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?

Its only when really barmy things occur that people have any reason to question. And even then, they rationalise it by saying, well of course this person shouldnt be in the women prison, but tw have to use the womens toilets to keep them safe. They trust government/employers/charities to write policies that make sense, and assume its an unintentionally loophole rather than a bonkers law in the first place.

I think a key thing for many of us, is that until now, we didn't realise that most TWs are still 'entire' men and have no intention of having their bollocks chopped off. So we felt a bit sorry for a man who felt the need to undergo drastic surgery.

Now we know that it's not the case and they are just men in frocks, the we question why they would feel less safe in the gents toilets. Open to ridicule perhaps from other men?

Will this post get deleted? I am sure it would have done two years ago.

According to Matt AOC has removed the pronouns from her Bio.
https://youtube.com/shorts/BnOacNVZ-2Q?si=JPkRgYmTDjdOB76R

And I have had a warning about the post above.

I see nothing wrong with your post.

Peregrina

It'll be the phrase "men in frocks".

Those of us who have been accustomed to being able to have fairly robust discussions on other boards, only running in to problems for personal attacks or similar, do have to learn to be careful with language on this topic. It’s a different world.

I agree that it's not a left/right thing at all. In fact, I'd say that the adherents of both "sides" very much share something in common.

It is that they consider a particular half of our species to be not quite fully human, but to be a sort of partially-sentient service biped who exist to minister to the desires of others. This half of the species is only granted sufficient humanity and sentience such that they can be scolded and guilted and blamed for incorrect thoughts/feelings/actions. All the adherents of both sides know exactly which half of the species this means.

And just as it's not a lfet/right thing, it's not a man/woman thing either - plenty of the most fervent believers in the lesser humanity of female Homo sapiens are female Homo sapiens.

She didn't have them in her bio on July 29, according to one screenshot of the lawmaker's X account captured on the Internet Archive. And The Daily Dot reported that the New York congresswoman had axed her pronouns from her bio as early as May.

www.newsweek.com/aoc-pronouns-x-bio-election-what-we-know-1986201

You'd have thought one of these bold interlocutors would have asked for a comment from AOC. Time was. she seemed to get a mention in the Guardian every other day. Perhaps I don't read it as much these days, but she doesn't seem to have the coverage in the UK media these days that she did a while ago.

And 'fealty' is absolutely the right word regarding pronouns.

They also believe that the other tribe is committed to being bad, and selfish

This is so true. I remember a left wing friend being greatly surprised that her conservative voting friend was positive about being Obama being President. She had assumed she must be really racist as she was a conservative.

I was really taken aback by numerous videos I have seen of politically neutral people or Democrats going to Trump rallies and their Democratic friends telling them to take mace spray to protect themselves, even white people going to these Trump rallies were assumed to be in danger. People of colour were seen to be particularly in danger and were told they would be verbally abused and may be attacked or even killed as Trump supporters have guns. One video I saw was of a young black man who clearly expected to get verbal abuse and even physically attacked and was stunned ( as was the black commentator who watched his video) that everyone was perfectly friendly to him and there was no bother whatsoever.
These are insane levels of demonisation of Trump voter from ordinary Democrats. They've really come to believe their own propaganda.

It made me realise that Trans identified people and their supporters really do believe their own propaganderising demonisation of us.

I think a key thing for many of us, is that until now, we didn't realise that most TWs are still 'entire' men and have no intention of having their bollocks chopped off. So we felt a bit sorry for a man who felt the need to undergo drastic surgery.

There has been a lot of lying by omission.

I think teresa may wanted to introduce self id to soften the image of tories being the nasty party. She recognised that the GRA procedure was very close to being a self id admin process anyway, so thought self id would be a no cost lgbt policy.

Meanwhile, TRA talked about the process being dehumanising, suggesting diagnosis was difficult to obtain, treatment painful and expensive and the panel was in person like court where they had to plead their case. When in reality they were discribing a medical process that was separate from the legal one.

So tra were implying some sort of safeguarding, and teressa may knew that wasn't the case. But then realised she couldnt say that because then the whole GRA would be under scrutiny. That's why it was kicked into the long grass.

