When you define what your political enemy does as violence, then any violence you inflict on them can be redefined as “self-defense.” That’s why it’s more than a bit ominous to see Daily Wire host and professional transphobe Matt Walsh declaring that an innocent action that trans women do every day–going to the restroom–is “an act of violence in and of itself.”
In a recent Daily Wire video, Walsh opined that
it’s … no surprise when we hear about … acts of violence against women carried about by quote, unquote, trans people in bathrooms and locker rooms and so on, because how could it be a surprise?
Their very presence in that space is an act of violence in and of itself. OK so, for a man to enter a private female space where females are vulnerable and exposed, that is an act of sexual harassment in and of itself. For a man to knowingly walk into a women’s bathroom, that’s sexual harassment–just to be there in the first place. You are an abuser simply by walking into the room.
It doesn’t matter if the “man” in question is a trans woman because Walsh refuses to believe they exist.
I don’t care if they’re sincere or not. It’s like either it’s a man pretending to be confused about his gender, or he’s sincerely confused. Either way, doesn’t make a difference. … Trans as a category is imaginary, it’s a human invention. So, there’s no way to be really trans.
Having redefined trans women as men, Walsh returns to his central theme:
There is no question about whether men in the women’s room are a threat. Are they a threat? Yes. How do I know? Because they’re in the room. Because they’re there. Just like if somebody walks into your house in the middle of the night.
Now he’s redefined a public restroom as a private residence.
You know, you don’t need to wonder if they’re a threat. They’re in your house. …
By walking in the door, they’re already perpetrating a violent and intrusive act. Same for men who walk into the women’s room, the locker room. Just by walking in that door, that is an act of violence against the women that are in there. It is a threat. It is intimidation. This is all based around intimidation.
Walsh is projecting: he’s the one trying to intimidate. His words seem designed to provoke real violence in spurious ‘self-defense” against trans women. As Media Matters journalist Ari Drennan points out on Twitter,
Tennessee, where Matt lives, is a “stand your ground” state. If somebody walks into your house in the middle of the night you are allowed to shoot them. And he’s saying that restrooms are the same.
This kind of rhetoric is dangerous, a real threat to the lives and safety of trans women. And it seems clear that Walsh means it to be just that.
Now, you may find yourself wondering: what evidence does Walsh have that trans women are a threat to cis women in restrooms and locker rooms? Trans women already use women’s restrooms and locker rooms regularly. Forget Walsh’s various pronouncements: is there evidence that trans women are harming cis women while using the bathroom?
Luckily, trans writer Julia Serano has looked into this subject in some detail. And the answer is “no.” In an extended essay on the topic, the author of Whipping Girl and other books on trans issues and sexuality more generally sorts through
the actual data that demonstrates that trans people do not pose a threat to anyone in public restrooms, nor are trans-inclusive restroom policies exploited by sexual predators.
Serano points to two peer-reviewed studies that found no evidence that having trans-inclusive bathrooms make cis women less safe. In a 2018 study for The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, psychiatrists Brian S. Barnett, Ariana E. Nesbit, and Renée M. Sorrentino found that
there is no current evidence that granting transgender individuals access to gender-corresponding restrooms results in an increase in sexual offenses.
After reviewing several spurious claims put forth by such groups as the Family Research Council, American Family Association, and Liberty Counsel–the only groups putting forth such claims at the time–the researchers found
that only a small number of cases actually involve perpetrators who were transgender, perpetrators who falsely claimed to be transgender, or perpetrators who attempted to disguise themselves as a member of the opposite sex to gain restroom access.
Indeed, as lead researcher Barnett explained in an Op-Ed for the Huffington Ost,
we found only one instance — one! — of a transgender perpetrator in an alleged sex crime in a changing room. Likewise we found just one case where a man (who, frankly, sounds like a provocateur) allegedly entered a women’s locker room without disguising his gender in any way and stated that a new local law expanding transgender bathroom access allowed him to be there.
As ThinkProgress pointed out in a piece on the study, this man was indeed “a provocateur, and the Washington State Human Rights Commission clarified immediately afterward that the law in no way protected his behavior.”
Serrano also cites a peer-reviewed case study looking at the state of Massachusetts, and published in Sexuality Research and Social Policy in 2019, which reported that
by using public records and statistical modeling, we found no evidence that privacy and safety in public restrooms change as a result of the passage of [gender identity inclusive public accommodations nondiscrimination ordinances].
In 2014, Media Matters surveyed more than a dozen experts and similarly found no evidence of harm.
