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

Not all the Left. Not me. And definitely not all the left parties viz The Communist Party - Statement of March 2023 on (Scottish) Gender Recognition Bill. Extract below..

• The real innovation of this Bill is to legislate for the self-ID of someone’s legal sex, embedding self-declared ‘gender identity’ in law. But when pursued to the exclusion of such considerations as the sex-based rights of women, and the fragmentation of equality legislation across Britain, it undermines the drive to build unity within and between the working class and the oppressed and disadvantaged groups in our society.
• The Communist Party is the only political party with a coherent political analysis of sex and gender. Gender as an ideological construct should not be confused or conflated with the material reality of biological sex. Gender is the vehicle through which misogyny is enacted and normalised. Gender identity ideology is well- suited to the needs of the capitalist class, focusing as it does on individual as opposed to collective rights, enabling and supporting the super-exploitation of women.
• For these reasons, the Communist Party rejects gender self-ID as the basis for sex- based entitlements in law to women’s single-sex rights, spaces and facilities. The Party will continue to oppose any proposed legislation – whether at Scottish, Welsh or British level – that seeks to enact such a provision.
• We call for ‘sex’ as a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act to be defined as ‘biological sex’.

People who use murdoch as some
kind of gotcha seem to know little about Murdoch’s original stable of media .

Murdoch is about making money. He has media that is left wing targeted at trade unionists too. It is really a pretty lazy gotcha.

Hey Gooner! A really simple question just occurred to me. Apologies it took so long for me to get to it.

My question is Why?

Why would "Murdoch/Murdoch adjacent 'news' organisations" want to "poison" the countries they are in?

It seems like there is an axiomatic belief that that would, but why exactly do you believe that?

If it's just to make money, surely it's easier to pander to existing prejudices than create new ones?

And if it's not to make money, why are they choosing not to make money on this issue when they do on every other? If it's not money, what else drives them to "poison" a country?

Well consider the Daily Wire pundits when they give talks. They don't worry about letting opponents speak at the proper time for that. They don't care about "giving them a platform".

KJK isn't left wing. All KJK does is say sex exists and invite people to say how that fact (or the denial of) affects their lives.

The reality of sex is like the reality of money. For good or bad, it exists and that has a material effect on real people's lives.

An individual absolutely may or may not approve of it existing, may or may not believe it's a construct, may or may not accept the gender constructs society loads on top of that existence, and they have a right to each of those political views.

But nevertheless, sex as a physical difference, and as something with social consequences, does exist.

So yes, what that fact means for humans, and how society should deal with that, is absolutely political and could be different for people on the left and on the right. But the fundamental fact of sex is, or at least should be, as politically neutral as the fact of gravity.

Those who think that the simple recognition of sex as a real and pertinent factor in people's lives can be assigned as politically right or left need to take a step back and have a good think about how they came to that view and whether it genuinely reflects how people identity and how they live their lives.

"Poisoning"?

Can you explain how standing up for women's and children's safety, and talking about biological reality is "poisoning"?

so about this belief you hold that everyone has a gender identity and women who decline to be called cis on the basis that they don't have one are just being awkward

it will therefore be super easy for you to define the gender identity shared by women and men who enjoy role playing as women

come on!

I have an alternative theory: KJK isn't left wing and is exactly the kind of person that would get invited on by Murdoch/Murdoch adjacent 'news' organisations that are at various stages of poisoning the countries they are in.

But it's outlets like Sky News Australia, GB news, Fox News, that have repeatedly given space to KJK.

I doubt that right-wingers worry about "amplifying" left-wing viewpoints, in the way that some lefties worry about the opposite.

I don't really think that's it.

I think Walsh is quite transparent in the film. He sees the primary issue as being the untruth of it all. This drive to accept clearly batshit ideology and push aside the reality of things drives all kinds of pernicious shit, and opens the door to all kinds of abuse.

It seems reductive to reduce gender ideology to male violence, plenty of it is driven by women.

It seems to have become, or maybe it's always been and I didn't notice, a tendency in the left to shy away from realities when they feel like they might undermine an ideological point. You cn see it in threads like the one now about mothers and childcare - people can be very reluctant to look carefully at areas that seem to touch sensitive topics - the answer to , is it negative for babies or toddlers to be separated from mothers - is, what are you trying to do, push mums out of the workforce, or blame them for something? That's just one example that comes to mind.

Absolutely. It's tragi-comic how the "progressive" have persuaded themselves that threatening, colonising, silencing and undefining women is somehow sticking it to the Patriarchy.

What Crackles says.

Addressing the real issue - male violence and entitlement - is too difficult.

Women are a soft target - much easier to blame them for everything and to allow men to feign womanhood and take back the concessions that women have fought like tigresses to obtain, to protect themselves and (importantly) their children.

An of course, blame women for "making" men behave violently.