This might be filmed in Canada, but it is still interesting viewing to compare how the Transwomen speaks to the Christian man Vs how the Christian man speaks to the Transwoman.

One feature I have seen with the 'progressive left' people that I know IRL is a low opinion towards Christians, which they do not have of people from other religions. Is this due to the fact that the US has a lot of Christians? So they get lumped in with the much hated 'American right', even though the people I am thinking of are British and the Christians they are thinking badly of are also British?

It's not just in the US. One of the Darlington nurses (campaigning for the right for their changing room to be returned to being single sex) was on Woman's Hour on Radio 4 and she was asked specifically about whether she was comfortable that her legal team had in the past acted in support of Christians and their legal rights. It was like it was expected the nurse could be shamed into abandoning her legal team because they were tainted in some way.

It does appear that there is a list of groups that you can put into the 'bad people' basket and still be OTRSOH.

I don't think this is the video that Blue had in mind, but it came up in my search and I think it demonstrates Blue's point.

That's a great clip.

One feature I have seen with the 'progressive left' people that I know IRL is a low opinion towards Christians, which they do not have of people from other religions. Is this due to the fact that the US has a lot of Christians?

That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure I really associate with anyone who is "progressive left" except in passing but it's something I'll look out for. Most of my family and friends are centrist left and, like me, share many (but not all) of the values of the Christian faith - even though the majority, like me, are atheist.

I find the Christian's proof of Christianity (eye witnesses at the resurrection and lots of info in the bible) in this video as compelling as a person who tries to convince me that we all have a gender identity (and that I just don't feel mine as intensely because it aligns with my body). I don't believe in any of it.

However, the key difference is in how each of them treats the other. The Christian is by far the more respectful. Even if the Christian were to have told the TW that he thinks identifying as transgender is morally wrong because of his faith, he'd still be showing more respect than he's been given here.

On that point, I would likely "side" with the TW in that it's not morally wrong to identify as (dress as etc etc) someone of the opposite sex. It's only morally wrong to insist that everyone else has to accept it as truth (e.g. in women's sports), force people to use preferred pronouns upon pain of losing their job etc and coerce children and young people towards an irreversible medicalised pathway, which has no viable evidence base, as the answer to alleviate any distress that they might be feeling about their bodies. I suspect the Christian and I would agree on these latter points and, judging from his approach in this video, that we would both agree to accept that we would never find common ground on whether transgender identity itself is immoral.

I suspect any rational person watching this would come to a similar conclusion.

Operation let them speak.

Edited to add: I have friends who are Muslim with whom I've had some fantastic conversations about shared values. Two are male colleagues (one ex, one current) and we've had some brilliant conversations about all of it, including on the role of women. We have many areas where our values are shared.

One feature I have seen with the 'progressive left' people that I know IRL is a low opinion towards Christians, which they do not have of people from other religions. Is this due to the fact that the US has a lot of Christians?

I think its because they see Christians as being white. You get the same in the UK. Progressive left folk who will slag Christians to high heaven for things like homophobia and sexism yet fawn over Islam that they won't hear a word against .
Of course, seeing Christians as white ignores all the black Christians and black Christian Churches and arguably making black people's lives invisible is itself a bit racist. But there we go. Lots of things about the progressive left don't really make sense.

Its interesting that he says that lots of the Trump supporters he met were former Bernie Sanders supporters. This fits with a lot of the analysis(including from Bernie himself! ) and evidence I have seen since Trump's win which shows that the Democrats were seen as abandoning working class people, and were seen as having becomes a party focussed on the interests and issues of affluent Uni educated people.
Against this, Trump was seen as supporting working class people.

I do remember at the time wishing Bernie had won the bid to become the Democrat Presidential candidate as I have loved to have seen a Presidential campaign of him against Trump!

Mirrored in the UK by the Labour Party ignoring its traditional working-class support, some of whom will have gone over to Reform.

Those aspects are all true. But above all it’s a ‘follow the money’ situation. It’s a top-down movement that has been imposed on the population with literally billions of dollars behind it. The rich bastards behind it all never sought to win hearts and minds - which most other movements throughout history have aimed for. They wanted to merely silence anyone who stood in the way.