In stark contrast, as Serano makes clear, there is considerable evidence of trans women being harassed and assaulted for using public restrooms. She cites several studies that back up this claim. One 2013 survey of “transgender and gender non-conforming people in Washington, DC” found that a startling
aeventy percent of survey respondents reported being denied access, verbally harassed, or physically assaulted in public restrooms. These experiences impacted respondents’ education, employment, health, and participation in public life.
Meanwhile, a 2015 survey of nearly 30,000 transgender Americans found that
Nearly one-quarter (24%) of respondents said that someone had questioned or challenged their presence in a restroom in the past year.
Nearly one in ten (9%) respondents reported that someone denied them access to a restroom in the past year.
One in eight (12%) respondents were verbally harassed, physically attacked, or sexually assaulted when accessing or using a restroom in the past year.
Again, these are all figures for harassment or assault endured in the past year.
As a result of these experiences, nearly 60 percent of transgender Americans surveyed said they had restricted their use of public bathrooms — and roughly a third “limited the amount they ate or drank to avoid using the restroom in the past year.” Not surprisingly, quite a few (eight percent) reported that they had developed urinary tract infections or kidney problems as a result.
This is the real trans bathroom scandal. This is the actual human and physical cost that the transphobia promoted by Matt Walsh inflicts on trans people. This is why his rhetoric is so dangerous.
There is much more to Serano’s essay; I’d suggest everyone interested in trans issues should read the whole thing.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
If Matt Walsh is so sure of his ideas then why is he hiding behind that clearly fake beard?
Matt Walsh does not know what the human body is.
Matt Walsh is from outer space.
Matt Walsh is a danger to ALL people, no matter what their gender identity is.
Or, as @DR said, to all aliens. Check him for a zipper running up the back.
By walking in the door, they’re already perpetrating a violent and intrusive act. Same for men who walk into the women’s room, the locker room. Just by walking in that door, that is an act of violence against the women that are in there. It is a threat. It is intimidation. This is all based around intimidation.
Now let’s imagine those teenage beauty pageant contestants applying that line of reasoning when the Drumpster Fire came barging in. Bonus points if you imagine them packing (maybe somebody’s skimpy cowgirl costume contained more than the expected 45s?)
Thanks to the excellent recommendation of a commentator here (I apologize that I don’t recall who), I have been slowly going through the YouTube videos of one Jessie Gender. I remember seeing several on Matt Walsh, and expect to be oh so wonderfully enlightened on him in general when I watch them soon.
In the meantime though, I did have to share my surprise when I investigated his opinions on Trump. I thought that Trump, who identifies as a man, and quite a manly man at that, is on record barging into womens changing rooms and the like, which did seem counter to Matt’s lovely argument. Thus, as per usual far rightie behavior, he should be ignoring that or even finding some way to praise it.
But surprisingly enough, Walsh actually has spoken out against him, which is one of those bizarre instances where a far rightie actually seems to be consistent. I am a bit flummoxed about that…
Edit: @ Full Metal Ox
I see you had similar thoughts as I
The smarmy disingenousness that oozes out of Walsh is painfully obvious. Thats whats so dangerous about his rhetoric- it encourages others to do the same lying dance around what they actually mean- that they need someone to hate
I’ve had 3 transgender colleagues and somehow, all of them managed not to attack me in the bathroom. It was almost as if they were not criminals just because they were trans.
Actually now I wonder what the stats are for women attacking women in bathrooms…
I was unable to find any. Everything comes back to transwomen attacking ciswomen in bathrooms, which I am interpreting to mean, basically neither of these situations ever happens.
I’d ask what’s wrong with him, but we already know the answer:
EVERYTHING.
First, there’s this:
Really? You’re confusing human-conceived categories with non-existence. Would you say,
I mean, clearly it’s a human invention. Does that mean that the Republican Party isn’t real? Oh, if only it were so!
But more importantly, this is the asshat who claims that trans people are assaulting truth by redefining words like “woman”. He made a whole video about it.
But isn’t this a complete redefinition of the word “violence”?
Janitor yells in, “Anyone in here? I’m coming in to fix a leak in the sink,” gets no reply, walks in starts working on the sink and ends up startling the deaf woman who was using a stall.
This is violence? Has there ever been a definition where this is violence? Ever?
Just Walsh?
So he’s assaulting fact and truth by completely redefining words to suit his political aims?
Well that sure sounds evil.
@Crip Dyke:
Really? You’re confusing human-conceived categories with non-existence. Would
you say,
I mean, clearly it’s a human invention. Does that mean that the Republican Party isn’t real? Oh, if only it were so!
