Thursday, June 16, 2022

For Steven, Who Failed the Class. A Teacher Remembers a Former Student

 


For Steven, Who Failed the Class
A Teacher Remembers a Former Student
 
When she was a little girl, there was a popular romance novel. It was titled Love Story and its first sentence was famous. "What can you say about a twenty-five-year-old girl who died?" For Professor Josephine K, teaching and learning, words and writing, were her lifetime love affair. It has been years since Steven was her student. To this day, Prof. K. still asks herself, "What can you say about a twenty-year-old student who failed?"

 

Steven may have long forgotten Prof. K. Prof. K. has never forgotten Steven. When Prof. K. alienates her Woke friends on social media, it's because of Steven. When Prof. K. shouts at the New York Times, it's often because of Steven. Years later, Prof. K. still tinkers with key moments. "Should I have … " "What if I had … " trying to figure out how to rewrite history so that Steven passes the class.

 

A casual observer would resort to the word "average" to describe him. Steven was average height, about 5'9". He didn't have the sickly thinness of the kids doing opioids. He wasn't, as too many students increasingly were, morbidly obese. Steven had the kind of face that would suit a newscaster or a juror or someone you'd want your daughter to marry. Not handsome enough for trouble; not ugly enough for pity or rejection. He wore the American uniform: blue jeans, t-shirts, baseball caps.

 

The clues that abused kids telegraphed might be invisible to others, but not to Prof. K. There was that flicker of wariness in the eyes, that stance and those gestures spring-loaded with fight-or-flight rapid response. There were the constant apologies – "I'm sorry!" – and the constant challenges – "Oh yeah? Who says? Why?"

 

Steven gave off no whiff of trauma. When he leaned back against his chair and relaxed, his facial, arm, back, and leg muscles all looked easy and slack. He got along well with other students. His clothes were clean and new and he never smelled as if he had slept on a park bench and had no access to a shower, a washing machine, or an indoor toilet. He arrived, at a leisurely pace, on time, and lingered after to class to socialize with friends. He didn't have the look of someone struggling uphill through a wind tunnel as did those self-supporting students rushing to and from jobs. Someone, probably two loving parents, was paying Steven's way.

 

Steven entered the writing class ahead of some of his classmates. Prof. K. hoped that someday she'd write a letter of recommendation placing Steven as a white-collar office worker, an elementary school teacher, or a nurse. These were the kind of jobs her students looked forward to. Such jobs were better than their parents' jobs. These careers, these futures, were their American Dream.

 

Students produced a writing sample on the first day. These writing samples were one of the best things Prof. K. did. They were so, well – they were so wonderful, that she couldn't bring herself to throw them away. Even today, when she suspects that Woke hegemony, combined with cratering college enrollment means that she might never teach again, she has yet to recycle years worth of "first day writing samples."

 

When she is tempted to lose faith in humanity, she thinks of those writing samples. "I want to serve my country as a police officer." "My dream is to heal." "I love my father and I want to have a relationship with my children like the relationship I have with him." "I have been out of school for a while, working in the corporate world, but I really want to learn more and I am so excited about being a returning college student." Even students who would later do poorly, because life intervened and they hadn't the skills to defeat setbacks and stay on track, wrote papers full of hopes, full of dreams, and full of promises to the best parts of themselves.

 

The first day writing samples weren't just about gaining familiarity with students' personal lives. "Writing clearly is thinking clearly." Just as a doctor can diagnose a patient's overall health from one blood sample, an astute teacher can tell much about a student from one three-paragraph essay. Does the student know how to organize a sentence, a paragraph, an argument? What vocabulary can a student command? Was the student in touch with a reality beyond his street, his tribe, his worldview? The first day writing sample was as good a predictor as any of how the student would perform for the next fifteen weeks. The essay was a palimpsest. Written over the student's words is another document, a prescription, that the teacher alone sees. This is what we need to work on: clarity, expressivity, originality, rationality, courage, coherence, power, focus, balance, depth, truth.

 

In the pile of papers that made Prof. K. gasp, or tear up, or hope and pray that this student never dropped out, was Steven's paper. Steven's paper bored her. Steven wrote an encomium to Tom Brady, a football quarterback. Steven didn't fill the page, and what he did write was so repetitious that if all repetitions were removed it would be about two sentences long. Steven apparently was familiar with jingoistic sportscaster-speak. His paper was a weak imitation of that style: "awesome," "the greatest of all time," "awesome" again, and "no one will ever forget the day that Brady" accomplished some feat.

 

Given the paucity of errors in spelling and grammar, Prof. K. assumed that Steven was underperforming. His words sounded canned, as if he'd lifted them from another source, rather than his own head and heart. Somewhere along the line, Steven had learned to fake it in school. She determined to try to encourage Steven to put more of himself into his schoolwork, and to take this use of his time seriously.

 

Prof. K., as she did for all students, wrote a personal note to Steven. "Dear Steven, I'm not a sports fan, and I don't know much about Brady. I'm curious as to why you like him so much. I hope that this semester we can develop your writing so that when someone like me reads something you wrote about a topic she knows nothing about, after reading your paper, she will feel familiarity with that topic. In terms of grammar and spelling, your paper contains few errors, so we can cruise past those aspects of writing, and continue on to making your writing more memorable for your reader, and both more fun, and more powerful, for you."

 

Steven could have easily gotten an A in the class. His tuition dollars, either from a government loan, that might, under a Democratic president, be someday "forgiven," or money he or his parents earned themselves, would be well spent. He'd be better off after the class than he had been before it. He'd learn not just about how to write for school, but how to write a letter to his congressman, how to polish a resume, how to sell his skills to an employer, how to instruct underlings in a difficult task, or how to communicate his love to his wife, his parent, his child.

