What is a Woman? (Documentary) by Matt Walsh

[AgnosticBoy]

Here is Matt Walsh's documentary on gender. His video really tackles transgender ideology. Here's a trailer (you have to subscribe to the Daily Wire to watch full documentary...luckily i was able to catch it on Youtube before it was taken down):

From watching other videos of Matt Walsh's, I can say that he is critical or against transgender ideology. The main point made by proponents of transgender is that 'gender' is whatever someone identifies as. Matt Walsh seems to think that there's something wrong with this and brings up problems that it raises, like in sports, in using public restrooms, etc. He defines woman here, which is part of the information used for debate question #2.

For Debate:
1. If you watched the documentary, what is your reaction to it?
2. Matt Walsh believes that gender identity is not a social construct. He also thinks that in defining someone's gender, we should go by more than just gender identity. Is he right?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

For Debate:
1. If you watched the documentary, what is your reaction to it?

This documentary reminded me Bill Maher's documentary, Religulous. I felt that Matt Walsh went in with his mind made up (being against transgender ideology), and did his best to make some of the experts look bad or unreasonable by asking his main question, what is a woman. I don't believe that Matt Walsh was as biased as Bill Maher was in his documentary because he listened more, and didn't ask as many leading questions.

Overall, I liked Matt Walsh's documentary even if his bias was apparent, and that's because it was informative and not overly polemical.

2. Matt Walsh believes that gender identity is not a social construct. He also thinks that in defining someone's gender, we should go by more than just gender identity. Is he right?

I think part of the problem is the emphasis that people place on 'gender identity'. Some talk about it as if it is the only component of gendered behavior when it is not. Therefore, even if gender identity is a social construct, but that doesn't mean that gendered behavior is the same because gendered behavior is also a product of biology or nature. The most obvious piece of evidence is that we find gendered behavior in non-human animals, like with large cats, primates, bees (females are in charge and do most of the work), etc.

Even if gendered behavior is in part biological, I do believe it can be overridden or suppressed by nurture or sociopsychological conditioning. Which leads me to ask if any major increase in non-binary or transgender identities is a matter of people who were suppressing their nature and are now comfortable coming out, or is it more of people wanting to choose their identities or adapting it due to some social pressure (e.g. popularity, etc)? Don't get me wrong, I do believe that there are many cases involving alternate gender identities (esp. transgender) being a matter of biology or nature just as it is for those who are born as 'intersex' but I doubt that is the case for everyone who identifies as some alternative gender or transgender.

If anything, you can say that I adopt an Alfred Kinsey like view on gender. The same way sexual orientation can be fluid, I also believe that gender can be fluid, as well. The change may not be a matter of choice (it's probably often not) since it involves biology, but just because it involves biology doesn't mean that we can't shift along a gender spectrum, with female and male as the endpoints.