Slover's editorial is prejudiced toward the political left's position. He soft-peddles the left's failings in this matter and makes unsound critiques of What Is A Woman?
Slover says the reason so many refuse to define 'woman' is because, "gender just is not worth expressing an opinion on for most people who wish to remain in the good grac…
Slover's editorial is prejudiced toward the political left's position. He soft-peddles the left's failings in this matter and makes unsound critiques of What Is A Woman?
Slover says the reason so many refuse to define 'woman' is because, "gender just is not worth expressing an opinion on for most people who wish to remain in the good graces of polite society."
This is incorrect. The correct statement is "gender just is not worth expressing an opinion on for ANYONE who wishes to remain in the good graces of THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT."
It is America's political left, not the right, that refuses to define terms. As shown at the end of What Is A Woman?, Walsh is happy to define 'woman' as "an adult, human female." This is the common definition found on the right and, likely, even within the minds of millions of left-leaning Americans. But this definition cannot be accepted by the progressive wing of the left, because it is anathema to the progressive left's ideological dogma of self-definition. Few precepts are so sacrosanct to the progressive left as the notion "you define who you are; let no one impinge upon your identity." This is logically followed by the moral command "Thou shalt not impinge upon the identity of another." The problem, of course, is that objective definitions impinge upon identities that contradict the definition. If an adult, human male identifies as a woman, but the definition of a woman is "an adult, human female," then the defintion disclaims his identity, impinging upon it. Since it is heresy within the progressive cult to impinge upon someone's identity (especially an alledgedly marginalized, transgender person), those who would remain in the good graces of progressive society must avoid making an objective definition of the word 'woman' at all costs. This is why those on the right are happy to state an objective definition of 'woman,' while only those on the left avoid the question like the plague.
This also explains What Is A Woman? receives virtually no engagement from critics. America's entertainment space is dominated by progressives, to whom Walsh's documentary is all but blasphemy. Walsh has expressed on his daily show that he has received vicious comments from critics who refuse to give press to the documentary, condemning it as transphobia and bigotry. There is an element of fear in this disengagement since any progressive who would give the documentary press would risk censure if not excommunication from the progressive cult. But, beyond fear, there is also anger and hostility. To the pious progressive, What Is A Woman? is a heretical film, fit only for curses and damnation. It is something to be fought against, not considered. This rationale for disengagement is not, as Slover claims, driven by fear of discussions of gender by the public at large, but by fear and anger that is uniquely created by the progressive cult.
Slover also slanders Walsh when he says, "another 'objective truth' that viewers are taught in the film is that nobody can legitimately be transgender." Slover later says, "Dr. Miriam Grossman, explains the importance of distinguishing between the people who genuinely have gender dysphoria and what is happening today, where kids with no history of discomfort with their biological sex seem to be getting swept up in a social contagion, in which transgender people are not merely accepted but lionized. This distinction, of course, doesn’t align with Walsh’s narrative that nobody actually has gender dysphoria, so he simply moves right along pretending that Dr. Grossman never mentioned it."
Slover is simply wrong here. Walsh knew what Grossman said, and he agrees with it. Walsh never states or establishes a "narrative" that no actual cases of gender dysphoria exist. What Walsh is stating is that if a man (a male) feels that he is a woman (a female), that feeling does not make him a woman. This is what Walsh means when he uses the phrases "men who think they are women" or "men pretending to be women." I myself am old enough to remember when transgenderism was described with the phrase "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body." Today, the narrative has changed. Today, the body is no longer acknowledged to be a man's body. Today the phrase is "some women's bodies have penises." Walsh is pointing out the absurdity of this claim, made tenable only by keeping the definition of 'woman' amorphous and disconnected from the traditional definition of 'adult, human female.' Walsh agrees a man might have a cognitive disorder in which he feels like a woman (gender dysmorphia), but Walsh contests the modern claim that such a feeling means the individual is a woman.
