Well perhaps there can be two motives. One, curiosity, and two, not pinning someone down, but calling out the BS of claiming there was an answer when there wasn't. A certain poster gets a lot of grief in the Rose Garden thread for non-responses (rightfully so), so why not have consistent standards.
Others are welcome to their own standards, and it’s fine by me if they choose their spots without feeling obliged, for consistency’s sake, to apply them everywhere. Everyone’s free to take ’em or leave ’em for what they’re worth.
Edited to add: And if you don't want someone to see your tweets you can "block" them -- and as noted above you can still see their tweets if you want to.
(a) Hate can obscure rational thought, especially when the hate is induced by a demonization campaign by a media that the hater trusts.
(b) We have a Musk hater on the thread who has wished ill upon Tesla (despite his laughable denial) / image 1
(c) With regard to (b) / image 1, Smedley informed us that he made a modest investement in Tesla (image 2).
(d) With regard to (c) I hope that Smedley has been patient enough during the ensuing ups and downs to wait until his investment more than doubled today (image 3)
I have held. In general I try to follow Jim Cramer’s reco that you should “ring the register” when a stock doubles - sell half and let the rest ride. I’m considering doing that with Tesla, but I have not done so yet.
Matt, Candace and Elon should probably watch Sapolsky's lectures on Youtube, if they're serious about getting an answer, but they need to prepare for a few hours of listening and some science that I don't think they're well equipped for.
My understanding of this is that Sapolsky attributes trans-sexuality as well as sexuality in general, to the "average" architectures of the brains of people according to the categories of male, female, homosexual and transgender.
This concept conflicts fundamentally with the experts who Matt Walsh was trolling with the question "What is a woman?" because all of those experts agreed that gender is not physiological, but a "social construct" ("what I believe"). This would appear to make Sapolsky an opponent of the same orthodoxy that Walsh opposed in the film but from a different perspective.
Do you even recall Walsh having his lies exposed on The Joe Rogan Experience live with a simple Google search? Why lend him any credence in any of his absurd anti-LGBQT productions? Why believe Elon is great for re-tweeting hate speech? I just don't understand it. Are you for a promoter of peace for everyone while letting Walsh target a tiny section of the population for hate? Absurd. Spend more time sharing Sapolsky's lectures on Twitter and less promoting hate speech, maybe? Do good.
The only thing Walsh has done that I'm familiar with is his "What is a Woman?" video that I watched. Elon recommended it and was accused of "full-bore anti-trans" activity for doing so by @nohero, who has been unable to support his accusation with any specifics. In the video, Walsh interviewed advocates for gender affirming treatment, all of whom held that the definition of a woman was a "social construct". Sapolsky disagrees with that. That was my point.
By the way, "Do good" isn't a knee-jerk reaction to the prevailing or majority "wisdom" in the US. Sometimes the US liberal majority gets it wrong and "doing good" may require looking at the prevailing or majority "wisdom" in other societies. I'm going to elaborate on that shortly in another post.
In my opinion, Lisa Selin Davis is the most rational voice on these issues, as reflected in her review of Walsh's film, from her Substack, which I highly recommend:
Matt Walsh didn’t ask me what a woman is—and I would have been glad to participate in his documentary as a lefty feminist type who can answer the question. He didn’t ask the many left wing people resisting the ideological fervor around gender identity or concerned about kids with gender dysphoria rushed to medicate. He didn’t ask the gender-critical feminists who embrace the reality of biological sex and see gender as a set of societal expectations based on it, not an internal sense of self. I’m pretty sure they all would have said what—spoiler alert—Walsh’s unnamed wife says at the end of his documentary, What Is A Woman?: adult human female.
In this mostly worthwhile (hilarious sometimes, unnecessarily shallow others) film about gender identity ideology, many smart, well-educated people he puts the central question to, especially those in the ivory tower, answered in ways that make the left look bad. A woman is only an identity, with no contours or boundaries, no absolutes. Their circular definitions and immediate defensiveness indicated that they didn’t trust their own ideas, and each became hostile when realizing Walsh was going to push back in his deadpanned (and extremely watchable) way.
