Matt Walsh’s “What Is A Woman” Film Review!

I am unable to view Walsh’s film (because I don’t have or want a subscription to the Daily Wire web site where it is published). This review is as close as I can get to the original content, but it is enough, I think. Besides, this particular review is special. The reviewer legally became a man a few years ago. She later married an Asian of her own gender and birthed his child.

Goofiness aside, “What is a woman?” is a fair question. I think the answer is fairly straightforward, but I pose it to all of you in the Forum. How would you answer it?

My answer: A woman is the female of the human species. There are various ways to identify a human female, or to objectively distinguish between a human female and a human male. Human males and females typically look different, but they also have different internal organs and, crucially, different DNA. They also have different body chemistry, which causes distinctive behavioral patterns that can be used for sexual identification.

70 thoughts on “Matt Walsh’s “What Is A Woman” Film Review!

  1. Sexual identification vs gender.

    Tough question, but those who believe that those who are “gender queer” or trans are some sort of sub-human. They are HUMAN BEINGS. Just like you and I. They just want to live in the most comfortable manner they can and be allowed to be who they are.

    Instead of trying to find ways to dehumanize individuals, why don’t people like yourself and Mr. Smith try a little live and let live?

    Liked by 2 people

      1. A better question is why do so many “conservatives” obsess over questions of gender? Personally, I suspect that it is “culture war” poison gnawing away at their minds. What do you think?

        Liked by 1 person

          1. “I think it is weird to make an us-verses-them issue out of this post.”

            I think it is weird to obsess over questions of gender as Trumpish “conservatives” clearly do.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. You say a lot but very little is useful. I refer to the green cheese moon comment elsewhere.

            And I am a firm believer in truth and calling out bullshit when I see it. If that offends your sensibilities to the point that you attack my comments with petty nonsense, that is your issue, not mine.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Anyone can call out bullshit. It is useless to do so, however, when the assertion is not substantiated.

            You still haven’t explained how I made an us-verses-them issue out of this post. If you can’t or won’t, then there is no reason to rake your comment seriously.


    1. People who believe that trans people are subhuman are transphobes. People who believe that a woman is an adult human female mostly believe that a transwoman is a biological male who identifies, for whatever reason, as an adult female. They do not hate these people, nor believe them to be subhuman. But they do hate being demonized for holding what should be pretty unremarkable views, and being gaslit into accepting a worldview that is at best debatable, and at worst, wrong.


      1. “They do not hate these people, nor believe them to be subhuman.”

        Then you haven’t been paying attention to some of the comments on this board whenever the subject comes up or when some one interjects it because of his hatred of anything “left”.

        Allowing individual human beings to live as they choose when not harming other individuals human beings is something that seems anathema to those who dehumanize those who choose to be their true selves.

        “People who believe that a woman is an adult human female mostly believe that a transwoman is a biological male who identifies, for whatever reason, as an adult female”

        You show some bias here yourself. Based on your comment there are no trans men out there. Woman who believe they are men due to gender dysphoria or other reasons. You never hear the questions posed “What is a man?” in the context of this discussion. Usually when that question is asked it has to do with how a man acts or reacts. There is a “man card” but no “woman card”.

        See my point?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I referred to transwomen because the question was what is a woman. Trans men aren’t such an issue because they don’t pose any threat to men’s sex segregated spaces or sports. I’m a liberal btw but it’s just crazy to me that on this issue other liberals just go with “let people be their true selves” when there are so many issues surrounding that that can’t simply be ignored, most of which matt highlights in his documentary.


          1. ” Trans men aren’t such an issue because they don’t pose any threat to men’s sex segregated spaces or sports.”

            That is something I don’t agree with.

            The issues don’t have to be ignored. But they have to be handled in a manner that doesn’t dehumanize anyone.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. By not harming others, I assume you mean that boys pretending to be girls will not demand to shower or compete in sports with real females at the gym or in school? We have men’s and women’s sports and R and X ratings for a reason.


          1. Tell me what harm has come of it. And don’t try the bullshit story about the attack in a girls bathroom that was debunked as a consensual act.


      2. “… worldview that is at best debatable, and at worst, wrong.”

        If accepting previously marginalized fellow humans is wrong then a reason is the debate point.

        Is it because procreation is not generally possible? Are the roles of either sex in society cast in stone or are the malleable? For example, working women as breadwinners either solely or with a partner is new and quite broadly acceptable in industrial societies. Yet historically that was not proper or even legal, but it is now.

