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

[AnotherDayAnotherView]

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

Available for 24 hours

Really. If you cannot do an interview without needing to be assured that you will be edited not only show your most moderate and wise self, don’t fucking do it! Unless you have the confidence of being able to hold your own when asked unexpected and unwelcome questions.

Ask for a list of questions before agreeing if you want.

If you cannot hold your own, you should never have imagined yourself as a media star in the fucking first place. No! Filming projects often have a working title. People sometimes have derivatives of their names in a professional capacity. Go and fucking start accusing trans people for using different names if you are that bothered by the concept.

That not is a stray one. Only show is correct.

Jackson says Avery asked her if Walsh's crew wanted to kill her. "That's where my 14-year-old's mind went because of how much vitriolic, dehumanizing language there is out there right now, particularly around trans youth," Jackson said.

I doubt that poor kid got her fears from gender critical people, from whom I’m yet to see any death threats. Avery has been terrorised by trans ideologists.

And the parents fed it no doubt.

When will the people spreading these false narratives take responsibility for creating such fear?

It's common knowledge

I think you misunderstand the concept of common knowledge.

In the space of three posts you went from saying you didn't know about the scandal, to misrepresenting it, to sidestepping it rather than attempting to defend the indefensible. In the hypothetical situation where someone pulls what Walsh did, but from the trans rights perspective:

1. Prominent feminists would not have been invited
2. Some invitees would figure out the ruse before its too late
3. Others would get interviewed under false pretences
4. Interviews would be edited maliciously

This forum would be apoplectic if this happened to members of the gender critical movement. Imagine if an organisation calling itself the "Womens' Rights Initiative" started contacting people to help make a film exposing how trans rights are conflicting with women's rights, only for interviewees to be interrogated over the links between the gender critical movement, the alt right movement, and neo-Nazis.

Utterly ridiculous that you can't admit it's bad form for a documentary maker to do this.

only for interviewees to be interrogated over the links between the gender critical movement, the alt right movement, and neo-Nazis.

Those questions would be easy to answer and would be answered clearly and coherently.

The fact that those featured in Matt Walsh's film could not/would not answer the question What is a Woman is not the fault of Matt Walsh or any editing.

Actually a very clear account of how gender critical feminists have been treated by many media outlets and organisations over the last few years. Which is why so many are very very annoyed.

dearie, dearie me

I've taken the decision to stand the SAS down

I don't think you're worth saving

with reasoning skills like this how do you not just spend your time bumping into the walls?

So you at least agree with me that journalists and filmmakers shouldn't do this?

No. I haven’t changed tack at all. It is all the same direction.

And you have presented no evidence to back up what you have claimed.

Plus, I am an adult. As I said in another post, I understand that projects often have titles that are different from the final outcome. And gosh… you know… some documentaries change title if they find a theme in the filming of it that suits.

Again, you are either naive or live in a world that only exists in an idyll.

And to repeat, if a random never before heard company approached a prominent feminist, I would expect that if they felt they couldn’t hold their own if it turned out it was a person who asked challenging questions, they would not agree. I would expect them to though to be able to hold their calm and answer honestly. Gosh, if I was so worried, I might even record the audio myself so I had something to release to counter a misrepresentation….

But I do expect that prominent feminists are not idiots, do expect that the world will hand them chellenging interviews and that they will calmly and honestly answer. Nothing quite as fucking boring to edit as a calm and concise and factually true answer.

And if you doubt that feminists would not do this, you must have missed Dr Kathleen Stock at both Cambridge and Oxford. Did you? Did you even bother to watch? Kathleen also appeared on Ed Balls’s show knowing he has an extremist son! Feminists turn up even in adverse situations. Riley Gaines spoke and answered questions while protestors heckled her and then barracked her in a room for three fucking hours. And remember all those women who turn up and talk in rallies. All could have their words hostilely edited. They still do it!

“only for interviewees to be interrogated over the links between the gender critical movement, the alt right movement, and neo-Nazis.”

Gosh … imagine!! Imagine presenting factually backed sentences that would have to be so dishonestly edited to reflect poorly on a speaker.

And gosh… imagine if you then showed the entire internet the truth and it significantly discredited the video maker to dishonestly edited your words. Or you know, you could be just making shit up that has no basis to prove your point.

Why doesn’t it prove your point, because every single day on this board and all over the internet, video clips and the written words of feminists are edited and misrepresented. And those feminists are still here! Still talking. Because that is just par for the course. We all know that if we speak in public or interviews, to expect the fucking worse. We are not fucking spoon fed sunshine and lollipops to make us feel safe.

Yep.

Key parts of trans-activist rhetoric that could be defended by TraumatisedGooner:

(1) Trans-women are women etc.
(2) Trans rights are human rights
(3) It's wrong to "erase trans identities"
(4) There is no conflict between women's rights and trans rights

But I guess defending that stuff is too difficult, so instead the focus is on not liking the methods of Matt Walsh as a documentary maker.

OK, maybe Matt Walsh is a terrible terrible person for not being more open, but he still exposed your side! He made you look stupid, because you are stupid.

I agree wholeheartedly!

But! I think everyone reading this thread should go and watch this video and see for themselves! When they see that this is not ‘poor editing’ they will realize that the answers are presented as is and that they reflect this ideological thinking accurately.

That ideological thinking that isn’t based in reality is a feature. Not the ‘big’ as posters have tried to present this.

