Matt Walsh asks trans activist 'what is a woman'..

[sacredfeminina]

Stumbled accross this on twitter. Matt Walsh, an American political commentator is on a chat show and confronts transactivist to define a woman and tells him that he is appropriating womanhood.

Then after being told that he has 'traumatised' the activists... He provides this response!!

Wow. He says sh*t straight.... Haha!

Talkshow:

Response:
twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1484268313815441418?s=20

Tbh in end as I've said for years.

This is not a party political issue at all. Party politics governments etc structures by men for men.

This falls outside political parties, allegiances etc.

It's about women and girls. All of them. All of us.

Would I march alongside any woman, at a protest on this ONE issue? Of course.

Would I say Look at this vid from p Patel everyone!

No of course I bloody wouldn't. Why anyway when plenty vid available done by people who aren't total arseholes.

Simple.

With whatever Matt Walsh is supposedly planning, Posie Parker could use her debate with Harrop as an audition tape. It remains something that gives me great joy.

Not bad do you really not understand that example?

That approach of ignoring all other views that a person holds, is a very strange approach.

Other people are whole people, with a character, perspective on life, and varied range of views.

People also commonly hold seemingly opposing opinions.

Plenty of famous dictators held beliefs, or cared about things that plenty would say. That thing is good. According to the method on this thread, ignoring the person as a whole is the thing to do.

And yet.

When I mention others who share the view that woman is sex not gender ID. No has said well that's great! And stacks of people do, the ones I'm thinking of also agree with MW on other views he holds.

So, which is it? For those who say doesn't matter what other opinions a person holds.

No longer lol wouldn't work though.

Big part of his rage was because it was a woman challenging him. And not being deferential like women should be!

@DrDinosaur

I loved the clip, think it is great to see anyone standing up on mainstream tv and exposing gender ideology as the complete codswallop it is. And I think he did this very effectively, undoubtedly helped by his authoritative male voice and presentation.

sacredfemina said upthread
He does sadly say that his number one priority is truth, over women's safety

I actually agree with him on this as well. Obviously I am concerned about women's rights as well, but I'm even more concerned that a political movement has somehow managed to get people to believe, or pretend they believe, in a totally unscientific delusion.
Humans are a dimorphic species, humans can't change sex, a man can't be a woman.
I don't think these are political opinions, they are simple statements of fact. I don't need to agree with everything someone thinks about other political matters to agree that truth is important.

I think the kind of purity spiral promoted by Cheese above is part of the problem. There appear to be many people who are either unable, or too afraid, to think for themselves, and instead spout what they think are the 'correct' opinions, because they hear them from the 'righthinking' people. Its the most terrifying thing I have seen in my (long) life.

Thanks for the links to Matt W. He's a good speaker and spot on about this. Some great posts (rather buried amidst a lot of words)

Dinosaur's post is worth repeating - truth is important and it's terrifying to see so many powerful people openly presenting lies and fiction as the truth.

Not bad do you really not understand that example?

Yes I understand it perfectly.

That approach of ignoring all other views that a person holds, is a very strange approach

But in your hypothetical example, and in the very real world example of Walsh throughout this thread, no one is ignoring the other views. So nothing strange is happening.

No one is ignoring the person as a whole. On the contrary, you are saying that the person as a whole dictates whether we should listen to anything they say. According to you, if a person isn’t pure enough, we shouldn’t listen to them.

All that is being asked is whether that particular view is right or not. Is hypothetical person A/Matt Walsh correct on the environment/Loudoun rape case?

Yes or no?

Having said that,

What would be vv hard hitting is if he got an old school radical feminist on. One pretty well known been around for years women.

Because. Having two people who on anything else would be at loggerheads. Could on screen say this is outside mainstream political parties etc. It's about all women and girls. We have agreed to discuss amicably the main issues with Gender > sex. Why the risk to women girls is so great that we are prepared to talk about this one topic only. And stick to the risks. As clearly getting into why we personally feel so strongly other than risk, we would obviously completely disagree.

The risks are so clear theres no need for further justification.

And we are doing this to make our point, that this is such a priority for half the population. That the politics need to be set aside. And on this, to forget about coming out on top politically. But win for all women girls no matter who they are.

Would he go for that? He listens to those who generally hold opposing views?

Would be vv hard to set up.

Thoughts?

'On the contrary, you are saying that the person as a whole dictates whether we should listen to anything they say. According to you, if a person isn’t pure enough, we shouldn’t listen to them.'

No you've still not got it.

What the person as a whole is like, is important when listening. To understand where likely coming from. Biases.

To be careful about taking at face value, especially politicians and commentators.

That grabbing attention, keeping/growing audience/support is invariably in play.
That everyone has biases.
Is there something in the background, something that is being glossed over.

