What is a Woman?Spencer J. Quinn
Arabic version here
In the documentary What is a Woman?, Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh and director Justin Folk have delivered a must-watch assessment of the transgender movement. This program should be viewed with great urgency by anyone concerned about the further disintegration of Western Civilization.
Over the past several years, transgenderism has opened up a new front in the ongoing war upon the traditional understanding of the human condition which had informed much of the public policy in the West until just over 50 years ago. The first attack, of course, was legislating racial equality. Then came equality among the sexes, followed by equality for gays. And now we are faced with transgender equality, which, more than the previous attacks, makes children both participants and casualties in this war. Walsh and Folk have done a great job in exposing the proponents of transgenderism as the psychopathic ghouls they really are — but as we will see, they could have done more.
Like many other documentaries, What is a Woman? depicts a central character — in this case, the bearded, bespectacled, and very sober-minded Matt Walsh — who goes on a quest in search of knowledge and wisdom. It’s a sham, of course, since Walsh tells us early on that anyone who doesn’t believe there are only two genders is an idiot. He’s perfectly based on the gender question, yet pretends to be an open-minded pilgrim seeking truth when interviewing people who promote or implement the transgender platform. These include blue-haired pediatrician Michelle Forcier, transgender surgeon and gynecologist Marci Bowers, Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality Rodrigo-Heng Lehtinen, California Congressman Mark Takano, and gender studies academic Patrick Grzanka. The question he asks all of them is, “What is a woman?”
That Folk structures his documentary to resemble so many other documentaries is merely a harmless conceit to make the program both familiar and entertaining. It takes nothing away from the chilling and fascinating discussions Walsh gets himself into with some of his subjects, which I divide into Victims and Villains. Among the Villains, who are listed above, Marci Bowers is the most intelligent and calculating. Formerly a man, Bowers has performed over 2,000 gender reassignment surgeries and doesn’t bat an eye admitting that her youngest patient was 16 years old. She happily admits that a woman is simply what a person identifies as, and dismisses those not onboard with transgenderism as dinosaurs. She’s also — criminally, in my opinion — not concerned that minors might not be competent enough to make life-altering decisions when it comes to their bodies.
Compared to Bowers, Walsh’s other villains come across as silly mediocrities who cannot stand up to his rigorous questioning. Aside from the nature of woman, Walsh often asks his subjects about truth or reality. In many cases they become offended by his questions and threaten to end the interview. Most memorable for me was cat lady-in-waiting Michelle Forcier. This person believes in “gender affirmation” for “kiddos,” and insists that we should take their stories about their budding gender dysphoria seriously, whatever they may be. At one point she asserts that puberty blockers are reversible, even though the other experts Walsh interviews forcefully deny it.
Walsh often employs the tack of analogy to use his subject’s own arguments against them — and their reactions are priceless. For example, he asks how Bowers would react to a man who identifies as a one-limbed person and then demands that a physician start amputating. Bowers just shrugs and calls such a person insane — but not if the same man asks a physician to amputate his penis. For Forcier, however, Walsh brings up Santa Claus. If a child believes in something as unreal as Santa Claus, how can we take them at their word when they claim to be of the opposite sex? She responds just as childishly: If a child believes in Santa, then Santa must be real for them. It’s all about whose reality you are talking about, yours or theirs.
Getting to the truth is a running theme in Walsh’s conversation with Patrick Grzanka. The feminine and passive-aggressive Grzanka claims that he is uncomfortable with Walsh’s efforts to find the truth, which he calls “condescending and rude.” He also deflects many of Walsh’s questions in a transparent ploy to avoid answering him. When the very Caucasian Walsh suggests that he identifies as black, Grzanka asserts that such a claim is disingenuous and becomes prickly when Walsh then asks why analogous claims of gender dysphoria aren’t also disingenuous.
In probably the best gotcha moment in the documentary, Walsh asks Grzanka what a woman is, and Grzanka cannot do so without using the word woman. Walsh then twirls his finger in the air and asks him if he knows what a circular definition is.
The Victims are just as goosebump-inducing, but rather for their ability to elicit sympathy than loathing. Psychiatrist and author Miriam Grossman is rooted in common sense and compassion. She has tremendous sympathy for children suffering from gender dysphoria, but recoils at the crimes being committed by these transgenderist professionals. “How could they be removing healthy breasts from 15-year-old girls?” she asks querulously. “How could they be sterilizing kids?” Grossman is one of the experts who, through aggressive editing, piles onto Forcier for her claims that puberty blockers are reversible. In a chilling moment, she describes how a 14-year-old girl was diagnosed with osteoporosis two years after her transition.
Most unforgettable for me was the appropriately-named Scott Newgent, founder of the anti-child-transitioning organization Trevoices. He is a former woman who deeply regrets his transition. He is cogent and eloquent, and his words are powerful when describing all the life-threatening medical issues he’s faced since his surgeries. He admits that he probably does not have much longer to live, and states clearly that we have no long-term studies verifying the safety of gender-transitioning medications and procedures. He also states that all studies showing the psychological benefits of transitioning have been refuted or redacted. Other studies have shown that transgender people on average become suicidal between seven and ten years after transitioning.
I believe most viewers will be gratified by the appearance of a very ill-tempered Jordan Peterson in What is a Woman? I understand that the Dissident Right may have a complicated relationship with Peterson, but when it comes to this sort of thing, our rogue Canadian professor is well within his wheelhouse. As one would expect, he has some trenchant things to say about the oppressive culture surrounding transgenderism, which he rejects as absurd.
