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

I agree wholeheartedly!

But! I think everyone reading this thread should go and watch this video and see for themselves! When they see that this is not ‘poor editing’ they will realize that the answers are presented as is and that they reflect this ideological thinking accurately.

That ideological thinking that isn’t based in reality is a feature. Not the ‘big’ as posters have tried to present this.

Yep.

Key parts of trans-activist rhetoric that could be defended by TraumatisedGooner:

(1) Trans-women are women etc.
(2) Trans rights are human rights
(3) It's wrong to "erase trans identities"
(4) There is no conflict between women's rights and trans rights

But I guess defending that stuff is too difficult, so instead the focus is on not liking the methods of Matt Walsh as a documentary maker.

OK, maybe Matt Walsh is a terrible terrible person for not being more open, but he still exposed your side! He made you look stupid, because you are stupid.

No. I haven’t changed tack at all. It is all the same direction.

And you have presented no evidence to back up what you have claimed.

Plus, I am an adult. As I said in another post, I understand that projects often have titles that are different from the final outcome. And gosh… you know… some documentaries change title if they find a theme in the filming of it that suits.

Again, you are either naive or live in a world that only exists in an idyll.

And to repeat, if a random never before heard company approached a prominent feminist, I would expect that if they felt they couldn’t hold their own if it turned out it was a person who asked challenging questions, they would not agree. I would expect them to though to be able to hold their calm and answer honestly. Gosh, if I was so worried, I might even record the audio myself so I had something to release to counter a misrepresentation….

But I do expect that prominent feminists are not idiots, do expect that the world will hand them chellenging interviews and that they will calmly and honestly answer. Nothing quite as fucking boring to edit as a calm and concise and factually true answer.

And if you doubt that feminists would not do this, you must have missed Dr Kathleen Stock at both Cambridge and Oxford. Did you? Did you even bother to watch? Kathleen also appeared on Ed Balls’s show knowing he has an extremist son! Feminists turn up even in adverse situations. Riley Gaines spoke and answered questions while protestors heckled her and then barracked her in a room for three fucking hours. And remember all those women who turn up and talk in rallies. All could have their words hostilely edited. They still do it!

“only for interviewees to be interrogated over the links between the gender critical movement, the alt right movement, and neo-Nazis.”

Gosh … imagine!! Imagine presenting factually backed sentences that would have to be so dishonestly edited to reflect poorly on a speaker.

And gosh… imagine if you then showed the entire internet the truth and it significantly discredited the video maker to dishonestly edited your words. Or you know, you could be just making shit up that has no basis to prove your point.

Why doesn’t it prove your point, because every single day on this board and all over the internet, video clips and the written words of feminists are edited and misrepresented. And those feminists are still here! Still talking. Because that is just par for the course. We all know that if we speak in public or interviews, to expect the fucking worse. We are not fucking spoon fed sunshine and lollipops to make us feel safe.

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

dearie, dearie me

I've taken the decision to stand the SAS down

I don't think you're worth saving

with reasoning skills like this how do you not just spend your time bumping into the walls?

Actually a very clear account of how gender critical feminists have been treated by many media outlets and organisations over the last few years. Which is why so many are very very annoyed.

only for interviewees to be interrogated over the links between the gender critical movement, the alt right movement, and neo-Nazis.

Those questions would be easy to answer and would be answered clearly and coherently.

The fact that those featured in Matt Walsh's film could not/would not answer the question What is a Woman is not the fault of Matt Walsh or any editing.

In the space of three posts you went from saying you didn't know about the scandal, to misrepresenting it, to sidestepping it rather than attempting to defend the indefensible. In the hypothetical situation where someone pulls what Walsh did, but from the trans rights perspective:

1. Prominent feminists would not have been invited
2. Some invitees would figure out the ruse before its too late
3. Others would get interviewed under false pretences
4. Interviews would be edited maliciously

This forum would be apoplectic if this happened to members of the gender critical movement. Imagine if an organisation calling itself the "Womens' Rights Initiative" started contacting people to help make a film exposing how trans rights are conflicting with women's rights, only for interviewees to be interrogated over the links between the gender critical movement, the alt right movement, and neo-Nazis.

Utterly ridiculous that you can't admit it's bad form for a documentary maker to do this.

