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

[AnotherDayAnotherView]

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

Available for 24 hours

Clymene · Today 13:05
Thank you for the correction about the writer’s name in The Critic review of the film. My apologies to Victoria Smith for my slapdash misreading of your post.

I agree that overall she is right about him oversimplifying how boys and girls are different not only physically but socially.
Nevertheles, his remark that it’s fine for a four year old boy to play with a doll’s house may mean there is at least a small chink on his approach.

Also, I agree with Maltravers that his film is more likely to attract the understanding and sympathy of people who do not know much of what has been happening under the radar with gender ideology, and who might get muddled and bored by the ‘there is no such thing as gender it’s all stereotypes’ sort of argument - which on first sight seems to be exactly what Transactivists are saying too anyway
(especially because of the sex/gender word confusion).

Thinking back to some of those interviews in the film, it’s odd to see how even though Transactivists are saying biology doesn’t count for anything, it is only what’s in the mind that is significant, they then also want ‘trans affirming’ surgery and hormones in order to mimic biology (which they say does not matter).

I think if we root out this ideology fewer kids would need mental health services

I think its the other way around. The evidence is clear that the mental health of our children and young people is worsening, and especially so over the past 15 years over a range of domains. Schools surveys I have seen show that children with gender incongruence have by far the worse mental health and health risking behaviours across every domain measured. I think children with mental health issues are latching onto, and being encouraged by perhaps well-meaning but misguided, people online to attribute all their problems to gender identity issues. I think, at least initially, declaring a gender identity is often a symptom rather than a cause of mental ill-health, but can become a contributor to increased mental ill-health as people start to transition, especially if they go down the medical route, as then they continue to have all their original problems, plus those being caused by the medical interventions.

It's not like the audience for MW's have been led to it by this little corner of the internet or even by the wider GC feminist movement. It's much more likely that people are looking for something to explain or even push back against gender ideology as they see it and as it affects them.

Much as I'd like to think that the solders were truly concerned for our purity and the health of the GC movement , they're here to virtue signal, get screenshot and put off casual readers. MW will still keep MWing if we all disappeared tomorrow up our own virtue spiral.

All the anti abortion, homophobic, transphobic or, even, fascists that glom onto the pushback are doing so for their own reasons. Because they see the wrong in GI, because they see an angle for their own causes, or both. It's tras that are raising his profile. He wouldn't even have made the film if it wasn't for them. And Doc Stock would still be a relatively unknown (albeit awesome) Professor in a sleepy English University.

*scolders

Omid Djalili tweeted a link to the film. It's still not clear what side of the dispute he's on though. He's desperately clinging to the fence, but he's sticking up for the film and MW in part.

https://twitter.com/omid9/status/1665237814764613633?s=20

I seem to recall he used to be blindly TWAW

He’s getting an online kicking from the Twitterati… more negative comments than supportive ones.

This is really well explained and accords with how I see it. Thank you

I think you are right about mental health getting worse and worse.

I have come to think that gender ideology though is part of a larger set of ideas that kids are absorbing, that is really negatively impacting their mh.

It's not the only thing by any means, I also would implicate social media and the general lack of freedom children have from a young age now.

But I had the experience a few years ago of one of my daughters, who has always been more naturally emotionally labile, getting all kinds of ideas from her school and particularly classes that touched on mental health questions, and almost it seemed being overwhelmed by them. What were fairly normal feelings for a teenage girl, were very much pathologized, and a lot of time was spent on different negative behaviours. There was a while where it was a new thing every few weeks - some came from tictok (tics) while others came from the school (cutting and food restrictions.)

All with this demand for therapy, and a "diagnosis" which apparently would solve all her problems.

I ended up taking her out of school for half a year, and it made a significant difference to her health.

These mh issues aren't arising from nowhere, they are being caused by something our society is doing. I think we have inadvertently done away with some practices and beliefs that protected people against this kind of problem.

I worry that along with destigmatizing mental health issues (a good thing) we have somehow encouraged a situation where mental health frailties like trans/cutting etc are fetishised so as to make you “special”, almost fashionable and worthy of notice.

And it goes hand in hand with this approach of only “the oppressed” having a legitimate voice. I want oppressed people to have a voice, but also everyone else too and I don’t want people to aspire to victim status as giving them special validity.

@DemiColon

This idea that conservatives and especially religious conservatives think gendered social roles are somehow separately set down from embodied causes and are really arbitrary is really mistaken

Does anyone think that though - I mean, does anyone actually think that "conservatives and especially religious conservatives think gendered social roles are somehow separately set down from embodied causes"?