 

Of course, if Steven did earn that A, and if Steven went on to graduate from the school, he would be in the minority. Only twenty percent of students at this taxpayer-supported institution graduated within a reasonable number of years; that's comparable to national figures. Steven was an African American male. Graduation rates in his demographic were the lowest of all.

 

Liam was a toxic waste dump in the center of the class. It's really not nice for a teacher to call her student a toxic waste dump. But Prof. K. believed, with Josh Billings and Mark Twain, that the difference between the almost right word and the right word is the difference between a lightning bug and lightning. Liam was a living "Portrait of Dorian Gray" for American manhood. Decades ago, when you thought of an American male, you might think of a person who might be played, onscreen, by Gary Cooper, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda or pre-Woke Tom Hanks. If a movie were made about Liam, his character would be played by the overweight, sloppy, awkward, pot-addicted Seth Rogen.

 

Liam wore wrinkled, old clothes to class. He stank of stale human, that is, any liquid or solid associated with a human body that can go bad and requires periodic removal. Liam kept up a patter of muttered derogatory commentary. He did no work. Not in class. Not homework. Possibly not anywhere in his life. Liam had the soft body and flaccid face of someone whose most demanding pastime was lighting his next joint. Liam was close to the same age as Achilles when he arrived in Troy. Liam was a bit older than Joseph Argenzio, the youngest American soldier to storm the beaches on D-Day; specifically, 17-year-old Argenzio landed at Omaha, the deadliest. Liam was several years past the age, 15, when Michael Phelps first qualified to swim in the Olympics. That is, Liam was at the age when a male is conventionally at the height of his physical powers. Sobering to realize Liam, physically, had no place to go but down.

 

Liam was white. "White," in Liam's case, meaning "living in a suburb with no crime and too many McMansions." "White" as in "Daddy will pay for that." "White" as in "I get to goof off, and when the time comes for me to get a no-show job that will underwrite my pot, porn, and video game addictions, I'll do what I have to, but not until that day."

 

Liam, like a lot of white boys, sometimes known as "wiggers," was a rap fan. As Steven walked past Liam, Liam, barely holding his slack body up enough to appear to be "sitting," would look up at Steven and mutter a choice lyric. To Prof. K., all the lyrics sounded the same: "Kill the pigs, pimp the hos, snort the coke; my gun; my penis; n-word, n-word, n-word." But that's not what the lyrics sounded like to Liam, or to Steven. Liam was communicating, "In spite of my basement-video-game-pallor and my brand new car parked in the lot outside, I am a gangsta. Steven, though you are clearly middle class, you are black, so it's your job to fulfill my fantasies. We don't take none o' this "college" s--t seriously. We be gangstas. It's our job to undermine this entire enterprise. Keepin' it real, bro."

 

There were many really tough stories in that class with Liam and Steven. In front of Liam was a perpetually silent black student who had suffered extreme abuse at the hands of parents. Prof. K. turned herself inside out trying to get counseling for that student, and trying to get that student to make eye contact with her or with anyone else in the classroom. She failed at both. The counselor did email the student, the student emailed back, but never showed up for meetings. "We cannot force them," she was told. "Oh yes you could if you wanted to," she thought, but did not say. "You just don't want to go through the effort."

 

There was an older, Hispanic student who was more gifted and more mature than everyone else in the room. He sat by himself, handed in a few papers, and then just stopped coming, without ever formally dropping. It killed Prof. K. to record an F grade for this superior student at the end of the semester. Bureaucracy demanded that record.

 

There was a white boy who had already failed this class, taught by a different teacher, the previous semester. He was a muscular laborer and wore his blue denim uniform, complete with his name embroidered above his heart. He was no Hemingway, no orator, no reader of books. He sat up front, his back to everyone else, to every little drama, and he ignored all of Liam's shenanigans. He did everything Prof. K. told him to do, so obsessively that she could assess the clarity of her instructions by his performance. On his job, he had to place bricks in the right place, with the right relationship to other bricks; to perform these functions, he had to select the right tools. Prof. K. told him to take the same approach to dashes and semi-colons, to restrictive and to nonrestrictive clauses. He got an A. 

 

Steven kept his eyes on Liam. Liam kept his eyes on Steven. Steven began to perform for Liam. Liam wanted his black protegee to disrespect white, female, Prof. K. No real black man would do what a white woman told him to do. Steven disrespected the teacher, and Liam smiled.

 

Suburban Steven from a good home would playact the role of an "authentic" black man as defined by Liam. They could have dropped the class, and received an I, an "incomplete" grade. An "I" grade would be less damaging to their records than an "F" grade. But they stayed in class, disrupted and undermined it. Playing the spoiler in a freshman comp class on an obscure campus was more important to their self-concepts than protecting their own permanent academic records.

 

Prof. K. observed her students' arcs throughout the semester. The son of a doctor who had gained admission to an Ivy League school, screwed up there, and was "too good for this place" realized that Prof. K. cared, and he soared. The porcelain-skinned girl returning to school after going off heroin cold turkey looked grimmer and grimmer, and admitted that she thought of returning to her drug. Prof. K. implored her. "The choices you make now affect the whole of humanity. We are rooting for you. Stick it out with all of us trying to be a decent person, in spite of all of our pains and fears, for one more day." That girl would earn a final A. The immigrant from Honduras, working full time as a bus boy, skyrocketed. He produced some of the best student writing Prof. K. had ever seen. Other students began to defer to him. The other students were not impressed by Steven or by Liam. They were impressed by a man old enough to be their father, who worked a miserable job, but, damnit, he knew how to handle a relative clause.

 

When Liam discovered that he had failed the class, he didn't seem to care, any more than he seemed to care about anything.

 

Steven appeared shocked. At some point, clearly, educational professionals had communicated to Steven that he could be a cut-up in class, he could stop handing in work, and he could still receive at least a C, a passing grade. Or even a D. But an F? Never an F. Nobody gave out F grades any more! Steven sent Prof. K. imploring emails. "But I got a B on that one paper."

