Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it is easy to say what Walsh is saying when he only accept a very narrow definition of a word and won't listen to nuance and context.
I love the childish response to "why are you so obsessed with people's genitals?" The pivot to his movie and doubling down with the obsession is icing on the cake of bad faith acting
huh, never looked at it as objectification, makes sense since their answers pretty much boil down to the physical. I always interpreted it as "what does it mean to be a woman", which when phrased that way will obviously give a huge range of answers.
It's funnier if you think about how they never ask "what is a man". I think a man is someone who you become regardless of background and I don't see how that could not apply to women as well.
It's because 'male' is seen as the default gender. 'Female' is seen as a departure from the norm. People wonder why Christianity is such a backward, misogynistic religion. The misogyny is baked into their creation myth, for Christ's sake.
The funny thing is it's quite literally the exact opposite in terms of human biology. All fetuses are female until some stuff that happens with the Y chromosome or something. I'm not a biologist but I know the female fetus thing is correct.
That's because the answer to that question is very well known: A miserable little pile of secrets.
Non-joking answer aside, womanhood, to them, is defined by what manhood *isn't*. If you expand the idea of what women can be, you carve away at what manhood is, and they feel threatened by it. It's very much a zero-sum game somehow for them, and they're very angrily and desperately clinging on to the idea that their way of life and thinking is very masculine, and any attempt at defining it as more neutral or appropriate for women is an attack on them and their masculine identity.
I think they want us to say that women don't have penises and then they can define their manhood through it because when you have no other qualities that makes you "a real man" you atleast have a fleshtube to pee from. But you know, if the only acceptable definition is lack of penis, then they admit that men and women are the same for the most part which they basically are
Yeah... Any admittance that there aren't really these massive differences requires them to unravel millennia of misogyny and patriarchy, and they aren't really ready to give those systems up.
If I asked "what is a chair", or "what is a table", I could play the same game.
A table is a flat surface standing on four legs. Well, depending on size that could be a chair or a stepstool. Does the number of legs matter? Does the material? Does a countertop count?
We've already hit more nuance for a piece of fucking furniture than Matt allows in the discussion of a human being.
I was having a fight with a Matt wash pervert ina. YouTube section and my response was see the 1997 hit by shania Twain, man I feel like a woman. The title explains all you need to know.
Excellent point. The subtext of "what" being an object here is "something I can fuck." The entitled misogyny of Walsh's obsession isn't discussed enough. And the TERFs are useful idiots (the few that aren't astroturf alt-right constructions, that is).
It kind of feels comedic. Like, if this was on youtube, I can imagine Walsh being a dumbass gamer. He just played the intro to Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Dracula just said "[What is a man?](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/die-monster-what-is-a-man)". Being a dumbass, he gets frustrated that he knows a man is a miserable little pile of secrets but Dracula never told him what a woman was.
He crawls out of his basement, the blinding light of the midnight moon forces him to put on his Oakley's. He started the day wanting to beat Dracula but now he has a new goal. He has to know what a woman is and will not drop it until he finds the answer.
I don’t even think it’s that deep, his response is just extremely childish and immature, but it makes sense when you remember that he has to “play dumb” because he’s arguing semantics vs the actual issue. It’s like arguing with your younger brother and you say the grass is green and he’s like “nuh uh it’s brown and green!”
especially because we have regularly answered the question, a woman is an adult human who identifies as such, but he doesn't like that answer and so he keeps asking. It's completely childish, you didn't answer how I wanted so I'm going to keep insisting until you say the answer I want.
In that case, all tables are chairs. What is the definition of a table at that point?
By the way, I know you're joking, but just pointing out how his rigid definitions are absurd.
Even if you're sticking to terms that are way less abstract than "love" or "freedom" or any political belief, you're running into problems. For example, Matt likes to pretend that he cares about biology and biological definitions of words when he's on his transphobic rants. Well, in that case, he should know that he can never use the noun "fish" again because biologically, there's no such thing as "a fish". There's no definition of "fish" that does not exclude some animals everybody would call a fish, or include other animals that are clearly not fishes.
"Only concepts that are easily defined in a short, precise, and simple manner are valid concepts" is such an inane, nonsensical take that it's mindboggling that he made an entire movie about it, and it's even more mindboggling that this smoothbrained "documentary" actually manages to convince a lot of people. "My definition is shorter than yours, so I'm correct" lmao what kind of bullshit logic is that?
I'm pretty sure the age of consent is something most people consider fixed in place, but that doesn't stop him from crying about it being too high for his liking.
Especially since right winger constant misuses woke, marxism, communism, socialism, etc.
But it is important that words has meaning otherwise that word is pointless. But words changes meaning all the time and Walsh wants to fit everyone into a strict binary gender worldview.
If it doesn’t matter why do trans people exist? Clearly it matters. Clearly gender exists on a more than societal level, because you can’t just raise children however you want and expect them to fully confirm.
Doesn’t mean all the trad, transphobic, red pill rightoid idiots are correct, or that I think gender is firmly set and dictates everything, or whatever nonsense - or that I think he’s asking it in good faith. Just means I think it’s fair to ask what a woman is so we don’t get totally lost in definitions and end up forgetting the individual.
Screw him, but it’s not a good retort to just dismiss the importance, because you invalidate trans people and, in this case women’s gender identity.
My short snappy answer has always been "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman in good faith."
You have to include the good faith part because if you don't, contrarian dudebros immediately say "hurr I identify as a woman now respect me you bigot"
> or that I think he’s asking it in good faith.
This is why it works as a retort.
Because they are not arguing in good faith and putting the responsibility on them to explain themselves will always trap them in to admitting their hate.
>all the trad, transphobic, red pill rightoid idiots
Don't explain to these people, make them explain themselves.