Peterson makes the insightful point that “[p]eople talking about diversity of gender are really talking about diversity of temperament, but they don’t know it.” According to him, the problem is framed incorrectly. It’s perfectly natural for a small percentage of boys to be feminine or a small percentage of girls to be masculine in temperament. The challenge is to deal with this without carving them up.
Peterson, by the way, also produces the best laugh-out-loud moment in the film, and in order not to spoil it, you’ll have to watch the documentary yourself to find out what it is. Hint: It’s close to the end.
Unlike the Villains, the Victims have a healthy relationship with language. They are not afraid of it, and in all cases use it correctly as a tool to discern truth which is tangible, measurable, or clearly defined. They are direct, honest, and impossible to misinterpret. This is why Peterson rejects the term gender. “It is vague, and you can’t measure it,” he says. The villains, on the other hand, seem to believe that words are realer than the things they denote, and are therefore scarier. Where Grzanka is put off by the word “truth,” Forcier objects to Walsh’s use of the legitimate term “chemical castration” when describing the drugs she prescribes to children. She calls the term “malignant and harmful,” to which Walsh responds, “There are some who would say that giving chemical castration drugs to kids is malignant and harmful.” Forcier has no suitable response to this.
Between riveting conversations with fascinating individuals and sober-yet-ironic narration from Walsh, What is a Woman? also treats us to several man-in-the-street interviews with transgender, gay, or feminist true believers. We also witness a big change in scenery when the film crew goes to Nairobi, Kenya to interview black tribesmen in the bush about the latest trends in transgenderism. The results aren’t worth much, but are as amusing as one would expect. In one inadvertently brilliant moment, Walsh asks the tribesmen if they would want to come to America after hearing about transgenderism, and they all say no. I got a good laugh at the prospect of transgenderism one day solving our immigration troubles, despite wondering if the cure is preferable to the disease.
Towards the end of the documentary, Walsh ventures to Loudoun County, Virginia, where the school district had recently covered up a sexual assault by a transgender boy upon a girl in a girl’s restroom. In a dramatic moment, Walsh stands before the school board and gives them the tongue-lashing they so richly deserved:
You are all child abusers. You prey upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult, a cult which holds many fanatical views, but none so deranged as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys.
There are two moments in What is a Woman? which get lost in the thick of things, but which I believe strike at the heart of the transgender movement. At one point, Walsh asks Representative Takano about the Equality Act, which would guarantee equality for transgender people under the law. Takano responds that it simply amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include gender identity. Later, author and scientist Debra Soh describes the “ugly history” between sex researchers and transgender activists. She claims that the former are almost completely controlled by the latter. If you’re a sex researcher, according to Soh, you must “decide beforehand what you’re going to find so you don’t upset the activists,” and those who challenge the activist orthodoxy will “have their personal and professional reputations ruined.”
Despite being soft-spoken and easily overlooked, Soh delivers more truth than anyone in this documentary, including Walsh. The transgender movement is not insanity as Walsh describes it above; it is a coldly rational means to an end, which is to acquire power and influence without having to earn it. This is what Left-wing activists do, and this is the very heart of progress. Progress can best be described as the mediocre overtaking the excellent. It began in the 1960s, when we pretended that blacks were the intellectual equals of whites. It continued when we pretended that women should be the professional equals of men and that gay marriage is equal to straight marriage. What is a Woman? shows how we are now being forced to pretend that mental illness in the form of gender fluidity is actually a good thing and that this idea’s vapid defenders deserve to be physicians, academics, and leaders of society. These are all different heads growing from the same progressive hydra.
What is a Woman? is a fascinating and often scathing exposé of the evils of transgenderism. It’s a life-changer: It holds up a mirror to the transgender movement to show how destructive and unnatural it really is. What it doesn’t do — that is, what it leaves out entirely — is almost as revealing as the documentary itself, however.
About midway through, Walsh asks Grossman who is to blame for all of this. Who is the originator of all this nonsense? Grossman’s response is immediate: Kinsey. Yes, Alfred Kinsey, the famous fraud and pervert who masqueraded as a sex researcher in the 1940s and ‘50s, and whose Sexual Behavior books were far more influential than they should have been. As Walsh accurately reports, Kinsey tested sexual activity in children, including infants, and solicited testimony from rapists and pedophiles to skew his results. He also died in a rather degenerate manner. So yes, Grossman is right to list Kinsey as one of the forebears of transgenderism.
Grossman also mentions John Money. Money was a perverted sexologist who behaved in a beastly fashion with child subjects, most famously leading to David Reimer’s suicide in 2004. After Reimer had survived a botched circumcision, Money talked the boy’s parents into raising him as a girl, and ultimately transitioning him into one, with disastrous results.
This is all that What is a Woman? offers in terms of the history of transgenderism. Granted, this is a topic in itself, and the documentary wouldn’t have lost much if all mention of Kinsey and Money had been left on the cutting room floor. But still, why only mention those two when there are quite a few other people, past and present, who have been just as influential, if not more so?
There is Magnus Hirschfeld, for example, whom both Kinsey and Money had studied. Hirschfeld was a sexologist and towering figure in the history of gender activism in Europe over a century ago. To not mention him in What is a Woman? is suspect, at the very least. Could there be political reasons for this? Could it be that the producers of the film omitted Hirschfeld because he was Jewish? Or because if you open the door to one Jew, the audience might start asking questions and eventually discover exactly how involved Jews are in the transgender movement? The answer is a lot.