Trusting those who need popularity, taking at face value.

Is the opposite of childish (used earlier I assume about me ).

It's very naive to believe everything you're told, and when it's someone who is active in politics and messaging etc. Extremely naive.

'But in your hypothetical example, and in the very real world example of Walsh throughout this thread, no one is ignoring the other views. So nothing strange is happening.'

Ah I didn't realise.

This thread then was posted (on UK board), saying wow look at this bloke (no mention of anything about him and not widely known in UK) he is brilliant on this!

The expectation then was that rather than reading the OP from which obv doesn't give view clue about his general outlook. That those who didn't know who was, would Google?

That's not actually very likely on a chatboard like this surely.

How do you know all the posters knew who he was etc? Threads it's not uncommon to read OP, next post or 2, comment, move on.

You can't assume everyone knows who he is and what his views are, surely?

You're working on the assumption that all posters who had look vid op and said something positive. Knew he was anti -abortion, anti BLM, a misogynist, thinks Rittenhouse hero etc?

I didn't realise that either. I don't think that's something you can assume tbh.

I mean. Remember on thread here talking about NF in 70s 80s. USA poster didn't know what meant even though they were era and related to thread topic.

Same as I wouldn't on a USA site mention JRM, Nick Ferrari, Emily Maitless (so). Vv unlikely have a clue who are.

@CheeseMmmm

'On the contrary, you are saying that the person as a whole dictates whether we should listen to anything they say. According to you, if a person isn’t pure enough, we shouldn’t listen to them.'

No you've still not got it.

What the person as a whole is like, is important when listening. To understand where likely coming from. Biases.

To be careful about taking at face value, especially politicians and commentators.

That grabbing attention, keeping/growing audience/support is invariably in play.
That everyone has biases.
Is there something in the background, something that is being glossed over.

Trusting those who need popularity, taking at face value.

Is the opposite of childish (used earlier I assume about me ).

It's very naive to believe everything you're told, and when it's someone who is active in politics and messaging etc. Extremely naive.

I'm not very good with half sentences so apologies if I've misunderstood but you appear to be saying that we need to pay attention to people's biases and consider what they are saying in the light of those. So are you saying that people with 'skin in the game' as TRA should be considered to be highly biased and therefore unrealiable? i.e. trans people are very biased when they are suggesting opening up female spaces to biological men?

Erm.... No. It's more nuanced than that! I thought this stuff was something everyone did!

You can't assume that those who you group together all have the same reasons for doing or thinking things. Life is way more complex than that. Assuming those you put in certain category all clones is easy but lacking.

Define what you mean by tra and happy to give thoughts. What do, individual or org, where share thoughts, how express them. Roughly obv! Vv definitely different ideas of who tra to different people.

What the person as a whole is like, is important when listening. To understand where likely coming from. Biases.

And again, everyone is aware of this. Why do you think we wouldn’t be?

It's very naive to believe everything you're told, and when it's someone who is active in politics and messaging etc. Extremely naive

And has been pointed out to you, we are not naive, we know exactly who he is and what his background is and people still think what he said was right.

Do you, or do you not?

This thread then was posted (on UK board), saying wow look at this bloke (no mention of anything about him and not widely known in UK) he is brilliant on this!

And? Is he or is he not? On this? This alone?

The expectation then was that rather than reading the OP from which obv doesn't give view clue about his general outlook. That those who didn't know who was, would Google?

And then what? People who didn’t know who he is and then Google him like you did, find out who he is. It doesn’t change anything. Is he right or wrong on this particular issue?

You’re saying that if someone says something, you can’t possibly agree with what they have said until you’ve found out everything else they believe in.

Is he right or wrong to draw attention to the Loudoun rape cases?

Define what you mean by tra and happy to give thoughts.
I'd say it is someone who is fighting for transwomen to have unfettered access to protected female spaces and to have medical terms re-written to obscure the facts about male and female bodies

What do, individual or org, where share thoughts, how express them. Roughly obv! Vv definitely different ideas of who tra to different people.

Apologies, again I don't understand this. Can you re-word?

One of the interesting things about Matt Walsh’s responses is that they do have GC feminist tones.

• the part about men “appropriating womanhood” and being a woman isn’t something to be “worn”
• the emphasis on how girls’ feelings and desire for privacy and safety are being overridden by the feelings of boys who identify as trans or GNC.

He’s not hollering about how trans people are desecrating the god-ordained definitions of man and woman, or whatever. He’s been well-informed by someone!

'But in your hypothetical example, and in the very real world example of Walsh throughout this thread, no one is ignoring the other views. So nothing strange is happening.

No one is ignoring the person as a whole.'

^ no one on the thread ignoring other views or MW as whole person.

