What is a woman: Daily Wire documentary on for limited time for free

Until the Dr Stock debate, every time one has been scheduled the TRA has backed out at the last moment, usually claiming something like "My supporters have begged me not to take part as they fear for my safety" or some such rubbish.

That's why there have been no debates held.

I am still laughing at someone who tried to convince anyone that no feminist would agree to and likely adversial interview or debate. It is like someone is completely detached from the actualities of real life for a current feminist. I mean, was it sal Grover who even did an interview with Montgomery and their mate. And Helen Joyce AND Julie Bindel were both separately going to debate Lavery before Lavery was told it would show the ridiculousness of their position up to debate those women.

There are currently four 20 something women in court to attempt to find justice for losing to two males in the races. Potentially they would have won scholarships to uni at those races.

But apparently, feminists would be horrified at adversial speaking opportunities and interviews. Really, that one was a person who obviously projects their own community’s values, that they align with, onto a group they honestly seem to have no idea about. Despite feeling they understand well!

Maybe extreme activists need to look at what is really happening in feminism and stop projecting their own fear of speaking aloud to people, just in case they are perceived ‘badly’ and nonsensical.

The reality is, feminists have been calmly speaking for a long time. In fact, the issue is that feminists give facts, logic and calm discussion whereas extreme trans activists seek to shut down dissenting voices, silence anyone who disagrees, protest loudly or speak over others, and show their arguments and beliefs to be based in falsity and emotionally manipulative tactics.

so, no! Feminists would not use the weak arsed excuses of ‘they used a slightly different name when reaching out’ or ‘the project title was a working title and not the name of the final resultant documentary’. Now if the team was asked who was interviewing and was lied to or was coerced into accepting a late substitution they would have otherwise rejected, that is something to discuss. If it was proven and not a lie.

To believe that. I would expect the accuser to post evidence. And I have seen none.

Agreed! It is submitting to regressive sexual stereotypes. Just because a little girl likes to play with toy cars/trains instead of dollies or a woman is kick ass in business or doesn’t wear make up it doesn’t make them less female. The gender theory argument would suggest that they are on a male spectrum and therefore may want to consider changing their pronouns/ modifying their body. The gender critical theorists (ie: Professor Kathleen Stock) would just say they are doing girlhood/ womanhood in whichever way they choose. I would like to think that most people in the uk would be more aligned with the gender critical view rather than the gender theorist one. To me gender theory is spouted as new and modern but it boils down to such an outdated, sexist concept.

But this is what the‘transwomen are women’ argument boils down to, regardless of whether it’s proponents can bring themselves to say it out loud or not (looking at you @TraumatisedGooner )

if a woman is not an adult human female then you have to use sexist stereotypes to explain what a woman is, that’s the only other way to do it

@AmaryllisNightAndDay I totally agree. I think it undercut what Scott was saying. The bald words are much more effective.

My main grump about the editing was that I could have done without the Tragic Music behind Scott Newgent, What Scott said did not need added schmalz.

The standard TRA argument about what makes a woman is simply that the various social constructs including modes of dress & so on which have grown up around adult human females have taken on such a life of their own as to be more important in determining whether someone is a woman or not than actually being an adult human female. This argument can sound a little silly,

Is this really a "standard TRA argument"? I must move in the wrong circles because I've never heard it, at least not outside some very obscure corners of academia. I wonder if the academic he speeded up was saying it? Stripped of academic language it sounds more than a little silly! It's very easily refuted by example - sport and Isla Bryson (or US equivalents) leap to mind.

I'm sure he massively selected. But just recording what Marci Bowers and the blue haired lady and Scott Newgent had to say was gold. This was about them not him.

That's mitigation, it's still fraud. These people are no Rosa Parks.

Watching the nurse, I'm glad they blurred her face, I found myself thinking her earrings looked like she'd strung together a few dried testicle 😲

Definite fraud. I was wondering who was paying for it with the state of US healthcare, but where there is an ideological will there is a way.

I suspect though, the fraud will be painted as fully justified. Because these people should absolutely get surgeries to modify their bodies paid for. And hormones and whatever else they need. Because they have been now sold that this is the right treatment for them. There should be research done on how many patients have no disphoria at all and who choose this because it has been now decreed that these body modifications are acceptable for anyone who wants them.

I was told over the weekend of a case where a female who is non-binary has had a double mastectomy and is on testosterone. As non-binary. Nothing non-binary about that choice. That is full masculinization. So female people are being convinced by society that to even be non-binary they should choose the male default.

This is an era that will be widely studied.

He pronounces 'Tavistock' very strangely.

This sounds like fraud to me. These companies are writing letters for surgeries and medication on a false premise. They're obtaining services by deception.

Walsh may have had other people tell him that a woman is an adult human female during the course of filming, but he wanted his wife to have the punchline at the end of the film. “I travelled the whole world to talk to people when my liddle lady at home in the kitchen had the answer all along, duh!”

Thanks for the transcript necessary.

So you at least agree with me that journalists and filmmakers shouldn't do this?

No. What I said was that people were annoyed that such things were done.