This is one of the focuses of Scott Howard’s indispensable work The Transgender-Industrial Complex. Jewish influence, sadly, is everywhere in the transgender movement. And just as sadly, it is nowhere in What is a Woman?.
Recently, Howard’s publishers, Antelope Hill, noticed that many individuals who appear in What is a Woman? also appear in The Transgender-Industrial Complex. Marci Bowers is one:
The transgender Marci Bowers is listed as a donor to the Program in Human Sexuality’s National Center for Gender Spectrum Health as well as the Chair in Sexual Health and the Joycelyn Elders Chair in Sexual Health Education. Bowers is the protégé of the Jewish Dr. Stanley Biber, the surgeon whose work made “going to Trinidad” a euphemism for “sex change” operations; Biber performed thousands over the course of his lifetime, conducting his first operation in 1969 after studying diagrams from Johns Hopkins, which had been conducting these procedures for a few years by then, and is credited as being an early “pioneer” in transgender surgeries.
At one point, Walsh visits the National Center for Transgender Equality. This organization gets a mention in Howard’s book as well:
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) also opposed the “trans ban” and informed us in 2018 that “Trans Rights is a Jewish Issue; Why Antisemitism is a Trans Issue” courtesy of Barbara Weinstein of the hosting organization and Mara Keisling of the National Center for Transgender Equality.
As for John Money, Howard has this to say:
In 1965, John Money and Claude Migeon opened the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic and commenced surgical “reassignment” procedures the following year. Money had a working relationship with Harry Benjamin, and incidentally, Benjamin’s “seminal” work The Transsexual Phenomenon was published that same year, 1966. Money received the Magnus Hirschfeld Medal in 2002 from the German Society for Social Science Sexuality Research; other winners include: the Jewish Jonathan Ned Katz, author of The Invention of Heterosexuality; the Jewish Ruth Westheimer, who readers will likely know as sex therapist “Dr. Ruth”; and the Jewish Richard Green, colleague of Harry Benjamin’s and collaborator with John Money on Transsexualism and Sex Reassignment (1969) published by Johns Hopkins Press and in coordination with the Harry Benjamin Foundation.
Benjamin himself was partly Jewish as well. Howard spends much of his book elaborating on how Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others support transgenderism to great effect. Read Antelope Hill’s Twitter feed or pick up a copy of The Transgender-Industrial Complex for more information.
I would like to make one thing clear: There are heroes and villains on all sides in this debate. There are bad whites and noble Jews. Grossman herself is fine example. So is the founder of Libs of TikTok, who was recently doxxed for exposing gender perversion in schools. A Jewish woman I greatly admire for her steadfast resistance to Alfred Kinsey is the late Judith Reisman. Jew or no Jew, I would take these ladies over Michelle Forcier or Marci Bowers any day.
Nevertheless, noting the disproportionate Jewish influence behind the transgender movement is no more “anti-Semitic” than noting the disproportionate presence of Jews among great classical violinists is “philo-Semitic.” It’s just the truth, and we shouldn’t be afraid of it, just as Matt Walsh is not afraid of defining “woman” in biological terms and without tautology. The stakes are just too high. The future of our children lays in the balance here — and this is not an overstatement.
Walsh claims there is one truth, and that he’s searching for it. Great. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot and see if Walsh, Folk, or any of the Daily Wire bigwigs — Ben Shapiro included — would allow themselves to be interviewed by Scott Howard or someone like him concerning Jewish involvement in transgenderism. Would they squirm, deflect, and dissemble, like Patrick Grzanka? Would they quibble over language and threaten to end the interview, like Michelle Forcier? Or would they man up and admit that dissidents like Scott Howard actually have a point?
I think someone should make a sequel to this documentary and find out.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Shooting Up a Grade School Doesn’t Make You a Man
David Duke Reverses Opinion on Jews after Mel Brooks Binge
The State of the Nation for White Advocates
Confessions of a White Democrat
Scott Howard’s The Plot Against Humanity
Kooptace levice a její fatální nepochopení Marxe
IQ Doesn’t Matter
Nuclear Families: Threads
Regarding the “botched circumcision” and the prevalence of Jews promoting and performing “gender reassignment” surgery, I wonder if they are connected at some level? Was circumcision the way this obsession arose in Bronze Age conditions? Jews are obsessed with other such procedures, such as the famous “nose jobs.” Sort of like being a goy trapped in a Jewish body. Similarly, Jews who desired to assimilate to Hellenistic culture underwent “reversal” operations so as not to be identified– and mocked — in the gymnasia, which were not merely recreational but a center of Hellenistic culture. Jews were so obsessed with it that the converted rabbi Paul uses it as his master symbol, constantly talking about “circumcised in this” and “uncircumcised in that,” even when addressing gentiles; he must have sounded like a fluoride-obsessed lunatic. They seem obsessed with modifying the Creator’s work, like tikkun olam.
I’m convinced circumcision is a matriarchal stamp upon Jewish boys, and a Jewish writ upon white American goys. The same way they kosher all of our food and salt. The matrilineal line is quintessential to Judaism so it could possibly be a masochistic deference because Islam is equal in its circumcision of boys and girls.
