Nah, the Bible clearly goes into "non gendered" exceptions it all started with Greek which is even further by that of enunchs b***h made sissy men to keep track of real men's harems
No one cares about your tired diatribe sorry idiot. And I’m 100% correct, NO ONE with talent or any position in the industry wants to associate with Daily Wire.
Your little tribe is going to be regarded for the feral, deranged subset/offshoot of homosexual sapien it is in the very short future. Enjoy your little moment though I guess.
I’m not Christian you moronic bot.
What is a woman?
What you will never be.
As if anyone is going to read that word salad brick wall. The left can’t meme. And the reason for it is because the truth is simple and elegant. Thus their ugly inelegant lies are impossible to simplify. Truly pathetic to anyone with a half functional cortex.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Where did I say you were a Christian? Can you read?
He legit just sits there, asks basic questions about middle school biology and watches the mentally ill interviewee tie themselves in knots, cry or run out.
>Self-reported study
Oh no, you're braindead.
I just made a study >Did you ever meet the dumbest person on the planet?
Yes it's this poster with this post.
They're just more honest. Everyone knows that conservicucks always lie. People who recognize that they might have mental issues are way more stable than lying morons who pretend everything's fine.
It's also confirmed by personality psychology that libtards suffer from much, much higher degrees of neurosis
Also there is no rational reason to assume that self reporting would skew these results to any significant degree. Do you think EVERYONE is as mentally unwell as the average libtard?
>guy starts actually giving an answer
He wasn't giving an actual answer , he was dancing around the question. His answer didn't define what a woman was - his answer was "a woman can be anything" which he knows doesn't actually answer the question. So instead of actually answering the question and defining a woman he started rambling about his political theories on why you can't define a woman.
This is the kind of mental gymnastics that hardcore partisan ideologues engage in - it's essentially just irrational religious zealotry
>guy starts actually giving an answer
He wasn't giving an actual answer , he was dancing around the question. His answer didn't define what a woman was - his answer was "a woman can be anything" which he knows doesn't actually answer the question. So instead of actually answering the question and defining a woman he started rambling about his political theories on why you can't define a woman.
This is the kind of mental gymnastics that hardcore partisan ideologues engage in - it's essentially just irrational religious zealotry
Why the frick would a story start with a quote from someone who has not been introduced with no preface? Jesus Christ the level of bait pictures on Cinemaphile is at an all-time low.
>smarmy editing joke
When does this happen? All he does is interrupt when he sees something completely incoherent, like if the argument is "if you identify as one" then he just asks if he is a woman and they can't answer
>goes off on unrelated tangent >gets asked again what it is >immediately tries pilpul >get asked again what a woman is instead of dodging the question >WELL I WANT TO HEAR YOUR ANSWER
This is a non-answer and explains nothing, hjust because every time he asks the question this mindless relativistic drivel comes out like verbal diarrhea it doesn't mean they're actually answering, in fact it's the exact opposite, they're dancing around having to give a concise definition by waxing poetically about "myh truth" when the simple reality is that they can't give a solid answer, if they say a woman is a person who is biologically female then they're being "transphobic" and if they say a woman is any person who chooses to call themselves a woman then they're betraying their feminist allies who are crying about "protect le wahmen" right now over abortion, but biological men don't ever need abortion no matter how big their bolt-ons are.
Adult human female.
Human with XX chromosomes.
Two concise definitions, neither 5 words long, none uses the term woman.
See, it's easy if you're not an intellectually dishonest frick.
>with XX chromosomes
You should adjust it to "without a Y chromosome".
It's Y that makes someone a male, female is just default.
only saying this because else you get the "durr what about xxy"
Right, but I kinda like to fish for the idiot lefties who will then try to insist that intersex disorders somehow relate to gender dysphoria, so then I can slap them with the fact that no correlation has ever been found between syndromes like Turners or Klinefelters and sexual identity.
2 years ago
Anonymous
are "the lefties" in the room with you right now? as i'm not seeing anyone in this thread who thinks transgenderism is real.
2 years ago
Anonymous
nice dubs
define real. I think it's real as in an artificial construct, and as a societal point
the fact that dysphoria is an accepted idea for trans' shows that being a trans woman is a concept derivative of a cis woman. If a female identity wasn't defaulty granted to natural born females and didn't need to be established in a natural born male who's claiming to be trans, we wouldn't be having a debate.
The trans open minded definition would contradict itself by both saying "you needn't be female assigned at birth to be a female" simultaneously with "a woman can be any living person and it has no bearing on your birth genitalia or chromosomes" because the identity of females is a construct originating to the idea of being of the female sex. And differentiating sex and gender doesn't solve this issue either simply because there is nobody in the lgbtq community who would dare say "this person may be this gender, but their sex is not the same"
Leftists always cry about the "Leftists can't meme" meme, but they just can't help themselves and just keep posting these giant mindboggling text walls, why is that? Is it perhaps because your ideology is unnatural so you have to overexplain it to the point in which the words lose all meaning?
If you account for factors like the priesthood being 100% male whereas educators are majorily female, but 90% of child diddlers are men, then the percentual difference becomes small to non-existence (the latter being claimed mostly by pro-vatican studies). The remaining difference is usually explained by the catholic church's hierarchy. Big corporations move problematic managers to different branches instead of firing them because they earn money and have strings to pull, the catholic church operates the same. Being a kindergarten teacher is a shit job at a local institution that doesn't offer the same institutional protection from being persecuted, but that's all. Catholic priests are completely average otherwise, which is bad enough for a moral institution.
>department of education keeps records on catholic priest sexual abuse rates, and also publishes comparative statistics for some reason
you're not even trying
>reports it as soon as evidence comes to light
lol you're a moron if you don't think schools protect their own. My 8th grade geography teacher got caught taking creepshots up girls skirts and all that happened was he disappeared for half a year and then he just came back. He would also take naps and drink behind his walled off desk and this was a "good" school.
on an institutional level, schools do not protect child molesters. there's a big difference between protecting criminals, on an institutional/policy level, than a few locals thinking their friend couldn't have sodomized that boy over and over until he started thinking he was actually a girl.
1. There’s more public school teachers than Catholic priests.
2. The abuse scandals in the church were and continue to be hugely underreported. Christian parents would rather sacrifice their own children on the altar of pedophiles than dare raise their voice against the church.
Why is "muh groomers" always the goto response to anyone defending trannies? How does people wanting to change their gender have anything to do with grooming kids? This is a serious question.
asking kids things like >do you really think you're a boy
automatically causes them to question things in a manner in which they won't be able to answer. and since the transgender community currently believes the only way to pass is to start hormone therapy years before puberty, it's a pretty obvious connection.
Nice dubs. I haven't studied this, but from my understanding the idea of trans grooming only comes from the fact people are allowing kids to get these hormone blockers and sex changes, putting to the wayside the consequences what it will do to them going forward. Well that and the pride movement's rampant sexuality comingling with the advocation that "there's nothing wrong with lgbtq ergo we should let kids me in on this too" in awkward ways. What I don't know is how steadfast the communities are at quashing relating kids into these sexual spaces; for example furries as a community don't do shit to denounce zoophilia, which gives them the reputation of defending dogfrickers. What I don't know is how similar these two examples are.
This documentary actually convinced me that gender theory is more right than wrong. The main premise this guy went around asking was for a definition of a woman. He can easily get that from a dictionary.
But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth. Yet, for some reason he keeps harping on that woman = female. It's apples and oranges.
Even the chicken example was ridiculous too. Our understanding of gender for humans has superseded biological definitions for sex, yet he purposely conflates it as well. We don't call female chickens "women" - they're not fricking humans.