But Walsh found plenty of people, especially young people, willing to embrace the idea that each person’s individual reality is all that matters, that we don’t need a shared truth to move through the world. I believe what’s happening is a kind of psychological and social anarchy, packaged inside philosophical arguments so convoluted that they’re hard to combat, then wrapped in a veneer of social justice so we can’t object to them without seeming bigoted. We’ve been intellectually beaten into submission on the left.
Walsh tweeted that the hero of the film is Scott Newgent, a trans man irreparably harmed by medical interventions, who campaigns against gender identity-based medical interventions for children. That’s true. His cry of “This is wrong on so many levels” is incredibly moving and reminds us that we should be asking very basic questions. What are we doing? How is it working? Who is being helped and who harmed?
Walsh isn’t asking those questions. He traveled thousands of miles to expose liberals’ absurdity, and he is wildly successful at it. It’s big budget Libs of TikTok, and it’s effective at poking holes in the ideology and making us look like ****—and deservedly so. But if such a film will fuel the right’s legislative pushback, or anti-trans laws as the left media describes them, it’s not helpful to those of us trying to educate the world about natural gender diversity and nonconformity.
Walsh visits an African tribe whose members laugh at the idea of a man taking on a woman’s role, or identifying as a woman, but there are plenty of cultures in which feminine men and masculine women exist and are acknowledged and even sometimes accepted. That is not a western phenomenon. Walsh doesn’t acknowledge that there are actually gender nonconforming people out there, and that boys can like more than football and girls can like more than makeup. He dresses his children in pink and blue, according to their sex, and wonders why we say they’re similar. In other words, there is no wiggle room in his worldview for objections to the rule, just as there is no room for objective rules in the ultra-left worldview. Meanwhile, there really are tens of thousands of children with gender dysphoria who need some kind of help navigating it.
The problem with leaving the sex and gender discussion for conservatives to control and combat is that they oversimplify. Sex is dimorphic, yes. But there are very occasional exceptions, for instance in the form of a difference of sex development like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, in which someone is chromosomally male but looks like and lives as a woman. That is, the language of trans activism borrows from the reality of intersex lives for its own purposes, but the language of the right denies the reality of intersex lives, too. (More on CAIS and kids with intersex conditions in a post later this week.)
At the end of the film, when Walsh asks his wife to say what a woman is, she provides him with the dictionary definition, which does apply more than 99% of the time. But then she adds that a woman is an adult human female who needs help opening a jar, and hands him a jar of pickles. As she stands there, her face fully made up but still wearing a bathrobe, the counter full of the food she’s preparing for her family, she helps us see what Walsh has been trying to tell us all along. Women are not just a biological category of human. They are pretty, weak and submissive.
These can’t be the only two versions of womanhood: a boundary-less identity or a Stepford wife. And that means we need more voices from the rational center. If that’s where you are, please raise your voice so both the extreme left and extreme right can hear you.
I just did a search on "Australia" and the following -- related to some of the discussion here -- came up third (out of thousands of results):
Reading her tweets, sounds as if Angie Jones and Matt Walsh would hit it off.
If we can focus for a minute on what Angie Jones tweeted about Dr. Jillian Spencer, by your logic, the health agencies of the UK, Finland, Norway, Sweden and France, would also hit it off with Angie Jones -- as well as Matt Walsh -- because the article that Jones posted, notes that:
"Dr Spencer is a signatory to the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists’ guide to managing gender dysphoria and incongruence in young people, which advocates a cautious approach and comprehensive mental health assessment. Her concerns about the lack of an evidence base underpinning gender-affirmative medicine and the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children were well-known within the hospital."
Britain’s National Health Service announced on Friday that it would limit the use of puberty-suppressing drugs to children enrolled in clinical trials. The change comes as the agency’s pediatric gender services have struggled to keep up with soaring demand.
A document explaining the N.H.S.’s reasoning stated that “there is not enough evidence to support their safety or clinical effectiveness as a routinely available treatment.”
The N.H.S. had released a draft of this policy change in October, but Friday’s announcement formally instituted the new approach after months of public comment. The policy will go into effect later this year.
