The following is from Stanford College Republicans:
Next Wednesday, March 1st, we will host author, speaker, and documentary filmmaker Matt Walsh in Dinkelspiel Auditorium at 8 PM. Tickets for both students and community members can be accessed here. In his lecture, Walsh will be discussing the lies and fallacies underlying the transgender movement. On a campus where the leftist gender-bending ideology is the norm—embraced, or at least tacitly supported, by nearly all professors and administrators—it is more important than ever for students to engage with Matt Walsh’s contrarian ideas.
Matt Walsh came to prominence last year with his documentary What is a Woman? In the documentary, Walsh shows how the leftist consensus on gender—embraced at Stanford—is completely incoherent and disconnected with reality. Perhaps more importantly, the film highlights the tragic results of embracing the left’s lies. Mutilating and sterilizing children who are confused about their gender or place in the world is not compassionate. Indulging someone’s delusions does not make them happier—gender is not socially constructed. In his lecture next Wednesday, Walsh will explain how his positions are not motivated by ‘hate’ or ‘transphobia’ as some leftists want to claim, but instead by a deep desire to create a world where all people can flourish.
For the past five years, Stanford College Republicans, with the vital support of the Young America’s Foundation, have worked to make Stanford’s campus into a true marketplace of ideas. Even as leftist activists attempt to sabotage our events and mock our members, we remain dedicated to giving students the ability to hear and engage with conservative thought. We hope all students consider joining us next Wednesday for a meaningful discussion of gender, the family, and traditional values.
Full story at The Stanford Review.
Matt Walsh is a brilliant and articulate Catholic leader so desperately needed in the decadent West. Pray for his safety and for the reintroduction of sanity at Stanford, for he is going into an insane asylum.
Sorry. His latest attack on the family member of a politician…no. Family is supposed to be off limits.
Matt aggressively exposes the folly of those who promote transgenderism and related attacks on Christian faith and practice. I am puzzled why you feel a person who has become a spokesperson for the left is off limits just because they are family to a politician. Everyone belongs to some family, and it is possible that a politician’s family member may think his/her words carry special weight. All the more reason, it seems to me, for Matt to counter this influence with his own. But granting your point for the sake of argument, two questions come to mind: 1. What other limits would you require Matt to observe? 2. Do you even approve of his work in the first place?
Having a poll on your twitter of “Who’s the worst wife in America?” is just being a jerk. Good people don’t pretend to be jerks but jerks pretend to be good people to get something they want.
Find a better idol, man.
jerk, Anonymously calling Matt Walsh a jerk and accusing a CalCatholic reader of idolatry are not signs of maturity or respectful disagreement. You can reach him via Twitter or Instagram and tell him your concerns directly. I don’t follow him, but a poll about America’s worst wife does seem inappropriate. Let’s pray for him, his wife and their six children.
Why the boop would I contact Matt Walsh?
I don’t need him to care about my concerns.
I ain’t gonna be part of his income stream no matter what he says.
Why you felt the need to denigrate me is for you to figure out.
I regret my last post so I would like to amend. What I said was a “red-flag rule” not an assessment of Matt Walsh’s character or personality or career.
I’m done but you can like whoever you like. You do you.
I am not setting limits on him. He can be whoever he is. I love him as a member of the Christian faithful even if I am disappointed in one of his behavior choices.
But I am not supporting him with my time or money.
I do not know the body of his work. I know he did the “What is a woman ?” movie and I have seen parts of his speeches on YouTube.
The only thing I have seen him do is saying just because you identify as something does not mean you are that thing.
So I cannot give an approval to his work because I do not know the whole of it. But I can make a decision that this is not someone I want to spend time with because of rude behavior.