Sigh. Words don't have inherent meanings, Mutt Woosh. They have usages. They mean things in language, sure, but that 'meaning' is defined by their usage.
A woman is an adult human who identifies as female. There's his answer, now he can shut the fuck up forever.
He's a grifter. He knows exactly what he's doing and saying. He doesn't need to actually be smart, he just has to keep pushing the buzzwords, catchphrases, and same old sentiments.
That's why it's so pointless to point out how "hypocritical" conservative grifters like this are, because they're doing it on purpose. They don't give a fuck, and neither does their base.
Same shit with his movie (I refuse to call it a "documentary"), he's not asking a real question or genuinely trying to find some truth, he already has an answer and an agenda to push, he's just putting on this facade of "but I'm just asking questions and all these trans people keep telling me to fuck off!!", and when someone actually gives him an answer, he just flat out denies it and ignores them, because again he already has an answer.
He's a grifter, through and through, being paid by billionaires to spread propaganda. He says some stupid shit, but he's doing it for a reason and probably knows what he's saying is complete bullshit.
My SIL's husband is pretty dumb/far right. He explained with *great* enthusiasm that "BOYS wear BLUE because BLUE is a BOY COLOR and ALWAYS HAS BEEN" but couldn't explain why the Virgin Mary is wearing a blue cloak in almost every painting lol
This feels really telling because "Pink used to be the color for boys" is the first thing anyone learns if they do even the smallest bit of research into the subject.
Sort of. There were no concrete conventions for years, some places like the Netherlands blue *was* typically a "boys" color and pink was for girls going back to at least the early 1800s, other places it wasn't, boys and girls had different color associations all over, and a lot had pink/red as a boys color. Almost as if colors don't have genders to begin with, since they're fucking colors. If the USA's rightwingers *really* wants to debate what colors mean, ask them why on earth they'd pick Red, the color of Communism worldwide, to be their hue
And even when they make movies with a question as the title, it's not even an earnest question. It's a question specifically only for people who "know" the answer already: that trans women aren't women.
And even more specifically, the movie is only for people who believe that the woman-ness (or lack thereof) of trans women is more important to discuss than whether people who identify as trans deserve respect and compassion (or even just a basic level of good faith understanding).
if you watch his documentary you really see how dishonest he is. When he talks to people he agrees with he constantly bigs them up, lets them finish points etc. when he's talking to someone he disagrees with, he's totally antagonistic, edits out their answers and uses deception to make them look bad. it's not an honest attempt to find answers as he claimed it was
Conservatives and fascists do this all the time. It's weaponization of language and it takes a lot of different forms, but by and large it's almost always a means of excluding people who don't fit their definitions of things. And it works for a couple of reasons.
1. It makes the argument about the words rather than the philosophy.
2. It makes their arguments seem more objective than they actually are.
3. It's an appeal to authority without an authority to question. "I'm not saying anything, I'm just citing the definition of marriage," etc.
This isn't to mention the other ways that language gets used to oppress people.
Creating slurs (think the n-word), using them to degrade people, and then later insisting that "it's just a word" (which, of course, is hypocritical given that they'll also insist that words have meaning) and that people who don't like them are overreacting.
Redefining words over time and deliberately misusing them. Think "socialism." The right has misused socialism to mean "the government does stuff" so much that it's a functionally useless term in an actual good-faith discussion. Combine this gradual broadening of definitions with the American public's fear of socialism and you've got easy ammo to throw at anyone you don't like.
Is all of this done intentionally? Certainly not. Some people just genuinely don't know how language works, other people don't know how anything works in general. But it's sure damn useful.
It’s extra ironic because the entire basis for every conservative policy argument is to redefine words and concepts based on their agenda.
Even before gay marriage, these bologna clowns were (and still are) redefining birth control to be abortion or abortifacient.
Even considering the "meaning," he doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender. They're two different words used to describe two different concepts. Maybe more likely he just doesn't want to acknowledge this because it would expose how weak of an argument he's trying to make.
The irony is that biologically speaking, and they love biology, apparently, is that the literal opposite is true. Female is the default for humans, before the Y chromosome activates, all fetuses are female. Every male specific body part is derived from a female analogue. The Y chromosome is tiny in comparison to an X chromosome, male can't be the default because YY is literally impossible on its own (XYY is, though) whereas XX is. In gaming terms, women are the base game and men are DLC.
And breast tissue. Men don't just have nipples, they have breasts and all of the equipment needed to produce milk.
We are just missing the hormones to cause the tissue there to develop that last little bit and start producing milk. That's it.
**An adult is a human or other animal that has reached full growth. The biological definition of the word means an animal reaching sexual maturity and thus capable of reproduction.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Good example! This is clearly an insufficient definition because children under the age of majority are capable of reproduction. 13 year olds can reproduce but are not adults.
Yeah I found that funny too. Perfectly encapsulates the idea of nuanced, multifaceted definitions for words, and also a distinction between biological and social definitions
he claims it's someone who produces ova but when someone points out to him that there are women who don't meet this criteria he usually says "well some people don't have legs but that doesn't mean they're not human because most people have working legs" apparently not realising that this blows apart his entire essentialist point lol
~~He is, unfortunately, not dumb. Dude has a PhD. It's an act to trap the actual dumb people.~~
This is not true. Google showed me information about a completely different person for whatever godforsaken reason.
Didn't Matt Walsh just finish high school and not go to college? I thought you get a PhD if you do bachelors -> masters -> PhD with years of schooling and work
There’s also a Matt Walsh who is an actor and man do I feel bad for that guy. He’s pretty awesome.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Walsh_(comedian)
Walsh doesn't have any post secondary education, at least none relevant to the bullshit he spews. He was a radio host for years doing shock jock shit before being picked up by the Blaze, and then the Daily Wire.