I agree with probably 99% (other than the Ukraine War) with everything that is written in CC. However, the one thing I don’t get is the large number of WNs who are against circumcision. I was raised a Catholic and was circumcised. I have never had any problems with it and neither have any of my circumcised friends. I grew up in a suburb of Chicago in a very normal town in the 1960s. At the outdoor pool, we were all forced to shower in the nude and almost everybody was circumcised. I certainly can’t come up with any certain percentage, but it was probably well over 90%. The few guys who weren’t circumcised stood out like sore thumbs. I recently began rereading a book called “The Myth of Heterosexual Aids” by Michael Fumento. One topic that he mentions very briefly is circumcision and its relation to AIDS and other STDs. Citing numerous studies, Fumento shows that both AIDS and other STDs are transmitted much more efficiently among uncircumcised males than circumcised males. I am full-on 1488 but my understanding is that the Jews came up with circumcision. If so, God bless them.
There’s a lot of highly sensitive tissue that gets cut off and won’t come back. If I had any choice in the matter, I would’ve said hell no. The way I see it, that’s more invasive than it would be to give babies a tongue piercing. They should let the kids grow up so they know what they’re getting themselves into and can make an informed decision.
I’ve seen evidence that strongly contradicts that claim. Rates of STI and STD in Europe and east Asia are much lower than the United States, but almost no one in Europe is circumcised. Even if it’s true that it has some hygienic effect, the fact remains that circumcision is first and foremost a religious ritual of genital mutilation that is performed on infants, often without even asking the parents for consent.
I certainly agree with you that the parents should be consulted. I don’t know if mine were or not and will never find out. Just FYI (my mom’s ob-gyn who delivered me and my 3 brothers was Jewish). My mom always had the highest respect for him. Ok, let’s say Fumento is wrong and your evidence comparing Europe and the US is right. Still, I should have mentioned gym class in high school where all the guys showered in the nude. Let me also mention my first two years in college where all the guys on my dorm floor showered in the nude. Hardly anybody in these two groups was uncircumcised. Never, once in my life, have I heard any guy say “You know what, my pecker head is always itching; I sure regret being circumcised”). Circumcision was just a subject that never came up. I regret and many of my friends regret having smoked too much pot and drinking too much. But nobody regrets being circumcised. I just think WNs are wasting their time talking about this subject when there are so many much more important topics to be discussed. One more thing from Fumento. He does say that it is healthier to be circumcised as an infant than as an adult. Anyway, it is a book worth reading even if he is wrong about the “C” topics. Fauci was around in the 80s and was spreading his lies about AIDS just as he spread lies about COVID over the last two y ears. Reagan should have fired him back then.
But nobody regrets being circumcised.
Not that they’re willing to admit to you, for fear of being considered homosexual or at best a big crybaby.
1. People who were circumcised as infants don’t have any baseline to compare to.
2. There’s a whole movement of people who oppose circumcision and wish to ban it.
Circumcision of a baby is a medically unnecessary procedure without the patient’s consent. You don’t need to be a white nationalist to see the moral problem. The hygiene arguments are spurious, but even if valid the decision is one to be taken by the individual once they are competent to do so. I wonder how many young men actually do decide to get clipped?
Concerning ‘nose jobs’ one cannot help raising Herr Doktor Professor Sigmund Freud’s falling-out with his friend and co-religionist, the quacksalve Dr Wilhelm Fleiss, originator of (pseudoscientific) Biorhythms. Fleiss convinced Freud that sexual neuroses could be ameliorated by rhinoplasty, the respective probosces being sympathetic at an occult level. Freud’s nasal woes may have originated in an over-enthusiastic advocacy of cocaine early in his medical career, but Fleiss’s surgical intervention made matters worse, with Freud suffering a catastrophic nosebleed. There was a parting of ways.
Those are the raw facts: I await an exegesis of this incident from Our Sages at Counter-Currents.
Is it illegal for me to note that for anyone who wants to watch the film without having to join The Daily Wire (home of our friend Ben Shapiro), it’s on BitChute if you just put “Matt Walsh” in the search box and adjust for for the latest items?
I think Ed Wood was a trailblazer with his groundbreaking film Glen or Glenda.
He looked fabulous in angora.
He also blazed a trail with Plan 9. What zombie movie preceded that one?
White Zombie with Bela Lugosi was from 1932.
True. But those zombies weren’t brought back to life.
They were just mindless sugar workers
The Jewish Libs of TikTok founder congratulated the Jewish Dave Rubin on his purchase of two babies. She’s definitely not on our side.
No, that doesn’t follow.
Regarding David Reimer, the documentary showed a clip of him discussing his story on The Oprah’s show that I was unaware of. I would absolutely love to see someone show that segment of the original broadcast to The Oprah and watch her squirm because you just know she would have a completely different take today than she would have had when it originally aired.
I also really liked Jordan Peterson’s take on the idea of “gender affirmation.” He said the idea of a doctor offering any affirmation is ridiculous because his job isn’t to “affirm” anything in anyone. The blue haired child abuser claims she offers “gender affirming care” for children, like she is objective in each case. I bet 100% of the kids that come to her are “affirmed” by her and not one single kid is told “no, you’re incorrect.”
First-glance association: the <i>Skopysi</i> of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Russia.
Before that, in Roman antiquity, we hear of men cutting off their penis and testes, donning women’s clothing, and waving their severed genitals as an offering to Cybele.
Both phenomena warrant further exposition.
