Matt Walsh thinks gender ideology has now been defeated in the USA - is he right?

[bluefingertips]

Basically he thinks that making congress bathrooms single sex is a sign that the debate has been won. That Senators are now prepared to speak out on this issue in a way they wouldn't have three years ago.

He thinks the argument have been won and its just a matter of hoovering out the last remains of GI from other institutions in the USA.

Do you think he is right and if so, will this have a ripple affect elsewhere in the world?

If "gay ideology" means things like having leather pups in the kids are at Pride, or thinking that it's a great idea to have Rainbow Clubs at schools for 10 and 11 year olds, or drag queen storytime at the library, maybe that is not a bad thing.

Maybe the whole shape of some celebrations like Pride needs to be reconsidered - is this really a daytime public festival for all that includes men in assess chaps and cock-pouches on floats? Maybe something needs to change around that?

Maybe the claiming of gay and lesbian voices for groups that have a particular political agenda and stance needs to be thought through?

The problems have not all been confined to gender ideology, and I think it will be a mistake to try and pretend it is. Part of the reason GI has impacted beyond just trans questions is because it's brought some of these things into the public eye.

Maybe that's unfortunate, but it's the reality and it may be another instance of, clean up your own house or the majority of the population are going to base their conclusions on the fact that you haven't.

hard agree. I'm a lesbian and absolutely loathe the TQIA. My lesbian social group was destroyed by men in dresses barging in. I left the LGBTQ in 2019 and I'm not returning. I'm pretty angry with how gay men were enthusiastic trans supporters, they don't give a toss about women. And the Pride parades are vile and an embarrassment.
I only support women and lesbians now.

Didn't say a word.

It's a white settler entity, exceptionally racist, "founded" by slave owning tyrants, the white elite "planter class", who in their white settler declaration dehumanized the Natives as "savages" (had a monument outside the Capitol building (a building built by African slaves) for over a century that celebrated the "triumph of the whites over the savage tribes"), and an entity that Hitler in 1928 lauded for "gunning down the millions of Redskins to a few hundred thousand, and now keep the modest remnant under observation in a cage."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/how-american-racism-influenced-hitler

Below is the visual of the loss of the Native's lands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlercolonialism

The white elite have such control there to this day that the 43 million African descendants of slaves owned by the elite planter class (jefferson, washington et. al) own just 1.5% of national wealth despite being 14% of the population.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/19/why-racial-wealth-gap-persists-more-than-years-after-emancipation/

I mention this background as the ilk of Matt Walsh are another manifestation of the bigotry and subjugation that is in the fabric of the white settler entity.

David Bowie, stated that declaring he was bisexual had no effect on his career in Europe, but held him back in "puritanical america".

Queen, they threw razor blades at Freddie Mercury in their last american tour as he had a moustache. These bigots ensured Queen would never play their again.

What is sad is seeing some people from Britain, the home of glam rock, of people exploring their sexual identity in mainstream society before anywhere else, now have a kinship on a subject with a people from the aforementioned, bigoted white settler entity.

There is no question the left has gone too far on the trans issue, resulting in people gaming the system like that bloke from Scotland who tried to get into a women's prison, but that doesn't mean you then align yourself with small minded, intolerant, far right bigots from america.

Legally america has always been in a "better" position to discriminate than Britain. The global leader in race law, america has pioneered most forms of discrimination.

america is an entity that invented interracial marriage being illegal (anti-miscegenation, a law that would be emulated by nazi Germany (in the nuremberg laws), and apartheid South Africa).
america is an entity that invented education for black people being illegal with the anti-literacy law, a law enacted to ensure that the enslaved people could not become educated and ultimately rebel against the tyrants who owned them.

Until 2003 sodomy was still illegal in 14 parts of it. Just over two decades ago a gay couple could get arrested in Florida for sodomy (now they just get arrested for crossing the street with their jaywalking law). Those 14 parts (in yellow), the right wing heartland, never made gay sex legal in 2003, it was forced on them nationally; 12 parts still have sodomy as being illegal in their legislation.

The lauded bigot Matt Walsh on this thread is opposed to homosexuality being legal and defended Uganda when it passed an anti-homosexuality law to mean anyone identifying as gay or bisexual face prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SodomylawsintheUnitedStates

The tribal thinking is definitely not confined to people who are on the political left! Have you seen the people dressed head to toe in Trump gear? Have you seen them praying to Trump? It's truly disturbing.

So, if fact, you don't like pesky women having and expressing opinions?

Why isn't it okay with you to hear people with different opinions sometimes without calling them TRAs? A bit of balance is helpful.

A bit of balance is helpful.

Please explain how, when people are discussing an American political commentator’s view on the current state of transgender ideology in his country, linking a Wikipedia page about Nazis and transgender is “a bit of balance”.

Most aren't women.