Overall it was a pretty disingenuous piece of commentary but can totally get the appeal if you're still someone living in the past.
Women are female humans
He went around asking the mentally ill progs a simple question in order to show normal people how fricking dumb these gender theorists are. And it succeeded.
If you support gender identity you're a sexist
A girl like masculine things doesn't make her a man. It makes her a tomboy
Gender identity is solely based on what you homosexuals think another sex feels like
If gender identity and sex aren't the same why do you have to change your sex to make your gender >Living in the past
No one believes that it changed your view
You were always pro troony. Go back to plebbit freak
>Gender identity is solely based on what you homosexuals think another sex feels like
It's a sexual fetish, especially with MtF trannies who all dress like hyperfeminine dolls and want to be treated as sex slaves. It's hyper-submissive behaviour in response to the ruthless competitiveness of current society. If their dad hugged them once in a while they wouldn't bother.
That was exactly his point though. Gender identity to them is a feeling that doesnt mean anything and can change on a whim. Ultimately anyone who identifies as a woman and is believed to be sincere is a woman to these people, so the term woman becomes meaningless.
Since it's apples and oranges, they need to stop using the terminology of biology (man/woman, male/female) and come up with something different.
Also
>living in the past
Check the picture. People are turning away from troony ideology the more its forced on them
> they need to stop using the terminology of biology (man/woman, male/female) and come up with something different.
There already is a terminology that is widely accepted to indicate what progs say is gender.
The terminology is masculine/feminine.
The problem with those words is that they are unambitious. It's much harder to justify a feminine man using the women's bathroom, compared to doing the same for ftm women, even if both those definitions mean the same shit.
Or just make a country for mentally ill people who want to dress up and play pretend, let's say the Bay area. Then God can smite them when they're all gathered together
>But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth
That is a very loose and unfalsifiable definition that approximates the non-answer that the left wing ideologues tried to give him in an attempt to avoid giving him s concrete answer which would reveal how untenable their beliefs are
What some individual might choose to give as an answer in a hypothetical situation does not affect the reality of what a woman is. Try something different if you have a point to make
>Our understanding of gender for humans has superseded biological definitions for sex,
No, it hasn't. It's a specific ideological and anti scientific delusion that has populated the minds of the modern western left wing. Your understanding of gender is akin to applying horoscopes to evolution. >But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth
No, they don't see a difference between the two inherently and that's why Matt Walsh interviewed the African tribe who weren't raised in or around your insane left wing cult. The fact you've instead doubled down on your beliefs through making a series of grand assumptions and strawman arguments is even further prove that your beliefs are irrational and emotionally biased.
>But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth.
No, they ARE referring to their sex assigned at birth. Just because someone likes stereotypical girly things like wearing dresses that doesn't make them a woman, just a sissy man.
when you ask an average person 50 years ago if a feminine presenting person is a woman they would say yes. if you undressed the same feminine presenting person and they saw this person has a penis then they would say this is not a woman. they would say it would be a man presenting themselves in a feminine way and that their initial assessment was wrong. there would be no confusion. you're muddying the waters by claiming that >But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth
Gender “identity” is just a dumb person’s way of interpreting gender roles. Men that want to be in the role of a woman feel a strong attachment to everything stereotypically seen as female and therefore decides that his identity is that of a woman. This is apparent if you look at other cultures that have “third” genders or have one gender assume the role of the other gender. For example, some boys in Hawaii will be raised as girls if there is a lack of women to fulfill that role. Therefore they will take the role of a woman and do tasks typically seen as a woman’s work (cleaning, cooking, etc.)
For all those people who think the “what is a woman” question is just a culture war trope, it’s actually a great way to find out if someone is a liar or not. Because everyone knows what a woman is, so if they hedge or avoid, they’re lying. A good politician test.
The israelites pushed transgenderism in Weimar Germany too. It won't last to the end of the decade / the middle of next decade. Ex-trannies are already suing doctors for pushing surgeries and hormones on them.
Current troonyism is an Obama-Biden era anomaly. Obama brought this aura of messianism to the Left that has been rapidly spiralling into incoherence with the rise of Trump and populism in general. The general public don't want transgenderism. It's an elitist sect of perversion and mind control.
If you are currently stuck in this mind trap pray to God and it will literally evaporate from your mind within a week.
>Due to a high volume of moderation traffic, reviews for this title are hidden at this time. Reviews remain visible on members’ profiles, with the exception of those removed for violating our Community Policy.
SHUT IT DOWN
The pro-troony people just evade the question or do mental gymnastics. He asks a black African tribe and they don't even understand what he's asking at first, then they start laughing hysterically. Its good shit
>edited out
where did anyone say that? be sure to read posts very carefully.
, I just replied to one of the more sensible sounding posts in the hopes to get an actual answer instead of shitposting. With that much talk about dishonest editing, I assume they all base their claims on some source I don't know about
almost like simple defntions can not explain the sheer vastness of human expierance
which that alone shuts down the holy shitty documentary
2 years ago
Anonymous
So humans aren't bipedal?
2 years ago
Anonymous
humans are bipedal*
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's how it already is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Definitions may not, but chromosomes do.
XX-female.
XY-male.
And yes, this includes whoever has less or more of those, a single X is still a woman, an XYYYY is still a man, intersex is not a magical third sex, it's a genetic defect that results mainly in learning disabilities, there is no demonstrated link between these disorders and sexual identity or orientation.
Your "gender dysphoria" (Read: mental illness) does not change basic biological reality anymore than having bodily dismorphia like anorexia means it is healthy to starve yourself to death.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Experience shuts down anyone claiming they're the opposite gender because it already stems from a self-referential state.
Definitions may not, but chromosomes do.
XX-female.
XY-male.
And yes, this includes whoever has less or more of those, a single X is still a woman, an XYYYY is still a man, intersex is not a magical third sex, it's a genetic defect that results mainly in learning disabilities, there is no demonstrated link between these disorders and sexual identity or orientation.
Your "gender dysphoria" (Read: mental illness) does not change basic biological reality anymore than having bodily dismorphia like anorexia means it is healthy to starve yourself to death.
You're bringing up the material, i.e. chromosomes, to someone bringing up experience, the immaterial. You're not going to get anywhere. I mean, neither is that person, but you're both in different realms -- even though I agree with you.
This documentary actually convinced me that gender theory is more right than wrong. The main premise this guy went around asking was for a definition of a woman. He can easily get that from a dictionary.
But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth. Yet, for some reason he keeps harping on that woman = female. It's apples and oranges.
Even the chicken example was ridiculous too. Our understanding of gender for humans has superseded biological definitions for sex, yet he purposely conflates it as well. We don't call female chickens "women" - they're not fricking humans.
Overall it was a pretty disingenuous piece of commentary but can totally get the appeal if you're still someone living in the past.
It's not really disingenuous because the question is generally answered with some circular reasoning -- the most common I see is "Someone who identifies as X." Let alone getting into the issue of intuiting experience and some imbeciles going so far as linking gender -- claimed to be a social construct -- with the material reality -- i.e. brain structures. Can't have it both ways.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>expierance
how did you frick this word up so badly lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
to act as if definitions are laughable is to be irrational, learn what “in principle” means and you will have 100% solved your moronation, also ywnbaw
Are you guys really this fricking restarted ? This is sub Saharan African restarted. The bases for this shit is fricking israelites in the desert smoking DMT . And you fricking idiots gladly pay for it .
Why the frick am I not doing the right wing grift you fricking morons will pay for anything .
I don't care if people want to play pretend or express themselves how ever they want but you'll never actually be able to change biological reality, sex change operations can only fashion a crude simulacra of the real thing and taking opposite sex hormones is moronic.