Doesn’t mean there aren’t millions of useful idiot true believers propping it up. Like the middle-aged female (some lesbian) teachers at my daughter’s single sex school who were all completely sane and rational. And genuinely feminist! Until halfway though her time there they all lost their minds en masse and made the words ‘girls’ and ‘daughters’ verboten. They invited in male ‘lesbians’ to mansplain womanhood to the girls and sat there with looks of divine rapture on their faces when Gendered Intelligence paid the school a visit.

They’re not directly financially benefitting from
it, and aren’t young and impressionable. So what the FUCK? It’s all still just mindblowing. .

They’re not directly financially benefitting from it, and aren’t young and impressionable. So what the FUCK? It’s all still just mindblowing.

I agree that these people are the most baffling.

I guess it's a combination of thinking this was the next civil rights movement, the fact that lots of official bodies have gotten behind it, the silencing of alternative opinion and the casting of alternative opinion as 'low status'. But yes, I'm still bemused by the fact it worked so well.

One thing I've learnt,

• even seemingly intelligent people can be very stupid/incurious about things - they literally seem to turn off their brain.

For example, on a thread on here, someone argued that Mermaids must be totally legitimate (despite all evidence to the contrary) because they were supported by Tesco. That's the level of analysis we're talking about. 🤷‍♀️

Like the middle-aged female (some lesbian) teachers at my daughter’s single sex school who were all completely sane and rational. And genuinely feminist!

From my educated, middle class, mid-life friends who have bought into this nonsense, I would say its a mix of:
a)They have lots of opinions but they aren't big thinkers - by which I mean they are not interested in debate or analysis or seeking out alternative views before forming their opinions, so they just pay the Guardian to tell them what to think. Or, more likely, read it for free online.
b) They are intelligent and thoughtful but have never looked into this issue but have the impression that GI is a leftist issue and assume it must be a social justice cause on behalf of the most marginalised.

People in group A and B will modify their opinions when you are able to explain what the issues actually are.

C)The third camp is people who have a strong image of themselves as intelligent free thinkers and, ime, also strongly left leaning. For these people, believing that men can become women is something that intelligent people believe. I think the logic is that because the view is so not mainstream, and is new and radical, it must be a smart thing that only enlightened intelligent people can understand. People who don't believe men can become women are clinging to the (yawn) old-fashioned view that there are only two sexes and that your body defines your sex. David Lammy is probably a type C person with his 'dinosaur' comments. Its well researched that intelligent people are good at convincing themselves that unbelievable things are true. Interestingly, research into conspiracy theorists also finds that they are people who see themselves as intelligent free thinkers. These people, as lefties, also have the added push of seeing GI as a social justice left cause. These people are not open to persuasion, but are more likely to cut you off if question their GI position. Presumably their self view as intelligent is threatened if they have to admit to themselves that they fell for such a blatant and pernicious scam as GI.

I have found that all of these people in all the groups are really unable to defend their position when its questioned, but only group C will call you names and say they cannot talk to you as you are transphobic.

BTW, I would strongly question if anyone who is 'genuinely feminist' can believe GI. People with a superficial feminism, or who are only interested in economic feminism, maybe. But GI is so obviously in conflict with the very basis principles of feminism, especially around MVAWG, that I cannot agree that anyone who supports it is a feminist. That's like claiming to be a vegetarian but eating meat.
I think GI has shown just how shallow rooted many women's 'feminism' is.

As well as that, I think there's a fair amount of 'othering'. "I am so much a better person than these thick, racist, bigoted deplorables" (in HRC's deathless phrase). Halo-polishing and positioning oneself on TRSOH.

Well yes, humans are status seeking animals. Everyone likes to have someone to look down on.

That’s a fascinating video, thanks for posting.

The obnoxious person used a phrase I hear a lot from identity politics adherents, “You don’t get to talk”, it’s very explanatory of the fact that, for some adherents of IDPol, speech goes only one way and that the views of others are not important. I wonder does this phrase work for the trans person in woke spaces to shut people up given that, for some people, having ‘oppression points’ seems to also confer worthiness and clout 🤔

The feeling of being both intellectually AND morally superior to the 'out' group must feel very powerful