It's common knowledge

I think you misunderstand the concept of common knowledge.

And the parents fed it no doubt.

When will the people spreading these false narratives take responsibility for creating such fear?

Jackson says Avery asked her if Walsh's crew wanted to kill her. "That's where my 14-year-old's mind went because of how much vitriolic, dehumanizing language there is out there right now, particularly around trans youth," Jackson said.

I doubt that poor kid got her fears from gender critical people, from whom I’m yet to see any death threats. Avery has been terrorised by trans ideologists.

That not is a stray one. Only show is correct.

Really. If you cannot do an interview without needing to be assured that you will be edited not only show your most moderate and wise self, don’t fucking do it! Unless you have the confidence of being able to hold your own when asked unexpected and unwelcome questions.

Ask for a list of questions before agreeing if you want.

If you cannot hold your own, you should never have imagined yourself as a media star in the fucking first place. No! Filming projects often have a working title. People sometimes have derivatives of their names in a professional capacity. Go and fucking start accusing trans people for using different names if you are that bothered by the concept.

The film's now had 2.2 million views!

It's actually a credit to the power of this little old board that Gooner's spending so much time on the 6 of us old terfs (plus the dog). Cos there's another 1,999,994 viewers to lecture about the crimes of MW 😀

😂😂

I think the fact that people feel they cannot stand by their beliefs when produced on a video says a great deal about them.

If I were one of the prominent feminists, to fucking right I would be getting interviewed for a documentary, even if it was done by someone who attempting to show the opposite belief. Because that is how you convince people who either haven’t made up their minds to explore further or you come across with valid points and people start actually fucking thinking !

Fuck! That people with adverse opinions are ‘unsafe’ to be interviewed means they should say no to every fucking interview they are asked for. If you cannot defend your beliefs, you should not be doing any speaking at all.

It is not that fucking hard.

I'd prefer that @TraumatisedGooner simply explained what the gender identity shared by cis women and transwomen is like. I actually feel a little embarrassed for him that he's here shilling for something he can't even explain

but as he can't even face that I'm happy to keep asking the question

bumps the thread, innit?

is this code?

does not OK refer to your situation?

do we need to stand up the SAS?

please advise

That is great news. Thanks Mrs O!

"You can't really think this is okay. Please just for one minute consider how you would be reacting right now if an anti-GC documentary went about finding interviewees like this."

Er, it would be a relatively minor sin, compared to the "no debate" stuff, trying to shut down discussion, making threats, attacking people, demonisation of opponents.

Oh no, they set up a false front to carry out some interviews... Your side would still get destroyed in debate in that situation.

Yeah. Film projects have working titles. Not sure how you don’t know that.

And people use a professional name sometimes. Would you say the same thing about a trans person as you are implying here?

Where is this other evidence other than that one article?

And how would I react? Seriously?

I would fucking honestly answer the questions asked and if I was misrepresented, I would complain very loudly on social media with very valid complaints. I have done some interviewing before for my own business, unless you have been misrepresented, and your honest answers are shown, you are always in the producers hands. That is how it works.

Again, if you have no other ‘evidence’ then your argument is non existent. Please post the evidence.

Yes, you are missing something, but I'm pretty sure it's wilful.

They set up a fake organisation called the 'Gender Unity Project' and told potential interviewees that they were making a film exploring the real lives of people in the LGBT+ communites. Once allegations came to light the fake webpage and social media accounts all disappeared. The associate producer in question seems to use the name Makenna Waters pretty much everywhere, but not on the email where she was lying through her teeth.

You can't really think this is okay. Please just for one minute consider how you would be reacting right now if an anti-GC documentary went about finding interviewees like this.

I note that the film is still freely available which is great - so let's keep this thread bumped for anyone who has failed to watch such an interesting piece.

Seems like they may have hidden that they were coming from a conservative perspective.

Given the seriousness of the issues, I understand why journalists would behave this way.

I doubt you would have a problem with journalists not being 100% open, if they were exposing conservatives doing something.

I think Gooner's trying to tell us that trans activists actually said that tsex is binary, only men have a penis and that medical experimentation on children leading to infertility and life long drugs and surgery is wrong?

And that bigot Matt Walsh edited it all to make them say the opposite?