I have to amend things I have written as well and I am currently thinking of amending a post on another thread. Maybe this is an amendment to my original comment, I guess Matt Walsh is an acquired taste. His method of showcasing real people and the ideologies that drive them to madness is not for everyone. It is confrontational and as a speaker at a college campus I believe that is a useful approach. Many students accept the leftist gruel from the academic milieu without question and need to be startled out of complacency. If a Supreme Court justice cannot define a woman, that says to me the political culture has decayed and needs to be put on a bag and shaken hard. Matt is a very smart fellow and can answer students thoughtfully even if confrontational. He is something of a Catholic Ben Shapiro, which is reflected by his being part of the Daily Wire. For all his faults, his is a unique voice challenging the prevailing Weltanschauung of leftist elites whose opinions seem to hold sway in media, academia, and much of poltics.
Dan, I looked up a speech on YouTube and just denying the existence of gender is not very intelligent. Ben Shapiro says sex and gender cannot be separated. He does not deny its existence. The Church does not either.
I leave him to you and others who like that.
You can like whoever you like. I will read and obey whatever the Vatican or my bishop writes about it. I don’t follow lay people.
And I will follow the Truth of Christ something the Bishops and Vatican have been incapable of lately
You just didn’t.
I watched a video on youtube “My response to those who call me rude”. He made it because other right wing, anti-trans ideology podcasters were calling him mean for what he said about a possibly transitioning person.
I got to the part where he said “Convincing the other side is not my objective” He said his goal was to “defeat, humiliate and demoralize them.”
Other people have told him that he hurts the cause. He blows back. He is who he is.
What family member of a politician did he “attack?”
And, there is a difference between a child, like Barron Trump, and an adult public figure, like Hunter Biden.
One doesn’t have to agree with everything Mr. Walsh says or even his style, yet, a free exchange of differing ideas at a university is a good thing.
The guy who started all this (maybe) Rush Limbaugh always referred to himself as an entertainer whose job it was to keep his audience tuned in.
Yet he was effective in opposing the satanic left.
If you’re the same person who signed as “jerk,” how did I denigrate you? (I addressed you as you signed your post.). Wouldn’t you want to correct an erring Catholic brother? It’s one of the spiritual works of mercy.
Sick of the games
“Dan, I looked up a speech on YouTube and just denying the existence of gender is not very intelligent. Ben Shapiro says sex and gender cannot be separated. He does not deny its existence. The Church does not either.
I leave him to you and others who like that.”
You would need to tell me what he means by “denying gender.” Matt is too smart a guy to spout nonsense. I am certain he regards two genders, male and female, as axiomatic. That is an assumption of Western civilization, at least until now. He is most certainly therefore denying gender as proposed by LGBTQ+.
So I am not sure what your point is, unless you explain it more clearly. Produce the comment in context and let’s see what to make of it.
I am not going to give a link to this person. He said that there is no such thing as gender; it is just personality.
Walsh comes to the table with the certainty that there are two genders, male and female, rooted in biology. Why do you think he made the movie, What is a Woman? To bring out the utter incoherence of any other view than that rooted in biology. Where you get your notion that Walsh thinks otherwise I’m sure I have no idea. Your analysis of Walsh is profoundly deficient.
I do not agree with him that there is no slippery slope-that this is that transgender is the worst it can get to.
One of the people who were on the right who asked him a question at the college said they want leftist to ask questions so he can belittle them but he was able to get in line first and asked him “how do we stop the slippery slope of perversion and how do we push the ball back up the hill?”
He just denied there was a slippery slope and never even answered how to reverse the trend.
Dan, transgenderism is an extremely painful psychological condition. As a society, we are trying to figure out how much accommodation should be made for it.
When I was growing up, people with Down’s Syndrome were put in institutions. We do not that anymore. People figured out a more compassionate way to deal with it.
Bullying transgender people is like bullying people with Down’s Syndrome.
As for gender theory, it can be debated but it should be debated intelligently. I think his film “What is a Woman?” contributes to the conversation. I think there are people a lot better at it who aren’t making the money he is making and probably deserve a listen.
Denying that gender exists is not really helpful. It is a short part of the conversation. You cannot explain the world and its history without gender.
A mistaken assumption is that gender theory came from transgender issues. It did not. It came out of women studies of the 1970s. We were being taught some of it in classes in the early 1980s although it was still rather ill-defined and confusing at that time.
MInute mark 19:46 in speech at UWIS-Madison “What is a Woman tour.”