 

"That was one paper, Steven. One paper out of many. Many that you did not hand in at all."

 

And then the email arrived.

 

"Prof. K., my name is Nakeisha Jackson and I am the diversity, equity, and inclusion officer on campus. I have a report here from one of your students concerning a racist incident in your class. I would like to meet with you."

 

Prof. K. was angry. This happened every semester and she was sick to death of it.

 

One semester it was a Ukrainian. She was convinced that Prof. K., who had a Polish last name, was discriminating against her, because of historical conflicts between Ukrainians and Poles, conflicts Prof. K. had never mentioned. Another semester it was a student who was afraid of rain. She said that Prof. K. had penalized her for missing a mandatory exam on a rainy day. This was against the Americans with Disabilities Act, the student was convinced. And then there was the student who claimed that the syllabus had traumatized her because it stated that one had to attend class in order to pass. The student went to, and was received by, a dean. If a student requested a meeting with a dean to suggest a campus-wide charity drive or trash clean-up or new Christian club that student would probably not be received. If a student just said, "I'm lonely. I'm confused. I'm overwhelmed," that student would not be received. Claiming fake injury, fake victimhood, fake discrimination, opened the doors and the imitation hearts of the powerful.

 

What all these cases had in common was that the campus bureaucracy encouraged the students to regard themselves as victims, and actively rewarded students for defining themselves as victims. The bureaucracy punished professors for making any demands on students at all. America has become "a nation of whiners," many commentators report. If that's true, the whining was incentivized by educational professionals.

 

Now Steven, who was failing the class, had made a false allegation of racism to the DIE office. Prof. K. shot an enraged email to Nakeisha Jackson. She knew that shooting out angry emails to people with more power was a suicidal move, but she wanted to live in truth more than she wanted to play this phony game. "The accusation is false. Happy to meet with you. Thank you."

 

Prof. K. arrived early. The meeting room was a long and narrow basement space with no windows. There were cubicles and garbage cans that needed emptying, especially of a rotting banana peel. Ancient, deserted, dog-eared textbooks littered mostly empty aluminum shelving; this was horrible feng shui.

 

Dr. Jackson was plump and very black. She arrived alone. "Steven admitted to me that he lied," she immediately said.

 

Prof. K. did not breathe a sigh of relief. Prof. K. felt no sense of triumph. Rather, she pounced.

 

"He lied for a reason, Dr. Jackson. He lied because administrations encourage students to lie, and reward students for lying.

 

"Dr. Jackson, do you care about Steven? Does this institution? I care about him. You want to see the emails I've sent him, begging him to perform? Simply to hand in work? I can show you those emails right now.

 

"Steven stopped handing in any work a quarter of the way through the semester. He's abandoning his own dream to succeed. Why does the admin spring into action when the word 'racism' is dropped, but ignore it when a student abandons his own academic career? I've got a student in my class who is crippled from child abuse. A black student. Why no rapid response team for that?

 

"If you care, Dr. Jackson, demand performance from Steven. Raise the bar, and make him rise to meet it."

 

Dr. Jackson surprised Prof. K. "I can see that you are a dedicated teacher. Can you convey to Steven any of what you just said to me?"

 

"Sure, I can say it," Prof. K. responded. "But talk is cheap. My words mean less than consequences. My words mean less than institutional priorities. I had no one to report to when Steven stopped handing in work. I tried talking to my superiors. You want to know what they said? 'Yeah, yeah, it's sad, it's sad. Can't save all of 'em.' There was no suggestion of possible avenues of further action. But Steven knew exactly what door to knock on when he had a bogus story about racism. What does that tell you? What does that tell Steven? What really matters to this institution?"

 

Steven arrived. Dr. Jackson demanded that Steven apologize. He did. Dr. Jackson then turned to Prof. K. and asked her to communicate to Steven what she had tried to say to Dr. Jackson.

 

"Steven, you have what it takes to get an A in this class. But you'll get an F, because that is what you earned. Writing is power, Steven. Words are power. My parents were immigrants. English was not their first language. They saw their parents treated poorly. They determined to work for better lives. My mother speaks English as well as she speaks Slovak. No accent. She could harness words to vivify her life. You could do the same. People would listen to you. Commanding words means commanding power."

 

Prof. K. saw, then, in Steven's eyes, what she craved to see in student's eyes. That look, that light. The student was, inside, going someplace he never thought he'd go. He was, internally, released from previous bonds, and ascending to a new level.

 

Prof. K. wanted to cry. She wished she had seen that light in his eyes when there was still time for Steven to pass the class.

 

In a March, 2006 essay in the New York Times, Harvard sociology professor Orlando Patterson attempted "a cultural explanation of black male self-destructiveness." The gangsta pose, Patterson argues, "was simply too gratifying to give up. For these young men, it was almost like a drug … it also brought them a great deal of respect from white youths … it has powerful support from some of America's largest corporations. Hip-hop, professional basketball and homeboy fashions" are all huge commercial successes. Patterson was aware of the Liams of the world, as well. "Young white Americans are very much into these things, but selectively; they know when it is time to turn off Fifty Cent and get out the SAT prep book."

 

America has relegated Patterson to the sidelines of racial debates. American elites have chosen, instead, critical race theory and Ibram X. Kendi.

 

"Any difference in what students have or what they achieve is due to systemic racism" was a critical-race-theory-inspired tenet in Virginia education. That tenet was "rescinded," under the leadership of Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, in February, 2022. Other CRT dogma: equity of outcomes should replace emphasis on educational excellence. Translation: every student should receive an A, no matter that student's actual performance. White students should be treated poorly compared to black students in order to make up for past discrimination. "Power imbalances" should be "mitigated." Translation: the eighteen-year-old student knows every bit as much as the professor with decades of teaching experience, publications, and a PhD. "I ain't got nutin" is as acceptable as "I don't have anything." Arriving half an hour late is just as good as arriving on time. Being "on time" is white supremacist.