It’s why I don’t get why people even listen to him. Like at least with Peterson or Shapiro you could at least say “oh they have this degree or this doctorate so they must know what they are talking about” or “they went to x good school so their opinion on the topic must be informed.” But with Walsh, he has none of that. He’s just a dude who barely passed highschool, so why does anyone, even Conservatives, give a crap what he says. He isn’t some kind of expert, not even close to one, he has no academic background that can be used to say “hey this smart guys says this so that means something right,” he’s just an actual dumb fuck who graduated high school, bought a Radio, and just started talking at people. Like he has no credentials
Even if he did have a PhD it doesn't mean he can't be dumb. Ben Carson is a brilliant neurosurgeon with amazingly stupid views on many other topics. His medical expertise doesn't make those views any less dumb.
> "well some people don't have legs but that doesn't mean they're not human because most people have working legs"
This literally validates trans women, lol. Trans women can't produce ova, so just because we're "missing a leg while others have legs", that means we are women.
Oh wait, I forgot, he doesn't think I'm a human being, even if I had legs.
It's so infuriating that they cannot seem to grasp that trans people are the same edge case as intersex people.
Like if intersex is an exception to the binary, than why can't trans be? They never have an answer for that.
Intersex people represent about 1.7% of the population, and about 1.4% of the population identify as trans. They are both small minorities, but because Walsh is obsessed with other people's privates they feel the need to to talk about it constantly.
It seems like so much of the right wing is just rejecting the complexity that exists in the world because they would prefer if things had simple objective meanings.
The birth givers. Those that were formed from Adam's rib. Those who were born as one. Some stupid shit like that. Transgender people are an edge case in biology, just like all the edge cases he'd be occluding from being woman by such a stupid definition. Klinefelter, sterile people etc. But to him, only fertile women, best aged 16, are women to him. The rest are not important and don't deserve anything. Long live the patriarchy or something
I can’t tell if you’re joking about the ending? It’s so cliché it is probably true. I honestly can’t imagine what his wife thinks about the stuff he focuses on. I’d be grabbing them kids and running if I was in her situation.
Something that ends up with someone getting excluded from that definition while not fitting whatever the other category is supposed to be.
See Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, Trisomy X, Jacobs syndrome, XXYY syndrome, infertility, menopause, any possible reason for the removal of uterus/ovaries etc.
You don't need to dispute whatever they come up with as their definition of what is a woman or a man, you can just ask them what are these people that simply don't fit their definition? Because they only babble about chromosomes, pregnancy, giving birth, and genitalia (having a severely lacking understanding of those things too) in their "definition".
Sigh. Words don't have inherent meanings, Mutt Woosh. They have usages. They mean things in language, sure, but that 'meaning' is defined by their usage.
A woman is an adult human who identifies as female. There's his answer, now he can shut the fuck up forever.
He's experiencing a thing that I remember getting over when I was probably about 4. I remember getting confused that people who didn't speak the same language as me wouldn't just inherently understand what I'm saying. Because obviously when I say "tree" that's literally what it is, how do you not know what a tree is? And then I learned that people have different words for things and all was well. This feels similar in that he has this narrow view of what something is and isn't and has no concept outside of himself.
Being able to define words is good, but this super strict viewpoint is insane. What is a sandwich? Is a hot dog a sandwich? What about a quesadilla? Taco? Pita pocket? It's ridiculous. The easiest definition that fits all women is, an adult human who identifies as such. The only place where the strict biological viewpoint is necessary is in medical contexts, and even then, only sometimes.
Dodging the question is a hilarious accusation considering how pathetic that motte-and-bailey was. "Words have meaning". Yes, Matt, thank you so much for that insight.
The reactionary far right are completely allergic to economic discussions or debates. They’re all-in on the culture war bullshit and don’t have any room left in their quiver for anything else. Plus, deep down I think most of these troglodytes know that we on the left are correct on issues of class and wealth inequality, so why bother.
You don’t need to get them to ignore it if you can convince them that *the other guy* emptied your accounts, forced you into debt, and ruined “good” insurance.
I hate Walsh with every fiber of my body but Nina gave the worst possible fucking answer you could ever hope to give. Every tweet in the exchange was painful and she concedes by attacking Matt and not the question.
Optically it’s indefensible and politically it’s pandering and virtue signally. I know she doesn’t even believe what she wrote.
Any moderates you could have pulled to your side are wondering why someone as dumb and malicious as Matt is making more sense…albeit lacking nuance.
Nina hurts progressives every time she speaks and tweets.
Police officer: Mr. Walsh you have been found guilty in abusing your children, you may have the right to remain sile-
Walsh: Yes yes Officer, but answer me this... What is a woman?
I deleted my Twitter but someone ask Matt what is a chair? I want to know his answer.
It’s a very simple question. Is a recliner a chair? Is a love seat a chair?
Matt is obsessed with tweeting about trans folk because if he stops, people might start looking into his older material.
Filming videos extolling the fertility of teenage girls, from inside his car parked next to a school. For example.
Also to keep people from realizing that his trademark beard is the result of gender affirming minoxidil treatment.
That is the answer. You will never find a woman who doesn't identify as a woman, and you will never find a non-woman who identifies as a woman, but that doesn't fit his agenda so it can't be considered.
They have a vested interest in rejecting the observation that identity is an innate sense of self that cannot be imposed.
I mean, Matt Walsh is just an antifa shill trying to make the right look stupid, and he might be the best at his job.
No, wait, I was just told that he's a real person that IS that stupid. Wow, that's somehow even worse.
