Matt Walsh holds to gender truth on Dr. Phil, then gets accused of bullying even though he was clearly outnumbered

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh recently sat down with LGBTQ+ activists on the “Dr.Phil Show” to debate the veracity of “gender fluid” ideology. While Walsh was strongly outnumbered by liberal guests and a liberal audience, it was Walsh who was declared the “bully.”

Quick Facts

• Walsh asserted that gender was a biological construct set in place by God, while the LGBTQ + activists suggested it was “up to the individual.”
• Upon cross-examination by Walsh, one of the activists could not explain what “womanhood” meant.
• The overly broad definition of gender, as well as the activists’ reaction after the debate, suggests inconsistencies within “gender fluid” ideology championed by the activists, as well as being incompatible with the creation account in Genesis.

Here’s a quick clip of the back-and-forth between Walsh and Addison, the transgender advocate with a beard:

Here’s the part on Dr Phil where I demonstrate that the “gender experts” cannot even define the word woman or explain what they mean when they use it

pic.twitter.com/7CGcaEUlnj

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) January 19, 2022

Walsh was asked to participate in a sit-down debate with several transgender activists on a recent episode of the “Dr.Phil” show. Believing that discussing pronouns and gender expression is important, Walsh aimed to have a civil but assertive discussion with an LGBTQ+ advocate who went by the name “Ethan” and prefers the pronouns he and they. “It creates dialogue and invites conversations to learn about other people,” Ethan asserted. Ethan’s partner, Addison, who is also an LBGTQ + activist, has stated that their preferred pronouns are “they” and them.”

However, Walsh disputed the idea of “preferred pronouns” and gender fluidity.

“You can have whatever self-perception you want, but you can’t expect (others) to take part in that self-perception or to take part in this kind of charade, this theatrical production. You can feel however you want. I mean, I can sit here and say, ‘I feel like a tomato plant,’ but that doesn’t mean I actually am those things. … (For example), when a four-year-old boy comes up to you, and says, ‘Oh, I’m a girl,’ here’s a good follow-up question. What is a girl? Ask him what he means (by) that. ‘What do you mean by a girl?’”

In response, Addison asserted that “transgender women are women.” Walsh responded by asking, “What is a woman?” In response to Walsh’s counter-argument, Addison stated that “womanhood is… something that I cannot define,” saying that they couldn’t identify what a woman was because they didn’t identify as a woman. Ultimately, Addison and Ethan maintained that the definition of identifying as a woman came down to individual preference, or “to each their own.”

This line of reasoning wasn’t enough for Walsh, who suggested that Ethan and Addison’s line of reasoning amounted to an effort to “appropriate womanhood, and turn it into, basically a costume that could be worn.”

After the debate, Addison & Ethan claimed they both “felt attacked” by Walsh “and played” by the producers, but Walsh said he “felt great after the taping….because I’m 100 percent confident in my view on the topic.” Although Walsh has been considered to be a divisive figure, even among some conservatives, some pastors supported his appearance on the Dr. Phil Show. One pastor stated on social media, “Say what you want about Matt’s brash delivery/antagonistic nature, he’s fighting a fight many pastors don’t have the guts to fight but need to.”

Walsh also reflected on Twitter that he “feel(s) encouraged for the first time in a long time. The reaction to my segment on Dr. Phil has been overwhelmingly positive. People see that gender ideology is toxic and insane.”

After the show aired, Addison said he and his partner Ethan experienced anxiety from the dialogue:

The issue with the positions held by the couple identifying as LGBTQ + is that their views of gender are too broad and encompass too large a spectrum. As such, they were not able to define what a woman was when challenged by Walsh. Instead, the couple defending “gender fluidity” seemed to suggest that gender identity could be subjective and up to the individual, which carries serious implications for the role of gender in society and is most certainly incompatible with a straight reading of the creation account in Genesis.

It also raises questions that those opposed to Walsh’s point of view immediately “felt anxiety” and “felt attacked and used” the moment their beliefs were called into question. Wouldn’t someone confident in their views be able to defend their position logically without resorting to an “appeal to emotion” from their social media audiences?

Either way, both parties needed to be able to sit down and able to have a face-to-face discussion in such a way that illuminated some of the inconsistencies in “gender-fluid” ideology, particularly when examined from a Christ-centered, biblically-based worldview.