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

Sorry, am I missing something.

An assistant who has a moniker (I know a few people who work under a combination of their names that isn’t their birth name. Gosh…. Some trans people do too!).

And a project name.

No, really? Is this your supposed proof?

but about the hostage situation @TraumatisedGooner ?

are you being forced to do this against your will? use the agreed code and we'll arrange for the SAS to bust you out

It's common knowledge, e.g. https://www.insider.com/matt-walsh-accused-luring-trans-people-into-anti-trans-doc-2022-2

Have you posted evidence of these three points that I missed ?

If they were edited? Grzanka's answers feature several slow fades that (1) make it seem like his answer was endless and (2) prevent you from actually hearing it as one coherent piece. Have you ever seen a documentary do that to an interviewee before? I haven't.

The people making this documentary simply did not operate in good faith at any point of the process. In fact, in an attempt to reel in interviewees representing the pro-trans perspective they:

1. Set up a fake organisation
2. Used fake names
3. Lied about the focus of the film

I wonder if those representing a gender critical perspective were lied to? Probably not. I await a half dozen explanations for why this is actually totally justifiable practice. The ends justify the means, right? It's okay for Walsh to manipulate his interviewees. It's okay for him to misrepresent them. Just as it's okay for you all to elevate a far right, white nationalist, strident anti-feminist. Women's rights are at stake, after all.

😁

“I point again to the Dr. Phil episode. Matt Walsh didn't control the editing for that. But in a similar way, he made his opponents look stupid. You don't need editing to make the trans activist side look stupid!”

This is very true. And is so often ignored.

Not just Dr Phil. There is a video of an event where an EMT declared they were an adult human female when they were male and acknowledged they were born a male. An EMT! Who also declared they could be ‘intersex’ because they used that Fausto- Sterling lie of the % of intersex people which included females wrongfully to bolster the numbers. An EMT!

Why should any editing be done to moderate how fucking dangerous an EMT is to believe they are treating the opposite sex because they have a trans patient! Because that male stated on public record that a male can be an adult human female.

It defies reality. It is fucking ridiculous to blame ‘editing’ for the poor performance of people who either cannot answer truthfully ( in which case the pauses and the umms are relevant!) or who give answers that do not reflect reality as per proven science.

I think what was wanted was a definition that makes good sense, and maybe one that makes more sense than using the traditional definition.

Anyway, it's not like, well this is super complicated because of new scientific discoveries and this takes time to understand.

No, it's purely a change that some people want because of political ideology.

So they can throw out something relatively simple, "a woman is anyone that identifies as a woman", it's just that the definition lacks intelligible content. It's not some "advanced" understanding of gender, as some people may delude themselves!

I don't quite understand how an unedited one hour reel of someone being unable to answer "what is a woman?" could make them look any better than showing only an edit.

It's a mercy, really.

When people don't get edited - letting everyone watch them fail to answer continuously for 17 pages - it just gets embarrassing.

I really don’t think that Walsh’s ‘editing’ made people’s answers any less ridiculous or dangerous. If adults watching this can’t filter out the pauses and the natural umms and ahhs, they are fools.

This is really poor posturing and is too far a reach to be credible.

If Matt Walsh had seriously misrepresented anyone, then they could just say so.

If he had somehow used editing tricks to falsely misrepresent them (1) as claiming that trans-women are women, (2) not being able to coherently explain what a woman is, then they could all come out and make a fuss that would get picked up by parts of the media. They could all be saying, "actually this is my definition of woman and doesn't it make wonderful sense".

If you want to argue that, sure, they couldn't explain what a woman is, but Matt Walsh didn't treat them the same way, and used editing to make them look an extra 20% stupid, then it's a relatively minor criticism. It may show a lack of integrity on the part of Matt Walsh as a documentary maker, but his basic point would still be correct.

I point again to the Dr. Phil episode. Matt Walsh didn't control the editing for that. But in a similar way, he made his opponents look stupid. You don't need editing to make the trans activist side look stupid!

And it's difficult to take seriously the, "you have a closed mind" stuff, given that the trans-activist side will openly say, "no debate" and try to shut down talks on the subject. They openly admit to having a closed mind! Are any GC feminists or conservatives trying to shut down debate on this subject? I don't mean indoctrinating children, I mean debate in the adult world.

Oh dear.

The documentary explored people’s answers to that one question along with other questions.

I believe if those activists were edited, they would have declared they were edited and clipped to misrepresent them. We have already seen this tactic in action. Walsh had been doing this type of thing for a while so knows that he should not open himself up to that accusation.

He was going to accused either way. And you really cannot have it both ways. He has to cut content down somehow, he decreed who he could cut without complaint.

Really how bizarre. He didn’t explore the question? What a ridiculous take.

And again, what puritanical world do you inhabit that a documentary/ video maker goes into the project not having an idea on what they will encounter. Obviously one with either a huge budget or endless resources such as time and effort. You really must live in a pure and ideal world to have posted otherwise.

