A review marred by the author’s desire to continue to receive cocktail party invitations.

General dysphoria is real, if rare. But men cannot become women nor women men, period. Most importantly the literature is not at all clear that dysphorics reach a better outcome by pretending they can.

Expand full comment

At the end his wife says “adult human female” not “biological human female” as you quote here. It was an excellent documentary that also reveals many of our issues in society come from our severing reasoning from actual reality. I was pleasantly surprised by how impressed I was with this documentary and remain unmoved by the gender ideologists insistence that it’s necessary to placate the delusions of others. These same people openly advocate for the genital mutilation and sterilization of children. When in human history have those people ever been the “good guys”?

I am a woman. It’s a birth right I’ve earned by actually being one. Thank you DW for speaking up for actual women and girls being robbed of our bodily safety, natural born biological identity, and hard earned rights to fair competition by a destructive and cruel ideology being promoted by some of the cruelest human beings in society today.

Expand full comment

And this OPINION piece is PRECISELY WHY the gender insanity is upon us at this time. The author wishes to retain the "liberal open mind" position. He is unsure if "trans" people are unwell.

Here's a clue, Sherlock: There are facts, and there are opinions. Men cannot become women. That is a fact. There is a sex binary. That is a fact. You can choose to not believe facts, or to believe them.

Those who have a complete faith and belief in falsehoods are either idiots or mentally ill. The "trans" delusion is based on false ideas, and the sooner that this is concluded, the better we will all be.

Basically, OP does not like the movie because he is not comfortable with either truth nor the confrontational style. It's going to take an effort to end this trans insanity, and "What is a woman?" certainly is a good start on that effort.

Expand full comment

I am revising my thoughts. The author is a clueless cuck.

"On the other hand, puberty itself is irreversible in the same way, which means these gender transition treatments are the most effective the earlier they are given. It follows, then, that puberty blockers and hormone therapy can be incredibly positive for transgender kids who don’t go on to regret their transition later in life. "

By this logic, we should allow confused gender-dysphoric kids to have their breasts removed because this might be "incredibly positive". They won't regret it until later, and they can have the breasts removed at 13, and this might be incredibly positive.

The abject, undeniable, clear stupidity of this position should be obvious to even the dumbest person. Children of 13 should not be allowed to do whatever they want. They are not adults. They have ideas uninformed by facts, consequences, or a fully formed brain.

We need policies that are good in the LONG RUN. These policies may disappoint confused, deluded children, but they will be best in the long run.

Here are sensible policies:

1) Don't encourage children with delusions. Do not allow children to pretend that they are the other gender, unless they are clear in the notion of pretence. Bearded ladies are funny on Halloween, but not on Nov 1

2) Do not interrupt natural processes. Puberty is what happens between childhood and adulthood. It's the price we pay to become adults.

3) Hormones which are for the other sex should ONLY be used for actual problems. Gender dysphoria is not a problem. It's a delusion.

4) If a child becomes confused with gender dysphoria, that child needs more chores and responsibilities.

One of the main reasons why children get gender dysphoria and remain in the dysphoric delusion is that parents affirm and condone this delusion. That is a key act - PARENTS SHOULD NOT AFFIRM, CONDONE, NOR TOLERATE THE GENDER DYSPHORIA.

Expand full comment

I often agree with the sentiments posted by authors in this Substack. But 99% of the transgender (broadly writ) conversation would not be enhanced by being nuanced as Mr. Slover wishes would happen. The actual gender dysphoria numbers are incredibly small even if one accepts the existence of the condition at face value (being in DSM does not make it real, but let us set that aside). Morphing all of society (William Briggs has an entertaining but pointed tongue-in-cheek piece on this today: https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/40280/) to support this fraction of one percent as if it is the most important thing in the world is the PROBLEM.

The movie, although clearly from a viewpoint, does an excellent job at exposing these charlatans for what they are. Biology is real. One cannot EVER change one's chromosome mix. Pretending it is a choice is guaranteed to lead to mostly bad outcomes -- as we are beginning to see -- not only for the patients but also for society.

I am all for adults being able to live as they wish as long as they do not make me do the same or force whatever they believe on me. When one starts permanently mutilating children or morphing things absurdly (see Briggs) to support some tiny fraction of people, this becomes a completely different conversation.