I have yet to hear a solid reason why men (especially those without small children) need to prevent this transsexual offensive from occurring. Anybody with the slightest foresight can see how this is only harming feminism (and is basically an antifeminist troll subculture), which itself has been as detrimental (if not more) to Western (and all) Civilization than Judaism. The disproportionate impact that the few transsexuals that exist are incurring upon feminist safe spaces is reversing or matching much of the feministic gains of the last decade from forcibly integrating the Boy Scouts to coed Scouts (while also keeping the Girl Scouts exclusively for girls, just like feminists did with fitness centers) and the Title IX gibberish that forced universities to match scholarships to female athletes despite female sports being a money pit and male sports being a bonanza for colleges.
The fact that transsexualism is 10-1 M-to-F demonstrates where the actual privilege lay and how this was always the logical conclusion to feminism from its inception. Many species of fish also transition from m-to-f when it becomes beneficial. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphroditism
For anybody who thinks feminism started in the 1960s, think again. The 1950s trad-cuck interlude did not nullify the 1910s (‘first wave’ feminist) lesbianic Pankhurst movement (‘votes for women, chastity for men’), which was infinitely worse than ‘third wave’ feminism (shaming ‘manspreading and mansplaining’), and arguably set the roadmap for creating entire generations of incels with its outlawing of prostitution, universal suffrage without universal conscription and even decriminalizing ‘post-birth’ abortion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_Act
As far as I am concerned transsexualism is the capstone on the feminist ouroboros. It has to happen because everything else has been, and will always be, a half-measure at best. Feminism has not only not been reversed since its inception, but even tabled communistic legislation (Equal Rights Amendment), which would have ironically eroded feminism, thanks to the cyclical rapprochement with ‘anti-feminist’ women like Phyllis Schlafly because feminism is anti-fragile just like Judaism, and adapts to communism, capitalism, Islam etc.
I’m willing to bet that the Texas father who’s ex wife is transitioning his young son against his wishes due to a court order would think he’s got a solid reason.
You clearly didn’t read the first sentence, as most men do not have young sons and likely won’t have the chance. Try again without a rare anecdote this time.
Ok. First off, I did read the first sentence, in which you stated you don’t understand why men ESPECIALLY without small children, as opposed to you don’t understand why men without small children. Second, you claimed just now that “most men do not have young sons.” It may come as a surprise to you that there are quite literally billions of men with young sons, as well as daughters. But going back to your original question, I’ll try again without my rare anecdote. I for one care about children being lied to and manipulated by horrible people who will ruin their lives. I care about the next generation of doctors and other professionals who will let there ideology permeate everything they do, causing harm to others. It’s the same as why I care about horrible schools that are failing children and pumping out illiterate imbeciles that one day will be dependent on welfare. Also why I care about putting children in disgusting, useless masks that don’t protect them from a virus that rarely affects them at all. It’s because I care about humanity and where it’s heading because we will have to live and interact with these children when they grow into adults. All three things I mentioned will have disastrous, possibly life altering consequences for them, and as adults we should do what we can to prevent it from happening. Is that a sufficient answer?
And yes, I have two young daughters that I’m worried as all hell will someday tell me they’re lesbian vampires or some shit. The social contagion is real.
Still waiting, but it looks like you sperged out as predicted and proved my point. Check and mate. All of your ‘caring for humanity’ is a half-measure as I stated. You guys wasted decades allowing this. It is far too late so now we have to let all of this run its course. The transsexual offensive will continue to erode feminism and there’s nothing you can do about it. It is maggot therapy. It affects the lives of very few men and that is my point. There’s more reasons for the vast majority of men not to care than to care anymore because we have been made to be divested in society. You all allowed this. The few children that are actually harmed in this war against feminism are collateral damage as far as I am concerned, even less than domestic abuse and perhaps the same as school shootings. War is war and you can’t expect to win or lose unscathed. As for your daughters (since you brought them up), the lesbianism phenomenon has nothing to do with the transsexual one, which is almost entirely a male thing. In fact lesbianism is even more of an existential crisis to our birthrates and to your family line than transsexualism many times over. So once again, feminism is the heart of the problem, even with your first example of a jaded husband jettisoned by his wife.
My thoughts exactly. Why are we supposed to care if a small % of men go around impersonating women? What offense are they committing that concerns us? As far as I can tell, the only offense is dishonesty i.e. they are not what they say they are. So what? Everyone can see what they are. People deceive others all the time on the internet. Most people you talk to online aren’t who they say they are. Should we ban online anonymity to stop people from deceiving others about who they are?
In the trailer, Walsh can be heard saying “I believe in women and I don’t want their opportunities stolen from them,” which makes transgenderism sound like an obstacle to fempowerment. I sense that he and his backers are trying to get young, single white girls to vote Republican by turning transgender athletes competing against women into a wedge issue…but again, why are we supposed to care about that? Who cares if women can’t win first place ribbons in weightlifting and other competitive games. They should be learning how to nurse children, not playing games that simulate warfare and other conflict. Our race is going extinct precisely because the fertility rate is below replacement. The last thing we want is for women to impersonate men in games of conflict, like basketball, which are just are to prepare them for the workforce.
You’re talking as if the transgender issue was still in its infancy. But it has spilled over from gender-dysphoric adults to our children. There is support for gender transition therapy/surgery for minors now. Even Fox News is supporting gender transition treatments for children now. Trying to actively transition children is morally wrong because children aren’t capable of making their own decisions about such a consequential act. Children are easily influenced by the Zeitgeist and can be convinced more easily into doing things they’ll later regret. This affects white children. And you’re claim about transgender people being dishonest is dishonest in itself. These people aren’t dishonest, they are mentally ill and result of the larger victim culture and the eroison of foundational myths.
