a right-left issue. Because a lot of ordinary people who are not invested in this debate are simply going to vote for the guys who aren't insane.

You either the type of person who thinks that people can take into account different perspectives and motives of different speakers and still seek value in the conversation or you are the type of person who thinks that people are so passive and spongy that they cannot listen to another perspective without consuming the speaker.

Matt Walsh and I agree that a woman is an adult human female.

Matt Walsh and I agree that children should not be sterilised and rendered asexual for being gender diverse.

Matt Walsh and I agree that males should not be in women’s sport.

Are you saying this is “shared bigotry”? Are you saying I should care that people notice this agreement?

of shared bigotry towards a specific group, people are bound to take notice of that

Who are these people of whom you speak and why should I give two shiny shits that they are taking notice of me agreeing with Matt Walsh on something?

of shared bigotry towards a specific group, people are bound to take notice of that.

(accidentally pressed "post" early)

Do you wanna talk about how Hitler had some good ideas too next?

When you nod along to people known for being bigots, and specifically agree with them because

I imagine I don't agree with him on a great many things, that's fine. I'm interested in his questions, the answer to those questions and the borders of where gender faith and uncomfortable truth lies for different institutions and different individuals.

I don't have to sign up to a brand to watch this, do I. Or a religion? This atheist is only on board for religious bits that involve cake.

I don't like tribalism, I see it as another version of gender boxes. Not watching Matt's movie in this instance would have nothing to do my view of him. I'd just find it depressing. I'm glad, on this, we're on the same page but, like Torys, he's no unqualified friend to many women.

Don't like the woo in yoga either.

Those people have already been cancelled.

This concept that if you agree with someone about something you are now “aligned” with him is very tiresome

Absolutely this. One of the most pernicious and frankly thick ideas around at the moment is this.

This is a clear case of that purity spiral, isn't it?

But, as in real life, I am friends with many people who hold beliefs I find improbable, impossible and even downright bizarre. Doesn't mean we don't have shared interests and beliefs. Nor does it involve pretending we don't disagree. We act like adults...

I think that’s a fair analogy. There are a lot of good points being raised in the trailer and though I agree with his standpoint on this issue, I’m cautious about aligning myself with this side of the coin too closely for obvious reasons. Though the liberal left is no better on the topic.

I get really dispirited by all these recordings of women on women's marches, pro-choice marches etc, being asked what a woman is and looking blank, giggling nervously, or aggressively refusing to answer the question. The latter are the worse. They know they can't answer the question. They are pretty much displaying the equivalent of men whose wives suspect them of cheating and who angrily shout their wife down as crazy, rather than answering the question that they know will expose them.

These 'women's rights' marches not answering what a woman is - it just exposes the utter conceptual vacuity at the heart of their thinking. If you want to defend women, at the base you have to understand what a woman is. It's such a failure of critical thinking, of education - the utter shallowness of thinking that these people display.

Did anyone one see the pro-choice marches saying men do not get a say on abortion yet not answering what a woman is? These people know damn well abortion is about women' sexed bodies yet still have the disingenuity to deny this to fit their doctrine. Its just so sad to see.

Long time lurker here!
The problem for me is the misogyny that he pushes elsewhere is the reason why I was 'gender dysphoric' as a child/teenager. I wanted to identify out of that misogyny (I am now happy with my sex and very thankful I'm not at teenager these days).

I see his views on male/female roles etc. as being a huge reason why I hated being female and I think he is part of the problem why so many female teenagers want to be male so it seems galling he then wants to tackle 'gender identity'.

But, on the face of it, this looks good. I agree with PP that any sunlight is good sunlight, I just wish something like this could be made by someone who aligns more with GC feminism and therefore their opinion can't be swept away by the opposition so easily with 'but... abortion' etc.

Its all one way too.

I mean there are plenty of people getting plenty of air time and " gigs" who have said and done many a controversial thing with whom the police or politicians remain perfectly happy to pose for photos with or retweet etc.

Yet women who agree with one thing someone says, we are all right wing bigots in bed with anti abortion activists etc

Everyone knows sex is real.