 

In rejecting the concept of personal responsibility, America has chosen Ibram X. Kendi. Kendi is a history professor at Boston University. Kendi's statements about race are so extreme one has to read them to believe them; one could start here. Kendi attributes any problem any black person experiences to white supremacy. He insists that whites must be discriminated against, and blacks must receive favorable discrimination, in order to make up for previous discrimination against blacks.

 

In 2020, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey handed Kendi ten million dollars. Kendi is a bestselling author. One of his bestsellers is the children's book Antiracist Baby. Antiracist Baby recommends that parents teach their babies to focus on government policy, not individual human beings and their actions. Yes, the book really does this. Mugged by a black teen? Blame government policy, not the teen's behavior. Tell your babies this, or you are a racist. Kendi has received up to $20,000 per lecture.

 

Kendi is flogging a new book, How to Raise an Antiracist. In a June 13, 2022, National Public Radio interview, Kendi reported telling his six-year-old daughter that there are few "brown people" graduating medical school because of white supremacy's "bad rules." The NPR host summed up Kendi's ideas thus "If school testing shows Black [sic] or white or Asian kids performing differently, that does not mean the kids of one race have some cultural or social problem." Rather, "the test or the standards or the schools are racist." Kendi himself says, "when you have a gap between racial groups … in education, in, you know, incarceration rates, in health disparities, in wealth, there's two explanations for that gap. Either that gap is the result of bad rules … or racist policies. Or … certain kids are smarter or they're working harder." The latter idea, the idea that some kids, like Americans of East Asian descent are "working harder," is "racist."

 

America chose Kendi and critical race theory over the concept of personal choices and personal responsibility. America made that choice for several reasons. Leftists control the institutions advancing critical race theory, especially education and media. Leftists want to overturn the West and replace it with a Woke Utopia. Identity politics balkanize and weaken national cohesion. Pumping everyone full of grievance weakens any faith in institutions. Telling everyone that he is a victim weakens the individual.

 

Americans are nice people and dread being labeled racist, so they may embrace something that they don't know much about but that they vaguely hope will make things better. And white narcissists want to be the star of the national narrative. When black people achieve on their own, when even such horrors as Jim Crow can't stop black conservative success stories like Condoleezza Rice, Shelby Steele, and Clarence Thomas, white narcissists can't stand it. They want to be responsible for black success. And Ibram X. Kendi and CRT make them responsible, and strip black people of any agency, and any adulthood, whatsoever.

 

A CRT-and-Kendi-inspired professor would have just assigned an A grade to Steven, though he handed in only twenty percent of the required work. Such a professor would have ignored the injustice of assigning such a high grade to Steven, who did almost no work, and the same grade to the white student who was white-knuckling it through heroin withdrawal, and still managed to arrive to every class, on time, never speak out of turn, and hand in every paper, evincing improvement after improvement. And that CRT-and-Kendi-inspired professor would feel so very proud of herself. She was the white savior, the white star of the show. She'd never have any second thoughts at all, unlike Prof. K., who, years later, thinks of Steven. Steven could have played his victim hand to some handout from the university, but between the time he first contacted the DIE office and the meeting with Dr. Jackson, Steven admitted that he lied. There's much good in Steven. To this day, Prof. K. asks, what could I have done differently, so that Steven would have passed that class?

 

Danusha Goska is the author of God through Binoculars: A Hitchhiker at a Monastery


Wednesday, June 8, 2022

What Is a Woman? The New Matt Walsh Documentary Interrogates Trans Extremism

 


What Is a Woman?
The New Matt Walsh Documentary Interrogates Trans Extremism

 

What Is a Woman? is a June, 2022 Daily Wire documentary addressing trans extremism. It's directed by Justin Folk. Folk has worked on major Hollywood releases including Hulk and Matrix films. The documentary stars Matt Walsh, a 35-year-old conservative commentator, best-selling author, and Roman Catholic. Walsh is conventionally handsome and gifted with a deep, gravelly voice. He has a thick, dark beard and is given to wearing flannel shirts. He could be the cowboy in a Marlboro ad, if such ads still existed.

 

Walsh wears a perpetual poker face; his humor is deadpan. His lack of affect – the absence of smiles, sneers, laughter or anger – serves his goal. Using the steady, hyperrational voice of an oncologist conveying bad news to family members, Walsh asks his interview subjects to support their extreme assertions. They fail to do so. As one review put it, "Walsh's calm, measured, and objective questioning provides an invaluable chapter in the handbook called 'How to Give Enough Rope'" As in – "If you give them enough rope, they will hang themselves."

 

The documentary depicts Walsh as a modern-day Will Kane, the hero of the classic Western High Noon. Gary Cooper, as Kane, goes up alone against bad guys with guns. Walsh's weapons are not guns, but rather questions. He is a lone hero against a world gone mad.

 

The lighting, sound, camera shots, editing, are all as polished as one would expect from a big-budget documentary that wins prestigious awards. This is remarkable given the documentary's funding. It's not easy to defy trans extremism; people have lost jobs, and gone to jail, for doing so. Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing repeatedly emphasized to YouTube audiences that they must become Daily Wire supporters if they hope for such documentaries to be made. Anyone making a documentary supporting trans extremism could count on millions of dollars from giant corporations and foundations. The Daily Wire had to, down to the wire of the film's premiere, pass the hat to fund its endeavor.

 

What Is a Woman? begins as Walsh chats with Gert Comfrey, a licensed marriage and family therapist. Comfrey is a petite, ingratiating, and very pretty woman. In her interview, she denies being a woman. Comfrey's website insists that she be referenced by the pronouns "they, them, theirs." She says to Walsh, "Some women have penises, some men have vaginas." Walsh asks, "How do I know that I'm not a woman? I like scented candles and I've watched Sex and the City." Comfrey nods so warmly and empathetically that I just want to hug her as if she were a teddy bear. None of the rest of the trans extremists is as charming as Comfrey.

