My thoughts:
The opening with its fixed adherence to gender stereotypes is incredibly cringeworthy. In fact, through the whole thing, whenever a "normal" girl is deliberately put in front of the camera she is dressed in pink. The value in this documentary is when you get onto where people with authority speak for themselves, that's where the action is. Walsh is mostly annoying, scoring points, or presenting half-baked notions. He would do well to focus on material reality and to drop his insistence that the "truth" is his way of looking at the world, while others' versions of the "truth" are wrong, that's playing the same game as the progressives' "my truth/your truth".
The most significant substance is watching Chicken Lady, Michelle Fourcier, put forward her views. She appears a number of times and it's only in one of those segments that she goes on about chickens. Her views are mental. I'd like to think that she got on the bus and it's now going too fast for her to get off so she has to carry on, but no, I think she genuinely believes what she says such as babies being born with a gender identity. This would presumably be simulaneously immutable and infinitely fluid. Looking at her and the other ideologues, they believe that in order for a child to go through healthy development, they must be made to think about their own gender identity and "gender journey" from the earliest possible age. It is terrifying. But I'm failing here to do justice to Fourcier, what she says has to be seen to be believed. It would be fascinating to see Walsh release the whole interview he did with her.
One theme that emerges from the ideologues, and, particularly, from #bekind members of the public Walsh talks to, is that if someone tells you something about their identity you must believe it and accept it. At this point I would have welcomed a straightforward question like "If someone said they owned your house and didn't want you in it, would you believe and accept that?" This point is often missed: who cares if someone believes something about themselves that's clearly untrue, the key is whether it leads to a conflct of rights.
Overall, when the ideologues are challenged, the response is either a non-answer or ideological hogwash. Although it's possible all of their sensible comments were left on the cutting-room floor.
If you watch it and filter out Walsh and his facile approach and questions, then having the ideologues explain themselves is pure sunlight. This brings me to my main point, I don't care if we've seen most of it before, I don't care if Walsh's style and ways of presenting the stories are not as we would have them, for me I want a wide variety of ways of looking at what's going on going to different and diverse audiences. As a result of Walsh's documentary, many people will see for the first time what's going on, and they will be horrified. I want people of all kinds to stand up and say there's something wrong going on, and not have a filtering process that removes many of those voices because their owners are the wrong kind of people or the words they're using to object don't fit properly with my own views.