No. Conceding the entire argument to him would be saying that trans people don't exist or are at least an aberration that should be stamped out. Conceding the entire argument would be saying that trans people should never receive gender affirming care regardless of age. Conceding the entire argument would be saying that women are fragile little things with pink brains who like tiaras and makeup (which, ironically is not so different to what the gender ideologues re saying).
I don't believe any of these things.
1. Each of the references I make to the interviews is a link to a clip of them talking. Go and click them and see for yourself whether you think he edited them or if that's what they were actually saying. Of course he edited the film to some degree. But no matter how you edited a clip of me speaking about gender, unless you literally snipped individual words and pasted them together, you would never find me saying anything as ridiculous as these people say. And, to be fair, they're hardly the only people saying these ridiculous things. Walsh could have found far worse actually.
2. I'm wondering if you can possibly be confused by the apparent contradiction here. Yes, too little nuance is usually a bad thing. But that doesn't mean that infinite nuance until all concepts become meaningless is a good thing. Especially if we used that excess of nuance to drive policy and legal decisions.
We could argue indefinitely about whether the sky is blue, or whether humans have 10 fingers, or topically enough, about what a woman is. Yet across all cultures, throughout all of human history we've accepted the there is such a thing as an answer that is complete enough. And before the advent of the idea that a man became a woman simply by saying so, our idea of gender was complete enough and included trans women.
Indeed, as I've pointed out elsewhere, even cultures that recognised gender diversity millennia before we did, never became confused about what a woman was. They simply recognised that some people don't fit neatly into what were usually extremely rigid man/woman frameworks. Far more rigid than ours in fact. We make gloves with ten fingers even though some people have nine and others have 11. So on and so forth.
As a society, we segregate by sex on only a few occasions and for good reason. And each of these occasions exists solely for the inclusion, privacy or safety of women. Female sports, female changing rooms, female prisons. That's pretty much it.
Female sports so that people like Serena Williams and Sha'Carri Richardson get the opportunity to become household names whose hard work would otherwise never be recognised. Serena herself has admitted that sh'ed rank 500th in the world against men. Do you know the name of the 500th ranked tennis player in the world?
Female changing rooms, for their entire existence have recognised women’s right to privacy when they’re naked or otherwise vulnerable. They’ve had the reasonable expectation that they won’t encounter penises in those spaces.
Female prisons should hopefully be obvious. A bunch of women, most of whom are vulnerable or have a history of abuse, in a space where they can't leave, often for years at a time. Locking them in there with male criminals is obviously a problem.
Gender is complex. It's complex enough that as I often say, there aren't 2, there are ~8 billion. Each of us expresses ourselves though the various gender stereotypes in a unique way. There is no single word that can define two of us, never mind 50% of us. Which is why the words "woman" and "man" are useless as markers of gender identity (and why people have invented, what, 72 different "genders" and counting?).
Woman and man have, for the entirety of human history until about ten years ago, been unambiguously the name for an adult human female/male. Just as a lioness is a female lion and a bull is a male cow. Men and women will express themselves in all kinds of different ways, many of which don't conform to stereotypes, and I think that's unreservedly a good thing. We should do everything possible to normalise that as a society and prevent discrimination on the basis of gender non-conformity.
But, as it used to always be trans people who reminded us, gender and sex are different. Sports aren't segregated by gender, there are lots masculine looking female athletes. Prisons aren't segregated by gender. Inmates have to submit to a physical exam before they go in. And penises don't grow and ungrow according to gender identity. Nor do average tendencies towards sexual violence (https://fairplayforwomen.com/criminality/).
As I said, Walsh manages to look reasonable by keeping his mouth shut. I don't think he's any more reasonable than the idiots who appear in his film. But those idiots, currently, are influencing and more importantly operating on children.