 

Dr. Marci Bowers is a surgeon who identifies as female. On Top magazine calls Bowers "The Barack Obama of gender." Bowers has performed over 2,000 surgeries meant to change the sex of the patient. Out magazine writes of Bowers that he is "responsible for constructing more vaginas every year in this country than any other doctor … as many as two per day, three or four days a week … a virtual pussy factory." Bowers' first wife, Ann Bowers, is still his receptionist. Bowers sometimes says to Carol Cometto, his current partner, "I changed a man into a woman, a woman into a man, and the dog into a cat today. What did you do?" Out continues, "The vaginas she builds look good. Bowers is a maestro with the scalpel. They didn't really design a woman's vulva with efficiency in mind – or aesthetics for that matter … 'I get feedback all the time from natal women. They go, Wow, that looks better than mine. That's better than the real thing!'" View samples of Bowers' vaginas here and here, and testicle removal, or orchiectomy, here.

 

Bowers tells Walsh that his vaginas are the result of "quite refined" surgeries. Bowers also acknowledges that manmade vaginas are "a bit of a Faustian bargain."

 

Here's a footnote to that "Faustian" comment that the documentary does not dwell on. Manmade vaginas are often constructed from penises. Penile inversion vaginoplasty requires lifelong dilation. As one website explains, "Your genetic code has no plan for an opening there. Your body will simply heal what it considers to be a gaping wound and close the neovagina completely and permanently. The tissue surrounding the neovagina, including the PC muscle [pubococcygeus muscles] were pushed aside during the dissection of the neovaginal cavity. These tissues will attempt to move back into their original positions. So in order to keep it open, we must insert something into the neovagina on a regular and frequent basis."

 

Another website reports, "Initially, one can expect dilation to take up to 2.5 hours per day, with the time and frequency decreasing after you reach 18-24 months post-op ... Dilation is also not as comfortable as one might hope. Dilators are hard, they're plastic, they're cold, they're uncomfortable to be inside you."

 

Dilation is so important that some doctors recommend that vaginoplasty be performed on minors to ensure that parents can reinforce the dilation regimen. "Some surgeons believe that minors should have the procedure done while still in high school so that their parents can ensure compliance; even be 'active' in the dilation routine required to keep the neovagina open to 'maintain the vaginal depth involved' before the teen becomes distracted by college."

 

Even with the best care in the world, sometimes neovaginas don't work, as in the case of international celebrity Jazz Jennings. "At first, Jazz’s surgery seemed to have gone fine, but soon after she experienced 'crazy pain' … 'As I was getting her on the bed, I heard something go pop' … Jazz’s new vagina … split apart."

 

One study reports that a "majority" of men receiving such surgeries can have orgasms six months after surgery; a minority are not experiencing orgasms. A medical journal article reports, "In vaginoplasty, failure to perform preoperative or intraoperative hair removal can lead to inaccessible hair deep within the vagina. This can result in a hairball, which can be a nidus for debris and infection." The details behind the phrase "Faustian bargain" are intimidating.

 

In the documentary, Bowers insists that it is "really, really uncommon" for patients to regret attempts to change their sex, and only "dinosaurs" assess so-called sex change operations as questionable. One source estimates a 4,000% increase in youngsters identifying as trans. Bowers waves away any concern that the astronomical increase in young people identifying as trans might be a social contagion, in spite of Lisa Littman's published research showing just that. When asked about men competing against women in sports, Bowers says, "There are some slight differences. Does it translate to a competitive advantage? You'd be very hard-pressed to prove that."

 

Walsh brings up people who believe that they must be rendered disabled to feel at peace with their bodies. Walsh does not mention Jewel Shuping, but her case is pertinent. In 2006, Shuping, who suffers from Body Integrity Identity Disorder, allowed a doctor to place drain cleaner in her eyes, in order to blind her. Shuping says that she knew from childhood that she was supposed to be blind. People magazine quotes Shuping. "'When I was young, my mother would find me walking in the halls at night. When I was 3 or 4 years old. By the time I was 6, I remember that thinking about being blind made me feel comfortable.' Shuping acquired a white cane in her teens and could read Braille fluently by the time she was 20. As the years progressed, so did her desire to be blind." Given the similarities between cases like Shuping's and gender dysphoria, it was appropriate for Walsh to ask Bowers to address how people suffering from Body Integrity Identity Disorder differ from trans people.

 

In response to Walsh's question, Bowers mentions "apotemnophilia" or "the desire for amputation of a healthy limb," and dismisses sufferers as merely "kooky." Bowers does not, however, communicate how and why an abled-bodied person who feels that he must be disabled to feel that he is experiencing his true identity is categorically different from a man who feels that he must be a woman to experience his true identity. In one case, the surgeon, Bowers, attempts to align the patient's incorrect conviction with physical reality through so-called "sex change." In another case, an ethical doctor would try to convince a patient that amputation or self-blinding is not the answer, and coming to terms with one's body as it exists is a better approach. In one case, anyone who objects is a "transphobic" "dinosaur." In another case, Bowers can dismiss the sufferer as "kooky."

 

Walsh's next informant was Dr. Michelle Forcier. Walsh's eyes are as cold as the eyes in a marble statue of Diogenes, the Ancient Greek philosopher who carried a lantern in the daytime in his quest, as he put it, "For an honest man." Forcier's eyes are cold as a reptilian con artist selling lies to herself and others. She should star in the next remake of that darkest of film noirs, Nightmare Alley.

 

Forcier is a pediatrician, abortionist, Assistant Dean at Brown University, and a manager of medical attempts to change a child's sex. In a 2015 NBC interview with a blonde cupcake of an interviewer, one can see a celebration of victory in Forcier's eyes as she triumphs over every deferential softball question.

