DiscussionMatt Walsh

submitted by JulienMayfair from self.LGBDropTheT

I'd heard about Matt Walsh's documentary "What is a Woman?" and was thinking about watching it, but I hadn't really looked into the rest of Walsh's thinking.

It turns out that he also seems to be pretty rabidly anti-gay, using a lot of bonehead, knuckle-dragger arguments that I mostly haven't heard since the 1990s. He's apparently against same-sex marriage, and I listened to him on youtube making the most idiotic objections to the Respect for Marriage bill. He's no Douglas Murray in the brain department, that's for sure.

But then, I guess on the critique of gender, there has always been a crossover zone where people agree on the basic facts even if they disagree on most other things.

all 26 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]GenderSpecial 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Matt Walsh is a misogynistic homophobic hateful bigot. Just because we agree on one issue doesn’t mean we’re on the same team.

[–]ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And people need to remember that before we align ourselves with our enemies and destroy our own hard fought position.

[–]GreykittymommaMagical lady 💜 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Can you blame some of these guys? Legalizing gay marriage was great but since then the other alphabet people latched onto us and we got grouped together.

I don't like gays that go down the street half naked with dildos and chains and I shouldn't have to. To me that isn't pride in being gay it is desperately needing attention. That is what some gays have in common with the T+...

I don't think we deserve to be lumped together. Plenty gays, lesbians and bis just want the right to love who we want and we don't need people to bend over backwards acknowledging our existence 😂 or apparently just giving us money.

Dislocate the T 💜

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 18 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

T+ latches onto every minority community's civil rights issue as a way to parasitically drain moral credibility. It is not the fault of gay marriage that it was used to by the T+.

[–]Newzok 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a real attention hog and derails any movement or interest group. Whoever at the agency figured that out is a genius.

[–]chazzstrong 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

He's definitely Conservative to the core...however I think he doesn't want gay marriage for the same reason people, such as myself, don't want it: marriage is a religious institution, and most biblical texts for any religion are fairly straight-forward ( hah! ) on the idea of same-sex marriage. He also wants government out of marriage, and it handled entirely by the church which is how I think it is supposed to be.

This is what I mean when I say it's a weird position for us...to be aligned against the progressive gender identity you end up on the side of right-leaning people and conservatives which, as someone who is LGB, is an awkward and precarious position to be in.

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well, that's not what Walsh was saying about marriage. He was claiming that marriage is all about procreation and that because the gays can't have their own biological children, we shouldn't be able to get married. But then, what about my straight friends who got married only to find out the wife is infertile and can never bear children? Should their marriage then be nullified?

We slogged through every permutation of ALL those arguments exhaustively in the 90s and the 00s. Gay people made their case to the point where 55% of Republicans support it and 87% of Democrats. The Respect for Marriage bill passed the Senate 62-37 with 12 Republicans voting for it. Walsh is saying that they should all be kicked out of the Republican Party, so what about the 55% of Republicans overall who support it? Should they be kicked out, too?

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Agreed. I saw his "reproductionist" arguments, and I didn't think they were sound; They collapse under the most preliminary of prodding.

I think he's a smart guy, but also an ideologue, which tends to decrease one's apparent intelligence rather reliably.

Disappointing, but I appreciate his What Is a Woman film and his 'Small Talk' video anyway.

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One thing I remember clearly from the 1990s is that the word 'marriage,' for a certain percentage of people who were extremely attached to their sentimental concept of marriage, made them go completely bonkers. They totally stopped making sense, and they didn't care.

I read one talking about some "original meaning of marriage." So if you go back in history, you're talking about daughters basically being property you traded to someone for marriage as a form of alliance -- or women as property in general.

[–]Newzok 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The whole whether you can procreate or not debate was a little frustrating, all the while I was thinking, 'but they can adopt and take care of a child who otherwise wouldn't have anyone, which is a net positive', and that applies to both sterile straight and gay marriages.

[–]Vulptex 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's extremely suspicious how lately it's always the religious traditionalists who get power in the GOP when most of the party isn't on board with that (or at least wasn't until the George Floyd incident). It's almost like they're controlled opposition. That might be why the elites were so infuriated when Donald Trump won in 2016, because he's the one person whose strings they can't pull.

[–]Vulptex 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's extremely suspicious how lately it's always the religious traditionalists who get power in the GOP when most of the party isn't on board with that (or at least wasn't until the George Floyd incident). It's almost like they're controlled opposition. That might be why the elites were so infuriated when Donald Trump won in 2016, because he's the one person whose strings they can't pull.

[–]picklesarnie 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Being married provides legal rights regarding your partnership with your spouse. Not just financial security. I've read many heartbreaking cases were one partner of a gay couple was on their deathbed in hospital, and the homophobic family of the dying person banned their partner from being at their bedside. Being married ensures the legal right to stay by your dying partner. It doesn't have to be in church.

[–]CaptainMooseEx-Bathhouse Employee 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Someone I am aware of on the Booktube part of Youtube is an enby-identifying gay man and went through the same thing this year when his enby-identifying fiancé died. The mother and brother of the deceased used the situation to scam the gay man into paying for a funeral that was already covered just so they could pocket money.

Despite both men being self-hating, this is why marriage rights are important (and why I wouldn't settle for unions). Making sure every nook and cranny of the law keeps us and our loved ones from being treated like chattel from exploitative family members after we die is important to me. If I get married and die young, I don't want my husband to get fucked over by my mother (the same woman who had me correctively raped, who kept my legal documents locked in a vault I had no access to, and who gets enabled by everyone else).