>/misc/ incels subhumans vs troony incel subhumans
This has been my favorite entertainment on the internet the last few years. It's the same pool of losers but on vastly different paths. Don't mistake this for troony support, they are insane freak incels who become women because of fetishes and self loathing.
It was interesting how absolutely afraid most people were to answer this question.
Our society is very sick.
The gay gender studies professor was absolutely terrified to be on camera answering that question.
The Congressman just completely aimlessly blabbered and panicked for about 2 minutes before abruptly terminating the interview without answering the question.
This is how completely empty and unsupported the whole trans ideology is. Just being asked this one question and actually asking them to answer it, completely btfos the entire thing, because it REQUIRES doublethink to accept both that the category of "Woman" exists in the world and that the only qualifier for "Woman" is that a person believes that they are a Woman.
Basically it's either a total social construct or it isn't. If it is, then why the surgeries and hormones, etc? Obviously a woman is "an adult female human" so what they are really wanting is to imitate female biology. If it isn't a pure construct (It isn't) then we have to accept at some point that these people are delusional and need treatment. Now it is politically incorrect to even call transexual surgeries a treatment, since it is considered an "affirmation" of what was true all along, that they were female. It's so riddled with insanity that I don't know how we got here.
Reminder to all lurking people here who think they are transsexual. Please seek real help, not simply someone who is going to agree with your delusion and push you into body destroying surgeries and hormones that you cannot reverse. Hormone blockers are irreversible as well, you cannot just magically stop puberty.
You are the sex you were born as. It is immutable. Please learn to love and accept your body. Only by that path will you find true happiness and peace. The other path is a nightmare more terrible than you can possibly imagine.
a woman is someone who identifies as a woman
that is literally it
if you think that is circler reasoning you are right, gender is nonsensical like that
>a woman is someone who identifies as a woman
No. It is not.
A woman is an adult human female.
No identity involved. It is a set of biological facts, not feeling.
Like with Cassie Jaye's The Red Pill, they adamantly refuse to watch these types of documentaries or anything that so much as questions their world view, that doesn't preclude them from making preposterous claims and character assassination pieces about both the films and their authors.
>HAHAHAHAH SO THIS HORSE IS A CHAIR HAHAHAH I GOT YOU I OWNED YOU HAHAHAHHA YES THIS UNRELATED QUESTION YOU HAVE ANSWERED INCORRECTLY (as per MY conditions, of course) HAS DESTROYED YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT YES I TROLLED YOU EPIC STYLE JUST LIKE MY HEROES ON TWITTER
And to keep it on the topic of Cinemaphile, I don't Walsh pushed deep enough into this. First half could have been the cavalcade of gender woo dummies, latter half could have been more focused on why this is important. Still enjoyed watching gender commies expose their ignorance 8/10 tbh
I don't like trannies and don't agree with their philosophy but the documentary was garbage. You know the "dishonest film making" meme nobody can agree on what it means? This is the decoder. >Interviewing nutjobs from the other side to ridicule them >Editing around their answers >Dedicating 1/3 of the documentary to self-wank the director
This is no better than leftist docs interviewing rednecks to somehow prove a point. It's a documentary made only to reinforce views, not discuss them.
Then why was it so difficult for them to say what a woman is? Shouldn't the interviews be too short to edit if they had an answer and Matt was trying to make them look bad? What answer do you infer they were trying to say?
>why was it so difficult for them to say what a woman is?
Because he wasn't starting with the question >can you define woman, without using the word woman
his initial question is disingenuous and he simply repeats it when he doesn't get the answer he wants. it's about on the same level as saying >can you spell ICUP
and then getting testy when people say >i'm not going to spell that.
>Then why was it so difficult for them to say what a woman is?
Any person, troony or not, should be able to answer that question in a normal conversation, but when there's a smug butthole (take a look at his body language during the interview with them) pressing them into it in front of a camera for a documentary they fumble the frick up. Add to that intentional editing (very clear during colored hair professor) and cherry picked nutjobs (dude who think he's an animal) and you get non-answers. Lmao, even the people he got to interview from his own side sounded crazy, but he framed them in a better light. The woman doctor was spouting textbook /misc/ opinions, going so far as mentioning ~~*(forces*~~), but differently from the leftist doctor, he framed her in front of several PhD, accolades and kept and used every clip where she directly agreed with him in multiple parts of the doc.
>Shouldn't the interviews be too short to edit if they had an answer and Matt was trying to make them look bad?
Aside from the dude who cut it short and walked out, they were pretty long. It's obvious from the cuts that they were talking for a much longer time than shown from the wild changes in talking points from cut to cut.
>What answer do you infer they were trying to say?
Whatever they believed in, which is the point of a documentary, but a good one wouldn't ridicule the people being interviewed. The only two decent people were botched FtM dude and Peterson. Obviously. One agreed entirely with the director, so of course he'd keep most of it in, and the other is a charismatic and acclaimed philosopher that also agrees and doesn't challenges the directors view. This is the core of why the doc is garbage: Not for a second is the interviewer actually challenged. A good doc, left or right, allows for discussion, not masturbation like he did in the last part of the movie. The bit with his wife was fricking stupid.
hey, I read your post, and while I haven't seen the movie it and other posts here give me the insight that this movie's a waste of time and an expensive /misc/ bant. Your efforts were not wasted, at least to me. Thanks.
>Whatever they believed in, which is the point of a documentary, but a good one wouldn't ridicule the people being interviewed
the entire point of the doc is the "people" being interviewed can't answer a question that everyone has known the answer to since they were born since the beginning of time. it was to demonstrate they do not live in the reality of 99.99% of people. they make themselves look ridiculous
>why was it so difficult for them to say what a woman is?
Because he wasn't starting with the question >can you define woman, without using the word woman
his initial question is disingenuous and he simply repeats it when he doesn't get the answer he wants. it's about on the same level as saying >can you spell ICUP
and then getting testy when people say >i'm not going to spell that.
ask stupid questions, get stupid answers. but that was the entire point of the documentary.
proof that he edited out the real answers? professors therapists and surgeons aren't "nut jobs" and their answers are completely consistend with the deconstructivist philosophy you find everywhere in the modern left.
The bad part of the documentary is that its anti-trans voices rely on one single psychologists who disagrees with the mainstream and one troony who regretted transitioning. That's not a basis for a counter argument. You can find two idiots who agree with you on every topic, even idiots with degrees.
And troony activists all rely on John Money's (israelite pedo) doctrine they don't use anyone else his axiom is where they base their gender theories on
john money didn't invent the idea of ascribing masculine/feminine characteristics to people, things, concepts, behaviors, etc.
the basic thesis of all of his (desperate to publish or perish) output isn't much more than >what we call masculine/feminine is determined by society!
but if he'd just tried to publish that, he'd have to get a real job. so in attempt to be provocative, he took >gender roles are determined by society
and changed it to >gender is determined by society
there's a reason everyone waited until he and his test subjects were dead before dusting off his work and trying to make a movement out of it.
nutjobs from the other side to ridicule them
Those "nutjobs" are supposed to be experts, it's one of the oldest person doing transition surgery and a bigwig from the medical community, it's not random dolts off the street, the point of interviewing them is to highlight how horrendously delusional they are while in positions of massive power. >Editing around their answers
And when they can't explain themselves, get aggressive or walk out, how is that editing? What editing tricks actually cause faces to scrunch in rage and bodies to run out the door? >Dedicating 1/3 of the documentary to self-wank the director
Good, the director of a documentary is important, we need to know them so we can know if we can trust them, Cassie Jaye is also on the spotlight a lot, she does entire talks just about how the media loved her until she actually talked to Karen Straughan instead of just blindly vilifying her, and then they all turned on her, the story of the director is just as important because it highlights other elements tied to the same issues being shown and discussed.