 

"Why not wait?" the NBC spokesmodel in a bright pink dress asks Forcier. In other words, why subject a child to life-altering, irreversible surgeries and medications?

 

The child will kill himself if you do that, Forcier insists. And, she emphasizes, "There's nothing irreversible or harmful" about "gender transition" of children. "Most kids never" change their mind, she says. "We can stop puberty when it's the wrong puberty," she says. "Puberty blockers are totally reversible."

 

Are Forcier's claims, from the 2015 NBC interview, true? She says that few children change their minds. In fact at least one recent study supports the frequently asserted observation that most children who experience gender dysphoria in childhood "desist," that is, they come, with maturity, to accept their bodies. A March, 2021 peer-reviewed article, "A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder," reports that "the persistence of gender dysphoria was relatively low (at 12%)."

 

What Forcier dismissed as "The wrong puberty" is responsible for things like bone density; puberty blockers interfere with that. "Suppressing puberty in children suffering from gender dysphoria … entails several known risks. One is that patients could 'end with a decreased bone density, which is associated with a high risk of osteoporosis'" reports a website citing peer-reviewed research.

 

During the 2015 NBC interview, the pretty blonde interviewer did not challenge Forcier on her assertions. It is fascinating to watch the difference in Forcier's eyes as she dominates a compliant NBC enabler, and to contrast those eyes with Forcier's eyes in her interview with Walsh.

 

In the same way that Walsh confronts Bowers with people convinced that their bodies should be handicapped, and who demand that doctors cripple them so that they can live out that "truth" of their identity as a handicapped person, Walsh confronts Forcier with four-year-olds who believe in Santa Claus. Forcier forces an utterly cold smile that never reaches any part of her face beyond her lips. "To a child they are real," she insists. Note the pronoun Forcier uses for Santa Claus, "they," not "he." Apparently Forcier believes that she can diagnose a fictional character as nonbinary.

 

Walsh states that chickens lay eggs, and these chickens are female. Forcier speaks very softly as she responds with, "Does a chicken cry? Does a chicken commit suicide?" With her soft speech and mention of suicide, Forcier is attempting to weaponize her interlocutor's empathy – a quality she herself gives no evidence of possessing – to muscle him into agreeing to the mutilation of children. The implication in her absurd statement about suicidal poultry is that if Walsh keeps pressing for the truth, trans children will commit suicide.

 

In both the NBC and Walsh interviews, Forcier says that part of her therapeutic approach to children is to discuss with them their "gender journey." "Gender journey" is a stock phrase of trans extremists; see here. Where are you now? Where do you want to be, Forcier asks children. These questions horrified me. If an authoritative, manipulative woman with scary eyes and a need to dominate had approached child me and asked me about my gender journey, she would learn that I planned to marry my best friend, Christine, that I liked to play soldier with rough boys, that I made my own bows and arrows, and that I had a tendency to get into physical fights. Forcier would, doubtless, subject me to "gender transitioning." All I can say is, I'm glad I still have my breasts – unlike the "detransitioning" woman in this Reddit post who mourns, "I miss my breasts so much."

 

Forcier insists to Walsh, as she did to NBC and as she has no doubt insisted to confused and vulnerable parents, that one can put a "pause" on puberty in the same way that one can press "pause" on a piece of music. Release the pause button, she claims, miming pressing an imaginary button in the air, and the music starts up again at the exact moment when the button was first pressed. Ask yourself: can you stop a normal physical process and expect to release a button and continue that process? Can you stop your breath that way for more than a few seconds? Can you stop digestion? A pregnancy? Can you stop your hair from growing and then restart it with no side effects? Were the Chinese able to stop the growth of girls' feet and then remove the wrappings and expect those feet to grow normally? Photographs and x-rays of previously bound feet suggest not.

 

Studies show that even disrupting sleep and attempting to fall back to sleep is so hard on the body that such disruption may lead to heart disease. Medical science recognizes that disrupting natural processes can harm the body. Why trust the tinkering of this blue-haired woman wearing a dress that looks like a shroud? Walsh points out in post-film commentary that even if what Forcier is saying is true, a child who "paused" puberty is going to have to go through puberty at an advanced age, out of sync with peers or normal development. Forcier must explain why she thinks that a young person undergoing puberty at age 20 rather than age 12 benefits that young person.

 

Walsh brings up Lupron, a drug used as a puberty blocker and also to chemically castrate sex offenders. In response, Forcier, deploying a fake-kindly, fake-quiet "therapeutic" voice, immediately and abruptly announces that she wants to end the interview. "You're not listening," she accuses Walsh, in a quiet purr. In fact his responses to her demonstrate that he has heard everything she has said. "You're choosing exploitive words … You are being malignant and harmful," she accuses Walsh.

 

Forcier's accusations attempt to create a false narrative, one in which she's the good guy and Walsh is the perp. The crime? "Exploitive words," not children manipulated in ways that alter them for life, before they reach the maturity required to make such decisions. Walsh had been flawlessly professional and appropriately neutral in his questioning of Forcier. Her accusations against him are false, just as Bowers' statement that only "dinosaurs" question his procedures was false. A pattern emerges that repeats throughout the documentary. Any rational questioning of trans extremism results in a false accusation.

 

Dr. Patrick Grzanka is an associate professor of psychology and Chair of the Interdisciplinary Program in Women, Gender, and Sexuality at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. According to his university bio, Grzanka "explores and intervenes in systemic social inequalities. He has expertise in intersectionality, sexualities, reproductive justice, racism and White supremacy, and gender. His scholarship has been funded by the National Science Foundation … and he is an associate editor … of the top-ranked Journal of Counseling Psychology. Grzanka is a committed scholar-activist who frequently writes and speaks to the public and serves on the board of several non-profit, social justice organizations."