        I think the conservative response in many cases is confusing. If sexual attraction or roles are a reality among a few percent in all societies throughout history, then accepting them is not going to cripple a country. Wasting human resources based on sexual proclivities by marginalizing and persecuting a tiny minority is just scapegoating for no practical reason. And at a cost.

        And yet, the continued condemnations will get votes.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. I’m partial to Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity. The very short version is, someone who is performing the societal functions of womanhood i.e., presents herself and behaves as a woman is a woman.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Gender performativity is an interesting theory. I can see how there might be an evolutionary advantage to be gained by conditioning children for sex-based social roles they will have in adulthood.

      On the other hand, I can’t see how options other than male and female might be advantageous.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Woman: adult human female. Here’s a definition of a transwoman to boot: a biological male who identifies as an adult human female.


  4. Females are throughout the animal kingdom, as are males.

    Women and men are human constructs of the same. The twist that roles of both have been defined throughout history by the ability to bear children and then support them. As recently as the last century, before the women’s movements, the roles of a man working to support the family while the woman raises the children and cares for the household were the norm. A norm based on historical, physiological and cultural realities. A woman could breast feed, a man could kill the beasts. Religious proclamations to procreate and populate demanded adherence to natural abilities of both sexes, demonizing any deviations even if common, as in same sex attraction and activities.

    Industrial societies have upended those scenarios. Woman don’t need a man to survive or even have and raise children.
    Men don’t need to able to kill a beast with a spear and drag home the bounty. Child care and schooling have added in the “village” aspect of raising progeny.

    In other words, things are different today. And as such, a minority may have different biological attractions for the same sex or living themselves as the opposite sex. A phenomenon that is documented among hundreds of other species, same sex activity and attraction, can now be acceptable for a variety of reasons. No longer requiring death or ostracism to ensure population growth. No longer needing 10 children to have 3 survive.

    And allowing a marginalized group to contribute to our economic well being without stress and evasion. The real bonus is admitting that half our population, women, can now give us the benefit of expertise and skills that is some cases are superior to males.

    Recognizing the broad spectrum of human sexuality as a normal part of all societies since recorded history and beyond is about due.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Man has a stick, woman does not. Woman can give live birth, man can not. Neither can be the other no matter how much one wishes it so or mutilates their body. It’s really easy ya know. The enablers of Trans nonsense are just as mentally ill as the trans.


        1. As far back as recorded history there have been variations on sex that included same sex attraction and its tributaries. Same sex activities among hundreds of species have been documented.

          So I would suggest that biology 101 is that the norm for any society is to have more than just heterosexual members. Why and how we are still trying to understand.

          Judging by your comments and attempts at comedic entertainment, I imagine you don’t have any interest in studying the whys and wherefores of life in general and sex specifically. Easier to just drop in, fire insults, then leave. Perhaps someday you can skip the first two activities and move right on to the last.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Bullshit. Homosexual activity in the animal world has always been an act of dominance. You know, like a prison relationship.


          2. RE: “So I would suggest that biology 101 is that the norm for any society is to have more than just heterosexual members. Why and how we are still trying to understand.”

            Well, if we are still trying to understand, then your suggestion could be totally wrong. I would recommend that we not assume something is normative just because it happens. For example, homicide happens, but few would call homicide normal.

            As I understand it, it is very difficult to explain, say, homosexuality as an outcome of natural selection. My guess is there is little or no evolutionary advantage in homosexuality, but the evolutionary disadvantage isn’t strong enough for natural selection to eliminate it.


          3. Sexual pleasure is simply the impetus to procreate. As far as our genes are concerned, we should have sex everyday with whomever we can find as a partner, willing or not.

            Cultural blocks are to ensure the well being of the off spring as well as peace and tranquility in a social group. Why some are attracted to same sex relationships is still being researched. But it is a fact that sexual attraction is not solely about the opposite sex for a small percentage of every society. Even in societies that prohibit homosexual activities with the harshest of penalties.

            And such attraction should die out quickly with regards to evolutionary advantages. But as you pointed out, it hasn’t. So their might be other reasons we are not totally aware of that do provide an advantage to a group if not an individual.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. Am I required to lie and call the he a she before receiving emergency treatment? As far as choosing doctors, there is no question that I would tell the Trans to take a hike as evidenced by the likes of the activist “doctors” in the movie review..