>it's one of the oldest person doing transition surgery and a bigwig from the medical community
fails to bring up the fact he still has his penis, of course.
>don't you feel its a bit hypocritical to be performing these surgeries without having undergone one yourself?
he shows he has no problem filming interviews being ended prematurely. so that could've been a huge one.
>Good, the director of a documentary is important, we need to know them so we can know if we can trust them
this is all achieved through watching the movie itself and judging his actions and words, we shouldn't need a wank session to tell us who the authorer is. It's like the idea of "show, don't tell", except here it's "show through practice, don't just take 45 minutes talking about yourself in a vacuum and wasting my time."
Cassie Jaye's movie mentions nothing about the rampant media abuse, death threats and insane protests from people who didn't even know what the main focus of her movie was, I wouldn't have known about it if she hadn't spoken on it several months after the fact on TED, so no, the "cinematography" isn't the only thing I need to see to know the character of the author, get out of here with your postmo artsy fartsy nonsense.
>could easily create a documentary exposing transgenderism and the pharmaceutical industry promoting it >instead creates a lukewarm take with no clear answers
The israeli genius Ben Shapiro everyone.
By the way, does he ever mention Magnus Hirschfield?
I've watched clips of this movie and it was just people telling him to frick off the entire time. Does a conclusion ever become reached through interviews or does Matt just take the entire film pissing off libtards with basic questions and nobody's changed?
you should know its the latter without even watching a single second of it. but there's also about 30 minutes where he jerks himself off, acting like being "censored" validates him.
-if you poke leftists long enough, they wont give an answer, but say revealing stuff like "the truth is harmful", "santa clause is real" or "maybe we aren't having a converation, who is to say what reality is".
-africans don't know about transgender things
-matt has a trad wife that can't answer the question either, but needs help opening the jam jar, which is somehow supposed to be an intelligent comment on accepting gender roles.
So if societies such as tribal africans do not accept transgenders, does the liberal with ambitions of living in an open minded society need to accept the political differences ala agree to disagree or advocate for change in their minds, altering their culture to ours?
Leftwing ideology's main strategy is gaslighting and deflection, or in other words Mind Rape. They get off on beating around the bush and dancing around the issue
>What about women born with a penis chud!
Genetic mutation
What astounds me the most is that these people accuse people who question unsettled THEORIES like anthropogenic climate change of "Denying science", all while denying basic facts of biology we proved conclussively hundreds of years ago.
you do get that, fundamentally, all they're doing is dividing gender roles from sex, right? are you able to comprehend this at all? then from there, psychotics are rushing in with unfalsifiable nonsense and claiming they need surgery to have different gender roles?
And if you're essentially transforming it into a matter of personality and ugly haircuts why should anyone care? Why should it matter? Why is your emo phase supposed to dictate speech patterns?
>Why should it matter?
because > psychotics are rushing in with unfalsifiable nonsense and claiming they need surgery to have different gender roles
its the same thing where feminism claimed for years that anything men could do, women could do as well. which opened the door to transgender atheletes utterly demolishing female records, where as men they wouldn't even be notable. then no one wants to say >okay, we were wrong, there are fundamental differences.
Trannies and christcucks are deluded. They deserve each other.
You’re a bigger moron than both because you see this as binary. There’s much more people than “christcuck” or “troony”…this is…nonbinary…badum tsk.
The "documentary" is made by a christcuck complaining about trannies. There are no other views presented.
So now upholding basic biological realities makes you a christcuck?
The science side, everyone.
At least christcucks know what a woman is.
ironically the whole idea of troonism stems from christianity and the concept of a soul or true self separate from the body
Nah, the Bible clearly goes into "non gendered" exceptions it all started with Greek which is even further by that of enunchs b***h made sissy men to keep track of real men's harems
wrong
Cope, you're a product of mutilation and by extension capitalism by modern day standards
Trannies are the perfect corporate drone
>christianity and the concept of a soul or true self separate from the body
That comes from gnosticism, not Christianity.
I can't watch it because Matt Walsh is such a self-obsessed moron
t. Trannies coping and roping. Yea it’s so bad that Letterboxd jannies decided they had to close the comments. Your world view is false.
No one cares about your tired diatribe sorry idiot. And I’m 100% correct, NO ONE with talent or any position in the industry wants to associate with Daily Wire.
Your little tribe is going to be regarded for the feral, deranged subset/offshoot of homosexual sapien it is in the very short future. Enjoy your little moment though I guess.
Christianity? Yeah you’re right but it’s already seen that way by a majority of the country.
I’m not Christian you moronic bot.
What is a woman?
What you will never be.
As if anyone is going to read that word salad brick wall. The left can’t meme. And the reason for it is because the truth is simple and elegant. Thus their ugly inelegant lies are impossible to simplify. Truly pathetic to anyone with a half functional cortex.
Where did I say you were a Christian? Can you read?
>HEH none of the Hollywood pedophiles and rapists want anything go do with these people, take that!
Oh no! What will I do without such good company
He legit just sits there, asks basic questions about middle school biology and watches the mentally ill interviewee tie themselves in knots, cry or run out.
movie would have been funnier if it was that debate me guy, whoever this is looks like a soys jack
Because Daily Wire can’t bring on actual talent to work with them so the movie came out bad, like all of their work.
>guy starts actually giving an answer
>OH NO NO NO NO NO TIME TO MAKE A SMARMY EDITING JOKE ABOUT HOW HE'S USING TOO MANY WORDS
He was bullshitting his way around a simple answer.
>mental gymnastics to avoid giving a real answer
Just post the actual answer if there is one
>>guy starts actually giving an answer
At literally no point did this happen.
He very clearly edited that. You must be blind and extremely smoothbrained to miss that.
>He very clearly edited that
At no point was any legit attempt at an explanation edited away.
>gender "expert" gives a non-answer
>point out that it's a non-answer
>libtards cope and seethe
>Self-reported study
Oh no, you're braindead.
I just made a study
>Did you ever meet the dumbest person on the planet?
Yes it's this poster with this post.
The fact that it's self-reported makes it even worse for liberals.
They're just more honest. Everyone knows that conservicucks always lie. People who recognize that they might have mental issues are way more stable than lying morons who pretend everything's fine.
It's also confirmed by personality psychology that libtards suffer from much, much higher degrees of neurosis
Also there is no rational reason to assume that self reporting would skew these results to any significant degree. Do you think EVERYONE is as mentally unwell as the average libtard?
>guy starts actually giving an answer
He wasn't giving an actual answer , he was dancing around the question. His answer didn't define what a woman was - his answer was "a woman can be anything" which he knows doesn't actually answer the question. So instead of actually answering the question and defining a woman he started rambling about his political theories on why you can't define a woman.
This is the kind of mental gymnastics that hardcore partisan ideologues engage in - it's essentially just irrational religious zealotry
>making up things that didn't happen
Incel moment.
why are you defending a fi;m you haven't seen?
terry says it best
>guy tries to avoid answering.
>redirect him to the actual question.
>blatantly refuses to answer and attacks the questioner and ends the interview.
Kek. you are coping. The Gender Studies Professor didn't even attempt to answer, only Bullshit.
Why the frick would a story start with a quote from someone who has not been introduced with no preface? Jesus Christ the level of bait pictures on Cinemaphile is at an all-time low.