Especially 'trans' people who don't want to be the sex they are.

Because sex is real.

Giving up actual reality into the hands of the 'tyans inclusion' types at Stonewall is where everyone decided to abandon safeguarding.

We all know this. Matt Walsh included. He is just pointing out what women especially lesbians have been pointing out for years, because as a penis haver he has the ability to do so without bein canceled. Again, proving that everyone knows what sex is.

I’ve said this sooo many times every time this topic comes up, both generally and specifically about Walsh.

I know I am not bedfellows with Walsh. I know my own mind, I know my own beliefs, I know that I disagree with him on many other things. I also know that if I agree with him on this particular thing, it will in no way enhance his objectives with his other beliefs, because the people who share those other beliefs will do that.

But this is the most important thing:

I don’t CARE if people think I’m bedfellows with him. I don’t care if people here do. I don’t care if our lovely Monitors do and screenshot something out of context to “prove” something on a Twitter post. I don’t care if people in real life think it either.

Why, every time someone like Walsh comes along, do people angst like pathetic teenagers that it means something deep and significant if they dare to let themselves agree? Who gives a fuck, seriously? SO WHAT if you agree? What’s going to happen? You’re not going to start sending bomb threats to abortion clinics FFS.

Stop being so spineless. Have the strength to admit that you agree with something and the conviction in the rest of your beliefs to know doing so won’t change the rest of your fundamentals.

I was merely voicing my view that I find it slightly discomfiting to be bedfellows with someone

I don’t view having the same beliefs as someone as being their “bedfellow”.

On the clip Matt Walsh makes it clear he is against the surgical and hormonal manipulation of children who identify as trans.

I feel the same way, and it’s very important that more parents are aware of where the ideology leads. Marci Bowers, the transwoman who has performed surgery on these young people, is also expressing her concerns. This is huge.

Marci Bowers and Matt Walsh likely disagree on many things, but it doesn’t mean they are bedfellows on this. In fact, if they were literally bedfellows I’m sure they’d be mutually horrified.

In the film he includes Jordan Peterson saying 'There are masculine girls . There are feminine boys. What are we going to do about that? Carve them up?'

The right wing argument is pretty absurd anyway. Given countries like Iran where they really do trans away the gay. Its seemingly OK to hold Iran up as something to aspire to with trans rights .pink news write a pretty gushing report about their trans provisions.

Just to clarify. When I said upthread:

”According to Matt Walsh the answer to ‘what is a woman?’ would be someone of the sex who doesn’t have the right to bodily autonomy. I’m sure there will be good content within this programme but I just know his arrogant, pompous tone will annoy the shit out of me.”

I did not at any point say I would therefore refuse to listen to Matt Walsh or watch his programme because my views don’t 100% chime with his total world view. I was merely voicing my view that I find it slightly discomfiting to be bedfellows with someone who denigrates certain beliefs I hold dear ie. that women should have the ultimate say in what happens with their own pregnancies and that Feminism is still (unfortunately) needed.

Let me be clear, just because Matt Walsh said the following on his Twitter:

”Feminism is rotten at the core. Each "wave" led inexorably to the next. There is no good feminism. It's one of the worst things to ever happen to western civilization”

it does not toggle a switch in my brain that makes me think ‘I can never, ever publicly agree with any other view held by this man’. It just annoys me that he holds these other views and I know it will be used as fodder by those who DO have this toggle switch in their brains that equates agreeing with this person on one issue, with agreeing and endorsing all his other views.

I just felt like stating this and I think it doesn’t take anything away from this discussion or mean we have to go ‘round and round in circles’. It’s just the nature of the political landscape at the moment. I look forward to watching the programme but predict I might find myself wincing occasionally.

Whoever this guy is, he’s not gender critical.

I keep seeing the term Gender Critical defined as understanding that sex is real, important and immutable. It strikes me that this definition is incomplete because the belief (or knowledge) that that sex is real, important and immutable is likely to be shared by people across cultures and across political spectrums from the far right to the ultra left. Presumably to be Gender Critical a person must combine the knowledge that sex is real, important and immutable with a critique of gender. I doubt this applies to MW.