Review: On Matt Walsh’s new documentary - What Is a Woman?

"Walsh nowhere appeals to the Bible, but instead uses common-sense, rational questioning to investigate transgenderism’s attempt to overthrow nature—God’s “second book” of revelation." - American Reformer

450 reads

There are 4 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I don't know if the documentary disputes this point or not, but among those of us who oppose transgenderism on moral/ethical, theological, or just 'human thriving' grounds we seem to sometimes confuse the 'ought' with the 'is.' 

In particular, we understand that gender and biological sex 'ought' to match and sometimes weaken our arguments by speaking as though there were in fact no distinction (the 'is').

But it's easy to demonstrate that gender and biological sex are, at least to some degree, distinct things.

Take for example how men dressed in OT times. It's evident that they wore robes and this was considered normal and manly. In our own culture, they would tend to be understood as feminine. In other cultures men famously wore kilts, and sometimes still do. The garments worn by men and women were distinct in these cultures, but are not the same from culture to culture.

My point is that 'gender' is at least in part, culturally expressed, and that part is certainly distinct from biological sex. They 'ought' to align. But they can be made to not align, because they are distinct. (If this is a proper definition of 'gender' as opposed to just one of its characteristics, then the two are entirely distinct... and the transgender advocates are not wrong on that particular point.)

To me it's a bit like wearing wedding ring: it ought to signify that you're married. A police officer uniform ought to signify that the wearer is a sworn officer. A security badge granting admittance to a facility ought to mean the wearer is legitimately on the premises. A referee's stripes ought to mean that the wearer is truly a referee. But in all these cases, discontinuity ought and is are possible. It's just not helpful (and generlly also not ethical) to misalign the messaging with the reality. 

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

josh p's picture

I believe we have discussed this before. Do you equate masculinity/femininity with gender? I rememeber you making this same argument once and my memory is not good enough to remember how you understand gender. I looked in the only older dictionary on my shelf. Its primary definition regards nouns. The second regards our subject

"2. the fact or condition of being a male or female human being, esp. with regard to how this effects or determines a person's self-image, social-status, goals, etc."

Do you agree with that or do you have something else in mind? Your definition seems to regard the expression of biological sex. Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly but I've always equated gender and biological sex. Thanks.

KD Merrill's picture

In particular, we understand that gender and biological sex 'ought' to match and sometimes weaken our arguments by speaking as though there were in fact no distinction (the 'is').  But it's easy to demonstrate that gender and biological sex are, at least to some degree, distinct things.

My point is that 'gender' is at least in part, culturally expressed, and that part is certainly distinct from biological sex. They 'ought' to align. But they can be made to not align, because they are distinct. (If this is a proper definition of 'gender' as opposed to just one of its characteristics, then the two are entirely distinct... and the transgender advocates are not wrong on that particular point.)

But they're not.  Sex and gender historically meant the same thing.  The father of gender ideology, John Money, was one of the first to propose that the two were different.  The above article glosses over the monstrous actions this man undertook in his destructive quest to confuse language for ideological purposes.

In addition, the etymology of the word "gender" confirms that sex and gender mean the same thing.  Gender comes from the same root as words such as genesis, generate, genitals and genus.  It's also closely related to the Latin word "gonos," from which we get "gonads."

Interestingly, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County., GA., that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which explicitly prohibits discrimination based on "sex" also applies to "gender."  At least legally, the two are considered the same thing with regard to this ruling.  So, it apparently suits LGBT+ advocates to view them as different except when it benefits them.

Where did you get the idea that sex and gender are different?   That is incredibly dangerous thinking.

I'm not saying that certain men aren't more or less masculine or that certain women aren't more or less feminine than others.  That's a given (I'll take Jacob and Esau for $200).  But can we not embrace destructive secular "gender" ideology?  Please.