  6. By Bob’s logic, post menopausal women are not women; nor are women who have had hysterectomies or are for some other reason unable to bear children. Further, I sincerely doubt (hope?) Bob is not inspecting the genitals of everyone he comes across to determine if they are men or women. Not that easy as it turns out…

    As far as Ben’s definition, I’m curious to know what is meant by “biology?” Does that also refer to physical parts?

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Can’t speak for Mr. Smith, but his terminology seems pretty clear to me. One can readily distinguish between a biological male/female and a sociological male/female.


        1. For the third time, I am asking someone to give me a definition of a biological male/female.

          Any time this comes up, the answer is always “it’s simple biology” “it’s biology 101”… Tell us, specifically, what you mean.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “For the third time, I am asking someone to give me a definition of a biological male/female.”

          I gave you a non-technical definition in the original post:

          “A woman is the female of the human species. There are various ways to identify a human female, or to objectively distinguish between a human female and a human male. Human males and females typically look different, but they also have different internal organs and, crucially, different DNA. They also have different body chemistry, which causes distinctive behavioral patterns that can be used for sexual identification.”


          1. “A woman is the female of the human species”

            That essentially begs the question. You are assuming that the meaning of “female” is unambiguous. What you people seem unable to understand is that gender is not a simple binary. It is a spectrum from clearly male at one end to clearly female at the other end. There is all sorts of ambiguity in the middle – physically, chemically, psychologically, chromosomally, and culturally.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “What you people seem unable to understand is that gender is not a simple binary.”

            What you people seem unable to understand is that “gender” is a linguistic term, not a biological one. There is no ambiguity in the concept of biological sex. There is, however, a great deal of stupidity in elevating the concept of gender into something like a scientific term.


  7. First, there are two sexes. Period.

    But there are people who are homosexual, and there are people who suffer from gender dysphoria. These are conflicts with their biological reality, so they are abnormal by definition, So what? Normal is for people who lack imagination. These dysphoria’s are generally harmless and thus none of my business. I am a live and let live kind of Libertarian.

    For that reason, Libertarians were the first non-gay organization to join Equality Virginia to support same sex marriage. Everyone should be treated equally. In time, most people became sympathetic to the gay population because they did no harm to anyone and had suffered discrimination.

    But that sympathy and tolerance is being tested today by radical element in the LGBQT community. They have taken a militant stance and for some reason, the Democratic party has allied with them. As a result, that tolerance and acceptance that took so long to gain is at risk.

    Now, teachers are fired for refusing to use chosen pronouns, or enforce their use by their students. The federal government is threatening withholding school lunch money of school systems don’t let boys who identify as female dominate women’s sports. The LGBQT propaganda is being forced on children too young to be engaged on a sexual level of any kind.

    Now they are stepping on people’s toes. So long as they hurt no one they have been tolerated. But now they are harming people by demanding that others live by their delusions. So, there will be a backlash and hopefully it won’t lead to violence.


    1. I’d largely agree with what you said. In my posts here I’ve tried to be straightforward, but some people even want to question what a biological male is. This is the whole point of Matt’s film. Trying to get a straight answer to a simple question, but finding those either knowledgeably or ignorantly supporting the “affirmation” that a man can be a woman and should have all the same rights as a woman unwilling to provide a definition of a woman (because it often would destroy their social construct case). There are two long-standing (meaning untainted by the gender ideology that has captured once venerable publications such as Scientific American) biological definitions btw: one is based on gamete production and the other on the sry gene. Both show unambiguously that their are men and women, usually even among very rare anomalies such as intersex people (whose existence does not create a sex spectrum as some T advocates claim, usually in publications like Scientific American). So, in short, a woman is an adult human female, and a transwoman is an adult human male who identifies as a woman. Society should treat these people with respect, offer counseling for gender dysphoria and in extreme cases even provide sex reassignment surgery once the person has reached brain maturity (around 23) and has been fully informed of the risks in drastically altering a healthy body through multiple irreversible surgeries. To respect women’s rights and their sex segregated spaces, provisions must be made for third spaces (for trans and non binary people) such as single sex occupancy toilets (without just rebranding the women’s toilet gender neutral) and if transwomen wish to compete in competitive sports they can compete with men or in a trans division. Prisons and women’s shelters should ensure that transwomen are not placed with women, but also ensure that they are not endangered in a male prison population. Ok, I think I’ve covered every “right wing talking point” which I’ve noticed is the way that those on the left try to dismiss viewpoints on controversial issues they disagree with.


