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

[AnotherDayAnotherView]

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

Available for 24 hours

Haven't read through the entire thread so apologies if it's already been discussed.

I wonder whether men's reluctance to credit GC women is partly also because we 'Name the Problem' - i.e. male violence, entitlement, reproductive control, pornography industry, etc. It's obvious that the conservative analysis is coming from a different perspective to radical feminists; but it does seem uniquely provocative to point out that males are usually the perpetrators of violence and present an exponentially higher risk profile in general.

They certainly don't seem to want to talk about that, much less work towards addressing it. Directing their followers to the work of radical feminist or GC women might act as a consciousness raising exercise, which they don't want.

What Crackles says.

Addressing the real issue - male violence and entitlement - is too difficult.

Women are a soft target - much easier to blame them for everything and to allow men to feign womanhood and take back the concessions that women have fought like tigresses to obtain, to protect themselves and (importantly) their children.

An of course, blame women for "making" men behave violently.

Absolutely. It's tragi-comic how the "progressive" have persuaded themselves that threatening, colonising, silencing and undefining women is somehow sticking it to the Patriarchy.

I don't really think that's it.

I think Walsh is quite transparent in the film. He sees the primary issue as being the untruth of it all. This drive to accept clearly batshit ideology and push aside the reality of things drives all kinds of pernicious shit, and opens the door to all kinds of abuse.

It seems reductive to reduce gender ideology to male violence, plenty of it is driven by women.

It seems to have become, or maybe it's always been and I didn't notice, a tendency in the left to shy away from realities when they feel like they might undermine an ideological point. You cn see it in threads like the one now about mothers and childcare - people can be very reluctant to look carefully at areas that seem to touch sensitive topics - the answer to , is it negative for babies or toddlers to be separated from mothers - is, what are you trying to do, push mums out of the workforce, or blame them for something? That's just one example that comes to mind.

But it's outlets like Sky News Australia, GB news, Fox News, that have repeatedly given space to KJK.

I doubt that right-wingers worry about "amplifying" left-wing viewpoints, in the way that some lefties worry about the opposite.

I have an alternative theory: KJK isn't left wing and is exactly the kind of person that would get invited on by Murdoch/Murdoch adjacent 'news' organisations that are at various stages of poisoning the countries they are in.

so about this belief you hold that everyone has a gender identity and women who decline to be called cis on the basis that they don't have one are just being awkward

it will therefore be super easy for you to define the gender identity shared by women and men who enjoy role playing as women

come on!

"Poisoning"?

Can you explain how standing up for women's and children's safety, and talking about biological reality is "poisoning"?

KJK isn't left wing. All KJK does is say sex exists and invite people to say how that fact (or the denial of) affects their lives.

The reality of sex is like the reality of money. For good or bad, it exists and that has a material effect on real people's lives.

An individual absolutely may or may not approve of it existing, may or may not believe it's a construct, may or may not accept the gender constructs society loads on top of that existence, and they have a right to each of those political views.

But nevertheless, sex as a physical difference, and as something with social consequences, does exist.

So yes, what that fact means for humans, and how society should deal with that, is absolutely political and could be different for people on the left and on the right. But the fundamental fact of sex is, or at least should be, as politically neutral as the fact of gravity.

Those who think that the simple recognition of sex as a real and pertinent factor in people's lives can be assigned as politically right or left need to take a step back and have a good think about how they came to that view and whether it genuinely reflects how people identity and how they live their lives.

Well consider the Daily Wire pundits when they give talks. They don't worry about letting opponents speak at the proper time for that. They don't care about "giving them a platform".

Hey Gooner! A really simple question just occurred to me. Apologies it took so long for me to get to it.

My question is Why?

Why would "Murdoch/Murdoch adjacent 'news' organisations" want to "poison" the countries they are in?

It seems like there is an axiomatic belief that that would, but why exactly do you believe that?

If it's just to make money, surely it's easier to pander to existing prejudices than create new ones?

And if it's not to make money, why are they choosing not to make money on this issue when they do on every other? If it's not money, what else drives them to "poison" a country?

People who use murdoch as some
kind of gotcha seem to know little about Murdoch’s original stable of media .

Murdoch is about making money. He has media that is left wing targeted at trade unionists too. It is really a pretty lazy gotcha.

