Gender ideology activists claiming Matt Walsh gave them 'numerous nightmares and depression spirals'

[ThatRobGuy]

'What is a woman?': Controversy after Dr. Phil puts non-binary guests against conservative

"Since the taping, Ethan and I have been experiencing a heightened level of anxiety to the point that we've had numerous nightmares and depression spirals over the last month"



Seems like they should have done a little research before going on the show. If people have those kinds of mental health concerns (like anxiety & depression), perhaps going on the Dr. Phil show in front of a large audience isn't the best move.

Also, if someone is that sensitive to criticism, perhaps going toe to toe in a debate environment with a guy, for which, there are probably hundreds of "this person owns XYZ" videos widely available on youtube probably isn't the best position to be putting themselves in.

It'd be kind of like a person saying "I'm a staunch vegan, and easily triggered by the sight of someone eating meat to the point it gives me nightmares" agreeing to be part of an event at a rib cook-off...

Matt Walsh fired back with:
"The emotional blackmail these frauds used after the fact, claiming that I caused nightmares and depression and simply by voicing my opinion, may seem funny because it's so ridiculous but it's also a bullying tactic used by bad people to control the conversation,"


Here's a video of the exchange:

 

[bekkilyn]

If I were to have numerous nightmares and depression spirals, it could very well be that they would be triggered just from looking at that guy pictured to the right and thinking about how that's where manhood has gone to in this country in that generation. Not simply from appearance, but even after he opened his mouth.

 

[Captain Ahab]

And the advocates of these gender blenders actually call people science deniers

You can’t make this up!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If I were to have numerous nightmares and depression spirals, it could very well be that they would be triggered just from looking at that guy pictured to the right and thinking about how that's where manhood has gone to in this country in that generation. Not simply from appearance, but even after he opened his mouth.

I don't agree with Walsh on a lot of things, but he brought up a great point...

I've said in the past "in order to designate, you need to be able to define" (he didn't use those words, but it was the same sentiment).

If one is going to say "this person is a woman", they need to be able to provide a definition of "woman".

Otherwise, the designation is meaningless.

The trap that a lot of gender ideology activists fall in, is the "gender is a societal construct so it's meaningless" vs. "gender recognition is super important"

If gender is a meaningless societal construct, then why does someone even care about 'misgendering'?

If it's super important, then it should be able to be succinctly defined.

I can't think of another vitally important biological designation within society that has a "fluid" definition...

Nobody says "blue eyes means something different to everyone" or "I identify as diabetic even though my blood sugar is in the normal range"

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't agree with Walsh on a lot of things, but he brought up a great point...

I've said in the past "in order to designate, you need to be able to define" (he didn't use those words, but it was the same sentiment).

If one is going to say "this person is a woman", they need to be able to provide a definition of "woman".

Otherwise, the designation is meaningless.

The trap that a lot of gender ideology activists fall in, is the "gender is a societal construct so it's meaningless" vs. "gender recognition is super important"

If gender is a meaningless societal construct, then why does someone even care about 'misgendering'?

If it's super important, then it should be able to be succinctly defined.

I can't think of another vitally important biological designation within society that has a "fluid" definition...

Nobody says "blue eyes means something different to everyone" or "I identify as diabetic even though my blood sugar is in the normal range"

Indeed, I've asked gender ideologists numerous times to define what a woman (or a man) is and none have been able to do it without also referring to biology.

Oh and your diabetic comment isn't too far from the roost, so to speak. I've been seeing videos crop up of young people on Tik Tok who have self diagnosed themselves with multiple personality disorder, or whatever it is called nowadays. An extremely rare mental condition that may not even actually exist and yet there it is.

 

[MehGuy]

Yeah, I watched some of that Dr. Phil episode. Those trans activists did an awful job. Them whining and claiming to be traumatized after the fact is just pathetic. I do get the sense that society at large is starting to develop a backbone with these "SJWs".

This is coming from a guy who is not anti-trans and considers himself a progressive. Just that the people who are the forefront of progressivism seem to be so embarrassingly bad. I feel like I and others who think for ourselves could have had a much more interesting discussion with Matt Walsh about transgenderism and the legitimacy of it.