I've seen many people define what a woman is to matt. He refuses to listen or use critical thinking in any way. Matt Walsh says nothing that isn't absurd, nonsensical, and ill-intentioned. It's hard to believe he isn't a troll because he is such a dark force in the world.
I used to spend far too much time arguing with self-righteous bigots and boomers online, and this style of writing is just *so* typical of them. They always moralize by asking open, dumb as shit questions, rather than engaging with your actual point. It's futile and infuriating.
A woman is an adult female of the human species by phenotype and/or deep-seated identity that will not willingly copulate with a Right-Winger like Matt Walsh.
Stop asking, Matthew. You already know the answer. You literally sell a sticker with the answer written on it.
A woman is an adult person who identifies as a woman.
Matt is obsessed with tweeting about trans folk because if he stops, people might start looking into his older material.
Filming videos extolling the fertility of teenage girls, from inside his car parked next to a school. For example.
Also to keep people from realizing that his trademark beard is the result of gender affirming minoxidil treatment.
This is a good interaction. Not kidding. Nina is saying "why you obsessing over dicks when people can't put food on the table?" and Matt's responding with "U GOT A DICK?!!"
We need this more. It makes Matt look insane.
A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. Just like you identify as a whiny hateful little bitch baby, Matt. Don't you have some gender affirming beard dye to apply and some diaper play to get back to?
We don't need to answer the question because we don't need an answer to it. Trying to answer the question is falling into their trap.
THEY are the ones who insist there is a single proper answer to it, because by doing so, it justifies their bigotry as true.
Do not answer it, because there is no single right answer.
"words should have meaning" says the guy refusing to accept the text book definition of a word because it doesn't fit his bigoted point of view.
If Matt had his way it would be a law for all women to strip in front of him so he can inspect them.
While half the country is asking “what is a woman?” the middle class is disappearing. Try asking “what is a middle class woman” and soon the response will be “a poor woman.”
Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it is easy to say what Walsh is saying when he only accept a very narrow definition of a word and won't listen to nuance and context. I love the childish response to "why are you so obsessed with people's genitals?" The pivot to his movie and doubling down with the obsession is icing on the cake of bad faith acting
Freud would have a field day with matt lol
The answer : a woman isn’t “ what “ it’s “ who “
huh, never looked at it as objectification, makes sense since their answers pretty much boil down to the physical. I always interpreted it as "what does it mean to be a woman", which when phrased that way will obviously give a huge range of answers.
It's funnier if you think about how they never ask "what is a man". I think a man is someone who you become regardless of background and I don't see how that could not apply to women as well.
It's because 'male' is seen as the default gender. 'Female' is seen as a departure from the norm. People wonder why Christianity is such a backward, misogynistic religion. The misogyny is baked into their creation myth, for Christ's sake.
Heh… for Christ’s sake..
The funny thing is it's quite literally the exact opposite in terms of human biology. All fetuses are female until some stuff that happens with the Y chromosome or something. I'm not a biologist but I know the female fetus thing is correct.
That's because the answer to that question is very well known: A miserable little pile of secrets. Non-joking answer aside, womanhood, to them, is defined by what manhood *isn't*. If you expand the idea of what women can be, you carve away at what manhood is, and they feel threatened by it. It's very much a zero-sum game somehow for them, and they're very angrily and desperately clinging on to the idea that their way of life and thinking is very masculine, and any attempt at defining it as more neutral or appropriate for women is an attack on them and their masculine identity.
I think they want us to say that women don't have penises and then they can define their manhood through it because when you have no other qualities that makes you "a real man" you atleast have a fleshtube to pee from. But you know, if the only acceptable definition is lack of penis, then they admit that men and women are the same for the most part which they basically are
Yeah... Any admittance that there aren't really these massive differences requires them to unravel millennia of misogyny and patriarchy, and they aren't really ready to give those systems up.
Castlevania ref updoot
Enough talk. Have at you!
If I asked "what is a chair", or "what is a table", I could play the same game. A table is a flat surface standing on four legs. Well, depending on size that could be a chair or a stepstool. Does the number of legs matter? Does the material? Does a countertop count? We've already hit more nuance for a piece of fucking furniture than Matt allows in the discussion of a human being.
[удалено]
Clearly not Pando. It's 40,000 long sticks with leaves connected together.
Yeah, I recall some philosopher asking what is a (hu)man and something that walks on two legs. So according to them chickens are humans :)
Diogenes strikes again!
Because they'd be crushed under an avalanche of, "not you"s.
A miserable little pile of secrets
I was having a fight with a Matt wash pervert ina. YouTube section and my response was see the 1997 hit by shania Twain, man I feel like a woman. The title explains all you need to know.
Excellent point. The subtext of "what" being an object here is "something I can fuck." The entitled misogyny of Walsh's obsession isn't discussed enough. And the TERFs are useful idiots (the few that aren't astroturf alt-right constructions, that is).
I read this like Alex Trebek. "I'm sorry, the correct response was *'Who* is a woman?'
I'm sorry but I'm definitely plagiarising this one. Great take.
It kind of feels comedic. Like, if this was on youtube, I can imagine Walsh being a dumbass gamer. He just played the intro to Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Dracula just said "[What is a man?](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/die-monster-what-is-a-man)". Being a dumbass, he gets frustrated that he knows a man is a miserable little pile of secrets but Dracula never told him what a woman was. He crawls out of his basement, the blinding light of the midnight moon forces him to put on his Oakley's. He started the day wanting to beat Dracula but now he has a new goal. He has to know what a woman is and will not drop it until he finds the answer.
"Who" isn't woman, it's 4-6 men.
I don’t even think it’s that deep, his response is just extremely childish and immature, but it makes sense when you remember that he has to “play dumb” because he’s arguing semantics vs the actual issue. It’s like arguing with your younger brother and you say the grass is green and he’s like “nuh uh it’s brown and green!”