Why It Matters: Other countries have limited the drugs, too
The change is part of a broader push in several countries to limit gender-related medical treatments for young people.
After conducting evidence reviews, Finland has begun limiting who can access gender-related treatments and Sweden has restricted the use of puberty blockers and hormones to clinical trials. A Norwegian health body and the French National Academy of Medicine have also urged caution.
In the United States, more than 20 Republican-led states have passed laws banning the use of puberty-blocking drugs and hormones, with some making it a felony for doctors to prescribe them. Hundreds of clinicians across the country — including some who have raised concerns about which adolescents should receive gender-related treatments — have denounced the bans, saying such decisions should be made by patients, their families and their doctors.
Background: Data on the effect of blockers is sparse
Last year, the N.H.S. announced that it would be shutting down the country’s only youth gender clinic after an external review showed that the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service had been unable to provide appropriate care for the rapidly increasing number of adolescents seeking gender treatments. The clinic had seen a sharp rise in referrals, from 250 young people in 2011 to 5,000 in 2021.
Puberty blockers, which work by suppressing estrogen and testosterone, were first tested on children with gender dysphoria in the Netherlands in the 1990s. The Dutch researchers published their first study on 70 children in 2011, finding that the adolescents reported a decrease in depression and anxiety after taking the drugs.
But a British study of Tavistock patients published in 2021 showed that blockers had no effect on children’s scores on psychological tests. The study found that 43 out of the 44 participants later chose to start testosterone or estrogen treatments. One interpretation of the data is that all were good candidates for hormone therapy. But the numbers raised concerns at the N.H.S. about whether the drugs served their intended purpose of giving adolescents time to think.
“The most difficult question is whether puberty blockers do indeed provide valuable time for children and young people to consider their options, or whether they effectively ‘lock in’ children and young people to a treatment pathway,” Dr. Hilary Cass, the pediatrician overseeing the independent review of the N.H.S. gender service, wrote last year.
What’s Next: Britain will start a trial of children taking blockers
The N.H.S. is organizing a clinical trial for all children receiving puberty blockers from the health service, which it expects will begin enrollment in 2024.
Although the Tavistock clinic has been closed, regional centers are opening across Britain to expand gender-related services for young people. The N.H.S. said that the new system for treating minors with gender-related issues will establish standardized assessments and incorporate much more mental health support.
“The main objective is to alleviate distress associated with gender incongruence and promote the individual’s global functioning and well-being,” the N.H.S. guidance said.
I may have missed it, but I didn't see a South Mountain Peace Action booth at the big North NJ Pride event at Memorial Park today.
How do you feel about the UK ban on puberty blockers?
As the NHS in Scotland and Northern Ireland (possibly Wales, I'll have to look into that) have not changed their stance on puberty blockers, I can't comment on a UK ban, as it hasn't happened.
Matt, Candace and Elon should probably watch Sapolsky's lectures on Youtube, if they're serious about getting an answer, but they need to prepare for a few hours of listening and some science that I don't think they're well equipped for.
My understanding of this is that Sapolsky attributes trans-sexuality as well as sexuality in general, to the "average" architectures of the brains of people according to the categories of male, female, homosexual and transgender.
This concept conflicts fundamentally with the experts who Matt Walsh was trolling with the question "What is a woman?" because all of those experts agreed that gender is not physiological, but a "social construct" ("what I believe"). This would appear to make Sapolsky an opponent of the same orthodoxy that Walsh opposed in the film but from a different perspective.
Do you even recall Walsh having his lies exposed on The Joe Rogan Experience live with a simple Google search? Why lend him any credence in any of his absurd anti-LGBQT productions? Why believe Elon is great for re-tweeting hate speech? I just don't understand it. Are you for a promoter of peace for everyone while letting Walsh target a tiny section of the population for hate? Absurd. Spend more time sharing Sapolsky's lectures on Twitter and less promoting hate speech, maybe? Do good.