I'd say rather:

C&RC people believe gendered social roles are simply the natural expression of the innate embodied differences of sex

GC people think C&RC people are mistaking gendered social roles as natural when they are in fact entirely socially constructed

From the GC POV, both Genderists and C&RC are wrong in taking gendered social roles as innate

From the C&RC POV, both genderists and GC/Feminists are wrong in believing gendered social roles exist arbitrarily outside embodied sex (ie your dualism)

But just because C&RC think gendered social roles are the natural expression of embodied differences innate to sex, that doesn't mean they think it's impossible to be gender non-confirming. They do recognise, as MW does, that not everyone of a sex will embody those differences to the same result. However, where TRAs see these people as proof of innate gender outside sex (and GCs as proof that gender is all made up), C&RC see these people as within their sex, but acting against their own nature. (Which as an aside is often blamed on their being mislead by the malign influence of the Not-C&RC).

I do agree with you that the mass position is probably closer to "there are innate character differences due to sex" than the GC view though.

Why can't even women say what a women is?
Is it not to offend or are people really stupid?

Sal

I would say, based mainly on talking to people myself rather than anything I have read, that there are a lot of people who seem to think that conservative religious people believe that there is some kind of gendered soul, separate from any kind of embodied element, and that there is some set of rules, like boys not playing with dollhouses, that the RCs believe has been set out by God, or the Church, or whatever.

In fact I would say that in my experience many of those people look at religious strictures in general in that way, as kind of arbitrary god-rules, like not wearing mixed fibers. Things people are meant to follow to be good but with no inherent importance or material cause.

Whereas in reality, I have never met anyone, including very conservative people, who thinks that there should be, or are, that kind of very strict rule around things, and they think that it is all pretty normal for girls to be tomboys or boys to want to play with dolls.

I know people who have these strict rules exist, but I don't know that they are typically actually very religious, or even really conservative. Like Susie Green seems to have been.

There have been quite a few times on these boards that people have argued that gender ideology comes out of a religious mind-body dualism.

https://twitter.com/Matthew_Coman

Another patronising gooner.

1. The gender critical movement is not equal to feminism.
2. To the extent the GC movement has been accused of allying with 'the right', it is because many members of the movement, including prominent ones, frequently signal boost, propagate, defend and apologise for members of 'the right'.
3. Matt Walsh is not a run of the mill Tory or Republican. He is a highly influential far right white nationalist.

This isn't actually a tricky situation.

The term ‘gender critical’ was created around ‘gender critical feminism’. It is those who wish to bolster the ridiculous position that feminists have become ‘aligned with the far right’ who removed the reference to feminism from it. It has therefore become a term to mean anyone who believes that sex cannot be changed. Which includes a huge range of political alignments.

The centring of female people, all female people (whatever their identity), to overcome the oppression by any male person (whatever their identity) is at the core of those called ‘gender critical feminists’ although I would suggest that many now reject that label for the simple term of ‘feminist’.

Feminists DO discuss other people’s opinions on the issue of whether sex should be prioritised over gender and when. Because a wide range of discussion points should be considered. Discussing it and stating it is a good point, should not depend on the political alignment of the person who made the point. What a puerile attitude that would be. Therefore, a wide range of people’s views are discussed and scrutinised. Because that is how we gain the depth of understanding.

Feminists are often said to ‘be aligned with or amplifying or ‘apologizing’ for the right. Some feminists have been said to be ‘right wing supporters’. This is often false and is a silencing tactic. Anyone who believes allegions of feminists being ‘right wing supporters’ should always ask for original source evidence of this claim.

'Gender Critical' only became a thing because some men decided Feminism Inc was for and about them and any woman who disagreed couldn't be a feminist.

you're still reading then? great

so about you scolding people for not sharing beliefs you can't actually explain...

care to prove me wrong?

why not give a description of the gender identity shared by cis women and trans women

Maybe someone has posted this I'm not up to date on the thread.

Mat Walsh saying feminists have been whining.

twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1665771501662994437?s=46

Daily Wire posted a 1-year reunion video:

https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1665814144321310721

The documentary is GREAT. It is much needed and is having a tremendous impact in shining light into the absurdity of transgender ideoeolgy.

I don't agree with Matt Walsh on some things, but I do agree with him on other things. Shocking I know.

I do think he has handled this documentary fantastically, allowing the gender proponents to dig themselves massive holes of ridiculousness which they then fall into and can't get out. Absolutely well done to you, Matt Walsh.

After having watched other clips of him speaking and discussing, I think the way in which he uses logic to challenge people, leaves the idiotic ideologues absolutely confounded. He has the excellent ability of thinking quickly and responding calmly and yet destryoing anothers argument.

For this reason I would absolutely love the opportunity to discuss something with him that we disagree on, maybe abortion. I would love to see how that debate would turn out.

For anyone interested, he was recently on Jordan Peterson's podcast. It is interersting to hear his persepctive on what motivated him, and to hear Peterson's psychologist review of transgender ideology.

Blimey. Just watched it.

My main take away is that purple headed paediatrician (does she just self ID as a doctor or is she actually qualified?) should be struck off.

She refused to talk about drugs she's prescribing for children, their alternative uses and their mechanism. Because she didn't like it. That's so staggeringly unprofessional.....

Thanks for the info about the podcast, I look forward to listening to that!