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

[AnotherDayAnotherView]

https://twitter.com/stevenmarkryan/status/1664437068838363141

Available for 24 hours

Another thing I don’t understand from the “aligned with crew” is:

Gender ideology, that has resulted in children being chemically castrated, rendered sterile and in the amputation of children’s breasts has come from and been promoted by the political left.

So when the political, conservative right calls gender ideology out for being dangerous, and frankly, insane, how and why is it suddenly a “slippery slope” to agree with them?

It’s absolutely nuts that people are told that speaking out against the chemical castration and sterilisation of gay and/or autistic and/or traumatised is wrong because “their side” hasn’t done it.

First they came for the children - sterilising, chemically castrating them - and I did not speak out because the other people speaking out weren’t exactly the same as me.

... what?

This isn't about 'being on the same side'. I've not criticised the similarity in position between the gender critical movement and Matt Walsh. I've criticised the degree to which those in the gender critical movement is willing to support, embrace and elevate him.

Also, while I cannot stand the Tories, the people you've referred to aren't white nationalists. I think there's a real lack of perspective here. Matt Walsh's viewpoints are way off the deepend.

Of course you're not going to agree with everything anyone says. But you and the gender critical movement should be conscious of whose support you are garnering. Matt Walsh is not a single issue bigot. Signal boosting this man and his alt right network is not only going to affect trans people. "First they came for the trans people, and I didn't care because I don't like trans people". It's obvious what comes next and/or simultaneously: homophobia, misogyny, and a reversion to 'traditional' Christian values. Do not believe that the gender critical movement is going to be able to apply the brakes at the right time. The right time to distance yourselves from Walsh is right now.

If you can tell me how to distance myself from Matt Walsh and say, Marci Bowers, I’ll consider it, @TraumatisedGooner.

@TraumatisedGooner why don’t you spend any time telling Matt Walsh how good it is for him to be learning from left wing GC feminists and how it can help him climb down from his extreme positions on other views as a result?

After all, if you think left wing GC feminists might inadvertently elevate Walsh, isn’t the reverse true that Walsh might inadvertently elevate left wing GC feminist views?

I think people who go on about this "promoting bad viewpoints" stuff must at some level know that a lot of their ideas are built on sand.

They seem to be terrified that people will hear those with other opinions explain why they think what they do, and that the listeners will be persuaded away from their alignment with the progressive left.

My suggestion would be to work on making their own arguments and behaviour more persuasive. Because right now that is failing pretty spectacularly.

You're being hyperbolic again. He made a documentary that garnered a lot of attention. People who are not part of the American right wing have discussed and critiqued it. Women have watched and critiqued it because why shouldn't we? It's out there so we may as well take an informed view of the content.

Just from this thread it's easy to see there's parts of it many did not like or agree with. Other parts of it were a rehash of arguments women have long been making.

The most interesting parts that did actually add value really were nothing to do with Walsh himself or his views - those were the interviews where various other people spoke in their own words.

A cursory glance at twitter today shows large swathes of GC Twitter having a go at Walsh and the Daily Wire for egregiously lying about throwing the first brick at Stonewall being the first people to raise these issues.

Both TRAs and the Daily Wire appear to be adept at rewriting women's history to suit their purpose so perhaps the commonality is not with us at all.

Am just watching it now and I thought from the trailer I knew what was in it, but OMG it is so much better than I had imagine d!

Oh, I'm mistaken, I thought you didn't want people to watch it because of the content and are using Walsh as the faux reason.

As you can plainly see, loads of people are criticising him and watching it.

As in 'Yes, Walsh is sexist, but oh dear gold, look at all these unhinged zealots damaging children. I had no idea it was that bad!'

I assume you agree with that?

Somewhere there is a Venn diagram that illustrates this, but I can’t find it:

Gender critical Feminist: Gender is a harmful social construct. Sex cannot be changed.

Gender ideology: Gender is innate. Sex can be changed.

Right wing: Gender is innate. Sex cannot be changed.

The documentary seems to be proposing the third idea, so is not helpful to anyone challenging gender ideology, as it endorses the social constructs that lead to people thinking that gender non conforming = in wrong body.

Gender ideology, that has resulted in children being chemically castrated, rendered sterile and in the amputation of children’s breasts has come from and been promoted by the political left.