The only thing Walsh has done that I'm familiar with is his "What is a Woman?" video that I watched. Elon recommended it and was accused of "full-bore anti-trans" activity for doing so by @nohero, who has been unable to support his accusation with any specifics. In the video, Walsh interviewed advocates for gender affirming treatment, all of whom held that the definition of a woman was a "social construct". Sapolsky disagrees with that. That was my point.
By the way, "Do good" isn't a knee-jerk reaction to the prevailing or majority "wisdom" in the US. Sometimes the US liberal majority gets it wrong and "doing good" may require looking at the prevailing or majority "wisdom" in other societies. I'm going to elaborate on that shortly in another post.
In my opinion, Lisa Selin Davis is the most rational voice on these issues, as reflected in her review of Walsh's film, from her Substack, which I highly recommend:
Matt Walsh didn’t ask me what a woman is—and I would have been glad to participate in his documentary as a lefty feminist type who can answer the question. He didn’t ask the many left wing people resisting the ideological fervor around gender identity or concerned about kids with gender dysphoria rushed to medicate. He didn’t ask the gender-critical feminists who embrace the reality of biological sex and see gender as a set of societal expectations based on it, not an internal sense of self. I’m pretty sure they all would have said what—spoiler alert—Walsh’s unnamed wife says at the end of his documentary, What Is A Woman?: adult human female.
In this mostly worthwhile (hilarious sometimes, unnecessarily shallow others) film about gender identity ideology, many smart, well-educated people he puts the central question to, especially those in the ivory tower, answered in ways that make the left look bad. A woman is only an identity, with no contours or boundaries, no absolutes. Their circular definitions and immediate defensiveness indicated that they didn’t trust their own ideas, and each became hostile when realizing Walsh was going to push back in his deadpanned (and extremely watchable) way.
But Walsh found plenty of people, especially young people, willing to embrace the idea that each person’s individual reality is all that matters, that we don’t need a shared truth to move through the world. I believe what’s happening is a kind of psychological and social anarchy, packaged inside philosophical arguments so convoluted that they’re hard to combat, then wrapped in a veneer of social justice so we can’t object to them without seeming bigoted. We’ve been intellectually beaten into submission on the left.
Walsh tweeted that the hero of the film is Scott Newgent, a trans man irreparably harmed by medical interventions, who campaigns against gender identity-based medical interventions for children. That’s true. His cry of “This is wrong on so many levels” is incredibly moving and reminds us that we should be asking very basic questions. What are we doing? How is it working? Who is being helped and who harmed?
Walsh isn’t asking those questions. He traveled thousands of miles to expose liberals’ absurdity, and he is wildly successful at it. It’s big budget Libs of TikTok, and it’s effective at poking holes in the ideology and making us look like ****—and deservedly so. But if such a film will fuel the right’s legislative pushback, or anti-trans laws as the left media describes them, it’s not helpful to those of us trying to educate the world about natural gender diversity and nonconformity.
Walsh visits an African tribe whose members laugh at the idea of a man taking on a woman’s role, or identifying as a woman, but there are plenty of cultures in which feminine men and masculine women exist and are acknowledged and even sometimes accepted. That is not a western phenomenon. Walsh doesn’t acknowledge that there are actually gender nonconforming people out there, and that boys can like more than football and girls can like more than makeup. He dresses his children in pink and blue, according to their sex, and wonders why we say they’re similar. In other words, there is no wiggle room in his worldview for objections to the rule, just as there is no room for objective rules in the ultra-left worldview. Meanwhile, there really are tens of thousands of children with gender dysphoria who need some kind of help navigating it.
The problem with leaving the sex and gender discussion for conservatives to control and combat is that they oversimplify. Sex is dimorphic, yes. But there are very occasional exceptions, for instance in the form of a difference of sex development like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, in which someone is chromosomally male but looks like and lives as a woman. That is, the language of trans activism borrows from the reality of intersex lives for its own purposes, but the language of the right denies the reality of intersex lives, too. (More on CAIS and kids with intersex conditions in a post later this week.)