Finally, I believe most everyone has recognized over the past few years how captured and thus unreliable (yes, I am being kind here) the "experts" at anything are. Covid and climate come to mind as immediate prime examples. So the fact that some people are cleaning up by inventing most of this field and damaging people on the way (I feel the same about pediatric spikeshots, incidentally) is not to be lauded...nuanced or not.

Expand full comment

It's not so much his conservative views creeping into his film as your desire to appear more understanding and tolerant than the great unwashed without your perspectives. You are pandering under the pretense of greater enlightenment- a common scam these days among the Literati. I'm out. No more from you guys.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Everyone should see this film. I appreciate that FAIR is putting forth an opinion on this important topic of gender ideology, thank you. I agree we need a more nuanced, evidence-based approach than is often presented from most sources on the right. I agree that the film has flaws, but not the flaws you present.

#1: It’s unclear to me if Matt Walsh has the vision you say he does, of a world where all surgeries and drugs for altering one’s body to look like the opposite sex are illegal. He is examining the issue about kids, which should be a five-star alarm for everyone.

Many gender critical people do not share that vision, even as we believe the propaganda from this ideology to be harmful for adults as well. I have a friend who is a detransitioner who transitioned in her late 20s. She really thought she could become a man by undergoing this process, and it was a cruel lie. It did not make her happy. She now must live with the consequences of testosterone for the rest of her life. This is the story we will be hearing more and more.

What should be illegal is presenting such false narratives of salvation, that even adults believe. In a tolerant society, adults can make these choices, but they should not be lied to. The best part of the film was Scott (Kellie) Neugent speaking of the terrible personal cost of this lie. Scott has a passionate and moving mission to keep kids from being harmed in this way.

#2: As many feminists have pointed out, there are some sex-role stereotypes in the movie that do not celebrate gender non-conforming kids or adults. The pink and blue at the beginning. Matt Walsh’s boys may be into bb guns, and most boys may be that way, but there are boys who like to spin around in a tutu. His girls may be into wearing pink, but there are some girls who really dig dinosaurs and hate dresses. Many of those gender non-conforming kids turn out to be gay. Homosexuality is a different and very real and very measurable human state from “being trans.” For many of us in the gender critical community, we see the harms presented quite accurately in the movie as also being bad or these kids. I would have liked that perspective included.

The film tackles only one aspect of the harms of gender ideology being encoded in our laws and institutions: drugging and sterilizing and permanently altering children with surgeries they cannot consent to. For me, the faults in the film are minor. The viewer has a chance to hear from these “experts” themselves. Watch the film, listen to them, make up your own mind.

Expand full comment

Also how could you write this review without mentioning Scott Newgent? Matt’s bias is no secret, but he certainly presented many sides of the issue. Your ignoring Scott seems convenient. Matt and Scott are unlikely allies joined together by the common goal of saving children from a life of complications, pain, regret, medical dependence, sterilization and no sexual function/pleasure.

Expand full comment

I find it unfortunate that the author left without comment the two defenses of Judge Jackson's demurral. The notion "that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either" is pure balderdash. Competent biologists know, though many keep their lips zipped for reasons the author cites in the fourth paragraph. And the assertion "that scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a women" begs the question "Which scientists?" Social scientists perhaps, but evolutionary biologists know better. Ask Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, EB's who have had many trans students and treated them respectfully and affectionately, but they brook no nonsense about sexual binary.

Expand full comment

This article jumps the shark for what was a promising FAIR movement. I am leaving FAIR as a result of this article, and here is why. |Slover assumes that Matt Walsh must be wrong in some way because he is conservative, and Slover works hard in this article to present himself as the middle ground forward, presumably so that he can continue to be held in esteem by folks. For example, Grayson Slover writes:

" It follows, then, that puberty blockers and hormone therapy can be incredibly positive for transgender kids who don’t go on to regret their transition later in life."

Bye, I'm unsubscribing and no longer recommending FAIR to people.

Expand full comment

1 Grossman’s description of non social contagion gender dysphoria is there in the movie, regardless of Matt’s non reaction. I actually think he agrees with her definition.