Haven't read through the entire thread so apologies if it's already been discussed.

I wonder whether men's reluctance to credit GC women is partly also because we 'Name the Problem' - i.e. male violence, entitlement, reproductive control, pornography industry, etc. It's obvious that the conservative analysis is coming from a different perspective to radical feminists; but it does seem uniquely provocative to point out that males are usually the perpetrators of violence and present an exponentially higher risk profile in general.

They certainly don't seem to want to talk about that, much less work towards addressing it. Directing their followers to the work of radical feminist or GC women might act as a consciousness raising exercise, which they don't want.

Thanks for the info about the podcast, I look forward to listening to that!

Blimey. Just watched it.

My main take away is that purple headed paediatrician (does she just self ID as a doctor or is she actually qualified?) should be struck off.

She refused to talk about drugs she's prescribing for children, their alternative uses and their mechanism. Because she didn't like it. That's so staggeringly unprofessional.....

The documentary is GREAT. It is much needed and is having a tremendous impact in shining light into the absurdity of transgender ideoeolgy.

I don't agree with Matt Walsh on some things, but I do agree with him on other things. Shocking I know.

I do think he has handled this documentary fantastically, allowing the gender proponents to dig themselves massive holes of ridiculousness which they then fall into and can't get out. Absolutely well done to you, Matt Walsh.

After having watched other clips of him speaking and discussing, I think the way in which he uses logic to challenge people, leaves the idiotic ideologues absolutely confounded. He has the excellent ability of thinking quickly and responding calmly and yet destryoing anothers argument.

For this reason I would absolutely love the opportunity to discuss something with him that we disagree on, maybe abortion. I would love to see how that debate would turn out.

For anyone interested, he was recently on Jordan Peterson's podcast. It is interersting to hear his persepctive on what motivated him, and to hear Peterson's psychologist review of transgender ideology.

Daily Wire posted a 1-year reunion video:

https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1665814144321310721

Maybe someone has posted this I'm not up to date on the thread.

Mat Walsh saying feminists have been whining.

twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1665771501662994437?s=46

you're still reading then? great

so about you scolding people for not sharing beliefs you can't actually explain...

care to prove me wrong?

why not give a description of the gender identity shared by cis women and trans women

'Gender Critical' only became a thing because some men decided Feminism Inc was for and about them and any woman who disagreed couldn't be a feminist.

The term ‘gender critical’ was created around ‘gender critical feminism’. It is those who wish to bolster the ridiculous position that feminists have become ‘aligned with the far right’ who removed the reference to feminism from it. It has therefore become a term to mean anyone who believes that sex cannot be changed. Which includes a huge range of political alignments.

The centring of female people, all female people (whatever their identity), to overcome the oppression by any male person (whatever their identity) is at the core of those called ‘gender critical feminists’ although I would suggest that many now reject that label for the simple term of ‘feminist’.

Feminists DO discuss other people’s opinions on the issue of whether sex should be prioritised over gender and when. Because a wide range of discussion points should be considered. Discussing it and stating it is a good point, should not depend on the political alignment of the person who made the point. What a puerile attitude that would be. Therefore, a wide range of people’s views are discussed and scrutinised. Because that is how we gain the depth of understanding.

Feminists are often said to ‘be aligned with or amplifying or ‘apologizing’ for the right. Some feminists have been said to be ‘right wing supporters’. This is often false and is a silencing tactic. Anyone who believes allegions of feminists being ‘right wing supporters’ should always ask for original source evidence of this claim.

1. The gender critical movement is not equal to feminism.
2. To the extent the GC movement has been accused of allying with 'the right', it is because many members of the movement, including prominent ones, frequently signal boost, propagate, defend and apologise for members of 'the right'.
3. Matt Walsh is not a run of the mill Tory or Republican. He is a highly influential far right white nationalist.

This isn't actually a tricky situation.

https://twitter.com/Matthew_Coman

Another patronising gooner.

I would say, based mainly on talking to people myself rather than anything I have read, that there are a lot of people who seem to think that conservative religious people believe that there is some kind of gendered soul, separate from any kind of embodied element, and that there is some set of rules, like boys not playing with dollhouses, that the RCs believe has been set out by God, or the Church, or whatever.

In fact I would say that in my experience many of those people look at religious strictures in general in that way, as kind of arbitrary god-rules, like not wearing mixed fibers. Things people are meant to follow to be good but with no inherent importance or material cause.

Whereas in reality, I have never met anyone, including very conservative people, who thinks that there should be, or are, that kind of very strict rule around things, and they think that it is all pretty normal for girls to be tomboys or boys to want to play with dolls.

I know people who have these strict rules exist, but I don't know that they are typically actually very religious, or even really conservative. Like Susie Green seems to have been.

There have been quite a few times on these boards that people have argued that gender ideology comes out of a religious mind-body dualism.