At the end of the film, when Walsh asks his wife to say what a woman is, she provides him with the dictionary definition, which does apply more than 99% of the time. But then she adds that a woman is an adult human female who needs help opening a jar, and hands him a jar of pickles. As she stands there, her face fully made up but still wearing a bathrobe, the counter full of the food she’s preparing for her family, she helps us see what Walsh has been trying to tell us all along. Women are not just a biological category of human. They are pretty, weak and submissive.
These can’t be the only two versions of womanhood: a boundary-less identity or a Stepford wife. And that means we need more voices from the rational center. If that’s where you are, please raise your voice so both the extreme left and extreme right can hear you.
Click to Read More
I Know What a Woman Is
Stop leaving this issue for the right wing to cover
Matt Walsh didn’t ask me what a woman is—and I would have been glad to participate in his documentary as a lefty feminist type who can answer the question. He didn’t ask the many left wing people resisting the ideological fervor around gender identity or concerned about kids with gender dysphoria rushed to medicate. He didn’t ask the gender-critical feminists who embrace the reality of biological sex and see gender as a set of societal expectations based on it, not an internal sense of self. I’m pretty sure they all would have said what—spoiler alert—Walsh’s unnamed wife says at the end of his documentary, What Is A Woman?: adult human female.
In this mostly worthwhile (hilarious sometimes, unnecessarily shallow others) film about gender identity ideology, many smart, well-educated people he puts the central question to, especially those in the ivory tower, answered in ways that make the left look bad. A woman is only an identity, with no contours or boundaries, no absolutes. Their circular definitions and immediate defensiveness indicated that they didn’t trust their own ideas, and each became hostile when realizing Walsh was going to push back in his deadpanned (and extremely watchable) way.
But Walsh found plenty of people, especially young people, willing to embrace the idea that each person’s individual reality is all that matters, that we don’t need a shared truth to move through the world. I believe what’s happening is a kind of psychological and social anarchy, packaged inside philosophical arguments so convoluted that they’re hard to combat, then wrapped in a veneer of social justice so we can’t object to them without seeming bigoted. We’ve been intellectually beaten into submission on the left.
Walsh tweeted that the hero of the film is Scott Newgent, a trans man irreparably harmed by medical interventions, who campaigns against gender identity-based medical interventions for children. That’s true. His cry of “This is wrong on so many levels” is incredibly moving and reminds us that we should be asking very basic questions. What are we doing? How is it working? Who is being helped and who harmed?
Walsh isn’t asking those questions. He traveled thousands of miles to expose liberals’ absurdity, and he is wildly successful at it. It’s big budget Libs of TikTok, and it’s effective at poking holes in the ideology and making us look like ****—and deservedly so. But if such a film will fuel the right’s legislative pushback, or anti-trans laws as the left media describes them, it’s not helpful to those of us trying to educate the world about natural gender diversity and nonconformity.
Walsh visits an African tribe whose members laugh at the idea of a man taking on a woman’s role, or identifying as a woman, but there are plenty of cultures in which feminine men and masculine women exist and are acknowledged and even sometimes accepted. That is not a western phenomenon. Walsh doesn’t acknowledge that there are actually gender nonconforming people out there, and that boys can like more than football and girls can like more than makeup. He dresses his children in pink and blue, according to their sex, and wonders why we say they’re similar. In other words, there is no wiggle room in his worldview for objections to the rule, just as there is no room for objective rules in the ultra-left worldview. Meanwhile, there really are tens of thousands of children with gender dysphoria who need some kind of help navigating it.
The problem with leaving the sex and gender discussion for conservatives to control and combat is that they oversimplify. Sex is dimorphic, yes. But there are very occasional exceptions, for instance in the form of a difference of sex development like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, in which someone is chromosomally male but looks like and lives as a woman. That is, the language of trans activism borrows from the reality of intersex lives for its own purposes, but the language of the right denies the reality of intersex lives, too. (More on CAIS and kids with intersex conditions in a post later this week.)
At the end of the film, when Walsh asks his wife to say what a woman is, she provides him with the dictionary definition, which does apply more than 99% of the time. But then she adds that a woman is an adult human female who needs help opening a jar, and hands him a jar of pickles. As she stands there, her face fully made up but still wearing a bathrobe, the counter full of the food she’s preparing for her family, she helps us see what Walsh has been trying to tell us all along. Women are not just a biological category of human. They are pretty, weak and submissive.