      1. But those are right wing talking points. You’re starting with the assumption that non cis hetero men are predatory by nature. It’s the same shit they used to fight gay marriage and it’s just being redeployed now for trans issues.

        And a person’s “biology” has nothing to do with how their gender is perceived by society. I don’t check anyone’s pants before speaking with them, and I don’t perform a blood test to do genome sequencing to see which chromosomes they have. I rely on the social cues they use: their dress, looks, mannerisms, etc.

        Insisting on a pedantic “scientific, biological” definition of womanhood is a red herring. Nobody in history has done this, and it’s only meant be a distraction by the same people who are always trying to restrict the rights of people who are slightly different.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Do you understand what the political purpose is of ascribing something as a talking point? It’s clearly to discredit an issue or viewpoint and allow people not to engage with it. So for every right wing talking point there are left wing ones too. For example you give the left wing “talking point” here that the trans right struggle is the same as the gay rights struggle. No, it’s not.

          First of all there are plenty of lesbians and gay men who believe that trans ideology is trying to erase them by allowing them to believe (especially minors) that they aren’t merely attracted to someone of the same gender, but are in the wrong body (something which, weirdly, some parents accept more readily than the idea of having a homosexual child).

          Lesbians are also being gaslit by trans activists into being told that if they don’t wish to have sexual relations with “lesbian” transwomen then they are transphobic (a word that has been viciously weaponised against anyone who doesn’t agree that transwomen are women, including scientists, sexologists, feminists, some lesbians and gays, and even some transsexuals, and, of course, ordinary people like me who have read into this a fair amount).

          Feminists are also dismayed to see “womanhood” being portrayed as a bunch of stereotypical and even oversexualized traits that many transwomen adopt, especially those reading to children in drag queen story hour.

          In the UK recently a bill was struck down by the conservative government that would have banned conversion therapy. The liberal media presented this as a shocking injustice, when in fact they did exactly the right thing and passed the part of the bill banning (“pray the gay away”) gay conversion therapy, while blocking the part that labelled anything other than “affirming” trans counseling as conversion therapy too, which it is absolutely not as “affirming” trans therapy generally leads to a procession of gender blockers, hormone treatments and surgeries, which might be the right path for a small percentage of the “trans” people currently presenting at gender clinics, but isn’t the right path for the majority of them, who need help to learn to live with gender dysphoria as best they can without undergoing surgeries, as most of them (especially minors) will turn out to be simply gay.

          That makes me think of another left-wing talking point (just called the truth on the left I find): 40%ish of trans people have tried to commit suicide. In fact, suicide attempts among trans people are similar to people with many other mental disorders (yes, gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, but so what, I have the mental disorder of anxiety but I don’t find it dehumanizing to admit this). Completed suicide attempts, as opposed to attempted which physchiatrists often regard as cries for help, are actually far far far lower ( a Dutch study from 1970 to 2017 found 49 out of over 8,000, so that’s just over 0.5%) but this is never mentioned. A quick google search on anorexics finds this: “About 16.9% of those with AN attempted suicide.” Given that anorexia largely affects women its notable to find that “29.9 percent of transgender female teens said they attempted suicide.” Which means that while this attempted suicide figure is terrible for trans youth, it doesn’t seem quite so stark when put into some context of other mental disorders.

          I find it quite difficult talking with liberals these days: mostly because I used to be one so know of their abundance of empathy and often feelings of moral and intellectual superiority only too well; but I’m also dismayed that other innate liberals (remembering that political persuasion is influenced by personality type) like me can’t see how wokeness is a largely illiberal movement demanding complete submission and countenancing no rebuttals, while being often based on distortions, half-truths and outright lies.


          1. “… feelings of moral and intellectual superiority…”

            Interesting. Yet, the mantra on conservatives seems to be high moral and patriotic superiority.

            Both camps can’t be right unless we allow for each one being superior to the other. Like all the children were above average in Lake Wobegon.

            I think what we are seeing is a “battle of the backlashes”. Though both parties can be accused of responsibility for this, I believe that Gingrich got the ball rolling with “no compromise” legislation.

            Liberals and conservatives need each other in a representative democracy. Ideally, it would temper the extremes. Practically, it requires compromise to advance legislation. Remove or denigrate that compromise and first, little gets done, but soon sides dig in and the drive to divide the electorate is more important than legislating. That is, the drive to dominate Congress and the Oval Office becomes paramount since compromise would be unnecessary.