That could be the explanation

it must be seriously uncomfortable constantly having to defend something you don’t even understand

are you in a hostage situation @TraumatisedGooner ? Blink twice for yes

What pressure? Is someone forcing you to be here?

The maker's audience knows what they believe going into the film, and had entirely closed minds

How on earth can anyone know that? What nonsense.

Lovey, you want to force people to share beliefs you can’t even describe

you’re making a fool of yourself

Knowing that you think all my posts are garbage regardless of what I write takes a lot of pressure off, honestly.

educate us then

what is a woman?

describe the gender identity that all women share

until you can do that, any reply from you is essentially garbage

A documentary will usually explore a question, and or educate its audience. This documentary doesn't do either, nor seek to. In What is a Woman?

1. The maker knew what they believed going into the process, and had an entirely closed mind
2. The maker's audience knows what they believe going into the film, and had entirely closed minds
3. The maker interviews people from both sides but edits responses differently:
4. Only Walsh's allies get the treatment all interviewees expect, with pauses, umming, and trailed thoughts removed (you can watch the camera flicking around different angles to hide the discontinuities), which makes Walsh's opponents look stupid in contrast
5. Walsh's opponents are edited to make them look bad. I'm not sure I've ever seen a documentary interview repeatedly fade in the middle of someone's answer jumping from one part of what they were saying to another without proper context or connection. But that's how Walsh treats interviewees that don't agree with him.

You shouldn't accept that in a documentary. I wouldn't be content if the people I disagreed with were edited in that way, I'd prefer to hear what they've actually got to say. Ultimately though, as you and others here have made clear, it doesn't matter to that the documentary was made in bad faith... because you aren't watching it in good faith. You don't want a documentary, you just want to be proven right.

They can't accept that they condemn themselves with their own words and actions. Blame everyone but themselves.

"Somehow all these programmes deliberately make them look bad."

I do believe that is what this poster is attempting to have us believe.

And yet, every time, it is the extreme activist that makes themselves look bad. Whether it is Riz, whether it is that individual (F Wallace???) who has been suspended from the ambulance service for their abuse, whether it is a huge man on a sports debate saying they are most oppressed because they cannot play one of the football codes with women (whether it is Union or AFL or Gaelic). There is NO way to edit these video clips to make those people look 'better', unless you limit them to one or two lines and then modify their story to be very neutral and leaving out pertinent facts.

In other words, present a false story with a false identity.

And then when they are edited out and only have one or two lines, they claim they are grossly misrepresented and how biased the video is (as is Ch. 4).

Material reality has to be faced sometime. Either allies and other trans people accept that their spokespeople or the protestors who declare they represent them are acting with honesty and are true to their beliefs, or there is a major issue with extremism in that movement and they need to address it and should have addressed it long ago.

There's not a single programme or segment made on the subject of gender identity that I can recall TRAs being happy or even somewhat okay with. Whether that be Daily Wire or Channel 4 and everything inbetween.

Somehow all these programmes deliberately make them look bad.

So Matt Walsh used clever editing tricks to make it look like, (1) people were claiming that trans-women are women, (2) they couldn't then give a coherent explanation for this.

??

Why would Walsh need to use editing tricks when we know it's actually going on?

For example, Walsh didn't have control over the editing for the Dr. Phil episode, and you had a similar situation.

I agree with you. It is not limited to identity. And I also believe that creating ‘untouchable’ questions is dangerous.

On another thread I have been repeatedly called a homophobe and a bigot because I analysed an organisation’s actions around a poorly worded clause in a declaration signed by many groups. It is simply ludicrous to think that this is an acceptable approach to having a mature conversation about challenging topics. No discussion as to my analysis was had, just slur after slur for pages.

Creating an untouchable group or topic is dangerous in what it allows to happen because scrutiny has been labelled as problematic. It is also fucking lazy and shows when people don’t want to answer, or can’t because they have opinions not based on fact.

So, just to put this out there, I am not sure that this kind of expectation that reporting be very moderated is confined to gender ideology issues.

I'm in North America where the media situation is somewhat different than the UK, but there are a range of issues in the media in Canada where you will not get proper. balanced reporting. Gender ideology is one. Climate issues are another, although in that case the form is a bit different, what you tend to see is the mainstream media will only present the morons among those who challenge or disagree with elements of the narrative they accept. Serious people who question things like carbon trades, or who point out the other environmental implications of renewals (like mining) are simply ignored. You also see certain things that would complicate the discussion completely ignored in media presentations around racial issues, indigenous issues, and I am sure probably some others as well.

Activists in these areas seem to expect media outlets to refrain from asking pointy questions or challenging them in any way, I can think of at least one example where it's resulted in them being essentially scammed and was a little embarrassing.

I think it's something in the whole mindset around this approach to social justice.