Slover makes additional slanderous ad hominem attacks on Walsh by saying Walsh reveals "himself as a provocateur by inserting some silly and offensive non-sequitur" when Walsh "compares transgenderism to trans-ableism...where an able-bodied person identifies as disabled." Far from being non-sequitur, there is a known cognitive disorder in which people feel that certain body parts do not actually belong on their body. Some have gone so far as to cut off parts of their bodies in order to be rid of the intrusive-feeling parts. Transableism is an incredibly relevant subject since it raises questions that are parallel to those of transgenderism. At a minimum, for a person to feel his hand does not actually belong on his body reveals that it's possible for there to be a severe disconnect between the human mind and an otherwise healthy and normal body. Furthermore, if we agree that the right treatment for such a disconnect is treatment of the mind rather than amputation of the hand, then we agree that, in such cases of disconnect, we should seek alteration of the feeling rather than the body. Now map those questions and answers onto the subject of transgenderism. Is it possible for there to be a disconnect between a man's mind and his body such that he feels like he's a woman even though he's not? In such a case, is it then also proper to seek treatment of the mind rather than alteration of the body, as in the case of transableism? Comparing transgenderism with tranableism in such a way reveals the self-contradiction in modern America's psychological prescriptions. America's psychological medical authorities do not approve of a man cutting off his hand in order to affirm his identity as a "one-handed individual." But they do approve of a man cutting his penis into a faux vagina in order to affirm his transgender identity. Why? Walsh compares the two to highlight the contradiction of logic on the part of America's medical establishment.
Sadly, this seems lost on Slover, who instead claims these thoughts are merely those of a "provocateur" invoking "some silly and offensive non-sequitur." Asking relevant questions does not a provocateur make, the implications of the questions are deeply sobering, not silly, and the logical consistency is anything but non-sequitur." And offensive? Come on, Slover, now you're just talking like one of the cultists.
Slover is right when he says America needs discussion about transgenderism. But we need honest discussion. Soft-peddling the progressive left's abiding failures on the subject of transgenderism and falsely slandering critics who ask appropriate questions isn't honest discussion. Sadly, that's what Slover has here given us.
I found this passage in your comment very apt. (Sorry for not fixing the quotation marks, too hard with my thumbs.)
“" I myself am old enough to remember when transgenderism was described with the phrase "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body." Today, the narrative has changed. Today, the body is no longer acknowledged to be a man's body. Today the phrase is "some women's bodies have penises."”
Exactly. You know, I think this is the best possible steelman argument for the idea that trans women are women. It’s not only genitals and hip width and mammaries that vary between male and female. It’s also brains. If this were not true, stereotypical gender roles would either be entirely socially determined, and would vary wildly from one society to the next rather than having at least some commonalities across the globe, or they wouldn’t exist. I could imagine theorizing that treating an individual with such a brain as if they were a woman might produce a happier individual. That would depend on outcome data, which at present are not terribly favorable to this position but who knows, new studies might demonstrate otherwise. And if this were the ask for the minuscule number of actual persistent dysphorics, most people would be fine going along.
But this isn’t about that anymore. It’s about proclaiming all of reality is socially determined and thus up for radical, revolutionary change.
Slover's editorial is prejudiced toward the political left's position. He soft-peddles the left's failings in this matter and makes unsound critiques of What Is A Woman?
Slover says the reason so many refuse to define 'woman' is because, "gender just is not worth expressing an opinion on for most people who wish to remain in the good graces of polite society."
This is incorrect. The correct statement is "gender just is not worth expressing an opinion on for ANYONE who wishes to remain in the good graces of THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT."
It is America's political left, not the right, that refuses to define terms. As shown at the end of What Is A Woman?, Walsh is happy to define 'woman' as "an adult, human female." This is the common definition found on the right and, likely, even within the minds of millions of left-leaning Americans. But this definition cannot be accepted by the progressive wing of the left, because it is anathema to the progressive left's ideological dogma of self-definition. Few precepts are so sacrosanct to the progressive left as the notion "you define who you are; let no one impinge upon your identity." This is logically followed by the moral command "Thou shalt not impinge upon the identity of another." The problem, of course, is that objective definitions impinge upon identities that contradict the definition. If an adult, human male identifies as a woman, but the definition of a woman is "an adult, human female," then the defintion disclaims his identity, impinging upon it. Since it is heresy within the progressive cult to impinge upon someone's identity (especially an alledgedly marginalized, transgender person), those who would remain in the good graces of progressive society must avoid making an objective definition of the word 'woman' at all costs. This is why those on the right are happy to state an objective definition of 'woman,' while only those on the left avoid the question like the plague.
This also explains What Is A Woman? receives virtually no engagement from critics. America's entertainment space is dominated by progressives, to whom Walsh's documentary is all but blasphemy. Walsh has expressed on his daily show that he has received vicious comments from critics who refuse to give press to the documentary, condemning it as transphobia and bigotry. There is an element of fear in this disengagement since any progressive who would give the documentary press would risk censure if not excommunication from the progressive cult. But, beyond fear, there is also anger and hostility. To the pious progressive, What Is A Woman? is a heretical film, fit only for curses and damnation. It is something to be fought against, not considered. This rationale for disengagement is not, as Slover claims, driven by fear of discussions of gender by the public at large, but by fear and anger that is uniquely created by the progressive cult.
