Matt Walsh 'What is a Women?' trailer released

[MalagaNights]

Matt Walsh, the right wing Catholic who is against abortion and yoga (I'm just getting in all the reasons to not 'align' with him in advance, if that's your thing) has released the trailer for his documentary.

It looks hilarious and amazing;

twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1525477731181502464?t=zwaCB9yE6f6R48Q46arIeA&s=19

@DaisiesandButtercups Given the seriousness of the situation around genderwoo, I too am open to more voices. Someone on ovarit recommended Amala Ekpunobi's podcast, Unapologetic and I would highly recommend it.

She has an interesting background. As her mom was an ardent Leftis she too was activist, making a name for herself during the anti-gun protests after the Parkland shooting. Anyway she slowly realized how dangerous Woke,CRT, trans was so she renounced all that.Some describe her as Libertarian but my having listening to several of her podcasts don't understand how they arrived at that description.As far as I can tell she wants open dialogue and rejects ideology. (She has a podcast about her journey that is worth watching.

The first two I watched were her reactions to a tiktok star, a TW named Dylan Mulvaney, someone who btw just got a deal from Tampax to represent Tampax.

She is a very articulate young woman and I was glued to the screen.

Here's her reaction to Dylan Mulvaney

When Dylan got rather upset hearing about she responded with this.

why would not being around any transwoman be a need

What a disingenuous take. And this makes it clear why language is so important.

Female humans have needs that are unique to male humans. And at times, when sex matters, females need to have single sex spaces where they are not ‘around any’ males.

If you don’t understand why women, the almost universally understood term used to describe female humans, at times don’t wish to be around any adult male (however that male presents or describes themselves), then you obviously do not have empathy for the many lives experiences of women and girls. And simply the need for privacy.

Plenty non-trans women don't have those needs, but the word "woman" still includes them, so why shouldn't it also include trans women?

The word woman is defined as adult human female. Female is a description of a sexed body type. Humans who are female are similar to those of other animals, particularly mammals. They have a body type formed around the production of large gametes regardless of whether that reproductive system is working optimally, has worked in the past, or will in the future.

Those with certain medical issues, may never produce those large gametes, however their bodies have been formed around that role. This can be looked up in any biology text.

People with medical issues relating to their bodies ability to now, in the past or the future carry out that role do not change the class categorization. Those people should also never be used as a political lever to open the definition for the class category.

Those bodies formed around small gametes whether the body can or will be able to successfully produce small gametes, are male.

Plenty non-trans women don't have those needs, but the word "woman" still includes them, so why shouldn't it also include trans women?

Women, who are females, will always have needs that males do not have. Why should any female have to include a male in a situation where sex matters?

And sex does matter at times.

We can provide a list if it is completely out of any posters ability to understand when females need to not have any pubertal or post pubertal males ‘around’. Just ask.

Using a gender term does not negate the fact that females are unique and deserve to have their needs met. Males who have transitioned are still males, and they also deserve to have their unique needs met but not at the expense of those female needs.

Did some posters not get the memo that sex is no longer being denied?

Or are the many posters and organisations telling women that biological sex is not longer being denied being dishonest?

Right. I have literally never seen those threads you are referring to. Or a feminine male being referred to in the way you say. I have seen lots of women say they don't give a crap how someone presents, just that that does not make them literally a woman. But you appear to be ignoring all those comments in favour of the few that allow you sidestep the arguments I made to throw insults instead.

Secondly, you do get that we are all individuals and we have different views? Or are views founded on a violent hatred of women because of the many males who believe in your gender ideology who say things like ' die Terf die' and make rape threats via use of their 'lady dick.'

Would you now like to engage with the argument that I made about full human possibility being open to all without them having to deny their sex and gain a new label? What do you think about that as an idea?

I will watch his documentary with interest.

in my country we now have first graders being given school bags with the rainbow flag on it. They also have workshops on lgbTQ issues in nurseries.

both of which I previously would have thought a Nice thing, but the leader of the organisation that provides these bags and workshops is a man with a women’s name, who insists nobody should care about his genitals when he changes in the women’s changing rooms.

he also claims that the definition of woman is «anyone who feels like a woman in their head» and repeated that genitals really had nothing to do with sex/gender (my language only has one Word for both).

so far so fucking creepy.

