Matt Walsh Again

[MalagaNights]

“The feelings of a million women are dust when stacked up against the feelings of one gender confused man. All of reality is dust….Well I say to that: No….Don’t affirm what you know are lies.” - @MattWalshBlog on men competing against women t.co/

twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1503512259267600385?t=oXNoo5v_tPZYGKxF-aoZQw&s=19

Also on a serial killer who has killed another woman and whose pronouns are being respected:

twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1503522123859562504?t=GMUJTs4bAcD9NkGhtl19OQ&s=19

He's fully committed himself to fighting this.

For those who are sensitive or tribal he's also very conservative, very religious and against abortion.

He's quite effective in this issue and has a big platform. I'm not into purity politics.

Isn't one the reasons that gender identity ideology force- teamed with the the lgb cause so that it could be cloaked by a valid "progressive" cause?

Wrong thread I think @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

"For those who are sensitive or tribal he's also very conservative, very religious and against abortion."

I expect to agree with such people on some issues and disagree with them on others. Just like I expect to agree / disagree with everybody.

I watched his leadership institute speech yesterday, had never heard of him before. I agreed with everything he said and he articulated the feeling of being put upon and having to engage in some game, that at my core I view as nonsense, very well.
His career as whatever he is will probably be over, but well done him for taking a stand against stupidity.

Adding to his question "What is a woman?" I'll add wtaf is gender? What is covered by gender that is not covered by biological sex, sexuality/sexual preference and individual personality. What does this new word even mean?

I asked friends and family what they think gender is as genuinely interested and have missed the whole conversation before now. Someone said how you present to the world, but that is covered by individual personality. Someone else said it's your phenotype, how you appear to the world, in which case does the world get to decide? Since it's how you appear to them? What is the actual point of any of this?

Which bit are you objecting to? I watched the clip above linked by Fripp. I agree with most of what he says. Which bit of what he says in that clip are you disagreeing with?

As it's used by genderists, the word "gender" means 3 things:

1. a synonym for "sex";
2. a sort of soul that apparently everyone is supposed to have; and
3. a combination of the soul concept and some characteristics of sex and/or stereotypical behaviour.

But that's not all. The clever bit is that when a genderist is making their arguments that "trans women are women", "sex is a social construct", etc, they flip between 1, 2, and 3 in terms of what they're arguing for and will also combine 1, 2, and 3 to make other hybrid gender concepts where it suits their argument.

This is one reason why it's generally difficult to impossible to have a meaningful discussion between genderists and those who believe in material reality. What the genderists are talking about can vary from one sentence to the next and can even mean different things in the same sentence.

By the way, when I say "genderists", I don't just mean trans activists, I'm including Matt Walsh to some degree. Following the image WhereYouLeftIt posted I could imagine Matt Walsh being on board in some ways with 1, 2, and 3.

The clip linked in the OP is objectively a good speech which I can’t disagree with.

I am not into purity spirals either. In this instance I agree with him and I think he said it well and I hope it gets a wide audience.

When women have asked why the feelings of a small group of men trump the feelings of a larger group of women we are told that they are more vulnerable than us and might commit suicide if we don’t put them before ourselves and our daughters. Maybe Mr Walsh won’t get that answer. I shall be interested to see. He has at least one daughter I believe.

I think that as a Catholic, if he accepts Catholic teaching on the matter (if I have understood it correctly) he wouldn’t believe that a soul could be in the wrong body. Catholic teaching as I understand it is that the soul and body form together, intimately connected and not that the body is a vessel for the soul but that neither exists without the other.

So I don’t think that the Catholic view would be that gender is a sort of soul. I could be wrong, a practising Catholic or even better a Catholic theologian may be along to explain it better if we are lucky.

I heard an Orthodox priest say that every living thing has a soul and describe it as the thing which makes something alive. I think this may differ from the Catholic view.

People who believe in gender identity have quite a different view of the soul than either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian perspective, I would say that the gender identity view of the soul is closer to Gnosticism which is considered a heresy by both Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Gnosticism does believe that the body and soul are separate and the soul is the true person and that the goal of the soul is to escape the body.