My impression is that the idea that a boy who likes Barbie must be a girl is more right wing.

😁

Brilliant!

Have you watched it Merrymouse? The film doesn't really discuss Matt's views on whether "gender" is innate, a couple of sequences could be interpreted that way, but I think his view is more in support of gendered roles than gendered personalities. Indeed he platforms Jordan Peterson to support the notion that there are (many) girls with so called masculine traits and vice versa; that there isn't that much difference between the temperament of males and females.

Plus doesn't this:

My impression is that the idea that a boy who likes Barbie must be a girl is more right wing.

contradict this:

The documentary seems to be proposing the third idea [Right wing: Gender is innate. Sex cannot be changed.]

I am not particularly saying you are wrong that his support for supporting gendered roles could create its own harms, but they are not the same harms.

Nothing feminist about gendered roles.

I certainly can’t speak for all people that are pro trans rights but… I believe gender is a social construct. I don’t think that’s an unusual point of view either.

This is nonsense.

Matt Walsh now has to have personal and 24 hour security around his home because of the death threats continuously made to him and his family.

He's had to cancel events because the level of threat has been so high.

He receives vile violent threats daily. He has had his phone and his computer hacked and they have his emails going back years.
He's been doxxed over and over with his address shared.

The Daily Wire offices have to have constant armed guards.

I certainly can’t speak for all people that are pro trans rights but… I believe gender is a social construct. I don’t think that’s an unusual point of view either

I am pro trans rights. I’m also pro women’s rights and recognise that women require specific rights and services because of their sex, and regardless of their identity, and that this necessarily excludes people whose sex is male (regardless of whether they may suffer discrimination or require services on the basis of any other protected characteristic E.g. sexuality, race, disability, gender reassignment).

The ability to acknowledge conflicts of rights is the basis of any framework that protects rights.

Given his diatribes against feminism on YouTube, Matt Walsh is not concerned about protecting women’s rights as most British people would understand them.

That's the gender critical view as well. The difference is gender critical people think these constructs, whether you align to the one you were "assigned" at birth or not, are unnecessary and limiting.

So some questions for you - why is it necessary for people to adjust their bodies to match this social construct? And why is which social construct you feel you most align with more relevant than your body sex, which is fixed and to which people impose gender constructs that may not be the one you chose, for sport, or prison, or anything else really?

That is because conservatives like him think one's 'gender', i.e. one's personality, interests, etc. should match one's sex, while gender ideology prescribes matching one's sex to one's personality, interests, etc. and that the latter is oh so special, especially the more un-normal it is.

I don't think feminists realise how silly and petty they look to the world outside of feminism when they argue that Matt Walsh stole their ideas and they said it first.

Of course all movements start with small groups with focused interests who are paying attention to a phenomenon while generally other people are not. They push to share this concern because they want other people to notice and take action, and inevitably some organisation or personality breaks through and makes the issue real publically.

Also I don't think the Daily Wire gives a damn whether they were first or not, because they are the most successful, so the feminists look irrelevant even in their complaining.

Also I think Walsh's belief that on average boys and girls are different in their interests is more generally agreed with by the general public than the GC belief that it's just an oppressive social construct, so his approach was always going to be more appealing.

Even Matt Walsh would acknowledge that there are exceptions to the on average differences.
He admitted even he likes scented candles!

Oh I'm sorry is noticing and highlighting differences in how men and women are treated differently silly? Highlighting a clear and current example of how women's voices are ignored but men tend not to be?

It's not silly. To call the highlighting of oppression silly is to be part of the oppression

Matt Walsh has a YouTube channel that has videos with titles like “how feminism destroys marriage”

Whether he just wants more clicks or is sincere, he really, really doesn’t have any interest in finding common ground with feminists.

Which is possibly why people listen to him....

Also I think Walsh's belief that on average boys and girls are different in their interests is more generally agreed with by the general public than the GC belief that it's just an oppressive social construct, so his approach was always going to be more appealing.

it’s the underpinning of gender ideology and the idea that you can be born in the wrong body.

And once we've stopped lying to and sterilising children, we can have a good long discussion about that. I'm not going to argue about what colour curtains are best, when the house is on fire.