Danke für´s drauf aufmerksam machen, higgi. Zum diesem Film kann ich nicht viel sagen, kenne ihn nicht. Hast Du ihn gesehen? Wenn ja: Was denkst Du über das Thema und wie geht Walsh in seinem Film damit um?
Ich habe ein bisschen recherchiert und eine Filmkritik gefunden, die meinen - absolut rudimentären, nur auf dem Anschauen des Teasers beruhenden! - ersten Eindruck bestätigt:
"The position Walsh takes in the film is that there is a common sense definition of the word “woman,” one that is based in biology, but those who subscribe to Gender Ideology offer conflicting or unsatisfying definitions instead, and therefore have beliefs that do not make sense. There is an implicit presumption, never defended, that the word woman needs to have one simple, satisfying definition. One of Walsh’s respondents points out directly that women may give very different answers to the question of what it means to be a woman. For Walsh, this is apparently a sign of stupidity: he says we had a perfectly workable definition of men and women “up until 15 minutes ago,”but now the trans people have gone and made everything confusing, so that definitions differ. Indeed, there are academic arguments among feminist philosophers about how the word woman should be defined. Walsh treats this as laughable, but it’s not clear why it should be."
Und wenn ich dann lese:
"Walsh is so bored when a gender studies professor starts giving a long complicated answer to a question that the film fades out the audio to illustrate what an evasive and pretentious twit Walsh thinks the professor is."
dann scheint mein rudimentärer erster Eindruck, dass Walsh sich für schlauer hält als er ist und einfach nur ein bisschen manipulativ rumstänkern möchte, vielleicht nicht ganz falsch zu sein. Zudem scheint er nicht dazu in der Lage zu sein, die offensichtlichsten Widersprüchlichkeiten seiner eigenen Argumenation erkennen zu können:
"He doesn’t like drag queens reading to children in libraries, or giving makeup and dance classes to boys, because he sees something wrong and disturbing about Men wearing the clothing he thinks Women ought to wear. But why does he believe certain genitals are properly matched with certain clothing? Ironically enough, the Maasai men he admires for their traditional ideas of gender are decked out in jewelry and wearing clothes that, if sold in the U.S., might be described as colorful dresses."
Irgendwie ist es ja auch lustig, dass wir seit hunderten von Jahren immer noch am Nominalismusstreit rumnagen:
"Walsh makes the same core error as other anti-trans bigots like Ben Shapiro, treating a debate about language as if it’s a debate about biological reality. I have discussed this error several times before, and Natalie Wynn has an excellent explanation in her video on Shapiro. Wynn points out that saying a trans woman is “not a woman” because of biology is like saying adoptive parents are “not really someone’s parents” because they are not blood relations of their children. It is fallacious, pure and simple. It assumes that the definition of the word “parents” is handed to us from on high, that there is some fixed rule in the universe prohibiting us from using it to refer to people who have a social rather than a biological relationship with their children. There is, similarly, no rule saying that the word woman “really” or “must” be used based on the criteria Walsh prefers. Science cannot resolve whether we should choose to apply gender categories based on genitalia, chromosomes, secondary sex characteristics, self-identification, the performance of social roles, or the perception of others."
Und wenn ich dann diese Szene lese
"At one point, Walsh interviews the owner of a Star Wars memorabilia shop, who was caught on video arguing with a trans woman who objected to a sign in the store that said “if you’ve got a dick, you’re not a chick.” Walsh asks the owner why he believes that “chicks” cannot have “dicks,” and the owner replies that this is just “common sense.” Walsh seems satisfied with the answer, even though invoking “common sense” as an argument amounts to saying “I believe it because I believe it.”
bin ich mir ziemlich sicher, dass dieser Film eher unfreiwillig komisch ist, als dass er seine Aussage stützt. Und vor solch einem rechtsradikalen, vernunftfernen, unlogisch-unwissenschaftlichem, kriminellen (in dem Kapitel mit dem kanadischen Vater und dessen Verstoß gegen das Schützen der Identität eines Kindes) Mumpitz hat die linke Öffentlichkeit in den USA angeblich Angst? Einem Film, der zudem auf Vortäuschung falscher Tatsachen zu stande gekommen ist ("According to one of Walsh’s interviewees, Walsh lied to participants in order to secure their consent to participate, going so far as to represent himself as being part of a fake organization called the Gender Unity Project.") und die Aussagen seiner Protagonisten verzerrt und aus dem Kontext reißt ("I also made it very clear in my interview that I don’t identify as trans-species and that my therian identity and my gender identity are two very different things to me. I vehemently rejected the term transspecies and the comparison being made, but none of that made it into the interview. I recall Matt being frustrated during our interview that I wasn’t giving him any of the “gotcha” responses he seemed to desperately want, so it makes sense that he would focus on what he believes is the more extreme portion of my identity – being a wolf therianthrope. He cut the portion of me explaining this identity was spiritual in nature.")