Neither I, nor I suspect anyone else here, would object if they were genuinely here to discuss - if they made reasonable, evidenced points, responded to questions/counter points raised and, in general, behaved like normal people discussing things with appropriate justification. They don't. They 'drive by' with a scold (because obviously they are in charge and we are there to serve them) or an instruction to 'educate yourself' (well actually most people here are not only very well educated, they are pretty stellar in use of evidence) or simple ad hominem attacks. When other posters raise questions about what they have said they fail to reply and just resort back to those three tactics.

That is not women discussing something, that is not adult. It is unpleasant, disruptive and, frankly, gives me a headache. Mumsnet is great for evidence and I have learned so much on these boards, but do I welcome random, unevidenced scolding because a random on the internet thinks I hold the 'wrong' opinions? No.

This Special Place in Hell episode is worth a listen. The Two Race to Dinner founders had not done their research and expected the usual back-patting interview. Meghan and Sarah were perfectly respectful hosts. However, they applied their usual scepticism and rigour to the interview and asked searching questions. One of the guests must have googled them mid interview, as the dynamic shifts perceptibly. It is a classic.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/a-special-place-in-hell/id1631208362?i=1000623728835

Edit: As per usual with Matt Walsh, women beat him to the punch and he’s riding on their coat tails with his usual lack of nuance and subtlety.

@Igmum
Nail on the head.
Great post.

Neither I, nor I suspect anyone else here, would object if they were genuinely here to discuss - if they made reasonable, evidenced points, responded to questions/counter points raised and, in general, behaved like normal people discussing things with appropriate justification. They don't.

There was a great discussion a while ago with a TRA who also saw herself as a feminist. She engaged with all the points and it was interesting hearing things from her perspective. Until that conversation, I hadn't realised about the differences between Emmeline Pankhurst's suffragette approach and that of her daughter Sylvia Pankhurst (who I'll admit I'd never heard of). It was interesting hearing how this poster saw Emmeline as fighting for some women and Sylvia as fighting for every woman. For that poster, this was representative of why TWs' voices needed to be heard and respected.
There was lots of other engagement on other points. By the time she said she needed to leave the discussion, which had spanned a couple of threads by this point, the poster said she had been given lots of food for thought. It clearly wasn't an easy journey for her - she got lots of tough questions and lots of criticism, as you'd expect. But she stuck with it and shared (and discussed) the source materials that underpinned her perspective. I love to think she's still here, under a different name.

Obviously not all TRAs who engage in conversations might/will change their minds...

Some time last year, I was on a thread where a TW had joined and we were discussing third spaces. The TW had already agreed that TWANW and was engaging with the points on why third spaces could be a good solution, if there was enough demand for them. There were some regular posters who were already suspicious that a few comments sounded like they could be a bit... Málaga Airport adjacent.... but I and a few others carried on the discussion on the key points that were being raised. The potentially dodgy comments were around the material of women's dresses feeling much nicer than stereotypical men's clothing (which was explained from an autism sensory perspective) and things like "I wouldn't want to share a changing room with women because even though I've got breasts, they know I'm not a woman" - paraphrased, as I can't remember exactly.

After a fair bit of discussion about whether there would be enough demand for third spaces, the conversation then morphed in to the TW's fantasy where apparently it would be great to be an inmate in a women's prison being looked after by nurses 🤢

It turned out the TW had also been contributing on other threads, including the trans widows' escape room thread (which is obviously completely inappropriate, given its purpose).

I've had a couple of good conversations IRL with a TW about why they transitioned. Thankfully this one was the other "Blanchard type", so we didn't go near any grim topics. Even though I don't share this person's belief that TWAW, it was still interesting hearing their viewpoint about it all.

Also...

Mumsnet is great for evidence and I have learned so much on these boards, but do I welcome random, unevidenced scolding because a random on the internet thinks I hold the 'wrong' opinions? No.

Exactly how I feel @Igmum

How do you know that? The same could be said for all posters on here @Fiffin

Absolutely true. Some say. Some are TW. Some have raging male entitlementitis. Some I simply don't know (and yes, some could even be the two dogs you pictured)

Well aren't you quaint.
It's like a 2020 revival.

Sorry, did I do that?

Sorry, did I do that?

It was izimbra I think.

@Igmum

Most aren't women.

Strange assumption to make.

On this point, I would agree.

However, I also fully understand the assumption. The start point being, why would turkeys vote for Christmas?

At a logical level, it makes no sense whatsoever for women to argue in favour of biological males in women's sports, for example.

Also, it makes little sense for women to argue in favour of double mastectomies as a cure for feeling a mismatch between the body and an inner gendered "essence". Particularly so when it's known that so many are autistic (so perhaps processing sex-based stereotypes to try and make sense of what it means to "be" female), feeling trauma and a need to escape their body after sexual assault or feeling a sense of distress about their homosexuality.