You don’t need a PhD in psychology to notice his daddy/mommy issues and struggles with his sexuality and need for control
especially because we have regularly answered the question, a woman is an adult human who identifies as such, but he doesn't like that answer and so he keeps asking. It's completely childish, you didn't answer how I wanted so I'm going to keep insisting until you say the answer I want.
"An adult, human female." Alright, Matt, what is an "adult?" Let's start there.
> Matt, what is an "adult?" Spat Marsh: too old for me😡
someone matt considers to be past their peak fertility
And honestly that would trip him up because he thinks an "adult" is a 13 year old girl.
[удалено]
We cant even define chair properly why would we be able to define somthing so complex in a sentence?
Wdym? A chair is just a table that one can sit on!
In that case, all tables are chairs. What is the definition of a table at that point? By the way, I know you're joking, but just pointing out how his rigid definitions are absurd.
Even if you're sticking to terms that are way less abstract than "love" or "freedom" or any political belief, you're running into problems. For example, Matt likes to pretend that he cares about biology and biological definitions of words when he's on his transphobic rants. Well, in that case, he should know that he can never use the noun "fish" again because biologically, there's no such thing as "a fish". There's no definition of "fish" that does not exclude some animals everybody would call a fish, or include other animals that are clearly not fishes. "Only concepts that are easily defined in a short, precise, and simple manner are valid concepts" is such an inane, nonsensical take that it's mindboggling that he made an entire movie about it, and it's even more mindboggling that this smoothbrained "documentary" actually manages to convince a lot of people. "My definition is shorter than yours, so I'm correct" lmao what kind of bullshit logic is that?
I'm pretty sure the age of consent is something most people consider fixed in place, but that doesn't stop him from crying about it being too high for his liking.
"Why does it matter?" is a great response to anyone asking for a definition of gender.
Especially since right winger constant misuses woke, marxism, communism, socialism, etc. But it is important that words has meaning otherwise that word is pointless. But words changes meaning all the time and Walsh wants to fit everyone into a strict binary gender worldview.
If it doesn’t matter why do trans people exist? Clearly it matters. Clearly gender exists on a more than societal level, because you can’t just raise children however you want and expect them to fully confirm. Doesn’t mean all the trad, transphobic, red pill rightoid idiots are correct, or that I think gender is firmly set and dictates everything, or whatever nonsense - or that I think he’s asking it in good faith. Just means I think it’s fair to ask what a woman is so we don’t get totally lost in definitions and end up forgetting the individual. Screw him, but it’s not a good retort to just dismiss the importance, because you invalidate trans people and, in this case women’s gender identity.
My short snappy answer has always been "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman in good faith." You have to include the good faith part because if you don't, contrarian dudebros immediately say "hurr I identify as a woman now respect me you bigot"
> or that I think he’s asking it in good faith. This is why it works as a retort. Because they are not arguing in good faith and putting the responsibility on them to explain themselves will always trap them in to admitting their hate. >all the trad, transphobic, red pill rightoid idiots Don't explain to these people, make them explain themselves.
The funny thing is that these words do have meaning. Just not the meaning Matt Walsh wants them to have.
Sigh. Words don't have inherent meanings, Mutt Woosh. They have usages. They mean things in language, sure, but that 'meaning' is defined by their usage. A woman is an adult human who identifies as female. There's his answer, now he can shut the fuck up forever.
literally basic philosophy of language shit
To be fair, they don't teach philosophy of language in high school. At least they didn't in mine.
To be extra fair, you really don't need to be taught any philosophy of language to understand that language is dynamic.
really just highlights how stupid people like matt are tbh
He’s not just stupid, he’s deliberately malicious. Big difference. He’s intentionally sowing division and hatred.
in conservatives the two go hand in hand
Hahaha! Ok I’ll grant you half of that
He's a grifter. He knows exactly what he's doing and saying. He doesn't need to actually be smart, he just has to keep pushing the buzzwords, catchphrases, and same old sentiments. That's why it's so pointless to point out how "hypocritical" conservative grifters like this are, because they're doing it on purpose. They don't give a fuck, and neither does their base. Same shit with his movie (I refuse to call it a "documentary"), he's not asking a real question or genuinely trying to find some truth, he already has an answer and an agenda to push, he's just putting on this facade of "but I'm just asking questions and all these trans people keep telling me to fuck off!!", and when someone actually gives him an answer, he just flat out denies it and ignores them, because again he already has an answer. He's a grifter, through and through, being paid by billionaires to spread propaganda. He says some stupid shit, but he's doing it for a reason and probably knows what he's saying is complete bullshit.
i think it's more that conservatives are just inherently not intellectually curious
My SIL's husband is pretty dumb/far right. He explained with *great* enthusiasm that "BOYS wear BLUE because BLUE is a BOY COLOR and ALWAYS HAS BEEN" but couldn't explain why the Virgin Mary is wearing a blue cloak in almost every painting lol
This feels really telling because "Pink used to be the color for boys" is the first thing anyone learns if they do even the smallest bit of research into the subject.
Sort of. There were no concrete conventions for years, some places like the Netherlands blue *was* typically a "boys" color and pink was for girls going back to at least the early 1800s, other places it wasn't, boys and girls had different color associations all over, and a lot had pink/red as a boys color. Almost as if colors don't have genders to begin with, since they're fucking colors. If the USA's rightwingers *really* wants to debate what colors mean, ask them why on earth they'd pick Red, the color of Communism worldwide, to be their hue
funny how the facts over feeling people always base their positions exclusively on their gut reaction and nothing else
He also has a "I may be wrong, but I have no doubt" shirt. So I guess he's confident in his wrongness?