 

I wish I could find something kind to say about Patrick Grzanka. His last name means "toast" and also "crouton" in Polish, my father's mother tongue. As I watched Grzanka do everything possible to prove that he is both a human and a weasel, I asked, "How the hell did the strong-like-bull, more-Catholic-than-the-Pope, straight-shooting Polish immigrant coal miners and steel mill workers produce this … person?"

 

Grzanka has the shifty eyes of a pickpocket and the domineering arrogance of a good percentage of tenured professors. Grzanka's eyes shift between fear and a bully's triumph. When Walsh asks Grzanka fundamental questions about sex, Grzanka looks fearful. One can imagine him thinking, "Oh my atheist God, I've been backed into a corner. My BS beliefs will be recorded on this man's camera for all the world to see!" When Grzanka responds by making false accusations against Walsh, his eyes register temporary rejoicing. "Aha! I've used academic language to gain the upper hand and to make this naïve man asking me real questions look like a fool!"

 

Grzanka's bullying of Walsh is representational of how Woke professors bully students. American students are turning off not just to higher education, but also to knowledge – college enrollment is in steep decline. American exceptionalism slowly slips away, and our academic performance is overtaken by countries that exhibit greater academic rigor. None of those countries practice the American tradition of free speech, and they all practice taboos in what one can think, what one can say, and what one can research; thus, no other country can fill the gap left by America's sabotaging of its own educational system. Grzanka is one small man, but he is representational of a national and global catastrophe.

 

Grzanka has amassed money and power by spouting BS and weaponizing personal grievance. A recent Twitter post alleges that "Patrick R. Grzanka’s salary is $92,511 (2019) from @UTKnoxville, and has 2 grants from the  @NSF totaling over $770k to reject truth and pursue political activism."

 

Grzanka tells Walsh that "When someone tells you who they are you should believe them." As Forcier pretended to a kindly therapeutic voice, Grzanka pretends to an outraged social justice warrior voice. His tone implies that Walsh is an abusive bigot for "not believing" that a man is a woman. Of course what Grzanka said is transparently idiotic. When someone tells you that he is a Nigerian prince and all you have to do is send him your bank information, you should believe him. Well, no.

 

"I want to get to the truth," Walsh says.

 

Grzanka rises up in his full social justice warrior armor. "I'm really uncomfortable with that language. It sounds deeply transphobic to me. If you keep probing, we're going to stop the interview. You keep invoking the word 'truth' which is condescending and rude. You're walking on thirty seconds of thin ice before I get up." "The way that you've conducted yourself in the interview," Grzanka says to Walsh, is the problem. The viewer sees that Walsh's conduct is unimpeachable. "You're seeking an essentialist definition," Grzanka alleges.

 

"I'm not seeking anything," Walsh says, and, in fact, the viewer can see that Walsh is telling the truth and Grzanka is demonizing and scapegoating Walsh to escape the inevitable backwash from his own BS.

 

Walsh asks the Rachel Dolezal question that trans extremists hate. "What if I say that I'm a black man?" Walsh asks.

 

"You don't look black," Grzanka replies. Grzanka would denounce as a "transphobe" anyone who said that Zoey Tur, a man who identifies as a woman, does not look like a woman. Race is sacred. White men are essentially evil – there's that word that Grzanka rejected when it comes to sex. "Essential" means "by nature; unchanging." White men are essentially evil and can't change to black men, because blackness, to the Woke, is a sacred substance that essentially evil whites may not aspire to possess. There is no essence, on the other hand, to womanhood. There is no truth to womanhood. Womanhood is a mere bagatelle, an identity that men can claim or discard at will.

 

Congressman Mark Takano, who boasts that he is the first Asian-descent gay man to serve in Congress, comes off very poorly. Takano supports the Equality Act that sanctions male incursion into female sports and bathrooms, and does other harms (see here). Walsh asks Takano directly about the violation to women's privacy when men invade women's bathrooms. Takano stares blankly at Walsh and pauses for a long time before responding. One guesses that Takano is calculating what answer will bring him, Takano, the most benefit. Then he attempts to manipulate Walsh just as Forcier and Grzanka did. You want to talk about women and their privacy in bathrooms! Takano protests, with fake outrage. I want to talk about transgender people's "right to life," he says. Again, as with Forcier, Takano has instantaneously woven a false narrative in which Walsh wants to kill trans people and Takano is rising to the defense of this threatened population. In fact neither Walsh nor any other significant voice is calling for capital punishment for trans people. After effectively accusing Walsh of being a murderer, Takano announces, "This interview is over," and he leaves.

 

Walsh chats with Dr. Miriam Grossman. The reader will benefit from visiting her webpage, a cornucopia of information on trans extremism. Jordan Peterson points out that it is not a therapist's job to "affirm" his patient's every choice. The current policy of affirmation only in response to gender dysphoria is not "therapy. It's a rubber stamp." In the current environment, Peterson points out, physicians and therapists are terrified to speak frankly. This atmosphere is damaging to health care. Further, it is impossible to produce accurate research. Therapist Sara Stockton points out that so-called "transition" involves treatments for which there are no long-term studies. "This generation is lab rats," she says. Theologian Carl Trueman says that current approaches to identity fuel trans extremism. "Trans is cool; trans is a way to give yourself value."

 

Dr. Debra Soh says, "I left academia because the climate had become too stifling politically, especially when it comes to gender identity and the science of gender. It is absolutely impossible to do good research. You have to decide beforehand what you are going to find, so that you don't upset activists and that is not how you do science … If any researcher spoke out against activist orthodoxy they would have their personal and professional reputations ruined." Soh is the author of The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society.

 

Walsh interviews Selina Soule, a female athlete who was cheated out of earned accomplishments by two males who raced under the false claim of being females. Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, a woman who identifies as a man, is a trans activist. She, smiling and waving her hands, spouted canned nonsense about how males have "no unfair advantage" over females in athletic competition. The documentary intercuts Heng-Lehtinen's misogynist lies with shocking film footage of men beating women, sometimes literally, at sports, including martial arts. Walsh interviews a teammate of Lia Thomas, a man who swims on the women's swim team at the University of Pennsylvania. This anonymous and obviously frightened young woman exposes the serious threats that the university has made against any female swimmer who commits the ultimate Woke crime and speaks the truth. "Your life will be over."