>smarmy editing joke
When does this happen? All he does is interrupt when he sees something completely incoherent, like if the argument is "if you identify as one" then he just asks if he is a woman and they can't answer
Stop replying. It's just a seething libtard. They had active campaigns to discredit the documentary on twitter
It's extremely obviously edited, NPC.
>goes off on unrelated tangent
>gets asked again what it is
>immediately tries pilpul
>get asked again what a woman is instead of dodging the question
>WELL I WANT TO HEAR YOUR ANSWER
pseuds deserve the gallows
"A woman is whatever, anything can be a woman"
This is a non-answer and explains nothing, hjust because every time he asks the question this mindless relativistic drivel comes out like verbal diarrhea it doesn't mean they're actually answering, in fact it's the exact opposite, they're dancing around having to give a concise definition by waxing poetically about "myh truth" when the simple reality is that they can't give a solid answer, if they say a woman is a person who is biologically female then they're being "transphobic" and if they say a woman is any person who chooses to call themselves a woman then they're betraying their feminist allies who are crying about "protect le wahmen" right now over abortion, but biological men don't ever need abortion no matter how big their bolt-ons are.
if only we could've seen what he said in response to
>define woman without using the word woman
Adult human female.
Human with XX chromosomes.
Two concise definitions, neither 5 words long, none uses the term woman.
See, it's easy if you're not an intellectually dishonest frick.
that's not what he would've said, but thanks for the kneejerk (you), i guess.
the point BOTH SIDES are criticizing matt walsh over is the fact he is also being intellectually dishonest.
>with XX chromosomes
You should adjust it to "without a Y chromosome".
It's Y that makes someone a male, female is just default.
only saying this because else you get the "durr what about xxy"
Right, but I kinda like to fish for the idiot lefties who will then try to insist that intersex disorders somehow relate to gender dysphoria, so then I can slap them with the fact that no correlation has ever been found between syndromes like Turners or Klinefelters and sexual identity.
are "the lefties" in the room with you right now? as i'm not seeing anyone in this thread who thinks transgenderism is real.
nice dubs
define real. I think it's real as in an artificial construct, and as a societal point
the fact that dysphoria is an accepted idea for trans' shows that being a trans woman is a concept derivative of a cis woman. If a female identity wasn't defaulty granted to natural born females and didn't need to be established in a natural born male who's claiming to be trans, we wouldn't be having a debate.
The trans open minded definition would contradict itself by both saying "you needn't be female assigned at birth to be a female" simultaneously with "a woman can be any living person and it has no bearing on your birth genitalia or chromosomes" because the identity of females is a construct originating to the idea of being of the female sex. And differentiating sex and gender doesn't solve this issue either simply because there is nobody in the lgbtq community who would dare say "this person may be this gender, but their sex is not the same"
THIS SUMMER
ROB SCHNEIDER IS...
THE CHUD!
THIS SUMMER
ROB SCHNEIDER
GOT MORE THAN HE BARGAINED FOR
AND HE’LL HAVE TO FIND OUT
WHAT IT REALLY IS TO BE A WOMAN
ROB SCHNEIDER IS...
*a record scratch* BASED?
THIS SUMMER
ROB SCHNEIDER IS...
BASED AND REDPILLED
>>NOOO TRANNIES EXIST NOOO
This girl gets it!
>Words words words
Brevity is the soul of wit, which explains why they can't do anything even with stolen material.
>racial slur on top of the blatant transphobia itt
its Cinemaphile you roody poo
Pretty sure dysphoria IS in the latest DSM. Transgenderism is not.
>right wing losers pose as leftists and replies to their own posts
>Commie troony loser poses as right wing losers posing as leftists and replies to their own posts
Is being mentally ill a prereq to be a leftist?
tl;dr
l2meme
and then everyone clapped
Leftists always cry about the "Leftists can't meme" meme, but they just can't help themselves and just keep posting these giant mindboggling text walls, why is that? Is it perhaps because your ideology is unnatural so you have to overexplain it to the point in which the words lose all meaning?
>God isn't real
>why yes of course these 5 made up genders of this indian tribe are completely real and hecking valid!
Meanwhile in the real world
The person who made that image DEFINITELY isn't an angry incel.
Oof.
Jesus Christ, just look at this piece of shit meme, from the thumbnail you can already tell you DO NOT want to read all this cringe.
It is mindblowing how leftoids can not literally help themselves.
99% of these threads are pure trolling, don't bother trying to explain that the memes lack clarity or their points lack honesty, they don't care.
>NOO JUST LET ME GROOM KIDS
Haha great catholic priest impression. Do Donald Trump on Epstein’s private island next.
Man you can't even get your lies right.
Trump never took the plane, he raped kids at the New York location
Percentage wise, priests still diddle more kids
If you account for factors like the priesthood being 100% male whereas educators are majorily female, but 90% of child diddlers are men, then the percentual difference becomes small to non-existence (the latter being claimed mostly by pro-vatican studies). The remaining difference is usually explained by the catholic church's hierarchy. Big corporations move problematic managers to different branches instead of firing them because they earn money and have strings to pull, the catholic church operates the same. Being a kindergarten teacher is a shit job at a local institution that doesn't offer the same institutional protection from being persecuted, but that's all. Catholic priests are completely average otherwise, which is bad enough for a moral institution.
>department of education keeps records on catholic priest sexual abuse rates, and also publishes comparative statistics for some reason
you're not even trying
>handles it internally, often protecting offenders
vs
>reports it as soon as evidence comes to light
>reports it as soon as evidence comes to light
lol you're a moron if you don't think schools protect their own. My 8th grade geography teacher got caught taking creepshots up girls skirts and all that happened was he disappeared for half a year and then he just came back. He would also take naps and drink behind his walled off desk and this was a "good" school.
on an institutional level, schools do not protect child molesters. there's a big difference between protecting criminals, on an institutional/policy level, than a few locals thinking their friend couldn't have sodomized that boy over and over until he started thinking he was actually a girl.
>schools reports it as soon as evidence comes to light
LOL
1. There’s more public school teachers than Catholic priests.
2. The abuse scandals in the church were and continue to be hugely underreported. Christian parents would rather sacrifice their own children on the altar of pedophiles than dare raise their voice against the church.
Why is "muh groomers" always the goto response to anyone defending trannies? How does people wanting to change their gender have anything to do with grooming kids? This is a serious question.
asking kids things like
>do you really think you're a boy
automatically causes them to question things in a manner in which they won't be able to answer. and since the transgender community currently believes the only way to pass is to start hormone therapy years before puberty, it's a pretty obvious connection.
Nice dubs. I haven't studied this, but from my understanding the idea of trans grooming only comes from the fact people are allowing kids to get these hormone blockers and sex changes, putting to the wayside the consequences what it will do to them going forward. Well that and the pride movement's rampant sexuality comingling with the advocation that "there's nothing wrong with lgbtq ergo we should let kids me in on this too" in awkward ways. What I don't know is how steadfast the communities are at quashing relating kids into these sexual spaces; for example furries as a community don't do shit to denounce zoophilia, which gives them the reputation of defending dogfrickers. What I don't know is how similar these two examples are.
This documentary actually convinced me that gender theory is more right than wrong. The main premise this guy went around asking was for a definition of a woman. He can easily get that from a dictionary.
But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth. Yet, for some reason he keeps harping on that woman = female. It's apples and oranges.
Even the chicken example was ridiculous too. Our understanding of gender for humans has superseded biological definitions for sex, yet he purposely conflates it as well. We don't call female chickens "women" - they're not fricking humans.
Overall it was a pretty disingenuous piece of commentary but can totally get the appeal if you're still someone living in the past.
