By Davis Carlton

This summer Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire has released a documentary titled, What is a Woman? The documentary records Walsh’s conversations with many people on the subject of gender ideology, which seeks to abstract a person’s gender identity from their biological sex. Walsh interviews many who are skeptical of gender ideology, but it is his interviews with proponents of gender ideology that are the most interesting and entertaining. Walsh repeatedly asks his interlocutors the question that serves as the documentary’s title, “what is a woman?” In asserting that “trans-women” are real women, the goal of gender ideology is to deconstruct the reality of sexual identity altogether. The interviews expose the abject irrationality, equivocation, and intellectual dishonesty behind gender ideology.

Walsh’s documentary is worth watching. Part 1 and Part 2 of some highlights are available on YouTube. Or, alternately, you can view the entire interview on BitChute.There isn’t a need to elaborate on any points discussed during the documentary. My aim is to show that the crisis of identity that has most recently manifested itself in gender ideology must be traced back to earlier egalitarian movements. The idea of “transgenderism” is a natural and inevitable consequence of equality of the male and female sexes. First wave feminism maintained much of the traditionally affirmed beliefs about the distinctions between men and women. Many of these early feminists exalted at least the trappings of traditional femininity and encouraged women and girls to dress and act in feminine ways while also seeking to make women the political and social equals of men.

The quest for political equality eventually gave way to tearing down practical functional distinctions between men and women. The first wave feminism of the 19^th century gave way to the second wave of feminism in the mid-20^th century. Women were now encouraged to work outside the home and abandon more and more of traditional femininity. Abortion was also championed as a means of freeing women from the purported shackles of motherhood. Additional feminist activities beginning at the end of the 20^th century advocated for complete sexual liberation and acceptance of homosexuality.

It is within this historical context that transgenderism has become the latest liberal cause of advocacy as the final deconstruction of gender as an objective manifestation of biological sex. It was only a matter of time before the rhetoric of political and social equality that began in the 18^th and 19^th centuries gave way to the complete functional interchangeability of men and women that we are witnessing in the 21^st century. The final frontier is the deconstruction of human identity itself with the advocacy of “trans-humanism” with the attempt to undermine the distinction of mankind from the rest of creation.

Many on the mainstream Right have attempted to resist the destruction of the social order that has been wrought by feminism while also making concessions to feminist talking points. It is not uncommon for pro-life Christians to try to co-opt feminist language by suggesting that abortion aids men in “controlling” women’s sexuality. By conceding the rhetoric of earlier manifestations of feminism, the mainstream Right implicitly accepts the underlying principle of the equality of men and women. Unsurprisingly Conservative, Inc. hasn’t been successful in resisting the advances of late-stage feminism.

Feminism has played a major role in the destruction of the family and Western civilization, but I would also argue that the deconstruction of the concept of a nation has also been foundational to the modern Western identity crisis. The collapse of traditional gender identity parallels the decline of nationalism in the Western world. Black’s Law Dictionary 6^th Edition provides a standard definition of a nation entering the 20^th century:

“A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.” (Emphasis mine)

This is the very opposite of the propositional nationalism that began to dominate after the Second World War. Globalism has deconstructed traditional national identity in a fashion that parallels how feminism has deconstructed gender identity and traditional gender roles. The process began slowly but has gradually picked up steam. Gregory Hood recently pointed out how equality has become America’s civic religion and how the concept of equality of opportunity naturally leads to an insistence on the equality of results. There is a straight line from Thomas Jefferson’s lazy rhetoric that he employed in the Declaration that “all men are created equal” to Ibram Kendi’s “anti-racism” in which any inequality of results must be the consequence of white racism. In the same way there is a straight line from first wave feminism to the belief that men can get pregnant.

Too often Conservative, Inc. argues from the standpoint that the Left is essentially correct but woefully inconsistent in applying its own noble standards. This is why mainstream conservatism fails to stop or even slow down the advance of liberalism. It’s all well and good and ask “what is a woman?” in order to expose the mental gymnastics and rhetorical dishonesty of the Left, but the Right will continue to fail unless equality is rejected. The modern crisis of identity isn’t confined biological sex. Racial identity is just as foundational.

Asking the question, “What is a nation?” is also useful in ferreting out grifters seeking to co-opt the newfound popularity of what is becoming known as “Christian nationalism.” Overtly leftist “Christians” like Russell Moore, Tim Keller, and Beth Moore have reacted so violently against the boogeyman of Christian nationalism that it has provoked a response from those who reject ethno-nationalism and Kinism who nevertheless see reject these histrionics as ridiculous. Often defenders of generic Christian nationalism are at least mildly theonomic and ardently defend the idea of the Christianization of nations against baptistic individualism. Doug Wilson and Canon Press are good examples of this position, because they defend the principle of Christian nationhood while generally assuming propositional nationhood. We are well-advised to keep these Johnny-Come-Latelies” of Christian nationalism at arms’ length while still appealing to them to consistently apply their theonomy to the question of national identity.

The concept of nationhood permeates the entirety of the Scriptural narrative. We are told that God created the nations (Ps. 86:9), divided them and gave them their boundaries (Deut. 32:8-9/Acts 17:26-27), and are the subject of evangelization and discipleship (Matt. 28:19-20). We are taught that the nations will ultimately be saved and remain distinct in the new creation (Rev. 21:24-26, 22:2). The question that Kinists need to ask parroting Walsh is, “what is a nation?” or more precisely, “what does the Bible mean when it talks about different nations?” It is a question that we are more than prepared to answer. Looking contextually at how the Bible addresses national identity makes it more than obvious that nationhood is hereditary. Multi-racial nations make as little sense as the pathetic, intellectually dishonest answers about womanhood that were given to Walsh while filming his documentary. Perhaps Matt Walsh is up for making a sequel?…