 

Scott Newgent and an unnamed Canadian father are the most heartbreaking figures in the documentary. Newgent is a woman who was encouraged by trusted advisors to adopt a male persona. She regrets this, for example in this online interview. "If I had a magic ball to take me back to the time when I decided to medically transition, I would say that no, I would not transition again. That has been hard to say publicly because quite frankly it's embarrassing." Newgent's health has suffered a great deal. "I will never be a man," she tells Matt Walsh in the documentary.

 

An unnamed Canadian father is interviewed via telephone. A court had ordered him to refer to his daughter as "he." The father's use of a correct pronoun was deemed "violence" and the father was put in jail. The details suggest that this unnamed interviewee may have been Canadian postal worker Rob Hoogland.

 

The documentary discusses the baleful influence of John Money and Alfred Kinsey.

 

What Is a Woman? is a terrific film and everyone should see it. There were a few features of the film that did not work for this viewer. What Is a Woman? films members of a Masai tribe in Africa. The filmmakers have said that they did this in order to interrogate the Woke premise that gender binaries are a "Western construct." A Masai leader tells a translator, who tells Walsh, that the Masai believe in strict gender roles.

 

This portion of the film struck me as unnecessary, exploitative, and misleading. The Masai could not possibly understand the import of their participation in this documentary. Their reaction to Walsh's questions demonstrates this. "Informed consent" is an important feature of documentation. The Masai could not have given informed consent.

 

I lived in an African nation that shares some cultural features with Kenya. This is hard to say, but the simple truth is that I'd almost rather be a dog in the US than a woman in the African country in which I lived. The Masai, like many in the country where I lived, practice female genital mutilation. Where I lived, men spent a good deal of their time socializing with other men and drinking palm wine. Women did heavy agricultural labor. Women cleared patches in the bush, planted manioc, harvested it, soaked it, dried it, pounded it into flour, cooked it, and served it, all while babies clung to their backs. Domestic violence, in the form of wife-beating, is part of life and for the most part it goes unquestioned.

 

Of course the Masai tribal elder tells the visiting American outsider that there are no gender nonconforming tribe members. For the elder to say otherwise would be a disgrace. In fact, though, in my classes of one hundred students per class, I certainly noticed boys who were effeminate and girls who were masculine. In a remote town I visited, one of my fellow Peace Corps volunteers told me that the local mailman was a transvestite, that is a man who dresses like a woman.

 

The documentary's depiction of Walsh as a lone Will Kane facing off against enemy forces certainly adds drama to the film, but it's just not true. The documentary never mentions, for example, Helen Joyce. Joyce is a former editor at The Economist. In 2021, she published Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. The book is fearless and devastating. In 2020, Abigail Shrier published Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. This hugely controversial book is embraced by parents trying to protect their children and hated by Woke ideologues. Dr. Lisa Littman published, in 2018, a study of what she called rapid onset gender dysphoria, or ROGD. She caught hell for her work, and her courage deserves recognition. British feminist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull had the audacity to purchase a billboard reading, "Woman: Adult Human Female." She's been active against men's invasions of women spaces ever since. Radical feminist Julie Bindel has been unstinting in her criticism of how trans extremism hurts women. J.K. Rowling has gained international attention for her insistence that "sex is real." Somehow none of the above crusaders for truth were even so much as mentioned in What Is a Woman? Somehow they are all women. Hmm.

 

Two more names deserve mention. Douglas Murray, a British author, in his 2019 book The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race, and Identity, detailed how extreme trans extremism is. Murray is a gay man. Benjamin A. Boyce is a citizen journalist. He has posted numerous, devastating exposes of trans extremism. In one video, a young woman who had previously identified as male, described older men who identify as women sexually harassing younger girls who identify as boys. Boyce's work is irreplaceable and necessary. Boyce's recent interview with Helen Joyce is not to be missed. Joyce reveals her razor-sharp analysis and her fearlessness.

 

I wish What Is a Woman? made clear that trans extremism is not about trans people. Rather, it's just another social panic orchestrated by the left to serve their long-term goal – the overthrow of Western Civilization and its replacement with a Woke Utopia. In the past, the left similarly exploited, and then discarded, laborers, recent immigrants like Poles and Italians, Jews, and women. Blacks and Muslims are current darlings, but if blacks and Muslims leave the plantation they immediately become targets. If trans extremism disappeared tomorrow, it would be replaced with the next social panic. We need to note the similarities in these social panics, call them what they are, and learn to address them, from trans extremism to CRT to BLM.

 

Finally, when watching What Is a Woman? I really wanted Walsh to give a hint of what The Daily Wire wants, as opposed to what it doesn't want. I reject trans extremism, but I don't want to return to a world where women are assumed to be decorative and vapid and where effeminate men are targets for bullying and worse. Walsh's documentary opens with retro images of hyper-feminine women. There's a pretty little girl in pink who loves tiaras and tea sets, a debutante in a poodle skirt, a hot pin-up in a halter top, and lots of flip hairdos like Marlo Thomas wore in the sixties sitcom That Girl.

 

The horror I feel at being expected to be pretty and vapid and to wear flip hairstyles and poodle skirts is the same horror I feel when I read 1984. I remember, in school, watching the macho guys beat the stuffing out of the boys perceived to be not manly enough. I felt horror watching those beatings. Teachers, too often, stood by and did not intervene. I want to believe that the world all of us who resist trans extremism are trying to create is safe for Walsh and his traditional family, and just as safe for effeminate men, and also safe for me.

 

Danusha Goska is the author of God through Binoculars: A Hitchhiker at a Monastery