[–]picklesarnie 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, I don't understand why people say it's just a piece of paper. Every legal document is a piece of paper. The deeds to your house are just a piece of paper, etc.

I think some people just think it's about getting to use the word husband or wife. But it's basically a legal document ensuring certain rights.

[–]CaptainMooseEx-Bathhouse Employee 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, too, most same-sex attracted people are not legal scholars. Sure, we have those among us who worked tirelessly to find ways to argue for our rights (employment non-discrimination, housing, marriage, etc.), but most of us are going to be laypeople if we ever have to create a will/living will. There will for sure be some loophole that we aren't aware of that can be played against us/our lover. Or a loophole that could be put into a civil union that most people ignore because it doesn't affect them the way marriage does.

[–]Newzok 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a fine documentary and he keeps his dumb wingnut shit to a minimum. You can clearly tell he's an all-the-way American Conservative and it made me skeptical; it tells me there's bias here. But it does make a good case for just how insane certain trans supporters are and what they preach. There was no mention of where the money and thrust for this movement comes from, though I guess that's not what the film addresses.

So yeah see it, whatever. Walsh is a sleazebag in every other way though, and not intellectually honest(his Rogan appearance is perhaps the most obvious example).

[–]PatsyStoneMaverique 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

He's a devout Catholic and has been an anti-abortion activist for years. Also, it has to be said, the arguments we make against gender theory can also be applied to marriage. Get ready for Republicans to start doing that a lot. We're having a gay marriage rematch next year.

[–]JulienMayfair[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He's a devout Catholic

Ah, that explains a lot. He's probably one of those "We must protect the traditional family at all costs" guys, and that's why he resorts to repeating these stupid arguments from 25 years ago.

[–]PatsyStoneMaverique 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, he started off during "The Great Evangelization" which was a Pope Benedict push to have Catholics promote their faith online. When Francis was elected he moved into anti-abortion activism, and now into gender criticism.

I don't think y'all realize how aware conservatives are of gender critical feminism and the arguments it makes. Not because they agree with it, but just because they have access to a broader range of information than liberals do . Your average Republican could list off a few feminist arguments against gender identity (without realizing where they come from.)

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

the arguments we make against gender theory can also be applied to marriage

This isn't evident to me. Can you please explain?

[–]PatsyStoneMaverique 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I dug around to try and find you an article and I can't find one that has a good summary. I'll link if I do later. Some arguments I anticipate them using:

  1. Biological sex is immutable, and the sexes are not interchangeable.

  2. Redefining words does not change the substance of what is being defined (for instance, a definition of marriage is "a union of opposites") they'll use "what is a woman?" for this.

  3. One group's rights should not be established at the expense of another group's rights.

  4. The state has an obligation to protect a child's well being that applies to gay marriage and adoption (they'll draw from activism against transgender grooming for this)

  5. The state cannot force speech or force a credence.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I see your point-- this is something that I've been concerned about myself, actually, in a more overarching way: that our emphasis on biology could be misinterpreted and misused to mean women = baby machines and LGB = unnatural. Because the real physical differences between men and women have all too often been exploited for that purpose.

So that's a much more all-encompassing issue to be addressed. To restrict myself to the anti-same-sex-marriage arguments that you've predicted, here are some of my responses:

  1. Yes, this is why a gay man, for example, cannot marry a woman (she won't ever turn into, or be a substitute for, a man), and therefore why same-sex marriage is a necessity.
  2. Marriage being a human creation, it is what we say it is. In many U.S. states, marriage was once defined as being between a man and woman of the same race. Then the definition was changed to allow mixed-race marriage. This did not somehow invalidate marriage as an institution. Even the fundamental redefinition of marriage as being about the relationship between the people entering into it (as opposed to their familial/social obligations)-- the emotional bond they share-- became so seamless a part of what we mean by "marriage" that few today would believe it had ever been any different.
  3. The existence of same-sex marriage has no effect on anyone else's rights: opposite-sex couples are just as free to marry as they ever were.
  4. This is an invalid comparison, as transgenderism and sexual orientation (such as homosexuality and bisexuality) not only have nothing to do with each other, but are in fact antithetical. So concerns about indoctrinating children with genderist ideology should not be applied to matters based on same-sex attraction.
  5. Same-sex marriage does not force speech or a credence, any more than the opposite-sex marriages of which one disapproves (for religious or other reasons) do. Just because a marriage takes place doesn't mean that you have to like it, or believe in it. You're free to do neither. Just the same as always.

[–]saidit458 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Essentialist arguments can be turned around on anyone and everyone if they dont have enough political power.

[–]Kai_Decadence 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So admittedly I don't know a ton about Matt Walsh outside of the trans stuff but considering how he's a traditional conservative, I'm not surprised that he's sexist and homophobic. But I did watch the "What is a Woman?" documentary and while I did enjoy the message of it, it was still a somewhat Conservative propaganda piece because he made sure to not include any leftists who are against gender ideology and made it out like it's only the right who don't support such nonsense. And I mean sure, it's mainly the left pushing this toxic ideology but it's a bit unfair to make it sound like all leftists support the ideology and it's because of this that makes me want to continue to speak out and not be silent as someone who is left-leaning and also gay.

So even though Matt Walsh is traditional core conservative through and through, I still can at least agree with him on this matter. And until more leftists start speaking out against this gender BS, it's really not a big deal to agree with one aspect that conservatives have as they're the only ones en masse so far trying to push back the trans dogma.