I'll confess to being more than a little suspicious about the editing of Walsh's film. The standard TRA argument about what makes a woman is simply that the various social constructs including modes of dress & so on which have grown up around adult human females have taken on such a life of their own as to be more important in determining whether someone is a woman or not than actually being an adult human female. This argument can sound a little silly, not least because it objectively is, hence I suppose I'd not be surprised by a degree of coyness about using it in front of camera, but I suppose I do struggle a bit to believe that Walsh wouldn't be able to find anyone who'd put it to him when pressed for an answer.

So did any of these people ask who was interviewing them? Were they told a lie?

Where is this evidence that this happened?

If this is important to you, you ask exactly who is doing the interview. If you are lied to; you don’t go through with it and you publicly declare you were lied to and were told someone else was interviewing you.

I have been interested. I asked who and then I checked them out. That is adult behaviour if it is important.

On the other hand, and further proof that feminists do speak in potentially ideologically hostile situations regularly. Random people film the women’s rallies! There was the documentary makers down in Brighton who filmed. Who were they? There is always people filming the rallies.

Yet, women still talk. Those people are not asked to leave unless they are disruptive. And everytime, those videos can be edited and published to make women ‘look bad’! What is the difference?

I know!! One group has an expectation that they will be treated as hateful bigots anyway, and one has the expectation that the world should only be a safe space curated to only ever agree and affirm your ideological thinking.

I expect the Daily Wire still has the films of the entire interviews. I expect that's why none of the 'misrepresented' tra have sued

If tras tried the same thing with GC representatives, rather than them misrepresenting heresay (when they don't just lie)? I'd bloody love it, bring it on. I'd even buy them the brunette hairdye.

Gosh, you're right!

I can't think of anything worse than being made to look a right twat answering 'an adult human female', to the question what is a woman?

What you're missing TraumatisedGooner, is, were the boot on the other foot, it wouldn't matter what questions were asked, or how they were edited. When one's position is coherent and consistent, the answers are just going to be the same whatever way you're asked.

Just like the transactivists answers to what is a woman, are all exactly the same, no matter who is doing the asking.

Babbling incoherence.

iI's not about who's asking what. It's about having irrational nonsense as your central, and only, premise.

I suspect the bias comes from just not showing footage from interviewees who would offer a halfway sensible answer to MW's titular question.

This may hold water except we know that most of the answers were standard extremist answers.

it is not like Walsh had to scour the world over for these people. Some of them are lecturing in universities, some are clinicians.

If he didn’t approach these people, he would have got similar answers approaching many others.

So interestingly, Matt Walsh and his producer recently used deception as part of investigating trans surgeries. Is that wrong?

https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1666496308150951954

"1/ BREAKING: The largest “trans healthcare” providers in the U.S. are rubber-stamping letters approving gruesome, life-altering surgeries. It’s such a racket that my producer was approved for testicle removal in #22minutes. The tape is disturbing."

Porcelina

If doing an undercover story is wrong, I guess an entire section of investigative journalism investigating anything, should never have happened, and should never happen again.

And police operations too.

This may hold water except we know that most of the answers were standard extremist answers

Which is of course why a film with this title was made in the first place! He knew it would be laughably easy to just point cameras at these people at try to get them to explain themselves. The incoherence long pre-dates this exposé.

it is not like Walsh had to scour the world over for these people. Some of them are lecturing in universities, some are clinicians.

If he didn’t approach these people, he would have got similar answers approaching many others.

He spoke about his surprise about how far that went in his recent interview with Jordan Peterson:

What was actually a surprise to me is when we went to all these different cities and we went out on the street and we did man-on-the-street interviews, just talking to regular people about these issues, and asking them if they can define the word woman, and all this.

And I really thought going into it that we would be able to predict before we talk to somebody what kind of answer they're going to get and I thought that we would talk to a lot of confused younger, you know, gen-Z types and we get the typical stuff from them but then if we pulled aside some older guy, you know, with his wife, and they're walking down and we start talking to them, but I thought we would get just plain common sense and we didn't. We found that the vast majority of people we talk to, no matter their demographics, they were they were basically saying the same kinds of things that we heard from the college professors, only they didn't know that that's where they got it from. So they didn't even know - it was clear to me that they didn't know exactly what they were saying, or why they were saying it, but they had a party line that they were repeating.

(Peterson had a fair bit to say about that, as on most things, but I'll skip it here.)

A bit later, after talking about the totally different responses from Kenya:

I think that back in the United States there was some confusion about being put on the spot to explain something that so innately understood. But then there was also what seemed to me to be an awareness among many of these people that this is a loaded question now, and they can't really talk about it and be honest. In fact we heard about that - there are many people we talked to who aren't in the film because they didn't want to be on camera. They refused to be on camera and they would tell us, like, I can't talk about this with a camera rolling because my job, because I'm going to school, because this and that.

So there's a real there's a real fear that people have that pervades through this whole conversation, and I like to think that over the last year some of that fear has dissipated - a little bit, not completely, but it just seems to me that normal people are more open about just saying what's clearly true when it comes to issues surrounding gender.

But at the time when we made the film it was it was just everywhere, and it was really difficult to get anybody to want to have this conversation at all.

this is making me want to cross stitch a sampler for @TraumatisedGooner . Some thing like:

You look stupid because your views are stupid

Prove me wrong. Answer the question

More Matt Walsh shedding light
h

So you at least agree with me that journalists and filmmakers shouldn't do this?

No. What I said was that people were annoyed that such things were done.