Women are female humans
He went around asking the mentally ill progs a simple question in order to show normal people how fricking dumb these gender theorists are. And it succeeded.
If you support gender identity you're a sexist
A girl like masculine things doesn't make her a man. It makes her a tomboy
Gender identity is solely based on what you homosexuals think another sex feels like
If gender identity and sex aren't the same why do you have to change your sex to make your gender
>Living in the past
No one believes that it changed your view
You were always pro troony. Go back to plebbit freak
>Gender identity is solely based on what you homosexuals think another sex feels like
It's a sexual fetish, especially with MtF trannies who all dress like hyperfeminine dolls and want to be treated as sex slaves. It's hyper-submissive behaviour in response to the ruthless competitiveness of current society. If their dad hugged them once in a while they wouldn't bother.
That was exactly his point though. Gender identity to them is a feeling that doesnt mean anything and can change on a whim. Ultimately anyone who identifies as a woman and is believed to be sincere is a woman to these people, so the term woman becomes meaningless.
Since it's apples and oranges, they need to stop using the terminology of biology (man/woman, male/female) and come up with something different.
Also
>living in the past
Check the picture. People are turning away from troony ideology the more its forced on them
> they need to stop using the terminology of biology (man/woman, male/female) and come up with something different.
There already is a terminology that is widely accepted to indicate what progs say is gender.
The terminology is masculine/feminine.
The problem with those words is that they are unambitious. It's much harder to justify a feminine man using the women's bathroom, compared to doing the same for ftm women, even if both those definitions mean the same shit.
Or just make a country for mentally ill people who want to dress up and play pretend, let's say the Bay area. Then God can smite them when they're all gathered together
>But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth.
This is circular.
>When they are identifying as a woman, what are the identifying as?
>They are identifying as someone who identifies as a woman
Yes but what does woman mean? What are they identifying as?
Their own claim to be born in the wrong body requires the biological definition of woman (or man) to be a coherent statement.
>Our understanding of gender for humans has superseded biological definitions for sex
such hubris
that's English majors in a nutshell
>But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth
That is a very loose and unfalsifiable definition that approximates the non-answer that the left wing ideologues tried to give him in an attempt to avoid giving him s concrete answer which would reveal how untenable their beliefs are
if you asked a girl if they were a girl would they say "why yes I have two x chromsomes"
no
so what makes a girl a girl then
What some individual might choose to give as an answer in a hypothetical situation does not affect the reality of what a woman is. Try something different if you have a point to make
>Our understanding of gender for humans has superseded biological definitions for sex,
No, it hasn't. It's a specific ideological and anti scientific delusion that has populated the minds of the modern western left wing. Your understanding of gender is akin to applying horoscopes to evolution.
>But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth
No, they don't see a difference between the two inherently and that's why Matt Walsh interviewed the African tribe who weren't raised in or around your insane left wing cult. The fact you've instead doubled down on your beliefs through making a series of grand assumptions and strawman arguments is even further prove that your beliefs are irrational and emotionally biased.
>But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth.
No, they ARE referring to their sex assigned at birth. Just because someone likes stereotypical girly things like wearing dresses that doesn't make them a woman, just a sissy man.
if I called you a fricking pussy does that mean you are literally a vegana? if I told you to man up would that mean you have to grow a dick and balls
>sex assigned as birth.
So you don't develop gonads at like 12 weeks from conception? The doctor wills your genitals into existence once you're born?
when you ask an average person 50 years ago if a feminine presenting person is a woman they would say yes. if you undressed the same feminine presenting person and they saw this person has a penis then they would say this is not a woman. they would say it would be a man presenting themselves in a feminine way and that their initial assessment was wrong. there would be no confusion. you're muddying the waters by claiming that >But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity and not their sex assigned as birth
I thought the thing us liberals want to do was stop gender roles, but instead we fellas should chop their wieners in half to reinforce gender roles?
Not really. A woman is a human female who is born with XX chromosomes. It's really simple definition.
Gender “identity” is just a dumb person’s way of interpreting gender roles. Men that want to be in the role of a woman feel a strong attachment to everything stereotypically seen as female and therefore decides that his identity is that of a woman. This is apparent if you look at other cultures that have “third” genders or have one gender assume the role of the other gender. For example, some boys in Hawaii will be raised as girls if there is a lack of women to fulfill that role. Therefore they will take the role of a woman and do tasks typically seen as a woman’s work (cleaning, cooking, etc.)
"Gender identity" seems to now be determined by how ugly your haircut is and how unflattering your clothes are.
>But when humans say they are a woman, for example, they are referring to their gender identity
Nope
>Our understanding of gender for humans has superseded biological definitions for sex
Nope
What a israeli post.
ironically, trannies won't live as long as straight ppl
For all those people who think the “what is a woman” question is just a culture war trope, it’s actually a great way to find out if someone is a liar or not. Because everyone knows what a woman is, so if they hedge or avoid, they’re lying. A good politician test.
The israelites pushed transgenderism in Weimar Germany too. It won't last to the end of the decade / the middle of next decade. Ex-trannies are already suing doctors for pushing surgeries and hormones on them.
Current troonyism is an Obama-Biden era anomaly. Obama brought this aura of messianism to the Left that has been rapidly spiralling into incoherence with the rise of Trump and populism in general. The general public don't want transgenderism. It's an elitist sect of perversion and mind control.
If you are currently stuck in this mind trap pray to God and it will literally evaporate from your mind within a week.
>Due to a high volume of moderation traffic, reviews for this title are hidden at this time. Reviews remain visible on members’ profiles, with the exception of those removed for violating our Community Policy.
SHUT IT DOWN
Is there a single nonpozzed online "community?" Aside from Cinemaphile
Farmers of kiwi, if you're autist enough.
KF is a nice forum and not any more autistic than this place
>KF is a nice forum and not any more autistic than this place
Is this worth the watch if I want a good laugh? What's even the premise, he goes around asking people what is a woman and no one ever answers him?
The pro-troony people just evade the question or do mental gymnastics. He asks a black African tribe and they don't even understand what he's asking at first, then they start laughing hysterically. Its good shit
>he goes around asking people what is a woman and no one ever answers him?
The only ones who never answer are the troony enablers.
It's pretty funny but can be enraging
People answer and when he's embarrassed, he just edits out the answer and pretends that they didn't answer.
e.g. here
, I just replied to one of the more sensible sounding posts in the hopes to get an actual answer instead of shitposting. With that much talk about dishonest editing, I assume they all base their claims on some source I don't know about
a woman is someone with XX chromosomes
But how do they FEEL about their chromosomes???
>He has no idea what he's talking about
Many such cases
That's literally what a woman is. Everything else that makes a biological woman arises from the chromosomes.
>Doesn't take biological exceptions into account
And that's why you brainlets are a laughing stock
If every definition took exceptions into account each would be the length of a novel
>long so it its wrong
Keep seething.
>exceptions
That's not how definitions work.
I wonder why all the experts disagree with morons like you. They all must be wrong, schizo.
so you havent watched the documentary, whats wrong are you scared to see it?
It's not a documentary. It's made by moronic gays exclusively for moronic gays.
Exceptions are rare. You don't define the average by the rare. Don't be yikes about it.
>humans are bipedal
>EXCEPT for birth defects, amputees, paralysis, etc. etc. etc.
>humans have opposable thumbs
>EXCEPT for birth defects, amputees, paralysis, etc. etc. etc.
and so on and so forth
almost like simple defntions can not explain the sheer vastness of human expierance
which that alone shuts down the holy shitty documentary
So humans aren't bipedal?
humans are bipedal*
That's how it already is.
Definitions may not, but chromosomes do.