 

[SilverBear]

If I were to have numerous nightmares and depression spirals, it could very well be that they would be triggered just from looking at that guy pictured to the right and thinking about how that's where manhood has gone to in this country in that generation. Not simply from appearance, but even after he opened his mouth.

James 2:1-4

 

[public hermit]

I can already see that part of the problem is they didn't start by discussing their common ground and shared traits, which is obviously over-groomed beards. Had they started there, no one could have taken themselves seriously and it could have ended with a group hug/beard stroking.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I can already see that part of the problem is they didn't start by discussing their common ground and shared traits, which is obviously over-groomed beards. Had they started there, no one could have taken themselves seriously and it could have ended with a group hug/beard stroking.

Well, I mean, let's be honest...in the beard department, Walsh brings a strong game

I have a few unfortunate bald patches in my facial hair pattern, so I can't grow such nice full beard like that. I wish I could...but no dice. Best I can do is a Tom Selleck mustache (which has been out of style for quite a while...unless you're looking to imitate a 70's inappropriate content star)

 

[MehGuy]

Well, I mean, let's be honest...in the beard department, Walsh brings a strong game
View attachment 311348

I have a few unfortunate bald patches in my facial hair pattern, so I can't grow such nice full beard like that. I wish I could...but no dice. Best I can do is a Tom Selleck mustache (which has been out of style for quite a while...unless you're looking to imitate a 70's inappropriate content star)

Yeah... I cannot grow the sides of my face at all... the front... can grow pretty thick though. You can only mainly grow the top of the lip?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah... I cannot grow the sides of my face at all... the front... can grow pretty thick though. You can only really do the top of the lip?

I can do a goatee & mustache thing, but on my left cheek, I have a spot that just doesn't grow at all, so I can't do the full beard look.

So I've just relegated myself to going with the clean shaven look.

 

[Michie]

'What is a woman?': Controversy after Dr. Phil puts non-binary guests against conservative

"Since the taping, Ethan and I have been experiencing a heightened level of anxiety to the point that we've had numerous nightmares and depression spirals over the last month"



Seems like they should have done a little research before going on the show. If people have those kinds of mental health concerns (like anxiety & depression), perhaps going on the Dr. Phil show in front of a large audience isn't the best move.

Also, if someone is that sensitive to criticism, perhaps going toe to toe in a debate environment with a guy, for which, there are probably hundreds of "this person owns XYZ" videos widely available on youtube probably isn't the best position to be putting themselves in.

It'd be kind of like a person saying "I'm a staunch vegan, and easily triggered by the sight of someone eating meat to the point it gives me nightmares" agreeing to be part of an event at a rib cook-off...

Matt Walsh fired back with:
"The emotional blackmail these frauds used after the fact, claiming that I caused nightmares and depression and simply by voicing my opinion, may seem funny because it's so ridiculous but it's also a bullying tactic used by bad people to control the conversation,"


Here's a video of the exchange:

I saw previews for that but spaced it. I don’t think I missed much except for Matt Walsh of course.

 

[Michie]

WALSH: If Men Can Be Women Then This White Dude Can Be Korean | The Daily Wire

Then there is transracial Rachel Dolezal.

 

[Gene2memE]

"Since the taping, Ethan and I have been experiencing a heightened level of anxiety to the point that we've had numerous nightmares and depression spirals over the last month"

To be fair, I occasionally read Matt Walsh's Twitter account. Having numerous nightmares and depression spirals after direct contact with him is probably getting away mildly.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Matt Walsh doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. Or is closet case. He's a bit obsessed over something that he knows nothing about. A transgender female isn't a transgender female just because they want to play with a girl toy. There's way more involved in being a transgender. Conservative Christians or people need to stay out, of something they know nothing about.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Matt Walsh doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. Or is closet case. He's a bit obsessed over something that he knows nothing about. A transgender female isn't a transgender female just because they want to play with a girl toy. There's way more involved in being a transgender. Conservative Christians or people need to stay out, of something they know nothing about.