Yet many sadly do for many different reasons, some because they genuinely believe it's about kindness, tolerance and fighting "bigotry". So yes, you're right in that the some of TRAs that come here may be women.

The follow-on comment from igmum clarifies her point on this further:

Absolutely true. Some say. Some are TW. Some have raging male entitlementitis. Some I simply don't know (and yes, some could even be the two dogs you pictured)

I think Matt Walsh has no idea

No, but you defended the person who did. The post you replied to was someone who did not take kindly to drive by scolding, you criticised Igmum for not being able to tolerate “a bit of balance” but that “bit of balance” was a poster linking Nazis.

So maybe go back and RTFT and then decide if your criticism of Igmum’s post about “different opinions” and “a little bit of balance” still works.

I think it exactly helps explain why it took hold across the world. A deep belief that men matter more than women is seen in every country and continent in the world. This means misogyny was the base that gender ideology was able to feed off wherever it went.

I don't think you can really get people to believe things they are fundamentally opposed to. You can get people to believe, or at least accept, things they are already predisposed to believe. People already believed women mattered less than men, or already did not think that much about women and how they experience the world, let alone care about that. So the ground was already fertile for gender ideology to take hold in.

Its not the whole explanation, but if people across the world had genuinely believed women are truly equal human beings with men, and had understood how women experience the world differently, there is not a chance gender ideology could ever have taken hold.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but over here (UK) the Right were on board with all this crap until they realised it was a voter loser with their base. The left were more susceptible to GI ( remember the left also has a long history of misogyny) because GI sold itself as a civil rights movement, something that appeals to the left's self-identity, and on the oppressor/ oppressed narrative the left already believes in. Also the left has a strong sense of tribalism, stronger than I have noticed on the Right which seems to be more accepting of different viewpoints and less likely to ostracise people for wrong think ( this is definitely true in my RL experience). Once GI started to establish itself in the Left, it was therefore much harder for the Left to reject it than it was for the Right.

But if people on the Left had really and meaningfully thought of women as truly equal human beings, GI would not have had a chance of establishing itself, as the Left would have had the intellectual and moral tools at hand to dismantle the 'arguments' ( such as they are) of GI.

This makes a lot of sense and this bit also reflects my experience of taking to people on the right IRL:

I have noticed on the Right which seems to be more accepting of different viewpoints and less likely to ostracise people for wrong think ( this is definitely true in my RL experience)

I haven't needed to capitulate and agree to a whole extra set of things just because we share a view that TWANW and that children and young people are being harmed by a medical scandal.

However, I also see a greater willingness to listen and think critically from my predominantly left-leaning friends and family IRL too. Their natural inclination is still to be kind to "a marginalised minority" but I completely understand that - that's a core value of being left-leaning. So it just seems to take a bit longer for logic and reason to float to the top. It's frustrating that it's faster with right-leaning people but it is what it is.

Matt Walsh represents a religiously-driven sexist, homophobic angle in this. He's articulate on why TWANW because he can surface up the salient points well. It sounds like he can also spot Be Kind BS in relation to racism as well. I have no idea whether or not he's racist, as I've not watched that film to see how he unpicks it all, but from listening to him speak and from watching "What is a Woman?", he's very clear that he sees women as being there to support men (and look after children) and that homosexuality is wrong. He believes in the family unit and has no tolerance for any unit that isn't a man, a woman and children because he sees it as god's way.

I suspect that were I to meet him, he and I would mutually agree that, in addition to the fact that TWANW, it was a good job I wasn't his wife 😁 We would each have very different reasons for this mutual agreement and neither of us would stand a chance of convincing the other that our reason was the "correct" one.

He's welcome to think of women as support humans for men for all I care. I'll continue to think of him as a sexist homophobe who articulates the fact that TWANW very well. I couldn't care less whether he thinks he's solved the whole problem already and everyone else is just playing catch-up on his Superior Knowledge or not. His argument is useful, to a point. Others can take this forward for more effectively than he ever could or would want to, to protect LGB people and women's sports and spaces.

Edited for typo.

However, I also see a greater willingness to listen and think critically from my predominantly left-leaning friends and family IRL too. Their natural inclination is still to be kind to "a marginalised minority" but I completely understand that - that's a core value of being left-leaning. So it just seems to take a bit longer for logic and reason to float to the top. It's frustrating that it's faster with right-leaning people but it is what it is.

This isn't my experience.

The willingness to listen and think critically is much stronger from the right (in my experience).

What I'm mostly seeing from the left is a STRONG cognitive dissonance because they cannot countenance that the 'good guys' as they see themselves, called this wrong. They are very resistant to ceding their sense of themselves as morally superior.

So right now, they're trying to bat away, belittle, minimise the logical arguments. Because they know they can't counter them honestly and they aren't ready to admit that.