These can’t be the only two versions of womanhood: a boundary-less identity or a Stepford wife. And that means we need more voices from the rational center. If that’s where you are, please raise your voice so both the extreme left and extreme right can hear you.
I didn't get to the end of the documentary, so thanks for that.
I just did a search on "Australia" and the following -- related to some of the discussion here -- came up third (out of thousands of results):
Reading her tweets, sounds as if Angie Jones and Matt Walsh would hit it off.
If we can focus for a minute on what Angie Jones tweeted about Dr. Jillian Spencer, by your logic, the health agencies of the UK, Finland, Norway, Sweden and France, would also hit it off with Angie Jones -- as well as Matt Walsh -- because the article that Jones posted, notes that:
...
"From reading her tweets ..." if you're going "by my logic".
The only thing Walsh has done that I'm familiar with is his "What is a Woman?" video that I watched. Elon recommended it and was accused of "full-bore anti-trans" activity for doing so by @nohero, who has been unable to support his accusation with any specifics. In the video, Walsh interviewed advocates for gender affirming treatment, all of whom held that the definition of a woman was a "social construct". Sapolsky disagrees with that. That was my point.
"Unable to support" is an incorrect statement. The support is in the posts from myself and others, for anyone who bothers to read the material provided.
And if you're not that familiar with Walsh or his efforts, but only with one example, then you are making a judgment on woefully insufficient information.
I may have missed it, but I didn't see a South Mountain Peace Action booth at the big North NJ Pride event at Memorial Park today.
How do you feel about the UK ban on puberty blockers?
funny but I don't see the word "ban" anywhere in the NHS story.
Britain’s National Health Service announced on Friday that it would limit the use of puberty-suppressing drugs to children enrolled in clinical trials. The change comes as the agency’s pediatric gender services have struggled to keep up with soaring demand.
"Unable to support" is an incorrect statement. The support is in the posts from myself and others, for anyone who bothers to read the material provided.
And if you're not that familiar with Walsh or his efforts, but only with one example, then you are making a judgment on woefully insufficient information.
the thing that a lot of people seem to be concluding is that they think Walsh is not anti-trans because he's not necessarily expressing hatred for trans people specifically. But his thing is to spread propaganda against gender affirming health care. It's a distinction without a difference. He's anti-trans because he's fighting a jihad against their health care.
I may have missed it, but I didn't see a South Mountain Peace Action booth at the big North NJ Pride event at Memorial Park today.
How do you feel about the UK ban on puberty blockers?
funny but I don't see the word "ban" anywhere in the NHS story.
Britain’s National Health Service announced on Friday that it would limit the use of puberty-suppressing drugs to children enrolled in clinical trials. The change comes as the agency’s pediatric gender services have struggled to keep up with soaring demand.
The only thing Walsh has done that I'm familiar with is his "What is a Woman?" video that I watched. Elon recommended it and was accused of "full-bore anti-trans" activity for doing so by @nohero, who has been unable to support his accusation with any specifics. In the video, Walsh interviewed advocates for gender affirming treatment, all of whom held that the definition of a woman was a "social construct". Sapolsky disagrees with that. That was my point.
"Unable to support" is an incorrect statement. The support is in the posts from myself and others, for anyone who bothers to read the material provided.
And if you're not that familiar with Walsh or his efforts, but only with one example, then you are making a judgment on woefully insufficient information.
You are focusing on the person without regard to the merits of what was said, I'm focusing on the merits of what was said regardless of who said it. I think it's better to debate on the merits.
I may have missed it, but I didn't see a South Mountain Peace Action booth at the big North NJ Pride event at Memorial Park today.
How do you feel about the UK ban on puberty blockers?
funny but I don't see the word "ban" anywhere in the NHS story.
Britain’s National Health Service announced on Friday that it would limit the use of puberty-suppressing drugs to children enrolled in clinical trials. The change comes as the agency’s pediatric gender services have struggled to keep up with soaring demand.
means "banned" except for clinical trials.
banned except where it isn't banned.
ok
Right it's banned everywhere except clinical trials. That's a ban.