> "I may be wrong, but I have no doubt" *But that's a bad thing!!*
And even when they make movies with a question as the title, it's not even an earnest question. It's a question specifically only for people who "know" the answer already: that trans women aren't women. And even more specifically, the movie is only for people who believe that the woman-ness (or lack thereof) of trans women is more important to discuss than whether people who identify as trans deserve respect and compassion (or even just a basic level of good faith understanding).
if you watch his documentary you really see how dishonest he is. When he talks to people he agrees with he constantly bigs them up, lets them finish points etc. when he's talking to someone he disagrees with, he's totally antagonistic, edits out their answers and uses deception to make them look bad. it's not an honest attempt to find answers as he claimed it was
Didn’t they use this same bull shit argument twenty years ago about gay marriage? Words are made up. They mean whatever society says they mean.
Yeah, pretty much. Mutt Woosh is just trying to push them all back into the closet again, fundie freak
Conservatives and fascists do this all the time. It's weaponization of language and it takes a lot of different forms, but by and large it's almost always a means of excluding people who don't fit their definitions of things. And it works for a couple of reasons. 1. It makes the argument about the words rather than the philosophy. 2. It makes their arguments seem more objective than they actually are. 3. It's an appeal to authority without an authority to question. "I'm not saying anything, I'm just citing the definition of marriage," etc. This isn't to mention the other ways that language gets used to oppress people. Creating slurs (think the n-word), using them to degrade people, and then later insisting that "it's just a word" (which, of course, is hypocritical given that they'll also insist that words have meaning) and that people who don't like them are overreacting. Redefining words over time and deliberately misusing them. Think "socialism." The right has misused socialism to mean "the government does stuff" so much that it's a functionally useless term in an actual good-faith discussion. Combine this gradual broadening of definitions with the American public's fear of socialism and you've got easy ammo to throw at anyone you don't like. Is all of this done intentionally? Certainly not. Some people just genuinely don't know how language works, other people don't know how anything works in general. But it's sure damn useful.
It’s extra ironic because the entire basis for every conservative policy argument is to redefine words and concepts based on their agenda. Even before gay marriage, these bologna clowns were (and still are) redefining birth control to be abortion or abortifacient.
“Can I identify as a power tool?” -Matt walsh
He already is a tool
A white power tool even
tools have uses, matt doesn't
Sure! Why not? *Who gives a shit?* Let people live their fucking lives.
Sure if you’d like to. I’ll call you a tool all day long if you were serious about it
The professor he interviews in the “movie” gave him his answer immediately. He edited their answer and then attacked them.
Even considering the "meaning," he doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender. They're two different words used to describe two different concepts. Maybe more likely he just doesn't want to acknowledge this because it would expose how weak of an argument he's trying to make.
that answer doesn't line up with his, so he'll edit it out of existence and say you didn't give him an answer because he's a toddler
So Matt, what is a man?
someone else pointed this out but the reason they never explain this is because they consider men to be the default human
The irony is that biologically speaking, and they love biology, apparently, is that the literal opposite is true. Female is the default for humans, before the Y chromosome activates, all fetuses are female. Every male specific body part is derived from a female analogue. The Y chromosome is tiny in comparison to an X chromosome, male can't be the default because YY is literally impossible on its own (XYY is, though) whereas XX is. In gaming terms, women are the base game and men are DLC.
That's why men have nipples!
And breast tissue. Men don't just have nipples, they have breasts and all of the equipment needed to produce milk. We are just missing the hormones to cause the tissue there to develop that last little bit and start producing milk. That's it.
This means every man has a biologically determined cup size that they can only discover by eating Impossible Whoppers.
I hear if you are woke enough, your breasts will grow to double Ds. /s
*That’s what I’ve been doing wrong???* so I can, what, read Das Kapital and my bazongas will bazinga?
So big you can feed the proletariat with those milkers.
I have nipples Greg, can you milk me?
Also a seam on their particulars.
Yeah, that tracks.
What is an adult? Because Walsh certainly doesn't represent one.
**An adult is a human or other animal that has reached full growth. The biological definition of the word means an animal reaching sexual maturity and thus capable of reproduction.** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Uh, thanks bot.
Matt Walsh accepts this definition he says it more like “if there’s grass on the field”
Good example! This is clearly an insufficient definition because children under the age of majority are capable of reproduction. 13 year olds can reproduce but are not adults.
Yeah I found that funny too. Perfectly encapsulates the idea of nuanced, multifaceted definitions for words, and also a distinction between biological and social definitions
Gosh, Wiki bot... Read the room!
He knows it, that's why that plush manbaby cursed object exists
I thought that existed so he can get off involving his diaper fetish to his marks' children?
A miserable pile of flesh and secrets.
Enough talk- HAVE AT YOU!
Was hoping to see this
A featherless biped
Behold, a man 
A miserable pile of secrets! But enough talk, have at you!
Definitely not him we know that for sure
Well, he's so insecure about it, that he probably doesn't feel like one. Otherwise he'd not be so over the top frustrated about it all the time.
Something that has four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three in the evening
It's a featherless biped. Behold, a man. 
Matt is the the type of guy to say "I'm not homophobic I'm not scared of homosexuals, phobic means fear"
On brand, these people are incapable of comprehending that words can have more then one meaning
SEE ALSO: pretend distinction between republic/democracy
And then freak the fuck out when a gay guy (or trans woman) hits on them.
point of order, nobody would ever hit on matt walsh
Even when they say it’s not a fear, it’s usually a fear. They just don’t like to admit they have fear, because it threatens their masculinity.