            In my opinion, that is where we are now.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. Funny.

      A subset of our nation that had been vilified, beaten, imprisoned, economically destroyed, laughed at and generally treated as second, even third, class citizens has finally achieved some acceptable social status among most Americans.

      So now when a few challenges erupt regarding rights, complications, accommodations and acceptance, the backlash is justified according to you.

      Uppity was the word used to describe Black “overreach” once the rest of us stopped killing, beating, stealing from and otherwise treating minorities like crap.

      So uppity gays must now suffer the consequences of being vocal. “Back in the closet you perverts.”

      Maybe it doesn’t look that way from your perspective, but that is how I see it.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. First, I said a backlash will happen, not that it is justified. Because I predict something, like the Russian victory in Ukraine, does not mean I want it.

        But what is happening is not merely uppity, it is aggression. Demanding access to children to propagandize them with an agenda at an age when they should not be bombarded with sexuality of any kind is a violation of parent’s authority. Getting professors fired because they won’t enforce preferred pronouns is aggression.

        Past mistreatment is not justification for trampling the rights of others.


        1. Never said it was justified. Just a
          rhetorical “what the hell do we expect” after treating people terribly and brutally for centuries.

          I suspect that the true volume of offensive demands and behavior is pretty small. But the GOP never met a slight it couldn’t magnify.

          I recall some “justification” for the attack on our capitol because people FELT slighted and not respected by the Democrats.

          I think this is very similar, don’t you?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. No, you said people may have felt justified.

            The point is we are in tempest/ teapot territory. I wish I could get the quote back, but a teacher in the heartland said she wasn’t aware of any of this uproar at school board meetings, librarian vilifications, and general cultural hoopla pressed by the right. She was just teaching.

            God, gays and guns. The platform hasn’t changed in decades. And that is what seems to be successfully tearing our country apart.

            Democrats have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But this time with “grooming”, library books, endless mass shootings and abortion rights, Republicans who should easily take the House and maybe the Senate could lose both. Gerrymandering might not be enough to overcome very mad mothers and fathers whose kids are getting shot up weekly. Or woman who will have to justify their miscarriage to a cop.

            This thread is about sexual orientation as contrasted to biological inherited traits. We know that those two are not in alignment for a small percentage of people. But their is little evidence that one can groom people to change that. Yet, that is the fear factor played on the right.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Nope. the parents would object just as strongly to explicit sexual discussions about heterosexual activities when presented to young children not ready for such indoctrination.


          3. Don, sex means nothing if the children have been torn to pieces by an AR-15 in the hands of a crazy person.

            Terrorism doesn’t require lots of bodies to affect millions of people. That is why some movements use that weapon. You can say that if you are not a gang member, then the odds are in your favor. True, perhaps. But these random attacks keep people on edge. Plus the brutality of the .223 high powered bullet is devastating. Paramedics have told stories of having to ID with DNA in some cases. Trauma surgeons have expressed dismay at the horrific wounds.

            The right is in full outrage mode over truly universal background checks with no loopholes. A no brainer. Never mind the ease of getting powerful weapons for a few dollars, a nod and a smile.

            Maybe the Republicans want these shootings to continue. After all, martial law was discussed by more than a few top folks in the previous regime regarding the protests in 2020 and the election. I would not put it past the MAGA leadership fanatics.


            Liked by 2 people

          4. That is both non-responsive and deranged.

            No one wants children murdered and it is deranged to make that assumption.

            We disagree on how to prevent that. I can back up my opinion on that without accusing you with complicity to mass murder.

            There is zero chance shotguns will ever be outlawed. Have you ever seen a shotgun wound at less than 20 feet? I have.

            .223 wounds at less than 100 feet tend to be very survivable “ice pick wounds” unless they hit something else first. like ricocheting off the floor and start tumbling. They actually make wore wounds at longer ranges when they have become unstable and started wobbling.

            But in any case. this belongs in another thread.

            The issue here is telling young children graphic details about LGBQT sex life when they shouldn’t be talked to about sex by anyone but their parents at that age.