More Matt Walsh shedding light
h

this is making me want to cross stitch a sampler for @TraumatisedGooner . Some thing like:

You look stupid because your views are stupid

Prove me wrong. Answer the question

This may hold water except we know that most of the answers were standard extremist answers

Which is of course why a film with this title was made in the first place! He knew it would be laughably easy to just point cameras at these people at try to get them to explain themselves. The incoherence long pre-dates this exposé.

it is not like Walsh had to scour the world over for these people. Some of them are lecturing in universities, some are clinicians.

If he didn’t approach these people, he would have got similar answers approaching many others.

He spoke about his surprise about how far that went in his recent interview with Jordan Peterson:

What was actually a surprise to me is when we went to all these different cities and we went out on the street and we did man-on-the-street interviews, just talking to regular people about these issues, and asking them if they can define the word woman, and all this.

And I really thought going into it that we would be able to predict before we talk to somebody what kind of answer they're going to get and I thought that we would talk to a lot of confused younger, you know, gen-Z types and we get the typical stuff from them but then if we pulled aside some older guy, you know, with his wife, and they're walking down and we start talking to them, but I thought we would get just plain common sense and we didn't. We found that the vast majority of people we talk to, no matter their demographics, they were they were basically saying the same kinds of things that we heard from the college professors, only they didn't know that that's where they got it from. So they didn't even know - it was clear to me that they didn't know exactly what they were saying, or why they were saying it, but they had a party line that they were repeating.

(Peterson had a fair bit to say about that, as on most things, but I'll skip it here.)

A bit later, after talking about the totally different responses from Kenya:

I think that back in the United States there was some confusion about being put on the spot to explain something that so innately understood. But then there was also what seemed to me to be an awareness among many of these people that this is a loaded question now, and they can't really talk about it and be honest. In fact we heard about that - there are many people we talked to who aren't in the film because they didn't want to be on camera. They refused to be on camera and they would tell us, like, I can't talk about this with a camera rolling because my job, because I'm going to school, because this and that.

So there's a real there's a real fear that people have that pervades through this whole conversation, and I like to think that over the last year some of that fear has dissipated - a little bit, not completely, but it just seems to me that normal people are more open about just saying what's clearly true when it comes to issues surrounding gender.

But at the time when we made the film it was it was just everywhere, and it was really difficult to get anybody to want to have this conversation at all.

Porcelina

If doing an undercover story is wrong, I guess an entire section of investigative journalism investigating anything, should never have happened, and should never happen again.

And police operations too.

So interestingly, Matt Walsh and his producer recently used deception as part of investigating trans surgeries. Is that wrong?

https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1666496308150951954

"1/ BREAKING: The largest “trans healthcare” providers in the U.S. are rubber-stamping letters approving gruesome, life-altering surgeries. It’s such a racket that my producer was approved for testicle removal in #22minutes. The tape is disturbing."

This may hold water except we know that most of the answers were standard extremist answers.

it is not like Walsh had to scour the world over for these people. Some of them are lecturing in universities, some are clinicians.

If he didn’t approach these people, he would have got similar answers approaching many others.

I suspect the bias comes from just not showing footage from interviewees who would offer a halfway sensible answer to MW's titular question.

Gosh, you're right!

I can't think of anything worse than being made to look a right twat answering 'an adult human female', to the question what is a woman?

What you're missing TraumatisedGooner, is, were the boot on the other foot, it wouldn't matter what questions were asked, or how they were edited. When one's position is coherent and consistent, the answers are just going to be the same whatever way you're asked.

Just like the transactivists answers to what is a woman, are all exactly the same, no matter who is doing the asking.

Babbling incoherence.

iI's not about who's asking what. It's about having irrational nonsense as your central, and only, premise.

I expect the Daily Wire still has the films of the entire interviews. I expect that's why none of the 'misrepresented' tra have sued

If tras tried the same thing with GC representatives, rather than them misrepresenting heresay (when they don't just lie)? I'd bloody love it, bring it on. I'd even buy them the brunette hairdye.

So did any of these people ask who was interviewing them? Were they told a lie?

Where is this evidence that this happened?

If this is important to you, you ask exactly who is doing the interview. If you are lied to; you don’t go through with it and you publicly declare you were lied to and were told someone else was interviewing you.

I have been interested. I asked who and then I checked them out. That is adult behaviour if it is important.

On the other hand, and further proof that feminists do speak in potentially ideologically hostile situations regularly. Random people film the women’s rallies! There was the documentary makers down in Brighton who filmed. Who were they? There is always people filming the rallies.

Yet, women still talk. Those people are not asked to leave unless they are disruptive. And everytime, those videos can be edited and published to make women ‘look bad’! What is the difference?

I know!! One group has an expectation that they will be treated as hateful bigots anyway, and one has the expectation that the world should only be a safe space curated to only ever agree and affirm your ideological thinking.

I'll confess to being more than a little suspicious about the editing of Walsh's film. The standard TRA argument about what makes a woman is simply that the various social constructs including modes of dress & so on which have grown up around adult human females have taken on such a life of their own as to be more important in determining whether someone is a woman or not than actually being an adult human female. This argument can sound a little silly, not least because it objectively is, hence I suppose I'd not be surprised by a degree of coyness about using it in front of camera, but I suppose I do struggle a bit to believe that Walsh wouldn't be able to find anyone who'd put it to him when pressed for an answer.