The example he mentioned in the video (about wanting to play with the girls toys) was referencing the same weak standards some of the advocates on the other side use for it, so why can't he use that as a point of reference?

If MayoClinic is publishing articles that are suggesting "these are the potential signs"

Then those are fair game to be discussed and critiqued.


When it comes to the mentality of "people who don't know enough about it just need to stay out of it"...that logic only flies for things and preferences that don't have externalities.

It's the same reason why a gun enthusiast doesn't get to tell liberal "you don't know anything about guns, so you just to need to shut up, you don't get to have an opinion because you're under-informed on them" That person having a gun comes with externalities, therefore, the other people get to voice their concerns about it (even if they can't tell the difference between fully and semi automatic)

Calling it "obsessed" is a bit unfair... if nobody was trying to compel everyone else in society to make accommodations, it's likely most wouldn't have a strong opinion one way or the other.

 

[durangodawood]

....The trap that a lot of gender ideology activists fall in, is the "gender is a societal construct so it's meaningless" vs. "gender recognition is super important"....

Who says that?

I think youre making this up, at least as concerns trans activists. Im sure you can find one person here and there, but you make it sound typical to the point that its worth building a whole argument on.

I call strawman. (Or strawperson.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Who says that?

I think youre making this up, at least as concerns trans activists. Im sure you can find one person here and there, but you make it sound typical to the point that its worth building a whole argument on.

I call strawman. (Or strawperson.)

The person in the video he was debating against said it...(and it's a common rebuttal, they're not the first ones I've heard use that)

They said it was a construct and everyone gets to define what it means to them... Which was their reply to being asked "what does Woman mean, define it?"

Yet, we have entire social media platforms who will ban people for "misgendering"... so that would imply that would imply that it's "super important"

So which is it? If it's a fluid idea/terminology that can mean something different to everyone, then there's no such thing as "misgendering", only two people having different definitions of what a term means to them.

If it's so important that using it incorrectly is grounds for a Twitter ban, or even punitive measures at work (depending on where you work), or in court (depending on where you live)...
Misgendering Is a Human Rights Violation, Canadian Court Rules

...so important, that in fact, a Canadian tribunal ruled: A human rights tribunal ruled that pronouns are “a fundamental part of a person’s identity.”

Then someone ought to be able to define what the terms mean.



This "It's a fluid concept, and I can change what the definition means to me on a day by day basis....but don't you dare get it wrong, or you're in trouble" is an unrealistic standard.

 

[durangodawood]

....They said it was a construct and everyone gets to define what it means to them... Which was their reply to being asked "what does Woman mean, define it?"....

Wait, before you said they called it a "social construct". Now youre claim theyre saying its a personal construct. I'm a bit lost.

For sure it does follow from a construct being social that its meaningless.

Overall, I'd say the construct of gender is evolving, and part of the process is some confusion and figuring things out. Nothing to freak out over. I do get how some people are made uncomfortable by shifting norms tho, and we ought to have some compassion for their predicament.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Wait, before you said they called it a "social construct". Now youre claim theyre saying its a personal construct. I'm a bit lost.

For sure it does follow from a construct being social that its meaningless.

Overall, I'd say the construct of gender is evolving, and part of the process is some confusion and figuring things out. Nothing to freak out over. I do get how some people are made uncomfortable by shifting norms tho, and we ought to have some compassion for their predicament.

They did...they called it both at various points in the debate.

They said both, if you watch the video one of them refers to a social construct (at 12:45), and then at another point in the video, one said "everyone gets to define what it means to them because it's different for everybody" (at 7:30), they also said "womanhood is an umbrella term" (at 8:45)

So they're all over the board...

If it seems confusing, it's because it is. They're wanting to change the rules on the fly. That's the problem with not having definitions for things.

Getting "lost" in those rules is just as easy as it would be for a mechanic to get "lost" trying to follow a procedure if his boss kept changing what "repair" meant or said "the brake fluid is low" and when prompted for how low it was, gave the reply "well that's not for me to say, 'low' means something different to everyone, it's not for us to say how much brake fluid a car should have"