It should be noted that for every ban there can be rare exceptions.
"Unable to support" is an incorrect statement. The support is in the posts from myself and others, for anyone who bothers to read the material provided.
And if you're not that familiar with Walsh or his efforts, but only with one example, then you are making a judgment on woefully insufficient information.
the thing that a lot of people seem to be concluding is that they think Walsh is not anti-trans because he's not necessarily expressing hatred for trans people specifically. But his thing is to spread propaganda against gender affirming health care. It's a distinction without a difference. He's anti-trans because he's fighting a jihad against their health care.
He might be, but no one here has been able to show that "What is a woman" is anti-trans.
ETA: I think he's clearly against trans surgery and puberty blockers for children, as opposed to some of his interviewees. Which puts Walsh on the same side as GB, France, Sweden, Finland and Norway.
I agree that children under 16 should not be allowed to take puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. It is a very adult decision that children should not be making. But that’s just me.
I agree that children under 16 should not be allowed to take puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. It is a very adult decision that children should not be making. But that’s just me.
That's mostly what Walsh was pushing against in the film.
You are focusing on the person without regard to the merits of what was said, I'm focusing on the merits of what was said regardless of who said it. I think it's better to debate on the merits.
Incorrect description of the posts I mentioned, which address the substance of Matt Walsh’s output.
He might be, but no one here has been able to show that "What is a woman" is anti-trans.
it’s just like saying Putin has never said he wants to colonize Ukraine… what are you nit picking for?
This all gets back to @nohero's accusation that by promoting Walsh's film, @elonmusk was going "full-bore transphobic" -- because the film was basically making the same rational point that you just made about children. Which is essentially official policy in GB, France, Sweden, Norway and Finland. And probably many other countries.
The analogy with Putin would be to claim that he called for colonizing Ukraine in the speech when he announced the invasion. That would be false. If you want to make that claim by citing Putin's actions, like annexing four regions, that's fair game.
You are focusing on the person without regard to the merits of what was said, I'm focusing on the merits of what was said regardless of who said it. I think it's better to debate on the merits.
Incorrect description of the posts I mentioned, which address the substance of Matt Walsh’s output.
The only even remote attempt to “address the substance of Matt Walsh’s output”, ie the Twitter thread that originated this discussion, was ml1 questioning the nuts removed in 22 minutes bit. That particular Walsh claim is, wow, like really full bore anti trans, like about as much so as whether the price of eggs in Peoria is higher or lower this week.
This whole discussion is tedious and trivial at this point, but the broader point is, why don’t you just own that Musk was full-bore anti trans because he replied to Walsh, who is an objectionable figure. Period. Rather than playing the charade that you’re open to voices of objectionable figures but your objection is to the content at hand.
You are focusing on the person without regard to the merits of what was said, I'm focusing on the merits of what was said regardless of who said it. I think it's better to debate on the merits.
Incorrect description of the posts I mentioned, which address the substance of Matt Walsh’s output.
Right, move the goalpost away from the film and toward "Walsh's ouput". Obvious obfuscation.
"Unable to support" is an incorrect statement. The support is in the posts from myself and others, for anyone who bothers to read the material provided.
And if you're not that familiar with Walsh or his efforts, but only with one example, then you are making a judgment on woefully insufficient information.
the thing that a lot of people seem to be concluding is that they think Walsh is not anti-trans because he's not necessarily expressing hatred for trans people specifically. But his thing is to spread propaganda against gender affirming health care. It's a distinction without a difference. He's anti-trans because he's fighting a jihad against their health care.
how was the thread propaganda?
If you were a trans person, wouldn’t you want trans health care providers to be ethical, and insurance companies that cover trans health care to not be defrauded by people who don’t follow the rules?
I know I’m asking questions here, dangerous territory.
Others are welcome to their own standards, and it’s fine by me if they choose their spots without feeling obliged, for consistency’s sake, to apply them everywhere. Everyone’s free to take ’em or leave ’em for what they’re worth.