The U.S. border is a human invention. But people like Walsh sure want to want to enforce it.
Janitor yells in, “Anyone in here? I’m coming in to fix a leak in the sink,” gets no reply, walks in starts working on the sink and ends up startling the deaf woman who was using a stall.
This is violence? Has there ever been a definition where this is violence? Ever?
Which raises another accessibility (and etiquette) issue: what do you do to warn a deaf person that someone’s coming in? Flicker the lights?
I see a number of peer-reviewed studies being cited here.
Sadly, these will all be wasted on right-wing figures like Walsh (and Rowling).
As near as I can figure it, everyone has a pair of inner compasses that guide them in making decisions.
There is the epistemological compass, which guides in choosing between competing narratives.
The left wing epistemological compass does so by attempting to sort out fact from fiction, and choosing fact. One thing must be taken as axiomatic: that one’s senses are at-least-mostly reliable. (Otherwise one has no choice but some form of solipsism; this axiom may be justified in a Pascal’s Wager like manner, in that if it’s true and you rely on your senses you may make decisions that actually improve your situation; if you either don’t, or your senses really aren’t telling you anything about a real external world, then you’re screwed. Of those, only the former is under your control.)
Everything else is determined empirically, and when one is not in a position to personally decide this (say, lacking personal control of a sufficiently potent particle collider or suchlike), one will prefer the narrative of an expert with a good track record of agreeing with what you could empirically verify than with one with a poor track record. This leads in the end to things like peer-reviewed studies, and to lefties generally believing scientists and accepting the debunkings of conspiracy theories.
Also, notably, one observes that the various human-shaped thingies in one’s environment look broadly similar to one another and to the one seen in assorted reflective surfaces, and infers that the others have the same general kind of inner lives as oneself, and are therefore equally deserving of care, which in turn leads to the left wing moral compass: how a left-leaning person distinguishes right from wrong.
And that involves observing what tends to hurt people versus make them happy, and preferring the latter. Also, that tastes vary rather than being one-size fits all, and that there are eventually steeply-diminishing marginal happiness returns in having more stuff.
The symmetry among people suggests that to do good, one should act in accordance with a principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number”. But the tastes-vary thing means it’s best not to just dump on people what you think they want or need, but instead to empower them to seek out what they wish and to avoid what they wish. That leads to a more pragmatic rule of “the greatest agency for the greatest number”. The diminishing marginal returns from more stuff also means that if it’s necessary to meet some people’s needs, it is fine to take stuff from those who have more than enough, starting at the top. The agency of the people on the bottom rung increases a lot more by having a few more dollars of spending money than the agency of the super-rich are diminished by losing the few million each that would be needed to accomplish this. So, progressive taxation, socialism, and the like emerge naturally from the left’s moral compass.
Contrast the right wing. The right wing epistemological compass is not empirical at all. Rather than choose among competing narratives by appealing to empirical evidence to sort out fact from fiction, the right wing epistemological compass chooses the narrative that makes the right-winger feel better about themselves. Narratives that they belong to the superior race, or superior gender, or similarly obviously fit the bill, as do meritocratic narratives by whose merit metrics they come out well above average. Where competing narratives don’t directly make them feel better or worse about themselves than one another, then they pick the one that comes from the more reliable source, which for them means the one who more reliably does make them feel better about themselves. So, a right-winger evaluating competing narratives about vaccines, say, may initially have no strong personal feelings either way. But then Donald Trump comes along, makes them feel good about being white males, and also says vaccines are bad. So now they become anti-vaxx as well as misogynistic white supremacists … and once they’ve got an emotional sunk cost in being anti-vaxx, it is very hard to dissuade them from that position — even Trump himself couldn’t undo it, later on. Right wing beliefs, once established, are extremely inflexible, because revising a belief would mean admitting one was wrong originally, and that means the revised belief will make one feel worse about oneself. So the right wing epistemological compass will strongly prefer almost anything else. Indeed, the more terrible the observable consequences of a rignt-winger’s belief, even to them and theirs, the more entrenched that belief will become, because otherwise it was all for nothing and they were the bad guy. Even an elaborate and implausible conspiracy theory is preferable!
The right wing “moral” compass, if I may use that word loosely, follows: anything that makes them feel bad is bad. So, if it is superior to be masculine, and masculine is incompatible with being gay, then being gay is bad, and causing the right-winger experience a homosexual attraction is worse. Including if it’s retroactive: finding an attractive woman attractive and only later discovering she has some extra equipment. Bam, trans panic.