2 He used that Santa analogy to show that CHILDREN (4 year olds) have an active imagination and certainly cannot declare themselves transgender.

3 No, children, their parents, doctors or CPS or the courts should NOT be allowed to choose the irreversible destruction of blockers, cross hormones and experimental surgeries for a child/patient rather than the natural process of puberty. That by definition is irresponsible, barbaric.

4 As a separate issue they should not be able to do these experimental things, for profit, to vulnerable young adults. At the very least, these adults should be allowed to sue their doctors when they suffer the horrific complications that were misrepresented to them.

Expand full comment

There appears to be a false statement made in the article: "about a transgender girl who sexually assaulted two girls in the women’s bathroom at two different high schools". The student in question sexually assaulted one student in one school in a bathroom, AND according to court proceedings abducted another girl in another school and forced her into a classroom (not a bathroom) where he forcibly touched her (either on or under her shirt). From an online report: "Loudoun County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Judge Pamela Brooks accepted the plea for abduction, which is a felony, and sexual battery, which is a misdemeanor" (https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2021/11/loudoun-county-teen-found-responsible-in-2nd-sexual-assault/


Expand full comment
Jun 22, 2022·edited Jun 22, 2022Liked by FAIR

I've been reading this discussion. It's difficult to find the words to respond. I am the parent of an adult transgender male. He and I have had many discussions about what is happening around trans discourse. We also have a lot of concerns about what is happening with youth and the possible "trending" going on. Yes, believe it or not, even though we are "in that world" we are concerned about narratives. And we are also terrified. I am terrified for my son. He isn't out recruiting or proselytizing. He wants to live a simple life and be left alone. In fact, this new focus on the transgender community has caused him to isolate even more. I am terrified by the hatred, some of it being perpetuated by progressive actions that actually do more harm than good, but also by flattened conversations that do not recognize individual experiences and seek to objectify people rather than see them as humans. I am terrified for my son's life (his physical life and his emotional well-being). Regardless of your understanding, belief system, or definition of what defines a woman or a man, there is a human being with a story. I ask you to keep this in mind. I understand the fear, I do. I don't trust anyone these days and I don't want policies in schools or medical facilities that determine a minor's trajectory about medical procedures, identity, etc. This is very personal and I'm glad there are resources for people who find themselves in this position. Trust me, when my son came to me 13 years ago about his identity (as a legal adult), I was filled with some dread. Mostly because I lived in fear of his safety and well-being. But my love as a mother determined that I would always stand by him. That doesn't mean I want to push an agenda on anyone, but we do need to have the right kind of dialogue about these issues and one that doesn't keep polarizing us more and more. This movie scares me because it is very biased, even if it does have good points. It galvanizes people in their sense of outrage and superiority. This is especially so because we are distanced from one another through social media and sound bites. When you have a relationship with someone who falls into the outcast category, it's a very different experience.

So I ramble. My heart aches. I suspect I will receive some vitriol. I do hope we can continue good dialogue around this issue and others.

Expand full comment
Jun 22, 2022·edited Jun 22, 2022

I’ve watched it twice. Matt Walsh didn’t do anything except ask them to explain themselves. It is no one’s doing but their own that they sounded like fools. The plain and simple fact is that you cannot pick your gender. And telling even a gender dysphoric child anything other than that truth is flat out wrong. And allowing a child to do experimental medical treatments that have life altering health consequences is child abuse. I’ve raised 4 children and seen the mental capacities as they grow up- they are not capable of understanding what’s happening. And even if transitioned, they are never truly their chosen gender and you who told them otherwise have deceived them. I disagree with your assessment.

And by the way discounting what happened to those teen girls in VA at the hands of the trans kid is extremely out of line. My heart aches for them and their families. You have no idea how scary it can be to be a woman or have daughters and the damage that sexual assault does to a person. Shame on you for that one.

Expand full comment

I loved the movie and am happy someone had the guts to stand up against the lunacy of this movement. I disagree with the premise of your review that this movie is a “flawed attempt at a necessary conversation” I think Matt did an exceptional job with his interviews and questioning and in showing the dangers behind this movement- pointing out the financial gains to big pharma at the expense of young lives.

Expand full comment