When you say that Walsh “makes transgenderism sound like an obstacle to fempowerment,” it’s also true that run of the mill conservatives are using the “we are the true liberals” argument to garner support from the ruling classes. That being said, this is a good instinct that is being articulated in the only way allowed by the system. Transgenderism isn’t healthy. It’s certainly less healthy than women participating in physical activity.
Beyond all that, we should care about transgenderism because it’s against our world view. Let’s take a principled stand against it and not just say it’s not our problem. Let’s think of solutions so that when we come to power, we will know how to heal this festering wound.
Oh boy, ‘muh principles.’ Now I know I am right when the TERF-Cuckservative alliance has infiltrated WN. Sorry, but it is not going to be enough. It’s just like the Ukraine cheerleading. None of our opinions matter on the issue because it is happening regardless. Femowerment is many times worse, which is exactly what this TERF argument is. The difference between this latest feminist-Cuckservative alliance (Third Wave) is that it has no teeth relative to the Second Wave alliance that halted the Equal Rights Amendment (drafting women, mandatory coed professions such as nursing/teachers, unisexual toilets etc). So what makes this even more of a slam dunk is that the Cuckservative argument is so weak like a boxer roping in a weaker opponent to hit him with a pro forma slap first so he can justify a knockout. Your argument is just defending feminism, which most men have zero incentive to do, especially now that we can all see that feminism is misandrist, lesbianic *and* more detrimental to the lives of children, particularly the unborn, than anything else combined including war.
If the issue is mental illness, then why isn’t homelessness a bigger deal than trannies? Most homeless people are dealing with some kind of mental problem compounded by heavy drug use. Cities like Seattle and LA are “norming” it by allowing the homeless to do drugs and scream at folks without facing punishment. Where I live, retail stores pay high insurance premiums to cover merchandise stolen by homeless folks. Small businesses have to hire security guards to make sure their stores aren’t vandalized and broken into after hours. Hospitals lose millions in uncompensated care costs when homeless people wind up in the emergency room for treatment.
I can point to all sorts of ways that homelessness imposes costs on society, but you can’t point to any costs that trannies impose on society. Transgenderism may be caused by mental illness, but being a tranny doesn’t make life worse for anyone but trannies.
I suspect that “trans kids” don’t develop the idea that they were born the wrong gender on their own, but from a combination of influences. It doesn’t matter what the media and their teachers tell them if they don’t have a guardian at home giving the final seal of approval. The question I’d like to see some research on is what type of families do these kids grow up in. I suspect they are largely single mother households, or a greater % of them grow up in single mother households than kids who don’t have gender dysphoria. Transgenderism was studied by Robert Stoller in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and he found that most of his subjects had distance or absent fathers, and close, intimate relationships with the mothers from an early age. Where is the condemnation of single motherhood on the dissident right?
I disagree that transgenderism is “less healthy than women participating in physical activity” because the purpose of that activity isn’t to improve health but to condition women for the workforce. If you go back 50+ years, most teenage girls did not play competitive sports. They did gymnastics. It wasn’t until the 70s that “girls sports” really took off. The fertilty rates of all European nations is below 2 children per woman. That means that given enough time, white Europeans will go extinct even if their nations were 100% white. So yes, feminism is a bigger deal than a few weirdos impersonating women.
Homelessness is a problem, but the topic we were on was transgenderism, and more specifically how it effects children. I would support more state socialism to alleviate some problems the homeless face, just as I would to treat transgender individuals. I don’t see how you can avoid the fact that transgender people are a movement hell-bent on spreading their ideology. What they practice isn’t staying in their bedroom. See this. You don’t think that if a major portion of the kids in America transitioned to the opposite sex that the white birth rate would be affected even more?
As for what type of family they grow up in, see the Fox News link I sent first. That is from an upper-class family with both parents. The prevailing victim culture (etc.) is enabling people to transition who normally wouldn’t.
The reason I brought up homelessness is because you wrote “These people aren’t dishonest, they are mentally ill and result of the larger victim culture and the eroison of foundational myths.” There are two things wrong with that statement. The first is that people don’t choose to be mentally ill. If transgenderism stems from mental illness how can it be condemned? Mentally ill people aren’t degenerate but merely unfortunate. The second objection is that their mental illness doesn’t threaten anyone but themselves, unlike the mental problems that lead to homelessness. Homelessness is a mental health issue that is relevant to the lives of most Americans because it’s something they pay for and experience the effects of and like transgenderism it is being normalized by city officials. I’m not persuaded that transgenderism is a mental health problem but if it is why is it worth our attention? There are bigger mental health problems in society and you can’t blame people for being mentally ill.
Children cannot obtain puberty blockers without adult permission. That means that parents (single moms) are allowing their kids to transition. Who are the parents that allow their kids to destroy their bodies? What % of transgender kids were raised by single moms compared to normal kids?
‘Don’t stop your enemy when he’s making a mistake’ maybe good tactics, but it’s hardly a moral position. The suffering of the innocent, at least when they are white children, should trump such thinking.
Bingo. Our enemy’s “mistakes” always seem to take a huge swath of innocents with them. Almost makes you think they aren’t mistakes at all.