I have no qualms about mr Walsh’s politics. It is good and necessary to engage with people with different opinions, even when some of their opinions and politics are abhorrent to you.
otherwise you end up with an extremely infantile situation like parts of the left has ended up in: Where they can only talk to people who agree with themselves and mock those who do not.
it does not allow for healthy and robust debate at all.

Thank you very much @DontLikeCrumpets I will check out those videos later.

Is there? I’ve seen people being called transphobic for saying that trans women are men, or that sex in humans is binary.

Once statements of fact are viewed as transphobic how then can it be said to be abhorrent?

You are conflating secondary sexual characteristics with sex. They are not the same thing.

I’m male. I could be attracted to other males, have surgery to appear female, take hormones to have similar levels of them to women, but I will remain male.

I set off down the route to being male around ten weeks after conception, and from then on until the time I die, I’m always, in every way, 100% male.

In case you misunderstand, though, that’s nothing to do with being “manly”, or liking stereotypically male things, it’s a function of biology.

But that’s a circular definition, it has no meaning. You can’t define a group by saying that it’s defined by its members. You are in effect saying that “woman” isn’t a thing.

This is a failure of basic formal logic.

Any feminine "male" is accused of being a "paraphilic AGP fetishist" by default.

Not here you don't. That gets deleted very quickly as it is something we are not allowed to discuss, unless it is done very, very carefully. As it is, apparently, not in the spirit, is disrespectful, is a broad brush stroke, ad hom etc etc.

So where else have you been reading? Because you mixing it up with Mumsnet?

Shared gender identity of "woman".

That's it.

A common link usually also involves feminine names (like "Sarah"), labels (like "actress"), and pronouns (like "she"), but the more we get to specifics, the less universal these things they are.

Because there's more than one way to be a woman, and women, both cis and trans, are all different.

This reads exactly like it is written by a person who has no female lived experience.

We are now being told yet again that a name and a pronoun preference is the description of womanhood.

Let's try

'a human who has the body formed around the production of large gametes regardless of that body's ability to perform that task'.

Let's see if it works with your comments back to Bernard, Seldom.

Bernard: if healthy, working correctly and in the right age group

Seldom: That's quite a lot of exceptions there. What stops one from also throwing in "wasn't assigned a different gender at birth"?

Doesn't matter about those 'exceptions' now does it? It is about the formation of the sexed body and you have no need to bring in differences of sex development or any female's medical conditions to try to disprove the statement.

Bernard: do you accept that having that kind of body gives those people unique needs?

Seldom: Are these needs universally shared by all non-trans women? If not, I see no reason to exclude trans women from the definition.

Yes. Because regardless of whether or not that persons body is performing its task for whatever reason, the unique needs remain grouped around that body form. And not a male's body form, regardless of any medical treatment that male has had.

Bernard: do you think they should have a word for themselves so they can organise to ensure those needs are met?

Seldom: Plenty non-trans women don't have those needs, but the word "woman" still includes them, so why shouldn't it also include trans women?

Bernard is quite correct. Those people, women = adult human females, require a descriptor that refers to their unique body formation and thus to protect them for the sexist discrimination they have experienced from birth (or before birth). There are plenty of experiences around that body formation that not all women will need to address, but there will never be ONE experience around that body formation that those women will need to NOT address.

Transitioned males have their own unique needs, of course they do. But they will not experience any of the same experiences that a woman will regarding her body's needs. Because they will always be from a male body perspective and their cosmetic / hormonal treatments as those have impacted their bodies.

Please list exactly what cross-overs any person with a transitioned male body will experience that is exactly like the experience of a person with a female body.

Your attempt at a sleight of hand and some modern form of philosophical thinking around labelling cannot actually obfuscate the truth.

And nor does a name and a pronoun.

I'm getting quite into watching Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro clips. I don't agree with all Shapiro's views, re abortion. But both their stuff on 'what is a woman' is good. The truth. Can not be denied. I like that.