XX-female.
XY-male.
And yes, this includes whoever has less or more of those, a single X is still a woman, an XYYYY is still a man, intersex is not a magical third sex, it's a genetic defect that results mainly in learning disabilities, there is no demonstrated link between these disorders and sexual identity or orientation.
Your "gender dysphoria" (Read: mental illness) does not change basic biological reality anymore than having bodily dismorphia like anorexia means it is healthy to starve yourself to death.
Experience shuts down anyone claiming they're the opposite gender because it already stems from a self-referential state.
You're bringing up the material, i.e. chromosomes, to someone bringing up experience, the immaterial. You're not going to get anywhere. I mean, neither is that person, but you're both in different realms -- even though I agree with you.
It's not really disingenuous because the question is generally answered with some circular reasoning -- the most common I see is "Someone who identifies as X." Let alone getting into the issue of intuiting experience and some imbeciles going so far as linking gender -- claimed to be a social construct -- with the material reality -- i.e. brain structures. Can't have it both ways.
>expierance
how did you frick this word up so badly lol
to act as if definitions are laughable is to be irrational, learn what “in principle” means and you will have 100% solved your moronation, also ywnbaw
>but what about this 0.000001% person?! HUH? >Let's change the rules for EVERYONE to accommodate them
Yeah, nah you're a c**t
>And that's why you brainlets are a laughing stock
Uhh... sweety? 99% of the world laughs at delusional left wing gender ideology
>exceptions make the rule
zamn...never thought of it that way...
There can really be no definition that is all-inclusive. You have to draw a line of what a woman is somewhere.
The trannies are spooked
Remarkable. One simple question sends so many people into meltdown.
>Paying to confirm what you already believe
Are you guys really this fricking restarted ? This is sub Saharan African restarted. The bases for this shit is fricking israelites in the desert smoking DMT . And you fricking idiots gladly pay for it .
Why the frick am I not doing the right wing grift you fricking morons will pay for anything .
>having an incel rage meltdown over a simple question
Oof.
its been a while since ive played mtg. why would you need a physical "discard" card? what scenario would that card be used in?
I don't care if people want to play pretend or express themselves how ever they want but you'll never actually be able to change biological reality, sex change operations can only fashion a crude simulacra of the real thing and taking opposite sex hormones is moronic.
>/misc/ incels subhumans vs troony incel subhumans
This has been my favorite entertainment on the internet the last few years. It's the same pool of losers but on vastly different paths. Don't mistake this for troony support, they are insane freak incels who become women because of fetishes and self loathing.
they’re the same losers, trannies are just further down the path (that ends in suicide)
It was interesting how absolutely afraid most people were to answer this question.
Our society is very sick.
The gay gender studies professor was absolutely terrified to be on camera answering that question.
The Congressman just completely aimlessly blabbered and panicked for about 2 minutes before abruptly terminating the interview without answering the question.
This is how completely empty and unsupported the whole trans ideology is. Just being asked this one question and actually asking them to answer it, completely btfos the entire thing, because it REQUIRES doublethink to accept both that the category of "Woman" exists in the world and that the only qualifier for "Woman" is that a person believes that they are a Woman.
Basically it's either a total social construct or it isn't. If it is, then why the surgeries and hormones, etc? Obviously a woman is "an adult female human" so what they are really wanting is to imitate female biology. If it isn't a pure construct (It isn't) then we have to accept at some point that these people are delusional and need treatment. Now it is politically incorrect to even call transexual surgeries a treatment, since it is considered an "affirmation" of what was true all along, that they were female. It's so riddled with insanity that I don't know how we got here.
Reminder to all lurking people here who think they are transsexual. Please seek real help, not simply someone who is going to agree with your delusion and push you into body destroying surgeries and hormones that you cannot reverse. Hormone blockers are irreversible as well, you cannot just magically stop puberty.
You are the sex you were born as. It is immutable. Please learn to love and accept your body. Only by that path will you find true happiness and peace. The other path is a nightmare more terrible than you can possibly imagine.
a woman is someone who identifies as a woman
that is literally it
if you think that is circler reasoning you are right, gender is nonsensical like that
>a woman is someone who identifies as a woman
No. It is not.
A woman is an adult human female.
No identity involved. It is a set of biological facts, not feeling.
>a woman is someone who identifies as a woman
WHAT ARE THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELF TO BE? WHAT IS A 'WOMAN' ?
XX = woman
XY = man
the rest is mental illness
correct
He killed himself after a priest raped him by the way. Thank God that he found his religion recently.
quality post
I'm watching it now
Why so few professional reviews? Shouldnt they be negatively reviewing it and pointing out all its flaws?
They know they can't touch it without having their careers implode, transexuality is a perverted movement for the western elite in specific
That's so early 10's.
The not-so-new strategy is just to not engage and pretend it never happened.
Memory-holing is much more effective.
Also "holing" is such a weird looking word. I think it's the first time I ever used it.
>Also "holing" is such a weird looking word. I think it's the first time I ever used it.
It's because you're not supposed to conjugate a noun.
But that's the neatest aspect of the English language!
Like with Cassie Jaye's The Red Pill, they adamantly refuse to watch these types of documentaries or anything that so much as questions their world view, that doesn't preclude them from making preposterous claims and character assassination pieces about both the films and their authors.
>popular
no
I hate women so fricking much.
Let's start with something simpler Cinemaphile. What is a chair?
>HAHAHAHAH SO THIS HORSE IS A CHAIR HAHAHAH I GOT YOU I OWNED YOU HAHAHAHHA YES THIS UNRELATED QUESTION YOU HAVE ANSWERED INCORRECTLY (as per MY conditions, of course) HAS DESTROYED YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT YES I TROLLED YOU EPIC STYLE JUST LIKE MY HEROES ON TWITTER
And to keep it on the topic of Cinemaphile, I don't Walsh pushed deep enough into this. First half could have been the cavalcade of gender woo dummies, latter half could have been more focused on why this is important. Still enjoyed watching gender commies expose their ignorance 8/10 tbh
Yup, also a lot of them had it hoisted on them by their crazy munchhausen parents or delusional "affirmation psychologists", and regret it.
The segment with the African tribe was kino.
It was like asking a nazi what he thinks about israelites. Predictable, boring, and only amusing to brainlets.
Great film, it was top 10 on IMDb for awhile too
It's mostly made for people on the fence and non braindead liberals
Progressives are going to hate it
he cute
I don't like trannies and don't agree with their philosophy but the documentary was garbage. You know the "dishonest film making" meme nobody can agree on what it means? This is the decoder.
>Interviewing nutjobs from the other side to ridicule them
>Editing around their answers
>Dedicating 1/3 of the documentary to self-wank the director
This is no better than leftist docs interviewing rednecks to somehow prove a point. It's a documentary made only to reinforce views, not discuss them.
Then why was it so difficult for them to say what a woman is? Shouldn't the interviews be too short to edit if they had an answer and Matt was trying to make them look bad? What answer do you infer they were trying to say?
>why was it so difficult for them to say what a woman is?
Because he wasn't starting with the question
>can you define woman, without using the word woman
his initial question is disingenuous and he simply repeats it when he doesn't get the answer he wants. it's about on the same level as saying
>can you spell ICUP
and then getting testy when people say
>i'm not going to spell that.
>Then why was it so difficult for them to say what a woman is?