Good comment, but the fact that feminism is bad (for society, and especially the West) doesn’t mean transgenderism (there is no such thing as “transsexualism”) is good. What is needed is a return to conservative moral and social authoritarianism (another reason I think the eventual Ethnostate should have a strong, traditionalist Christian aspect to it, even for unbelievers, and as long as the ecclesial authorities recognize – correctly – that racial separatism in no way violates Christian moral theology).
I remember as a little girl, from about 8 t0 12 or 13, I was ‘crazy about horses’. There were movies in the mid-fifties about wild horses, and about the escapades of the horse ‘movie stars’, such as ‘Trigger”, the horse Roy Rogers rode, and “Silver”, The Masked Ranger’s horse. And I wished I could ‘be’ a horse and run wild in the high plains and deserts of the Wild West. Me and the kids in our neighborhoods would all go to the movies on Saturday afternoon (for 25 cents), and then come home and gallop around the apartment buildings, running up and down the alleys, pretending we were in the canyons in the West. This went on for me until about age 12 or so, when I decided that maybe the handsome cowboys were more exciting than their horses.
But I shiver to think what these ‘transgender experts’ would have made of me and a whole lot of other girls who love dogs and horses and innocently play out their fantasies! Would they be trying to figure out how to attach a horse’s tail to my behind? Just adding to the nonsense! Hi-Ho Silver, Away!
I meant to say “The Lone Ranger”. But that was long ago and far away.
Another notable influencer is Arthur Kronfeld, a companion of Magnus Hirschfeld. As for Hirschfeld himself, he’s come to be seen as a secular saint in some circles. One more influencer is Simone de Beauvoir, for creating the central kernel of the radical gender idea – in her case, the concept that “one is not born a woman, but becomes one.” That, of course, became the idea that gender is a social construct, and it’s all learned behavior, nothing to do with instinct or biology.
Not long ago, I tried to talk a guy out of taking female hormones. That’s going to give him a permanent case of ED and make him grow jugs he’ll probably get tired of later. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get through.
Re the suggestion at the end, I’m inclined to think Walsh agrees with me/you/us more than he lets on. Perhaps I’m reading my own worldview into the film but I think on some level, it was hardly even about gender ideology. I think you could easily interpret it as a blanket condemnation of an (talmudic) empire of lies that only incidentally uses gender ideology as an example.
It’s somewhat remarkable that he could travel far and wide, speak to (wo)men in the street and all manner of “expert” and not find a simple answer to his question, let alone a good one. Everybody he talked to came across as either (1) a manipulative predator, (2) a total clueless moron, or (3) intimidated or bought off by 1 or 2. It becomes hard to conclude anything other than that the discourse has totally departed from reality. Although I’d be interested to see the footage that didn’t make it into the film.
Walsh also said in a recent youtube video that his next documentary will be even more offensive than the first.
Yes, you are reading too much into it. Nobody likes trannies and these halfwitted overintellectualized nerds who want to blur the lines between the sexes. Nobody does. they are in their entire beeing the anti-thesis to life itself. Only thing trannies are used for is as a weaponized free range mental asylum against the enemy, and the enemy is whoever is still thick enough to pay lip service to their proclaimed values of equality and inclusion.
Marci Bowers performed Jazz Jennings surgery from the reality TLC show, I Am Jazz. Jazz Jennings has had endless complications since.
i get that this movie is funny, but trans stuff is not the end of western civ. Nobody remembers the pro-anna trend among young girls in the late 90s anymore. As miserable as these trannies are to see, they will be gone within one generation. All their grooming attempts are not enough to drag this on, pun intended, while they might even fasten their disapearence when nutty people get selected out of the genepool.
The difference is teen girls were still getting pregnant back then despite feigning anorexia, so much so that the ‘religious right’ and feminists teamed up to stamp out the baby boom caused by ‘teen pregnancy.’ Now ‘teen pregnancy’ doesn’t even exist anymore and the average age of motherhood is now 30 and rising, while our birthrates can only decline evermore.
I understand the primitive logic behind teen pregnancy as somehow of a demographic plus, but it is by no means a babyboom. I knew somebody who had her daugther with 15 and now with 32 she is poor, jumps from man to man who are all of garbage quality, and the daugther wants to become a cop. There won’t be any more children since she is also a very cynical person was reflects on procreation either with “sorry i brought you into this world” or “fuck you i got mine (evolutionary continuity)”. A couple of years ago she, when she needed money, went after the dead with the court system after years of indifference and he got arrested from his workplace for child support payments.
We can deal without this.
‘Primitive logic’ and proceeds to use anecdotes. This is the caliber of intellect I’m dealing with. No, genius. ‘Teen pregnancy’ was the norm in the 1960s because they all got married by 18. That is the healthiest child that can possibly be created. That’s what created our baby boom because the younger women have children the more they have them throughout their fertility window. Now that it has been artificially suppressed by the likes of you feminists who advocated women get abortions and go to college, the baby bust didn’t just stop in the teens because that is how it works. You can control population in one direction, but it doesn’t stop there. Now we have a baby bust in early 20s and beyond, and it is only increasing because women are now eternal students who end up having 1.5 children starting at 30, and the quality can only decline. Your asanine anecdotes do not change trend lines. But I know this is all above your head.
‘Teen pregnancy’ was the norm in the 1960s because they all got married by 18. That is the healthiest child that can possibly be created.
Not so sure about that. At 18, most females are still growing. They are not physically at the optimum stage of physical and emotional development to have children, even if they are married and even if it’s still the 1960s.