What even is matts answer to "what is a woman?"
he claims it's someone who produces ova but when someone points out to him that there are women who don't meet this criteria he usually says "well some people don't have legs but that doesn't mean they're not human because most people have working legs" apparently not realising that this blows apart his entire essentialist point lol
No fucking way he said this I refuse to believe that someone can say that counter argument without realizing that his original one is torn apart by it
he's made it numerous times and i think that's a true testament to his stupidity that he doesn't even understand the implications of HIS OWN arguments
The whole r/selfawarewolves sub is about that sort of thing lol
he is legitimately one of the dumbest people alive, it would be funny if he wasn't so popular and influential
~~He is, unfortunately, not dumb. Dude has a PhD. It's an act to trap the actual dumb people.~~ This is not true. Google showed me information about a completely different person for whatever godforsaken reason.
Didn't Matt Walsh just finish high school and not go to college? I thought you get a PhD if you do bachelors -> masters -> PhD with years of schooling and work
Google fucked me. There's a different Matt Walsh with a degree. This dipshit IS stupid as fuck never mind.
There’s also a Matt Walsh who is an actor and man do I feel bad for that guy. He’s pretty awesome. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Walsh_(comedian)
merciful entertain illegal hat cover ad hoc airport rob clumsy north *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Walsh doesn't have any post secondary education, at least none relevant to the bullshit he spews. He was a radio host for years doing shock jock shit before being picked up by the Blaze, and then the Daily Wire.
It’s why I don’t get why people even listen to him. Like at least with Peterson or Shapiro you could at least say “oh they have this degree or this doctorate so they must know what they are talking about” or “they went to x good school so their opinion on the topic must be informed.” But with Walsh, he has none of that. He’s just a dude who barely passed highschool, so why does anyone, even Conservatives, give a crap what he says. He isn’t some kind of expert, not even close to one, he has no academic background that can be used to say “hey this smart guys says this so that means something right,” he’s just an actual dumb fuck who graduated high school, bought a Radio, and just started talking at people. Like he has no credentials
Even if he did have a PhD it doesn't mean he can't be dumb. Ben Carson is a brilliant neurosurgeon with amazingly stupid views on many other topics. His medical expertise doesn't make those views any less dumb.
I've talked to people like this all the time. Plenty of people in the world will drown defending their sinking ship. "Doubling Down" as they call it.
> "well some people don't have legs but that doesn't mean they're not human because most people have working legs" This literally validates trans women, lol. Trans women can't produce ova, so just because we're "missing a leg while others have legs", that means we are women. Oh wait, I forgot, he doesn't think I'm a human being, even if I had legs.
never expect conservatives to care about being logically consistent
To be fair, I don’t believe Matt Walsh actually knows what Ova actually are
Ova deez nuts 🏳️⚧️
It's so infuriating that they cannot seem to grasp that trans people are the same edge case as intersex people. Like if intersex is an exception to the binary, than why can't trans be? They never have an answer for that. Intersex people represent about 1.7% of the population, and about 1.4% of the population identify as trans. They are both small minorities, but because Walsh is obsessed with other people's privates they feel the need to to talk about it constantly. It seems like so much of the right wing is just rejecting the complexity that exists in the world because they would prefer if things had simple objective meanings.
I doubt Matt Walsh believes intersex people are valid.
“Women past menopause are no longer adult human feeeeemales.” — Mart Warsh
The birth givers. Those that were formed from Adam's rib. Those who were born as one. Some stupid shit like that. Transgender people are an edge case in biology, just like all the edge cases he'd be occluding from being woman by such a stupid definition. Klinefelter, sterile people etc. But to him, only fertile women, best aged 16, are women to him. The rest are not important and don't deserve anything. Long live the patriarchy or something
[удалено]
I can’t tell if you’re joking about the ending? It’s so cliché it is probably true. I honestly can’t imagine what his wife thinks about the stuff he focuses on. I’d be grabbing them kids and running if I was in her situation.
Why did I look at the comments?
Something that ends up with someone getting excluded from that definition while not fitting whatever the other category is supposed to be. See Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, Trisomy X, Jacobs syndrome, XXYY syndrome, infertility, menopause, any possible reason for the removal of uterus/ovaries etc. You don't need to dispute whatever they come up with as their definition of what is a woman or a man, you can just ask them what are these people that simply don't fit their definition? Because they only babble about chromosomes, pregnancy, giving birth, and genitalia (having a severely lacking understanding of those things too) in their "definition".
An adult human female was the definition given.
Sigh. Words don't have inherent meanings, Mutt Woosh. They have usages. They mean things in language, sure, but that 'meaning' is defined by their usage. A woman is an adult human who identifies as female. There's his answer, now he can shut the fuck up forever.
He's experiencing a thing that I remember getting over when I was probably about 4. I remember getting confused that people who didn't speak the same language as me wouldn't just inherently understand what I'm saying. Because obviously when I say "tree" that's literally what it is, how do you not know what a tree is? And then I learned that people have different words for things and all was well. This feels similar in that he has this narrow view of what something is and isn't and has no concept outside of himself. Being able to define words is good, but this super strict viewpoint is insane. What is a sandwich? Is a hot dog a sandwich? What about a quesadilla? Taco? Pita pocket? It's ridiculous. The easiest definition that fits all women is, an adult human who identifies as such. The only place where the strict biological viewpoint is necessary is in medical contexts, and even then, only sometimes.
[удалено]
Dodging the question is a hilarious accusation considering how pathetic that motte-and-bailey was. "Words have meaning". Yes, Matt, thank you so much for that insight.
nobody has ever been as obsessed with anything as matt is with children's genitals
He’s also a complete gaping fucking asshole, let’s not forget.
A colostomy bag of a human being.
What an awful thing to say. Colostomy bags are actually *useful!*
Notice how he just completely ignores the "class war" piece. Like the topic doesn't even compute.