          5. “The issue here is telling young children graphic details about LGBQT sex life”

            The issue here is that NOBODY does that. It is bullshit generated by the media and the politicians you love to stir up hatred and division far partisan advantage.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “. Demanding access to children to propagandize them with an agenda at an age when they should not be bombarded with sexuality of any kind is a violation of parent’s authority. ”

          That sounds like a gross overstatement of actual truths. Just because a trans person or homosexual wants to be an educator does not mean they are “groomers”. Disney is not grooming, Catholic priests (and SOuthern Baptist Ministers) ARE.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If you have Twitter, follow “libs of tiktok” @libsoftiktok

            which simply aggregates Tweets by liberals

            You will see what is going on in schools


          2. Libs of TikTok has posted about 222 individuals and institutions according to Wikipedia. There 3.3 million K-12 teachers in the US.

            The postings were a serious form of doxxing that caused death threats and firings based on little more than a quote or two. Of course, the idea is to make Americans think this is a huge problem throughout the nation.

            Interestingly, the originator has cried foul when revealed in a news story. “Outing” liberals is fine, but outing a conservative poster doing just that is verboten.

            Anonymity may protect the innocent, but it also protects the scurrilous.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. You can’t “out” someone by Tweeting what they themselves have already posted to the public on TikTok. Libs of TikTok does not provide identifying information other than what is in the videos the people involved posted themselves.

            Not at all the same thing as tracking down someone’s identity and showing up at their house and relatives’ houses to harass them.


          4. Come on Don. If people are outed and fired based on some trolling TikTok poster, that is exactly the same. Context is important.

            But that is not the point. Anonymity is the issue, and if you are going to ruin someone, at least have the courage to stand behind your accusations. And if you can’t, then expect the heat when the accused find out who you are.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Again, Libs of TikTok does not supply any information beyond which the posters have put online themselves. they only aggregate posts revealing the extremist agenda.

            That isn’t outing anyone, any more than passing on what we say here.


          6. Don’t have Twitter, don’t want it.

            And taking the words and actions of those who target others for whatever reason as “gospel” is wronheaded – IMO.


          7. “Libs of Tiktok doesn’t target anyone, it simply brings what libs post to an unintended audience.”

            The difference in this regard between “conservatives” and the ordinary decent people of this country is that we – the ordinary decent people – do not have to scour the internet to find batshit crazy stuff posted by an infinitesimal slice of the body politic. We get all the batshit crazy we need from “conservative” leaders such as ex-Presidents, governors, and members of Congress.


  8. I commend you Don on tackling this issue and explaining your point of view clearly and succinctly. It seems most of those arguing against you here are just taking a left vs right stance (as exemplified by one person switching the topic entirely to guns). These people need to watch Matt’s documentary, scroll through libsoftiktok for a while, read scientific papers by transsexual men who don’t believe they are women (see Anne Lawrence), go to the detrans reddit which has about ten percent the subscribers as the trans reddit (yet to come out as a detransitioner is heretical at this point in time) and THEN come back and tell you it’s all a figment of the GOP’s imagination.

    I remember about seven years ago when I was a Guardian reading Chomsky supplicant and I saw Jordan Peterson (described recently by Chomsky as having views close to Atilla the Hun, which is a lazy ad-hominen attack Chomsky should be ashamed of) saying how the postmodernists had taken over the universities and I thought he was mad. Then bit by bit I started to pay attention to conservative (and many disillusioned liberal) voices and realized maybe he wasn’t mad after all. Maybe, in fact, on many issues it’s the left who have gone mad, putting their feelings on so many cultural issues ahead of statistics and facts that totally contravene their worldview.

    That doesn’t mean for a second that I think people like Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh have all the answers: far from it, I find Matt Walsh’s catholic views on homosexuality to be stone-aged. But on this trans issue Matt is dead right, as is Jordan on postmodern ideas (there is no objective truth) having taken root in not just the universities now, but also the boards of education, the corporations and the government. Can you imagine a more perfect encapsulation of the idea of there being no objective truth than refusing to say what a woman is, or saying that it’s whatever you want it to be? (Remember even if there are people who genuinely would be better off social or medically transitioning to live as a woman, these are a tiny fraction of the population; there are people born without legs too, but we can still define humans as being bipedal).

    Libsoftiktok is a compilation of some of the most extreme manifestations of this ideology (which is also strongly influenced by Marxism as evidenced by many of these people strongly decrying capitalism at every opportunity too) and is by no means a form of doxxing as these people in most cases CHOSE to video themselves espousing views and documenting actions that got them fired even at a time when almost any action under the LGBTQI+ umbrella is protected from scrutiny: a state of affairs that is highly illiberal but is being pushed by so-called liberals.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s