Not all the Left. Not me. And definitely not all the left parties viz The Communist Party - Statement of March 2023 on (Scottish) Gender Recognition Bill. Extract below..

• The real innovation of this Bill is to legislate for the self-ID of someone’s legal sex, embedding self-declared ‘gender identity’ in law. But when pursued to the exclusion of such considerations as the sex-based rights of women, and the fragmentation of equality legislation across Britain, it undermines the drive to build unity within and between the working class and the oppressed and disadvantaged groups in our society.
• The Communist Party is the only political party with a coherent political analysis of sex and gender. Gender as an ideological construct should not be confused or conflated with the material reality of biological sex. Gender is the vehicle through which misogyny is enacted and normalised. Gender identity ideology is well- suited to the needs of the capitalist class, focusing as it does on individual as opposed to collective rights, enabling and supporting the super-exploitation of women.
• For these reasons, the Communist Party rejects gender self-ID as the basis for sex- based entitlements in law to women’s single-sex rights, spaces and facilities. The Party will continue to oppose any proposed legislation – whether at Scottish, Welsh or British level – that seeks to enact such a provision.
• We call for ‘sex’ as a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act to be defined as ‘biological sex’.

KJK isn't left wing.

I believe that she was historically mainly a Labour voter, and is probably still what 20 years ago would be considered center-left.

To whatever extent that is actually true, you can look at this very ‘documentary’ to see how Walsh edits those he agrees with versus those he disagrees with. It’s desperately cynical and biased, but not something you’re likely notice if you are very biased yourself.

I saw this a few months back. I disagree with alot of his views but ultimately I think the left need to stop " handing it to the right " if people like MW bother them so much.

Maybe if the extreme left could do simple things like answer a question , give coherent definitions and explanations and be as honest as Scott nugent was.

Perhaps if the others hadn't looked like absolute nut jobs MW wouldn't have appeared to have been the rational, intelligent, sensible one.

Money and power is undoubtedly Murdoch’s objective. I think when you look at Fox News, particularly people like the recently removed Carlson, the strategy appears to be terrifying the viewer. They constantly tell the viewer that they are in danger and under attack. They build loyalty by undermining the individual’s ability to trust other sources. They make the viewer feel like it’s crucial to keep watching so they know what the (usually unnamed) enemy is up to.

As for existing prejudices… I think that generally is what Murdoch’s empire plays on, no? Various forms of fear of difference/fear of others/fear of foreign. Transphobia slots into that very neatly.

The desire for simple answers to every question is dangerous. Walsh has complete control over the way the ‘documentary’ is presented — it’s not hard to exploit that to make yourself look like the voice of reason.

Well, nobody stops the left presenting a coherent set of arguments and answering GC questions of safeguarding, safety and fairness.

Haven't seen anything in so many years.

But it is a simple question. And he can define the terms at every step of the way.

Vs

People unable to explain how you can identify as some thing when you cant define it.

We have never had an explanation of what these identities actually are that dont use stereotypes or circular definitions.

Gender odeologies can't have it both ways. Its either simple enough to explain to kids in pre schools and have them allegedly " get it and not care. how wonderful and accepting kids are etc.."

Or its so complicated no one can explain or define it with any kind of rationality therfore questions and the documentary is bigotry.

Which is it

If you want to be the voice of reason may I suggest that you start by being able to define terms that you want to force others to accept?

I really don’t know how you have any respect for yourself

This is very true scully. The ridiculousness around forceably changing the meaning of words meant this video was a very easy win.

It wasn't GC feminists that made Matt Walsh make his documentary, we could all go on a long holiday and he would still be doing his thing. It's the batshit behaviour of the tras that's helping MW. It's Lia Thomas, it's children being harmed, it's WiSpa, it's stuff like that. That's bringing his audience and making him sound like the voice of reason. If you want MW to stop, you are talking to the wrong people. If you want Murdoch's press to stop printing stories that make trans look unreasonable or like violent lunatics? There's nothing we're doing that's putting those stories out there.

Excellent post.

The entire documentary is Matt Walsh recording the idiotic things TRAs said. They could have made Walsh look stupid if

a) they could answer the question and
b) they didn’t come out with absolute batshit other stuff either.

But sure, it’s our fault. “You made idiot people say idiot things on camera!”🙄