A consequence of this is that right wing “morality” means reaffirming that the right-winger belongs to one or more superior groups. That also means reaffirming that the alternatives are inferior. So, law in turn is to protect these feelings of superiority: it must protect the superior groups from the inferior groups, while not subjecting the superior groups to any restrictions. After all, the latter would imply the superior groups were something bad, to wit criminal. Rules aren’t for the superior groups; oh, no, they’re for everybody else. Hence conservatism’s “there are in-groups that the law protects, but does not bind, and out-groups that the law binds, but does not protect”.
This right-wing “moral” compass tidily explains the Bush-era term “truthiness”, among other phenomena, as well. Also, their will to power, to force the rules and law to acknowledge their superiority, and their utter intolerance for “inferior” people getting to just go about their business and be happy, without being persecuted and harassed.
Oh, and it’s more valuable to belong to at least one superior group than to not belong to an inferior group, so e.g. conservative white women will accept misogynistic beliefs packaged with white supremacist ones, as will conservative black men.
Empirical data generally refutes any one group’s claim to superiority, so, empiricism itself gets classified as bad by the right wing, as does anyone promulgating it. And that means that you will never convince a transphobe of the error of their ways with a peer-reviewed study, or ten, or a million. Their epistemological compass doesn’t care and their moral compass finds it, and you, abhorrent. A heretic blaspheming at them.
Of course, there’s a bit of a simplification in there. People are all tempted, to some degree or another, to adopt the right wing epistemological compass; the more privileged groups they belong to, and the fewer oppressed ones, the stronger this temptation will be. Thus conservatism correlates with, but is not perfectly predicted by, levels of privilege, and even mostly-left people may cling to a belief or two that makes them feel superior, though they will (reluctantly) give it up if it’s clearly disproved by evidence, unlike a right-winger who will double down and add you to their enemies list for having had the temerity to speak such an abhorrent heterodoxy in their presence.
“Man” and “female” tells me all I need to know about this sick jerk.
A bit more on this: it occurs to me that tankies are not genuine leftists. They’re actually a peculiar kind of right-winger. In particular, they have the right-wing epistemological compass … but one of the early narratives they internalized (and hence won’t easily reject since that would make them have been wrong) happened to be a socialist narrative. The result is a conservative for whom the in group the law must protect is socialists and the out group the law must bind is capitalists. So capitalists are outright despised and feared, laws should treat them extremely harshly, and the working class is superior to those bourgeois pigs *spit*. Out pops Stalinism. They will also accept science, as generally understood when they initially form their beliefs, but reject updates after that point. Bam, you get weird shit like Lysenkoism becoming Soviet dogma under Stalin.
I expect that Altemeyer’s RWA scale is, in fact, measuring the relative power of the two competing epistemological compasses in a subject, with high scores indicating greater relative strength for the right-wing version. Notably, Stalinists score high on Altemeyer’s scale, despite holding economically left-wing beliefs … but they cling to those beliefs as a received dogma, just as most other high-RWA persons cling to economically right-wing beliefs. The beliefs may differ but they are using the same flawed epistemological compass.
Though “flawed” may not be quite the right word for it. Certainly maladaptive, under present planetary conditions, but it likely evolved for a reason. The left-wing compass “works” (leads to better life outcomes and reproductive success) if one’s society is open, exploring a new environment, or can adopt new productivity-multiplying or defensive technologies, but the right-wing one “works” if one’s best move is to “go along to get along”, including because one was born into a pre-existing authoritarian regime. That seems to create a chicken-and-egg problem (whence the first authoritarian regime?) but the right-wing compass enhances group cohesion and probably improves success at inter-group competition. So, when there were competing societies in an environment of limited resources the right-wing compass could give an advantage to one of them (as it would then decide the other was inferior, they didn’t need to share with them, and it was all fine and good to go to war with them or even wipe them out altogether to claim a larger share of, or even all of, the resources).
So, the left compass is more beneficial to members of a society in a resource-abundant, low-competition environment, and the right compass to members of a society in a resource-deficient, high-competition environment. Since the right compass leads to horrors, and deprivation itself is bad, it behooves all right-thinking people to do their darndest to create a future that is resource-abundant and low-competition; and that in particular requires a commitment to ZPG.