Any person, troony or not, should be able to answer that question in a normal conversation, but when there's a smug butthole (take a look at his body language during the interview with them) pressing them into it in front of a camera for a documentary they fumble the frick up. Add to that intentional editing (very clear during colored hair professor) and cherry picked nutjobs (dude who think he's an animal) and you get non-answers. Lmao, even the people he got to interview from his own side sounded crazy, but he framed them in a better light. The woman doctor was spouting textbook /misc/ opinions, going so far as mentioning ~~*(forces*~~), but differently from the leftist doctor, he framed her in front of several PhD, accolades and kept and used every clip where she directly agreed with him in multiple parts of the doc.
>Shouldn't the interviews be too short to edit if they had an answer and Matt was trying to make them look bad?
Aside from the dude who cut it short and walked out, they were pretty long. It's obvious from the cuts that they were talking for a much longer time than shown from the wild changes in talking points from cut to cut.
>What answer do you infer they were trying to say?
Whatever they believed in, which is the point of a documentary, but a good one wouldn't ridicule the people being interviewed. The only two decent people were botched FtM dude and Peterson. Obviously. One agreed entirely with the director, so of course he'd keep most of it in, and the other is a charismatic and acclaimed philosopher that also agrees and doesn't challenges the directors view. This is the core of why the doc is garbage: Not for a second is the interviewer actually challenged. A good doc, left or right, allows for discussion, not masturbation like he did in the last part of the movie. The bit with his wife was fricking stupid.
Tl;dr since nobody is going to read that:
Shitty doc. If he was genuine he'd get good people by both sides.
only took me less than a minute to read it. what's your excuse?
I tl;dr'd my own post anon. People itt already complain about leftist memes half the size of what I wrote.
>morons hate reading
yea, and what else is new
nobody is reading that midwit babble, kys troony
hey, I read your post, and while I haven't seen the movie it and other posts here give me the insight that this movie's a waste of time and an expensive /misc/ bant. Your efforts were not wasted, at least to me. Thanks.
>Whatever they believed in, which is the point of a documentary, but a good one wouldn't ridicule the people being interviewed
the entire point of the doc is the "people" being interviewed can't answer a question that everyone has known the answer to since they were born since the beginning of time. it was to demonstrate they do not live in the reality of 99.99% of people. they make themselves look ridiculous
see
ask stupid questions, get stupid answers. but that was the entire point of the documentary.
>Any person, troony or not, should be able to answer that question in a normal conversation,
So what is a woman then?
proof that he edited out the real answers? professors therapists and surgeons aren't "nut jobs" and their answers are completely consistend with the deconstructivist philosophy you find everywhere in the modern left.
The bad part of the documentary is that its anti-trans voices rely on one single psychologists who disagrees with the mainstream and one troony who regretted transitioning. That's not a basis for a counter argument. You can find two idiots who agree with you on every topic, even idiots with degrees.
>edited out
where did anyone say that? be sure to read posts very carefully.
And troony activists all rely on John Money's (israelite pedo) doctrine they don't use anyone else his axiom is where they base their gender theories on
john money didn't invent the idea of ascribing masculine/feminine characteristics to people, things, concepts, behaviors, etc.
the basic thesis of all of his (desperate to publish or perish) output isn't much more than
>what we call masculine/feminine is determined by society!
but if he'd just tried to publish that, he'd have to get a real job. so in attempt to be provocative, he took
>gender roles are determined by society
and changed it to
>gender is determined by society
there's a reason everyone waited until he and his test subjects were dead before dusting off his work and trying to make a movement out of it.
nutjobs from the other side to ridicule them
Those "nutjobs" are supposed to be experts, it's one of the oldest person doing transition surgery and a bigwig from the medical community, it's not random dolts off the street, the point of interviewing them is to highlight how horrendously delusional they are while in positions of massive power.
>Editing around their answers
And when they can't explain themselves, get aggressive or walk out, how is that editing? What editing tricks actually cause faces to scrunch in rage and bodies to run out the door?
>Dedicating 1/3 of the documentary to self-wank the director
Good, the director of a documentary is important, we need to know them so we can know if we can trust them, Cassie Jaye is also on the spotlight a lot, she does entire talks just about how the media loved her until she actually talked to Karen Straughan instead of just blindly vilifying her, and then they all turned on her, the story of the director is just as important because it highlights other elements tied to the same issues being shown and discussed.
>it's one of the oldest person doing transition surgery and a bigwig from the medical community
fails to bring up the fact he still has his penis, of course.
>don't you feel its a bit hypocritical to be performing these surgeries without having undergone one yourself?
he shows he has no problem filming interviews being ended prematurely. so that could've been a huge one.
>Good, the director of a documentary is important, we need to know them so we can know if we can trust them
this is all achieved through watching the movie itself and judging his actions and words, we shouldn't need a wank session to tell us who the authorer is. It's like the idea of "show, don't tell", except here it's "show through practice, don't just take 45 minutes talking about yourself in a vacuum and wasting my time."
Cassie Jaye's movie mentions nothing about the rampant media abuse, death threats and insane protests from people who didn't even know what the main focus of her movie was, I wouldn't have known about it if she hadn't spoken on it several months after the fact on TED, so no, the "cinematography" isn't the only thing I need to see to know the character of the author, get out of here with your postmo artsy fartsy nonsense.
>could easily create a documentary exposing transgenderism and the pharmaceutical industry promoting it
>instead creates a lukewarm take with no clear answers
The israeli genius Ben Shapiro everyone.
By the way, does he ever mention Magnus Hirschfield?
You know a movie is doing something right when Letterboxd users are mass rating it 1/10 without even watching.
I've watched clips of this movie and it was just people telling him to frick off the entire time. Does a conclusion ever become reached through interviews or does Matt just take the entire film pissing off libtards with basic questions and nobody's changed?
you should know its the latter without even watching a single second of it. but there's also about 30 minutes where he jerks himself off, acting like being "censored" validates him.
the tl;dw conclusions are:
-if you poke leftists long enough, they wont give an answer, but say revealing stuff like "the truth is harmful", "santa clause is real" or "maybe we aren't having a converation, who is to say what reality is".
-africans don't know about transgender things
-matt has a trad wife that can't answer the question either, but needs help opening the jam jar, which is somehow supposed to be an intelligent comment on accepting gender roles.
So if societies such as tribal africans do not accept transgenders, does the liberal with ambitions of living in an open minded society need to accept the political differences ala agree to disagree or advocate for change in their minds, altering their culture to ours?
Reminder that troons are permanent customers of Big Pharama and literal satanic golems
>inb4 muh drag
You are all apart of the same disgusting family tree
its funny how people on twitter have no response to the movie so they just decided to keep calling him a pedophile for no reason
>2017
Any recent pics of this qt?
The cute ones don't kill themselves.
they don't stay cute for long
Leftwing ideology's main strategy is gaslighting and deflection, or in other words Mind Rape. They get off on beating around the bush and dancing around the issue
>What about women born with a penis chud!
Genetic mutation
That is just one example
What astounds me the most is that these people accuse people who question unsettled THEORIES like anthropogenic climate change of "Denying science", all while denying basic facts of biology we proved conclussively hundreds of years ago.
you do get that, fundamentally, all they're doing is dividing gender roles from sex, right? are you able to comprehend this at all? then from there, psychotics are rushing in with unfalsifiable nonsense and claiming they need surgery to have different gender roles?
And if you're essentially transforming it into a matter of personality and ugly haircuts why should anyone care? Why should it matter? Why is your emo phase supposed to dictate speech patterns?
>Why should it matter?
because
> psychotics are rushing in with unfalsifiable nonsense and claiming they need surgery to have different gender roles
its the same thing where feminism claimed for years that anything men could do, women could do as well. which opened the door to transgender atheletes utterly demolishing female records, where as men they wouldn't even be notable. then no one wants to say
>okay, we were wrong, there are fundamental differences.