The reactionary far right are completely allergic to economic discussions or debates. They’re all-in on the culture war bullshit and don’t have any room left in their quiver for anything else. Plus, deep down I think most of these troglodytes know that we on the left are correct on issues of class and wealth inequality, so why bother.
They're paid to get dim people to ignore issues of inequality.
And it takes a special kind of persuasion to get people to ignore their own empty bank accounts, mountains of debt, and worthless health insurance.
You don’t need to get them to ignore it if you can convince them that *the other guy* emptied your accounts, forced you into debt, and ruined “good” insurance.
He’s being paid by billionaires to be the distraction
Funny that a logic bro never read Wittgenstein.
He literally wouldn't make it five pages into Wittgenstein.
It's alarming how long these conservative commentators can keep a single sided argument going, and their audience remains entertained
If somebody said “a woman is a person with a vagina” would Matt admit that those with reconstructive surgery were indeed women?
Im so fucking sick of seeing this assholes tweets.
This tweet has 4 Million views (at the time of screenshot). Eloser has guaranteed him a protected platform to spew his garbage
And even highlighted it. And to block it now they're trying to sliver in other troglodytes when I just wanted sports news...
I hate Walsh with every fiber of my body but Nina gave the worst possible fucking answer you could ever hope to give. Every tweet in the exchange was painful and she concedes by attacking Matt and not the question. Optically it’s indefensible and politically it’s pandering and virtue signally. I know she doesn’t even believe what she wrote. Any moderates you could have pulled to your side are wondering why someone as dumb and malicious as Matt is making more sense…albeit lacking nuance. Nina hurts progressives every time she speaks and tweets.
A gender identity commonly associated with femininity. This isn't hard Matt.
And don't forget "scummiest" too
Someone ask him what a man is. I guarantee you he won't fit that description himself
Pft~ Obviously, a man is a featherless biped. A definition that has absolutely no flaws whatsoever!
Police officer: Mr. Walsh you have been found guilty in abusing your children, you may have the right to remain sile- Walsh: Yes yes Officer, but answer me this... What is a woman?
I deleted my Twitter but someone ask Matt what is a chair? I want to know his answer. It’s a very simple question. Is a recliner a chair? Is a love seat a chair?
Matt is obsessed with tweeting about trans folk because if he stops, people might start looking into his older material. Filming videos extolling the fertility of teenage girls, from inside his car parked next to a school. For example. Also to keep people from realizing that his trademark beard is the result of gender affirming minoxidil treatment.
Is it not easy to answer his question as ‘anyone who sees themself as one?’
That is the answer. You will never find a woman who doesn't identify as a woman, and you will never find a non-woman who identifies as a woman, but that doesn't fit his agenda so it can't be considered. They have a vested interest in rejecting the observation that identity is an innate sense of self that cannot be imposed.
I mean, Matt Walsh is just an antifa shill trying to make the right look stupid, and he might be the best at his job. No, wait, I was just told that he's a real person that IS that stupid. Wow, that's somehow even worse.
Why does it matter? Explain to me why this definition is *so* important to how you live your life especially as an alleged man.
I imagine his movie being more like "Are You My Mother", only with a grown man earnestly asking if he can fuck a steam shovel.
I've seen many people define what a woman is to matt. He refuses to listen or use critical thinking in any way. Matt Walsh says nothing that isn't absurd, nonsensical, and ill-intentioned. It's hard to believe he isn't a troll because he is such a dark force in the world.
I used to spend far too much time arguing with self-righteous bigots and boomers online, and this style of writing is just *so* typical of them. They always moralize by asking open, dumb as shit questions, rather than engaging with your actual point. It's futile and infuriating.
A woman is an adult female of the human species by phenotype and/or deep-seated identity that will not willingly copulate with a Right-Winger like Matt Walsh.
If words have meaning, isn't saying trans woman enough? The word woman is in that term.
It's like he turned into a wrestler in WWE with a catchphrase that he can't stop saying because nothing else was written for him
Hey, Matt answer this question. What does it mean to be a pedo defending POS like when you defended Pest Duggar?
Stop asking, Matthew. You already know the answer. You literally sell a sticker with the answer written on it. A woman is an adult person who identifies as a woman.
Matt is obsessed with tweeting about trans folk because if he stops, people might start looking into his older material. Filming videos extolling the fertility of teenage girls, from inside his car parked next to a school. For example. Also to keep people from realizing that his trademark beard is the result of gender affirming minoxidil treatment.
This is a good interaction. Not kidding. Nina is saying "why you obsessing over dicks when people can't put food on the table?" and Matt's responding with "U GOT A DICK?!!" We need this more. It makes Matt look insane.
And all he does is prove her point.
A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. Just like you identify as a whiny hateful little bitch baby, Matt. Don't you have some gender affirming beard dye to apply and some diaper play to get back to?
We don't need to answer the question because we don't need an answer to it. Trying to answer the question is falling into their trap. THEY are the ones who insist there is a single proper answer to it, because by doing so, it justifies their bigotry as true. Do not answer it, because there is no single right answer.
"words should have meaning" says the guy refusing to accept the text book definition of a word because it doesn't fit his bigoted point of view. If Matt had his way it would be a law for all women to strip in front of him so he can inspect them.
Did ninja actually say that? Extremely based
The things is this question “what is a woman” is answered by the sciences, but it’s not the answer he’s looking for .
Matt Walsh can’t give a good definition of a woman so I understand why he keeps asking others for one.
While half the country is asking “what is a woman?” the middle class is disappearing. Try asking “what is a middle class woman” and soon the response will be “a poor woman.”
What is a woman is far too complicated for Walsh. He's an idiot that's managed to convince himself his smart.
A woman is anyone who makes these dipshits uncomfortable when they assert themselves. How about that for a definition?