Wobei ich offensichtlich noch zu milde urteile, Nathan J. Robinson hat sicherlich eher recht wenn er schreibt:
"Walsh, as stated before, misunderstood the facts of the controversial case there, even though he went so far as to rent a house in the district solely so he could berate the school board during a public comment period. But when he pulls off the mask of reasonableness and open-minded inquiry, and reveals how viscerally he despises trans people and anyone who recognizes trans people’s claims to their identity, we can see how What Is A Woman? isn’t just ignorant. It’s also evil, because Walsh is trying to convince the public that trans people are abusers and groomers, that they are a threat that must be eradicated. This is not really a philosophical argument over the word “woman.” It is a Nazi-like piece of propaganda attempting to convince people that their trans neighbors, colleagues, and classmates are insane and menacing."
Quelle: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/06/ ... -prejudice
Ich weiß auch gar nicht, ob man von einem Mann, der davon überzeugt ist, dass vor über 2.000 Jahren eine Jungfrau ein Kind geboren hat, dessen Vater aus dem Himmel kam erwarten kann, eine zeitgemäße, den aktuellen Stand der wissenschaftlichen Debatte entsprechende Antwort auf die Frage "Was ist eine Frau?" akzeptieren zu können. In diesem Sinne sollte man Matt Walsh beim nächsten Mal einfach missachten, liebe Film-Protagonisten.
Das gilt obendrein wenn der Fragende laut Selbstauskunft ein "Theocratic fascist" ist. Walsh selbstironisiert diese Terminologie zwar, aber genau an diesem Punkt finde ich, dass er tatsächlich einmal recht hat: Matt Walsh ist ein katholischer Faschist.
Ich habe ein bisschen recherchiert und eine Filmkritik gefunden, die meinen - absolut rudimentären, nur auf dem Anschauen des Teasers beruhenden! - ersten Eindruck bestätigt:
"The position Walsh takes in the film is that there is a common sense definition of the word “woman,” one that is based in biology, but those who subscribe to Gender Ideology offer conflicting or unsatisfying definitions instead, and therefore have beliefs that do not make sense. There is an implicit presumption, never defended, that the word woman needs to have one simple, satisfying definition. One of Walsh’s respondents points out directly that women may give very different answers to the question of what it means to be a woman. For Walsh, this is apparently a sign of stupidity: he says we had a perfectly workable definition of men and women “up until 15 minutes ago,”but now the trans people have gone and made everything confusing, so that definitions differ. Indeed, there are academic arguments among feminist philosophers about how the word woman should be defined. Walsh treats this as laughable, but it’s not clear why it should be."
Und wenn ich dann lese:
"Walsh is so bored when a gender studies professor starts giving a long complicated answer to a question that the film fades out the audio to illustrate what an evasive and pretentious twit Walsh thinks the professor is."
dann scheint mein rudimentärer erster Eindruck, dass Walsh sich für schlauer hält als er ist und einfach nur ein bisschen manipulativ rumstänkern möchte, vielleicht nicht ganz falsch zu sein. Zudem scheint er nicht dazu in der Lage zu sein, die offensichtlichsten Widersprüchlichkeiten seiner eigenen Argumenation erkennen zu können:
"He doesn’t like drag queens reading to children in libraries, or giving makeup and dance classes to boys, because he sees something wrong and disturbing about Men wearing the clothing he thinks Women ought to wear. But why does he believe certain genitals are properly matched with certain clothing? Ironically enough, the Maasai men he admires for their traditional ideas of gender are decked out in jewelry and wearing clothes that, if sold in the U.S., might be described as colorful dresses."
Irgendwie ist es ja auch lustig, dass wir seit hunderten von Jahren immer noch am Nominalismusstreit rumnagen:
"Walsh makes the same core error as other anti-trans bigots like Ben Shapiro, treating a debate about language as if it’s a debate about biological reality. I have discussed this error several times before, and Natalie Wynn has an excellent explanation in her video on Shapiro. Wynn points out that saying a trans woman is “not a woman” because of biology is like saying adoptive parents are “not really someone’s parents” because they are not blood relations of their children. It is fallacious, pure and simple. It assumes that the definition of the word “parents” is handed to us from on high, that there is some fixed rule in the universe prohibiting us from using it to refer to people who have a social rather than a biological relationship with their children. There is, similarly, no rule saying that the word woman “really” or “must” be used based on the criteria Walsh prefers. Science cannot resolve whether we should choose to apply gender categories based on genitalia, chromosomes, secondary sex characteristics, self-identification, the performance of social roles, or the perception of others."
Und wenn ich dann diese Szene lese
"At one point, Walsh interviews the owner of a Star Wars memorabilia shop, who was caught on video arguing with a trans woman who objected to a sign in the store that said “if you’ve got a dick, you’re not a chick.” Walsh asks the owner why he believes that “chicks” cannot have “dicks,” and the owner replies that this is just “common sense.” Walsh seems satisfied with the answer, even though invoking “common sense” as an argument amounts to saying “I believe it because I believe it.”
bin ich mir ziemlich sicher, dass dieser Film eher unfreiwillig komisch ist, als dass er seine Aussage stützt. Und vor solch einem rechtsradikalen, vernunftfernen, unlogisch-unwissenschaftlichem, kriminellen (in dem Kapitel mit dem kanadischen Vater und dessen Verstoß gegen das Schützen der Identität eines Kindes) Mumpitz hat die linke Öffentlichkeit in den USA angeblich Angst? Einem Film, der zudem auf Vortäuschung falscher Tatsachen zu stande gekommen ist ("According to one of Walsh’s interviewees, Walsh lied to participants in order to secure their consent to participate, going so far as to represent himself as being part of a fake organization called the Gender Unity Project.") und die Aussagen seiner Protagonisten verzerrt und aus dem Kontext reißt ("I also made it very clear in my interview that I don’t identify as trans-species and that my therian identity and my gender identity are two very different things to me. I vehemently rejected the term transspecies and the comparison being made, but none of that made it into the interview. I recall Matt being frustrated during our interview that I wasn’t giving him any of the “gotcha” responses he seemed to desperately want, so it makes sense that he would focus on what he believes is the more extreme portion of my identity – being a wolf therianthrope. He cut the portion of me explaining this identity was spiritual in nature.")
Wobei ich offensichtlich noch zu milde urteile, Nathan J. Robinson hat sicherlich eher recht wenn er schreibt:
"Walsh, as stated before, misunderstood the facts of the controversial case there, even though he went so far as to rent a house in the district solely so he could berate the school board during a public comment period. But when he pulls off the mask of reasonableness and open-minded inquiry, and reveals how viscerally he despises trans people and anyone who recognizes trans people’s claims to their identity, we can see how What Is A Woman? isn’t just ignorant. It’s also evil, because Walsh is trying to convince the public that trans people are abusers and groomers, that they are a threat that must be eradicated. This is not really a philosophical argument over the word “woman.” It is a Nazi-like piece of propaganda attempting to convince people that their trans neighbors, colleagues, and classmates are insane and menacing."
Quelle: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/06/ ... -prejudice
Ich weiß auch gar nicht, ob man von einem Mann, der davon überzeugt ist, dass vor über 2.000 Jahren eine Jungfrau ein Kind geboren hat, dessen Vater aus dem Himmel kam erwarten kann, eine zeitgemäße, den aktuellen Stand der wissenschaftlichen Debatte entsprechende Antwort auf die Frage "Was ist eine Frau?" akzeptieren zu können. In diesem Sinne sollte man Matt Walsh beim nächsten Mal einfach missachten, liebe Film-Protagonisten.
Das gilt obendrein wenn der Fragende laut Selbstauskunft ein "Theocratic fascist" ist. Walsh selbstironisiert diese Terminologie zwar, aber genau an diesem Punkt finde ich, dass er tatsächlich einmal recht hat: Matt Walsh ist ein katholischer Faschist.
"Ein Wort, Herr! Sag mir nur ein einziges Wort in diesem Elend!" - "Ich sage dir sogar zwei: Guten Appetit!"
-------
"Es gibt keine Lösung. Weil es kein Problem gibt."
-------
"Es gibt keine Lösung. Weil es kein Problem gibt."
