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

[AnotherDayAnotherView]

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

Available for 24 hours

Thanks for the transcript necessary.

Walsh may have had other people tell him that a woman is an adult human female during the course of filming, but he wanted his wife to have the punchline at the end of the film. “I travelled the whole world to talk to people when my liddle lady at home in the kitchen had the answer all along, duh!”

He pronounces 'Tavistock' very strangely.

This sounds like fraud to me. These companies are writing letters for surgeries and medication on a false premise. They're obtaining services by deception.

I suspect though, the fraud will be painted as fully justified. Because these people should absolutely get surgeries to modify their bodies paid for. And hormones and whatever else they need. Because they have been now sold that this is the right treatment for them. There should be research done on how many patients have no disphoria at all and who choose this because it has been now decreed that these body modifications are acceptable for anyone who wants them.

I was told over the weekend of a case where a female who is non-binary has had a double mastectomy and is on testosterone. As non-binary. Nothing non-binary about that choice. That is full masculinization. So female people are being convinced by society that to even be non-binary they should choose the male default.

This is an era that will be widely studied.

Definite fraud. I was wondering who was paying for it with the state of US healthcare, but where there is an ideological will there is a way.

That's mitigation, it's still fraud. These people are no Rosa Parks.

Watching the nurse, I'm glad they blurred her face, I found myself thinking her earrings looked like she'd strung together a few dried testicle 😲

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,

Is this really a "standard TRA argument"? I must move in the wrong circles because I've never heard it, at least not outside some very obscure corners of academia. I wonder if the academic he speeded up was saying it? Stripped of academic language it sounds more than a little silly! It's very easily refuted by example - sport and Isla Bryson (or US equivalents) leap to mind.

I'm sure he massively selected. But just recording what Marci Bowers and the blue haired lady and Scott Newgent had to say was gold. This was about them not him.

My main grump about the editing was that I could have done without the Tragic Music behind Scott Newgent, What Scott said did not need added schmalz.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay I totally agree. I think it undercut what Scott was saying. The bald words are much more effective.

But this is what the‘transwomen are women’ argument boils down to, regardless of whether it’s proponents can bring themselves to say it out loud or not (looking at you @TraumatisedGooner )

if a woman is not an adult human female then you have to use sexist stereotypes to explain what a woman is, that’s the only other way to do it

Agreed! It is submitting to regressive sexual stereotypes. Just because a little girl likes to play with toy cars/trains instead of dollies or a woman is kick ass in business or doesn’t wear make up it doesn’t make them less female. The gender theory argument would suggest that they are on a male spectrum and therefore may want to consider changing their pronouns/ modifying their body. The gender critical theorists (ie: Professor Kathleen Stock) would just say they are doing girlhood/ womanhood in whichever way they choose. I would like to think that most people in the uk would be more aligned with the gender critical view rather than the gender theorist one. To me gender theory is spouted as new and modern but it boils down to such an outdated, sexist concept.

I am still laughing at someone who tried to convince anyone that no feminist would agree to and likely adversial interview or debate. It is like someone is completely detached from the actualities of real life for a current feminist. I mean, was it sal Grover who even did an interview with Montgomery and their mate. And Helen Joyce AND Julie Bindel were both separately going to debate Lavery before Lavery was told it would show the ridiculousness of their position up to debate those women.

There are currently four 20 something women in court to attempt to find justice for losing to two males in the races. Potentially they would have won scholarships to uni at those races.

But apparently, feminists would be horrified at adversial speaking opportunities and interviews. Really, that one was a person who obviously projects their own community’s values, that they align with, onto a group they honestly seem to have no idea about. Despite feeling they understand well!

Maybe extreme activists need to look at what is really happening in feminism and stop projecting their own fear of speaking aloud to people, just in case they are perceived ‘badly’ and nonsensical.

The reality is, feminists have been calmly speaking for a long time. In fact, the issue is that feminists give facts, logic and calm discussion whereas extreme trans activists seek to shut down dissenting voices, silence anyone who disagrees, protest loudly or speak over others, and show their arguments and beliefs to be based in falsity and emotionally manipulative tactics.

so, no! Feminists would not use the weak arsed excuses of ‘they used a slightly different name when reaching out’ or ‘the project title was a working title and not the name of the final resultant documentary’. Now if the team was asked who was interviewing and was lied to or was coerced into accepting a late substitution they would have otherwise rejected, that is something to discuss. If it was proven and not a lie.

To believe that. I would expect the accuser to post evidence. And I have seen none.

Until the Dr Stock debate, every time one has been scheduled the TRA has backed out at the last moment, usually claiming something like "My supporters have begged me not to take part as they fear for my safety" or some such rubbish.

That's why there have been no debates held.