We can’t just transfer the 1960’s to today: over the past 50 years, human health has declined. If an “older” woman (35-40 yr. old) has an inferior child, it is not purely because of her age, though it may be due to the father’s age. Guess what – the man provides half the genetic material needed to produce a new life, and it is a fact that older fathers tend to be over-represented in making children with chronic health and/or mental problems. Old men, having dumped Wife #1 and now chasing after 20-year olds because they think they can start “anew”, may be in for a shock.
‘At 18, most females are still growing. They are not physically at the optimum stage of physical and emotional development to have children’
Here is a feminist. So what happened to the old myth that females are finished growing much earlier than males and a far more mature at earlier ages? Bit of cognitive dissonance you’ve got going.
No, women are done growing physically (and mentally) in their mid-teens, while boys continue to grow physically and mentally sometimes into their 20s.
This is exactly what tore apart the alt-right. This is pseudo-scientific feminism but feminists who don’t want to have children. The fact that you put older woman in scars quotes demonstrates you’re a feminist-first WN. 35-40 *is* ancient in fertility. How old do you really expect a woman to conceive? 70?
As for your ‘older man’ bit…no. Women today do not choose older men. There aren’t 60 year old men siring children anymore because women do not choose men significantly older than them when given the choice. You are once again skewing coverture from yesteryear. I can provide stats on this, but it is pointless because your obvious agenda is expanding feminism and shrinking our birthrates evermore.
This tiresome middle-aged feminist tale of middle aged husband leaving wives for college chicks is such old hat. It simply doesn’t occur. Young women would never take a man beyond a few years older than them. It’s actually the opposite now: wives destroying their families to have a fling with a young man. 75-percent of divorce is initiated by women. 1/3 of men are incels/virgins. The numbers do not lie.
Women today do not choose older men. There aren’t 60 year old men siring children anymore because women do not choose men significantly older than them when given the choice.
Well, there’s Lydia & Peter Brimelow.
While I’m here, there appears to be an alarming trend toward men of all ages being unable to produce male children. Something to do with rather low testosterone levels, I think. I live in a suburb and I see countless (yes) couples going for walks with only female children, usually one or two. Barely any boys. No, this is not “scientific”, just an observation wherever I happen to be. Not just in my neighborhood. Have the last word.
Anecdotes should be against the law. Every single time anybody challenges me here it always defaults to unscientific solipsism. You could not be further from the truth in your analysis. There are way too many boys born. More boys are born than girls naturally, but the lower the birthrates the more skewed the ratio becomes. Our total fertile rate is 1.6 and falling. This is what happens when feminism takes over. Fewer and fewer children are born and the quality collapses concomitantly.
Some of the trannies are real tough customers (especially the “straight” trannies that just want to seduce the “opposite” sex) Just like anorexics. That’s all I have to say on the matter. I pray they don’t take me out.
“He is a former woman who deeply regrets his transition. He is cogent and eloquent, and his words are powerful when describing all the life-threatening medical issues he’s faced since his surgeries.”
As sympathetic as this person is, I still object to the use of non-biologically oriented pronouns. I know they have the appearance of a man with a screwed up endocrine system, but in reality they are a woman with a screwed up endocrine system. I applaud this person for their activism, but it is as if though we’ve already conceded the narrative to the left when we indulge their language.
This isn’t to take away from the review or the documentary. Very well done on both counts. Nor do I mean offense to this Newgent person. I don’t want to dehumanize them. I’m tempted to use whatever pronoun they prefer, simply because I know they have their heart and spirit in the right place. But the issue is a broader one, and as a dissident I truly feel it my duty to abstain from lending the left any credibility whatsoever.
I see what you mean, and I did think about that. But Scott Newgent really does project masculinity. If I hadn’t known he (there I go again) was born female, I would have just assumed he was a man with a higher than average voice. It just felt natural to use the masculine pronouns in Newgent’s case, where it would not in the case of CaitlinBruce Jenner.
I’m an hour into this doc. Jesus Christ. You can see that every single interviewee they have on defending the trans side genuinely has mental problems, weird eyes, shifty looks, doughy flesh, child molester or serial killer vibes. It’s bizarre how these lunatics are allowed to operate in the real world, quite frankly. Not the biggest fan of the host, he’s a bit too smarmy for my tastes, and the fact they bleeped the word “fuck” is hilariously repressed, but overall this is a depressing and fascinating overview of a subject that has had way too much coverage in world media for way too long.
What is a woman? Christina Hendricks. Next question.
It’s a miracle!! You cured my lactose intolerance!
I was standing in a line a few weeks ago. Overheard “So what is a woman anyway?” by one white woman to the other beside her. I butted in and blurted out “A woman is an adult female human.”
Boy, the looks of utter contempt I got from both of these women! But the man standing behind me laughed in amusement (agreement?).
I bet both women would acknowledge that a “bitch” is an adult female dog though, no problem. But not the reflection in the mirror.
“Boy, the looks of utter contempt I got from both of these women!” I’d then ask both, “And what do you crones identify as?”
It has been blocked due to copyright violation. Where to watch now?
What the Left has proven again and again is that the Will to Power trumps the Will to Reality. Such is the case with the master concept ‘equality’. As long as the fantasy can be enforced at the end of a bayonet or fear of homelessness, the Imaginary becomes Reality. Once the habit of consuming ‘narrative’ instead of living life takes over, any narrative can be made to appear plausible. Such is the nature of the Spectacle.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment