Theology in the Raw - S9 Ep985: A Review of Matt Walsh’s “What Is a Woman?”

Episode Date: June 30, 2022

Matt Walsh from The Daily Wire released a provocative new documentary called “What Is a Woman?” In it, he interviews several scholars, medical professionals, and common people to hear their answer to the question. It’s created quite a buzz, so I watched it twice and took lots of notes. In this podcast, I talk about my pros and cons of the documentary.  Watch the documentary HERE. (It’s behind a paywall.) –––––– PROMOS Save 10% on courses with Kairos Classroom using code TITR at kairosclassroom.com! –––––– Sign up with Faithful Counseling today to save 10% off of your first month at the link:  faithfulcounseling.com/titr or use code TITR at faithfulcounseling.com –––––– Save 30% at SeminaryNow.com by using code TITR –––––– Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out Dr. Sprinkle’s website prestonsprinkle.com Stay Up to Date with the Podcast Twitter | @RawTheology Instagram | @TheologyintheRaw If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review. www.theologyintheraw.com

Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. This is going to be a little different sort of episode. So every month, my Patreon supporters submit a bunch of questions for me to answer. And I take about half of their questions and address them on a Patreon-only podcast. And the other half I address on the public podcast. As many of you know, every month I usually have a Q&A podcast. And in this last round of questions, there were several Patreon supporters who really wanted to know my thoughts on Matt Walsh's documentary, What is a Woman? And I was going to, well, at first I was going to address it just on the Patreon-only podcast. And then I was like, no, I'm going to make this part of the public podcast.

And as I thought through it, my response just kept getting longer and longer. So then I was like, well, maybe I'll just do a whole separate podcast, public podcast addressing the documentary, What is a Woman? if you're not aware uh matt walsh he is a political commentator he's a practicing catholic conservative political commentator um associated with or works for does he work for the daily wire he's a columnist for the daily wire i'm just i his wiki, uh, PDA link out here in front of me. Um, he's the author of several books and, um, he's the host of the wait for it, wait for it. The Matt Walsh, Matt Walsh show. Um, the Daily Wire, if you're not sure, if you're not aware, is a conservative media outlet, um, I believe founded or co-founded by Ben Shapiro. So he's

the most probably well-known name associated with The Daily Wire. I know very, very little about Matt Walsh. I think I might have listened to one or two podcast episodes, maybe part of a podcast episode that he's done. I can't remember which one it was or why I did. And I have not read any of his books. I did glance at one once, but decided not to buy it. But when the doc, oh, so he hosted this documentary, What is a Woman? Which, yeah, does just that. It's a documentary, him talking to lots of different people to try to figure out what is a woman. What does that word woman mean?

How would you define it? And it really has to do with the transgender conversation or at least aspects of the transgender conversation. The documentary is only available, I believe. I think you have to sign up for the Daily Wire to get access to it. At least that's how I got access to it. I had to sign up to the Daily Wire to watch it, which I did. Watched the documentary a couple times and then canceled my subscription. I don't like to sign up for news stuff. So anyway, that's what I did. I watched the documentary a couple of times. I was alerted to it because somebody told me, hey, have you seen the documentary? What is a

woman? I said, no, I haven't. And they said, well, you're in it. You should watch it. I'm like, what? So I was kind of motivated to watch it because I am indeed in the documentary, just briefly kind of in passing to hear my voice and I'm on the screen for a few seconds. So yeah, here's what I want to do. I want to review the documentary. I want to talk about four pros that I found in the documentary and then four cons. One, two, three, four. Yep. And then I will give some final words about it. Let me begin. Let me get again. Let me give kind of a preface though. Before I even get into the documentary, the opening question, the leading question in the documentary is what is a woman? And if somebody, somebody asked you

that, what would you answer? So I want to begin with my answer so that you know where I'm coming from, so that everything else that I say in this podcast will be, in a sense, flowing from my own answer to the question, what is a woman? So how would I answer the question, what is a woman? I would say a woman is an adult human female. That's what a woman is, an adult human female. reasoning behind my answer, I'll say it like this. Homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic mammalian species, which reproduce when two gametes, egg and sperm, fuse together. And the English words used to name the two kinds of humans that produce these two different gametes are male and female. That's what it means when we say that um humans as may as mammals are a sexually

dimorphic species there are other species on earth that are not sexually dimorphic um that don't need a uh two different gamuts to fuse together to reproduce so um i take that as kind of a scientific given um some people don't and there's people in the documentary that definitely wouldn't take that as a scientific given. But to quote a couple of scientists, an organism is male or female if it is structured to perform one of the respective roles in reproduction, and there is no other widely accepted biological classification for the sexes. And again, in the English language, the terms used to describe, typically used to describe the sexual dimorphism of humans as a species is male and female. And what do you call an adult female? The common word is woman. What do you call an adolescent female? Typically, you would say girl, or maybe pre-adolescent or adolescent, you would say girl. When that human female goes through what we call puberty, we typically would call that adult human female, a woman. So that's my answer to the question. And at the very end of the documentary, it was interesting that Matt Walsh's wife, he goes in and talks to his wife and says, hey, what is a woman? And she says an adult human female. So I do think Matt Walsh's wife

answers the question correctly. Now, everything I'm saying here has to do with what we refer to as biological sex, sex. Over the last 50 or so years, some scholars have made a distinction between the concepts of sex and gender. Sex is everything we said, okay? But gender, when it's used in distinction from sex, is often defined as the psychological, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female. The psychological, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female. So if I said, well, actually, before I unpack that, let me break gender down into three subcategories of gender, gender identity, gender role, gender expression. So gender identity has to do with one's internal sense of being male, female, both or neither. That's a standard definition. Gender role has to do with the adoption of cultural expectations for maleness and femaleness, or you can almost shorthand gender role as masculinity or femininity. Gender expression is the third subcategory of

gender, which has to do with a person's behavior, mannerisms, interests, and appearance that are typically associated with a particular sex in any given culture. So, and gender role and gender expression do overlap quite a bit. And even gender identity is not completely separate from things like gender role or gender expression. Typically, one's internal sense of being, well, if you ask somebody to unpack their internal sense of being male, female, both, or neither, they're typically going to give a description that might fall into categories of gender role, gender expression. You know, in this day and age, it might not be uncommon for a male, again, a male, a human male,

male, again, a male, a human male, to have maybe a female internal sense of self. And if you ask them to unpack that in a good faith dialogue, they might say things like, well, I just have never really resonated with being a boy. I don't like sports. I'm much more emotional than the other guys at school. I like to wear my hair long. I like to color pink. And so sometimes even unpacking gender identity can spill over into things like gender expression or gender role. So it's important to keep those two categories in mind in the trans conversation as a whole, but especially in this documentary. That the question, what is a woman, Matt Walsh is really asking a question about biological sex. Throughout the documentary, the conversations get interesting, sometimes comical, sometimes absurd, because most of the interviewees start talking about gender when Matt is asking a question about biological sex.

And if you understand the difference there, it helps you to really kind of organize your thoughts as you're trying to pay attention to the interviews. Now, in terms of, you know, well, there's in a sense an underlying question behind the question, what is a woman? Before we even, well, underlying it, maybe it's associated with the question, what is a woman? If we assume the definitions of sex and gender that I gave above, then the primary question next to or connected to the question, what is a woman, is this. If a homo sapien experiences incongruence between their sex and their gender, then which one are they and why? I don't want to get too ahead of myself here,

but I think that question wasn't really teased out in the documentary. Matt was really focused on biological sex. The responses were typically focused on gender. Sometimes they would weave in and out of sex and gender, and that's why they felt really convoluted. But it never really got down to the nitty-gritty question of if there is incongruence between one's internal sense of self and biological sex and which one are they. I spent a whole book embodied asking, addressing the why question. So let me just say my answer that took me three years and thousands of hours of research to come to. I do believe that biological sex determines whether you are a man or a woman, which is why I would say a woman is an adult human female. Even my answer there assumes that biological sex is more

fundamental to human identity than one's internal sense of who they are. So I would say that I do think the conversation is much more complicated and complex than Matt Walsh maybe made it out to be. And to be fair, I'm sure he was like, well, that wasn't my part. I wasn't here to unpack all of that. So it's not really a critique, just more of an acknowledgement that there's a lot more complexity going on underneath the conversation than the documentary would give off. I mean, we need to work through questions about brain sex theory, sexed soul theories, intersex, gender dysphoria, theological anthropology, and so on and so on and so on. Now, having done all that, I do believe that the answer to the question, what is a woman, is an adult human female. Okay. So let's dive into the documentary. It's about an hour and a half.

And Matt basically goes around interviewing lots of different people seeking to know what is a woman. And, you know, the documentary is framed in terms of Matt being on a genuine quest. And I kind of, I liked the imagination and artistry of that. Like, I thought it was really, I thought that was a provocative and helpful and engaging way to go about it. You know, he begins by really curious, what is a woman? And, you know, he even says some funny things at the beginning, like, you know, he's got, I forget. Does he have sons or daughters? Anyway, he says something like, do I have sons trapped inside my daughter's bodies? And if so, how do I get them out?

That's kind of fun. It's like, oh, that's a funny way to put it. And he's sitting there genuinely curious. What if I have a son trapped inside my girl's body? I need to free him. How do I do that? curious, like, what if I have a son trapped inside my girl's body? I need to, I need to free him. How do I do that? You know? Um, and, and so the, the, the, the tone of the documentary up front,

at least is very much Matt on this genuine quest, trying to figure out what is a woman. So he's interviewing medical professionals and, and trans doctors and, and other people on the streets. And, and he flies over to, uh, Kenya or Tanzania and talks to the Maasai people over there. And what is a woman? And, um, I, I, you know, I appreciate, I thought it was entertaining and clever. Um, make no mistake. It's not genuine. Like Matt has a very strong, very strong, um, very competent answer to the question. He's, he's not genuinely trying to figure out what is a woman. That's just the way he frames his narrative. So while I appreciated it, you know, obviously, and I don't think, yeah,

I don't think he's trying to come off as on a genuine journey. Like I think he would say, yeah, that's just kind of the more satirical tone that we wanted to put into the documentary. So I appreciated it, but yeah, make no mistake, Matt has a very clear narrative upfront the more satirical tone that we wanted to put into the documentary. So, so I appreciated it, but yeah, make no mistake. Matt has a very clear narrative upfront with everything in a documentary that he's, that he's shooting for. So yeah, some of the pros, number one, I just kind of what I said, I did find the documentary just as,

from an objective standpoint, like I found it entertaining. Well done. The music was good. The videography was good. The interviews were engaging and informative, revealing. I thought it was witty. I thought he came off as... So Matt, and I'm going to come back to this, the little I know about Matt, the little, and this is just my subjective, personal take, maybe you have a different take. Matt. The little, and this is just my subjective, personal take, maybe you have a different take. He does come off to me as very combative, culture warrior-ish, winning the argument, not deep down. I don't get the impression he's interested in a genuine good faith dialogue, but kind of, but still with a very confident right answer to that dialogue. Right answers

that I might even agree with. That's the thing. I have this tension of like, ah, I'm not sure I love the approach, but what you're saying, sometimes I'm like, yeah, I actually agree with the content. I'm not sure about the approach. But I'm actually glad that the documentary was framed in more of the... I mean, he came off as kind of an enjoyable, curious, witty,itty funny sometimes self-deprecating kind of person and i thought his persona was much more enjoyable in the documentary than than in the few other avenues maybe i've i've seen him him in so um again i don't i don't i don't i don't want to say too much about this person a person's personality or personality somebody that i've never met probably

never will meet don't know um and so so I don't want to go too far there. All that to say, this is part of the pro. Like I thought the documentary was well done as a documentary. Number two, I do agree with his answer to the question. If the overarching stated goal of the documentary is to find out what is a woman, a woman is an adult human female. And that's the right answer from my opinion, I guess. Well, not just my opinion. I think it's pretty scientifically established. So yeah, in a sense, if that's the overarching stated goal, then I think the answer to the

overarching stated goal is correct. Again, there's satire humor as a strong, clear narrative built into it. It's not a genuine search for the answer, but in terms of getting the answer right, I think that is a pro. Number three, number three, I do think the documentary exposes some intellectually questionable, that's a mild way of putting it, views regarding human nature that have become mainstream. I love that he interviewed actual people on the other side of the view he believes in. I love that the interviews weren't, sometimes there were just soundbites where I'm like, oh, I really wish I had the full paragraph there. Cause I'm just always skeptical when I hear

soundbites. Like, ah, what's, what's the context here? What's going on? And I feel like at least some of the interviews, he really let them talk and he asked questions and let them just answer their questions. Like it wasn't just real debatey. He just kind of said, Hey, tell me what you think. And he would ask probing questions. And again,

I'm not saying those are genuine questions. He's, I think underlying that he is trying to expose some of the logical fallacies and inconsistencies. Of course he's trying to do that. Like that's, yeah. And there's times when that comes out really clearly.

But even still, I do think he, I think the viewpoint that he is ultimately critiquing did come from the horse's mouth. And so I appreciate that. It wasn't him summarizing how some people were thinking. It's him going in and interviewing people and letting them describe their beliefs. And I will let you be the judge. Everybody's open to their own opinions on it. But when I'm listening to this, it is a little bit embarrassing. Some of the stuff people are saying, you're like, wow, really?

And some of the way when people kind of felt like intellectually handcuffed, they kind of said, this interview is over. Like the one that was pretty humorous was when he interviewed a politician who was, you know, very much pro-trans rights, whatever that means, pro-Equality Act, very, very far left, you know. And he went and interviewed him. act and very, very far left, you know, and he went interviewed him and it's just, I, you know, my default position is politicians are after power and they will, um, repeat, mimic whatever talking points they need to keep their power base. And it's, it's comical sometimes when, when politicians wander into areas like gender, which can be super complex. And all they do is repeat the talking points of their tribe to gain power and maintain power and get votes. But they're not science. They don't know what they're talking about.

And that was kind of exposed when Matt asked just some really basic questions. The guy was just totally handcuffed and said, this interview is over. Stop. Turn off the cameras. And it's like, oh, yeah, it's like whatever. And he, you know, he interviewed some medical professionals, some pretty high profile medical professionals and just let them articulate their perspective. And from my vantage point, having waited in the literature, having read

stuff by these professionals and swimming in all the literature in this conversation for several years. Yeah. The people he found to represent certain aspects of a set of ideologies, I'm wording that really specifically, like the viewpoints represented are true. I do think they are more on the radical end of the trans conversation, but they are very mainstream as well, very influential. And so I really like the way he simply said, hey, here are some leaders in the medical field. Here's what they believe. Take it early.

Like, you know, dear watcher, viewer, you see if you agree with this or if you have problems with it. So, um, yeah, I thought that was, um, I thought that was real. I'm really glad he, he went about it that way. And I thought the interviews, um, you know, sometimes they did have a, a subtle combative tone, but I guess I don't, I don't mind good, healthy pushback. I don't mind people coming in with strong convictions. Again, I share Matt's ultimate conviction that a woman is an adult human female. So, um, and I also share Matt's, um, concern with the way some leaders in certain fields, some professionals, the way they are thinking and the way they can't even handle like anybody outside their echo chamber, like

kind of pushing back. And yeah, I, I really enjoyed that aspect of the documentary. Uh, fourth, the fourth pro I have with the documentary, and this is, I guess kind of overlaps with the, my third one. Um, number four, that the documentary does expose mainstream medical approaches to kids and teens identifying as trans. This is really sensitive, and so I want to choose my words carefully here. how some mainstream medical approaches are treating trans-identified teens and kids. There has been an explosion in numbers among teens and even kids identifying as trans. We know gender dysphoria as a clinically diagnosed psychological condition is very rare according to DSM. It's 0.14% population. That was back in 2013 when the last DSM was updated.

0.014% of people were diagnosed with gender dysphoria and that's on the high end at that time. And now there's many, many, many, many people, teens especially, identifying as trans. And in some circles, there is a one-size-fits-all approach that if you simply identify as trans, you resonate with certain gender stereotypes of the opposite sex, then the pathway towards medical transitioning is the best, in some cases, people would say the only way that you will live a happy and flourishing life. I don't think that that is medically responsible. And I do agree with people that are very concerned with how we are. Experimenting might be too strong. Some people like that

language. I've used the language of experimenting. I don't know. I try to stay away from language that could come off as unnecessarily combative or dog whistling to one side of the aisle, but I don't think it's healthy. Well, let me say it this way. Let me say it this way. If, okay, so I'm a Christian. I have certain ethical beliefs about transitioning. Leaving all that aside, if I was a Bible-burning atheist, I would still be very much against teens medically transitioning. Could there be some exceptions to that rule? Maybe bring me some of those exceptions.

We can talk about it. But as a very, very general, not as a general, I would say just let me just state it. Just yes, I would be against teens transitioning. I don't think teens can make, are out of place in life. I don't think their brains are out of place where they can make such huge, complex, irreversible decisions as a teenager. I have four teenagers in the house. I'm around teenagers a lot. And I also do believe, I am convinced that there is some level of social influence happening in the skyrocketing numbers of teens identifying as trans. I don't think they would be clinically diagnosed with severe gender dysphoria to the point to where transitioning is the only thing that's going to give them a happy life. So, yeah, I'm really glad. And now I put it in the category

of justice. This is where justice becomes tricky because a lot of people who are for justice and against, you know, or for trans rights and for, they'll word it in a way like for healthcare for trans people. And these right-wingers are denying healthcare for trans people. That's just a horrible way of putting it. The question is, what is the best, most effective, most tested way to treat teens who are suffering from a psychological condition called gender dysphoria? That's really the overarching medical question. And even, again, speaking as an atheist, I'm going to represent just a non, I don't want to get my ethics involved, my Christian ethics involved here. Just from an objective medical standpoint, I would say, well, it's complex.

Not every kid who identifies as trans should transition. In fact, a lot of them probably shouldn't. Maybe when they're an adult, their brains are developed. When the severe gender dysphoria has persisted, when they've sought therapeutic care and that didn't work and they've dealt with any kind of trauma or internalized homophobia or misogyny. internalized homophobia or misogyny. This is a huge percentage of people who identify as trans have internalized misogyny for biological females or internalized homophobia. I mean, these are studies that have been done on this. There could be a lot of other things going on that is related to, that is exacerbating, that is creating, cultivating, nurturing the gender dysphoria. Let's explore all other avenues and

maybe again, not from a Christian ethical standpoint, but just from a non-biased, whatever non-religious standpoint, maybe transitioning when the person is an adult is kind of the last kind of thing that should be done to relieve the gender dysphoria. So anytime I see somebody exposing some of the injustice happening towards teenagers that identify as trans, I'm excited about that. I mean, there's one interview, this is where I come in, in the documentary just briefly, Scott Nugent, who's been on the podcast, a trans woman who's very critical of transitioning, is kind of a highlight in the documentary. I know Scott. Scott is, wow. Passionate, passionate cookie right there, Scott. And has some really strong words

about transitioning, especially teens transitioning. The trans woman medical doctor who's performed tons of sexual assignment surgeries on people has no problem saying, I've done it as young as 16 years old. I think kids can make this decision. Teens are perfectly capable of making these decisions. Teens are hardly affected by their social environment. All these just absurd things. You're like, really? You believe that? affected by their social environment. All these just absurd things. You're like, really? You believe that? I'm glad that kind of thing was exposed because I want just the average person to watch that and say, huh, am I okay with that? Is that okay? So lots of good stuff in the documentary. Let's get to some pros or cons. Number one, the documentary is highly selective. Now, this isn't really necessarily a critique of what is a woman.

It is just, I just want to acknowledge that any kind of documentary or film is going to be highly selective. I've done documentaries, I've done film projects, and it's not uncommon for us to, like the last film project we did, we interviewed, it's not uncommon for us to like the last film project we did, we interviewed, I want to say 16, 17 people. Each one was like an hour long interview.

And some of these interviews, we interviewed them for an hour, maybe two minutes of what they said, made it into the final cut. So that is highly selective. Um, that's just the nature of the doc. And some documentaries are more maybe neutral than others. But again,

just to be clear, this documentary has a very, very, very clear narrative. Um, and I'm not saying that like I even disagree with aspects of that narrative. It just, it does have a narrative and that what made it into the final form of the documentary

is a highly selective choice. That's redundant. What made it in the final product is highly selective. They handpick the words, the interviews, the points in the interview that would build well into the narrative. On the one hand, I think the soundbites, the statements in the documentary were accurate and true to what they believe. I've read stuff by some of the people in the interviews. I've

read other people. I'm like, no, that actually, I think you're fairly representing what they believe. So I don't think for the most part,, they took sound bites that the person would have disagreed with. So I don't think it was dishonest. On the other hand, the documentary just simply would not have included statements made by trans people or gender-affirming people that might have made Matt look stupid. Like, I don't even know if in some of those interviews, they pushed back on him and he was caught with his intellectual pants down and like, yeah, don't put that in the documentary, you know? Because there's some, again, there's a lot more complexity in the trans conversation than the documentary made it out to be. I don't know how much material would have exposed that complexity? I just don't know. I just don't know. There were some extreme perspectives in the documentary, again, that were selective.

Towards the end, there was like this montage of kind of the more fringe, or at least maybe not fringe, maybe more radical trans personas. Like you had that one interview with the furry who identified as a wolf or wolfdom or whatever, and was also trans. And then he had this montage of all these people on TikTok and YouTube, and they were selecting some of the more, I'm going to choose my words carefully here,

maybe strange, abnormal, carefully here, maybe strange, abnormal, some of the more radically atypical trans identities, trans personas. And the music fed into that and everything. And it's just kind of like, oh, this is crazy. Is this what all trans people are like? And that's where I have a problem. As one who is in the trans conversation, who talks about why diversity of people, this documentary captured one aspect of the fringe. I don't want to say fringe. I don't want to say fringe

because there are some mainstream elements here. One aspect of the trans conversation, but there is lots of other, loads of other trans people that weren't at all represented in the documentary. So even like, do furries exist? If you don't know what a furry is, just Google it. Be careful what you Google. Cause there is a sexual element that's often in the furry conversation, but do furries exist? People identify as different animals and yeah, they do. Do some of them identify as trans too? Yes. Yes. That's just true.

Do most trans identified people find furries to be strange and out there and would never identify as a furry? Yes. That would be the majority perspective of people that identifies trans. So I would hate it if somebody watched the documentary and walked away thinking trans people are all furries and all these kind of crazy TikTok people or whatever. That's just not representative of all trans people. The documentary is highly, highly selective. Number two, the documentary does target one aspect of the trans conversation, the most radical aspects of

it. You should never use the phrase trans ideology. There is no trans ideology. There are trans ideologies. So if you say, well, man, well, trans ideology says I'm going to stop you and say, which one? Who, where, why, what, which book, which interview, which person? Because there is so much diversity of thought in the trans conversation. Why diversity? So in the documentary, there's no interviews of super kind, scientifically sound trans people who have transitioned and are living happy lives as a post-operation or post-transitioned trans-identified person. I know several. I know several people who experience crippling gender dysphoria, were mocked and made fun of by the religious environment, were abused by their family members, who sought help from pastors and ministers and were shamed and shunned, who attempted suicide

on several occasions, who sought therapy, who did everything they could to relieve the dysphoria and was so crippling they could not hardly get out of bed and go outside. And finally, they decided to transition as a last ditch effort. And now they are three, five, 10, 15 years into their transition, and they're like, my life is not perfect. All my problems didn't go away, but I don't have the debilitating, crippling dysphoria that I used to have. I'm happy I transitioned. I'm not saying it's for everybody.

In fact, I'm representing a particular friend of mine I have in my head who says, I'm very nervous about all these teenagers pursuing medical transition. I'm opposed to that. For me, my story, it was the only thing I knew what to do to save my life. And 15 years later, I'm happy I did. There's none of that in the documentary. It was all kind of activists and really radical perspectives and quote unquote intellectuals or professionals who Matt can kind of expose some of their convoluted reasoning, which again, I'm glad he did that. But for everything that's good and holy, if you watch the documentary, which I think you should, I think you should, don't only watch the documentary.

Talk to trans people. Listen to trans people. Read a wide diversity of books. This documentary does not represent the totality of the trans conversation. It represents one, I'm going to say sliver because again, some of the stuff said in the documentary is pretty mainstream and that's concerning to me. But there's a lot of trans people who disagree with even what is considered mainstream ideology. There are trans ideologies, some of which are very different from each other. There is no one trans ideology. So What is a Woman, the documentary, does not address trans ideology. It addresses one aspect, one trans ideology in the midst of many trans ideologies.

Number three, this is kind of a minor critique, but there are times, a few times, that I do think that Matt, not Matt, but the documentary kind of fostered some of the gender stereotypes. I guess it was largely in the opening, so it was kind of fresh in my mind. You know, the very first couple minutes,

you know, it's boys and girls playing and there's a party and boys are unwrapping. I think it was like a BB gun and the girls unwrap like a makeup kit. The girls like the makeup kit, the guys like the BB gun, all this stuff. And he kind of, there's a few things set up front that made it sound like boys and girls are categorically different. Boys like BB guns, girls like makeup kits, but that, that almost hurts Matt's case because what do you do when a boy unwraps a BB gun and he cries and he looks at the girl's makeup kit and he starts putting on makeup? If you connect gender stereotypes to biological sex too closely, too absolutely, then you end up building a foundation upon which some trans ideologies are built.

upon which some trans ideologies are built. That boy who cries at his BB gun, goes to the makeup kit, grows his hair long, you're like, oh, so that's a girl because he's acting like a girl. What does that mean? Acting like a girl. What does that even mean? Are we not playing into gender stereotypes if we use behaviors and interests that are typical of a certain biological sex as foundations for determining whether somebody is that biological sex. Again, I don't think the documentary played into that a lot, but there was a few places where I'm like, if I was an editor, I would have said, yeah, edit that out. Don't do that. Don't say that. I do think there were times also relatedly throughout where sex and gender were blurred, even in Matt's own language.

Sometimes he would ask a question and he would use the term gender as a synonym for biological sex. I have timestamps. I'm not going to, I took a few, there's a few times and I'm like, ah, you said gender there, but what you really mean is sex. And then maybe he's like, no, I think sex and gender are the same but in a documentary where sex and gender are used differently throughout the documentary it would be good i think to maintain some linguistic clarity there i do think jordan peterson toward the end gave a good kind of critique on the very modern concept of gender when it's used in distinction of sex i think his little short take there that that what is often described as gender is simply temperament,

behavior, personality. And when you use the term gender, it just kind of confuses things. I thought that was really helpful. I would have almost liked to see that unpacked. I will say, I think they made Jordan Peterson look horrible. He looked so bad. He looked like this angry, bitter old man and just angry. And just, yeah, he just looked like the male version of the, the church lady from SNL.

I mean, he's like, it was, they made him look bad. And what's, what's comical, I guess I think they're trying to paint him. And I mean,

they, they're on, like, I think they like, I would assume they love Jordan Peterson. And I think they're trying to paint him – I mean, they're on – like, I think they like – I would assume they love Jordan Peterson. And I think they – this is where the – I'm assuming they selected soundbites. You're like, yes, this is good.

I'm like, oh, I don't think you did him any favors. I've listened to, I don't know, maybe 20 – I don't know, 10 to 20 hours of Jordan Peterson. Long-form conversations, his Bible, when he's teaching through the Bible, long-form conversations on various podcasts. And if you don't know Jordan Peterson well, the little few minutes in the documentary, he's not always that bitter and old and angry and mean.

Yeah, anyway, that's a side note. But I thought they did a terrible job with Jordan Peterson. Number four, lastly, my last con is I do think that there is just a culture warrior tone in the documentary that I personally don't resonate with. And I actually think it doesn't help the very cause that they, the documentary is trying to advance. Again, the first half I thought was really good. Unexpectedly, I was like, oh, this seems really like clever and witty. And he's on this quest to find out what is a woman. I know he doesn't really need to ask the question. He already knows the answer,

but I thought it was at least presented well. Two thirds of the way into the documentary, when he throws a chair up against the whiteboard, he says, I'm done asking questions, and he goes on this kind of rampage. And that scene where he's in the courtroom standing up, he gives this 30 or 60-second speech, and he's just like ripping all the people on the panel, a new one and everything. I'm like, I get your passion, get your frustration, resonate with a lot of what you're striving for. This isn't the way to go about it. This is not, this is not, all it's going to do is exacerbate the tensions, cause people to hunker down, solidify their own defensive posture. And it's not going to achieve. I don't think what you're trying to achieve. Um, yeah. Uh, I would highly recommend if what you're trying to achieve. Yeah. I would highly recommend

if Matt's listening, he's not listening and he's probably already read it, but Jonathan Heights, The Righteous Mind, a lot of what you're doing here is addressing the rider of the elephant. You're not doing anything for, or not doing much. I would say not doing much for the elephant when you come off as just so combative, so attacking towards people who hold to the other view. And again, I resonate with what's feeling that outrage. I just say we need to temper that outrage so that our points are made more effectively. So in you know so in summary when i watch the documentary um you you i mean i i'm different because i am talking to lots of trans people i'm reading books i'm in conversations i understand the complexity and nuance so when i watch the

documentary i can eat the meat spit out the bones pros cons whatever take the good whatever this is good this is good this is not so good um so i. So I enjoyed the documentary. I'm glad it was produced. I think other people should watch it, but for everything that's good and holy, don't only watch just this documentary. If all you do is watch the documentary and that's your only or main exposure to the trans conversation, you're going to leave angry. You're going to leave combative. You're going to leave with a one-size-fits-all view of trans people. You're going to think there is a monolithic trans ideology. You're going to be outraged.

And I don't think you're going to be able to embody both the love, grace, love, grace, and truth, both, all the virtues of Christianity, love, grace, truth, gentleness, kindness, self-control. all the virtues of Christianity, love, grace, truth, gentleness, kindness, self-control. Watch the documentary, but do so with a lot of caveats and make sure you supplement the documentary with other books and resources, especially sitting in relationship with actual trans people. Thanks for listening. Hope that was helpful. If it is helpful, if this was a helpful review, please do share this podcast on your social media platforms. If it's not helpful, if you hated this podcast,

then please leave a one-star review. I value honesty more than blind allegiance. So if it's helpful, tell other people about it. If not, no worries. We'll see you next time on Theology on the Rock.