How do you know all the posters knew/know who he is what his views are?

I googled yes. Because so many threads recently saying X said this aren't they great! X turns out to have views that disaster for women/ be prominent white supremacist etc.

Like I said earlier, loads of this at the moment for 'proof' women who post here all far right extreme religious types, therefore should never ever listen to on anything. Plus totally fair to treat them as vv evil murderous, only right to protect their from their violent (words).

In turn, this fuels the actually dangerous practice of constantly messaging to people with trans ID who are ACTUALLY vulnerable, and includes of course children and young people.

IMO those who start threads for this reason, those who comment vile things about trans people in order to take a screenshot, that behaviour is despicable. And it DOES have real life consequences for vulnerable people but you know. Collateral damage I suppose IF any who do that even think about it at all.

Anyway. Obv not talking about this thread but that was why I googled who MW is.

Most posters surely would not.

Saying all who posted on this thread knew what he is about is an assumption and one that is not reasonable.

NoLonger. Really? Feminist?!!!

You think he came up with that stuff on his own?

Not that oh maybe.
He can read. He's on Twitter. He has been following this topic for a fair while for his own reasons... (Not a mystery what they are).

He can see which phrases get most reaction. Sound like things that suggest thinking involved and wide thought on topic. Things that can be hard to respond to. And Given his style. I'd think he was particularly interested in things which caused lots of anger.

Are you sticking with. Wow! He sounds like a type of feminist! The anti-abortion sort of feminist who somehow simultaneously is clear eyed about the global historical and current impact of male supremacism/patriarchy!

I'm not going to buy that I'll be honest.

I googled yes. Because so many threads recently saying X said this aren't they great! X turns out to have views that disaster for women/ be prominent white supremacist etc.

And herein lies your own prejudice. You’re not prepared to listen to or acknowledge the correctness of anyone who doesn’t pass your purity test.

Like I said earlier, loads of this at the moment for 'proof' women who post here all far right extreme religious types

And only you seem bothered by this. The rest of us couldn’t care less if it’s taken as “proof” of anything, because we know our own minds.

In turn, this fuels the actually dangerous practice of constantly messaging to people with trans ID who are ACTUALLY vulnerable, and includes of course children and young people.

We are not responsible for TRAs creating and perpetuating a false narrative that real trans people are under threat from women’s rights supporters who are “aligned with far right fundamentalists” and I have no intention of checking my behaviour or agreement with anyone or anything lest it be appropriated by those activists.

IMO those who start threads for this reason

Are you saying the OP didn’t post in good faith? That’s a significant claim if so.

Saying all who posted on this thread knew what he is about is an assumption and one that is not reasonable.

Even if no one knew who he was or what he said previously, is he, or is he not right on this?

Your views that you have repeated on this thread on the last 24 hours or so Cheese indicate to me the very worst of identity politics and the intolerance and bigotry of the Left: only those with acceptable views on everything are tolerated. At least those on the Right have insight into their bigotry.

Maybe take some time, get your thoughts together, and post clearly in one single post, in full coherent sentences whether he is right or wrong and why you think we should or shouldn’t acknowledge that based on his prior expressions.

I think the addition of Posie Parker on a platform with Matt would be brilliant. Politically, these are issues that will win over the swing votes of suburban middle-class women. They didn’t like Trump but they do want their single sex spaces for women or girls and don’t want their daughters to be raped in toilets aka Loudoun County.

PP is a brilliant public speaker but not a hard-core conservative so will be more relatable.

I know I’m dreaming but it would be great to see.

Hmmm just thought and took a punt on what I somehow magically guessed would be something likely to find. Didn't take long. And was even worse than I was imagining!

'Matt Walsh
@MattWalshBlog
If a 12 year old is raped by her father and the father takes her to get an abortion, the evidence of the crime will be destroyed and he will go on molesting his victim for years. If however the child is born, his crime will be discovered and she will be rescued from the abuse.'

Had those girls attacked in school. The two girls that were posted about a lot earlier on.

Had one of them been pregnant as a result of attack. I don't know exactly what attacks involved and tbh I don't need detail but for this point. One girl pregnant due to being attacked by this boy.

He would firmly believe she should carry baby for all those months, give birth. And of course actual baby.

Obviously risks physical and MH. And this situation for her I can't imagine how awful.

Thoughts?

Like I said earlier, loads of this at the moment for 'proof' women who post here all far right extreme religious types

I don’t give a shit. Not while girls are being raped in bathrooms.

So you don't mind that farming this stuff helps to convince vulnerable children with trans IDs that they are in danger, everyone hates them, their parents will hate them if they tell.
To trust trans family online?

I've misread that surely? Can you clarify?

Oh and my last post re child rape abortion.
Your views.