Slover also slanders Walsh when he says, "another 'objective truth' that viewers are taught in the film is that nobody can legitimately be transgender." Slover later says, "Dr. Miriam Grossman, explains the importance of distinguishing between the people who genuinely have gender dysphoria and what is happening today, where kids with no history of discomfort with their biological sex seem to be getting swept up in a social contagion, in which transgender people are not merely accepted but lionized. This distinction, of course, doesn’t align with Walsh’s narrative that nobody actually has gender dysphoria, so he simply moves right along pretending that Dr. Grossman never mentioned it."
Slover is simply wrong here. Walsh knew what Grossman said, and he agrees with it. Walsh never states or establishes a "narrative" that no actual cases of gender dysphoria exist. What Walsh is stating is that if a man (a male) feels that he is a woman (a female), that feeling does not make him a woman. This is what Walsh means when he uses the phrases "men who think they are women" or "men pretending to be women." I myself am old enough to remember when transgenderism was described with the phrase "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body." Today, the narrative has changed. Today, the body is no longer acknowledged to be a man's body. Today the phrase is "some women's bodies have penises." Walsh is pointing out the absurdity of this claim, made tenable only by keeping the definition of 'woman' amorphous and disconnected from the traditional definition of 'adult, human female.' Walsh agrees a man might have a cognitive disorder in which he feels like a woman (gender dysmorphia), but Walsh contests the modern claim that such a feeling means the individual is a woman.
Slover makes additional slanderous ad hominem attacks on Walsh by saying Walsh reveals "himself as a provocateur by inserting some silly and offensive non-sequitur" when Walsh "compares transgenderism to trans-ableism...where an able-bodied person identifies as disabled." Far from being non-sequitur, there is a known cognitive disorder in which people feel that certain body parts do not actually belong on their body. Some have gone so far as to cut off parts of their bodies in order to be rid of the intrusive-feeling parts. Transableism is an incredibly relevant subject since it raises questions that are parallel to those of transgenderism. At a minimum, for a person to feel his hand does not actually belong on his body reveals that it's possible for there to be a severe disconnect between the human mind and an otherwise healthy and normal body. Furthermore, if we agree that the right treatment for such a disconnect is treatment of the mind rather than amputation of the hand, then we agree that, in such cases of disconnect, we should seek alteration of the feeling rather than the body. Now map those questions and answers onto the subject of transgenderism. Is it possible for there to be a disconnect between a man's mind and his body such that he feels like he's a woman even though he's not? In such a case, is it then also proper to seek treatment of the mind rather than alteration of the body, as in the case of transableism? Comparing transgenderism with tranableism in such a way reveals the self-contradiction in modern America's psychological prescriptions. America's psychological medical authorities do not approve of a man cutting off his hand in order to affirm his identity as a "one-handed individual." But they do approve of a man cutting his penis into a faux vagina in order to affirm his transgender identity. Why? Walsh compares the two to highlight the contradiction of logic on the part of America's medical establishment.
Sadly, this seems lost on Slover, who instead claims these thoughts are merely those of a "provocateur" invoking "some silly and offensive non-sequitur." Asking relevant questions does not a provocateur make, the implications of the questions are deeply sobering, not silly, and the logical consistency is anything but non-sequitur." And offensive? Come on, Slover, now you're just talking like one of the cultists.
Slover is right when he says America needs discussion about transgenderism. But we need honest discussion. Soft-peddling the progressive left's abiding failures on the subject of transgenderism and falsely slandering critics who ask appropriate questions isn't honest discussion. Sadly, that's what Slover has here given us.
I found this passage in your comment very apt. (Sorry for not fixing the quotation marks, too hard with my thumbs.)
“" I myself am old enough to remember when transgenderism was described with the phrase "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body." Today, the narrative has changed. Today, the body is no longer acknowledged to be a man's body. Today the phrase is "some women's bodies have penises."”
Exactly. You know, I think this is the best possible steelman argument for the idea that trans women are women. It’s not only genitals and hip width and mammaries that vary between male and female. It’s also brains. If this were not true, stereotypical gender roles would either be entirely socially determined, and would vary wildly from one society to the next rather than having at least some commonalities across the globe, or they wouldn’t exist. I could imagine theorizing that treating an individual with such a brain as if they were a woman might produce a happier individual. That would depend on outcome data, which at present are not terribly favorable to this position but who knows, new studies might demonstrate otherwise. And if this were the ask for the minuscule number of actual persistent dysphorics, most people would be fine going along.
But this isn’t about that anymore. It’s about proclaiming all of reality is socially determined and thus up for radical, revolutionary change.
This is a better critique than Slover's. Better written, and more incisive.