Unfortunately, the actions of the right wing are moving us pell-mell in the wrong direction, wrecking ecosystems and habitats, causing climate change, and fomenting wars that both waste resources and put those in the crosshairs into a higher-competition environment …
Is he terrified of men cleaning women’s bathrooms? How about parents bringing kids into the bathroom with them? How about unisex bathroom? Does he have men/women bathrooms for the guests in his house? Are porto potties terrifying to him?
It must be sad to be a conservative and live in such a state of fear and hatred all the time. Terrified of anything different. What a sad pathetic life.
Conservatism says the law protects in-group members without binding them; while binding out-group members, not protecting them.
Matt Walsh sharing this planet with me is an act of violence in and of itself.
Matt Walsh is an act of violence.
Well, that sank without a ripple.
Meanwhile, there seem to be plenty of Nazis on both sides of the aisle. It’s just that the Democratic/Liberal/Labour/etc. ones are more polite about it:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/13/pers-d13.html
I’m trying to decide whether the more appropriate response to shit like this is “stop the world, I want to get off” or “when do we get to use the guns?”
To quote some random Kree soldier: “Earth … what a shithole.”
Also: has anyone here seen the rather bizarre Michelle Yeoh film “Everything Everywhere All At Once”?
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2022/12/13/matt-walsh-trans-women-using-a-public-bathroom-is-an-act-of-violence-in-and-of-itself-bullshit/#comment-3692314
The words “self-indulgent — very, very, very serious! — bore” came to mind as I slogged through your first comment.
At least you don’t overuse caps.
It’s a relief to see that I’m not that long-winded after all.
@Surplus, I think that was a very cogent and pretty persuasive analysis.
Chimes with a conversation I had day-before-yesterday with a neighbour who was wondering aloud about why quite a lot of relatively and even absolutely disadvantaged people stick to voting Tory even though it will not only not help them, it will actively harm them. I suggested that in addition to the obvious (influence of the fact that approx. 80% of the UKnian mainstream media is owned by right-wing billionaires), there’s an element of viscerally wanting to feel somehow associated with the ‘winning side’ (something I guess most of us feel on some level, maybe? I can certainly feel the attraction, at least), so that as a result, there’s a certain feelgood from just having voted for the millionaire spivs because then ‘your’ lot are winners, even if personally you and yours are not :-\
@ Surplus to Requirements
Sank without a ripple? Not sure what you mean. I think you should write a book.
One thought though: Will to power? Assuming you are referencing Nietzsche, I am actually curious here about your thoughts on how the Conservative way of thinking does or not overlap with Nietzsche’s philosophy. I found Nietzsche to be an interesting subject in a philosophy class many years ago and although I really can’t understand him, I was under the impression he really wouldn’t have agreed with modern Conservatives.
@KietaZou
Your insecurity is showing. There is no need to try to bring someone else down to build yourself up, it’s a real bad look.
This specific demagogic lie isn’t aimed at women’s feelings of vulnerability, although it pretends to be concerned for them. No, it’s aimed at conservative men who see themselves as noble protectors of women. In reality, of course, it’s the same idea of women as male property that has driven chivalry for centuries. To some degree it’s also a proxy for the old racist lie that Black men prey on white women.
@Surplus: Good comments. Much food for thought.
@Carstonio: Exactly. Just another manifestation of misogyny/patriarchy.
I have shared public bathrooms with trans women, persons of indeterminate gender, and drag kings, and never been or even heard of assaults. People just gotta pee, and there’s generally not much social interaction in the actual stall part. More at the sinks and if there’s a lounge (which is where I talked to the drag kings, who were excellent).
Although I am wholly straight, I did once have a lap dance from a trans man (he was shirtless so you could see the top surgery scars). No idea what was in that bikini, but he was an adorable young man who bore a striking resemblance to Bruno Mars. My brain said “cute boy!” the whole time.
Also I’ve gone to the men’s room in places that don’t have potty parity. Intermission is short at concerts, and there was no way everyone of us gals was going to go. So an older woman led us to storm the men’s room, yelling to the men that we were coming in, hide if you want, we weren’t going to look, and we’d all seen penises before. We ostentatiously hid our eyes, went to the stalls and did our business. Most of the guys were amused. At no time did their manly man penises feel the need for assault. One of the women ran into her husband and said “See? We really DO need more ladies’ rooms!” Sisters were doing it for themselves that night.
Just because Walsh and the other righties can’t control their penises (see: every damn story ever) doesn’t mean trans women are a danger. They tend to be very low-key and not call attention to themselves anyway.
I really appreciate your work here, David.
If these idiots were allowed to make laws, my husband would go to prison anytime he came into a public bathroom or changing room to help me.