The internet age: A time when people know more about subjects that they have never studied than ever before. With this comes many positives, such as a more knowledgeable public in general, the ability to split work amongst people all across the world to work towards common goals, as well as the accessibility of knowledge and learning to those who didn’t have it before. However, with these developments also comes a terrible plague: A public who thinks they are experts in subjects they spent no more than 5 minutes reading about on the first link they clicked on. While this may be the case for certain things such as a math problem you may or may not have spent 30 minutes crying over, certain complex issues just can’t be understood entirely that easily.
This was the case for internet commentator Matt Walsh on two topics that he thought would be easily combined together: Narcissism, and gender nonconformity. Unfortunately for him and the 123,000 people that viewed his video, Walsh chose a subject to speak on that he felt he knew more about than he really did. In his six-minute video titled “Is Non-Binary just another Word for NARCISSIST?,” Mr. Walsh asserts indirectly that people who identify as nonbinary are, in fact, narcissists. In doing so, he minimizes the legitimacy of narcissism and people who have the disorder, as well as people who do not feel comfortable identifying as male or female. In his video he watches a poem by a person who identifies as nonbinary, detailing their struggles with going to get a haircut because of the gendered pay system. Matt Walsh’s video oversimplifies the complex ins and outs of human biology and psychology, with little regard for those it may affect. The simplification and misunderstandings in the video are ones that are very common, and something that should be stopped.
Who is Matt Walsh?
Matt Walsh is a political commentator on the internet that typically takes conservative standpoints on the topics that he tackles. He posts his commentary on the Daily Wire Youtube channel, as well as many articles on The Daily Wire website. Oftentimes in his videos, Matt uses condescending language and formal attire to make himself seem more knowledgeable and qualified to speak on the issues that he does. With a News Guard rating of 57/100, The Daily Wire is known for its biased political articles. While some things that have less than 100/100 on News Guard may be credible, that is due to the nature of the things that made them lose points. These small things oftentimes include providing information on the creators of the content on their websites, or things that may not mean journalistic bias. The Daily Wire, however, has points deducted for gathering information responsibly, regularly clarifying or correcting errors, and handling the difference between news and opinion responsibly. Because of this, the integrity of Matt’s video may already come into question, especially after noting that Matt Walsh does not have any sort of formal education on most of the topics he discusses on his channel and in his blog.
Claim 1: “Is non-binary just another word for narcissist?” [Title]
In the video, Walsh goes about invalidating the existence of nonbinary people by opening the video with a short description of three things that people with narcissistic personality disorder have. Among these characteristics are a “hunger for appreciation and admiration, a sense of specialness and desire to be the center of attention,” as well as the “expectation of special treatment reflecting higher perceived status.” [0:39-0:52] While all of these things are characteristics of narcissistic personality disorder, they are only three of many traits that occur in those who have the disorder. For someone who portrays himself as knowing what he was doing, he greatly oversimplified the disorder to make it fit the narrative he wanted it to fit into. Even setting aside the fact that gender identity and personality disorders are completely unrelated, what Walsh is saying makes almost no sense. He is diagnosing an entire group of people with a personality disorder that is already extremely hard to get diagnosed in an individual. As an article by Chicago Tribune put it, “Jumping to that word so quickly needs to stop. Not only does it diminish the seriousness of real narcissists, but once you put that label on someone, any chance of a productive conversation probably just died.” The issue with saying this is not about the fact that he is referencing a disorder, but that he is using it in a casual conversation about something unrelated, eliminating the professionalism and causing stigmas surrounding those who do have to deal with the disorder. In general, it would be better for people to have raised awareness about the topic, however, the way Walsh goes about it doesn’t promote awareness; It promotes hate and fear. So why is he using a clinical term that doesn’t make sense in this scenario in exchange for something that could be simply and more effectively described as nothing more than selfish or self-absorbed? In the same article by Chicago Tribune, they mention Chet Mirman, who said that “the mass majority aren’t basing their statements on an actual diagnosis. They just want to vilify or blame the other person.” Whether he genuinely believes that people who don’t feel like a man or a woman are all narcissistic, or he is just using the term for rhetorical purposes, his statements are both incorrect and harmful to those who are actually affected.
Claim 2: “You’re either male or female.” [4:06-4:08]
In his video, Walsh denies the existence of nonbinary people, stating that “it is indeed a binary system.” [4:44-4:47] Many people who want to deny transgender people like to echo the all-too-common argument about the chromosomes of people, and how it correlates with the sex and the gender of the person involved. While the sex of someone with a pair of XX chromosomes is typically corresponding to a person who has a uterus, and XY with someone with male reproductive organs, this is not always the case. As an article on sex and gender by The World Health Organisation (WHO) explains, “The male/female split is often seen as binary, but this is not entirely true. For instance, some men are born with two or three X chromosomes, just as some women are born with a Y chromosome.”
Claim 3: “There’s no such thing as being nonbinary. That doesn’t exist.” [3:01-3:03]
In this same article by the World Health Organization, WHO describes gender as “the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed.” It might be the case that a lot of people can fit into the gender that their sex is typically associated with, however due to the diversity of the human race, it is natural that many people do not. As well as all of this, according to an article by Nature, “The research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female, and gender as a spectrum that includes transgender people and those who identify as neither male nor female.” In general, the majority of those who have studied gender and sex’s interactions together agree that there are not only two genders, and that people can fall in between male and female.
Claim 4: “That’s not a poem about being nonbinary. {…} That’s a poem about, as I said, being a narcissist.” [2:57-3:08]
In another attempt to assert that he believes that nonbinary people are narcissistic, Walsh says that the poem that he shows in his video was not about being nonbinary, but about being a narcissist. Aside from the general incorrectness of this claim, Mr. Walsh is implying the author of the poem in the video is a narcissist. The assertion that this group of people on the internet that Matt has never met are narcissist is not only ignorant, but it is harmful as well, not simply to the community of those who identify as nonbinary, but also those who have been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. According to an article by Reach Out Australia, personality disorders can be extremely difficult to diagnose due to the complex nature of personalities and the disorders that are intertwined with them. People will always respond to different situations in different ways, because each individual’s personality is unique. Because of this, it is difficult for medical professionals to get a diagnosis for their patients with personality disorders, much less a random man on the internet who has never met the person he is accusing of having the disorder. Another reason his usage of the term “narcissist” is harmful is because it is a clinical term. With the broader usage of technology came the broader use of terms that weren’t intended for the common public to use as an insult or a jab, but as a way to put a name to something that could otherwise be written off as a bad character trait. This is something that not only diminishes the perceived importance of a professional diagnosis, but it also makes people with a diagnosis feel ostracized and it causes a stigma around their condition. One more thing to be aware of is that he is saying this person who is sharing their own personal experience is narcissistic for doing so. Something to remember is that in this video, Matt is sharing his own personal opinion and experience. It’s almost as if he is saying he has a “hunger for appreciation and admiration, a sense of specialness and desire to be the center of attention,” as well as an “expectation of special treatment” because he believes he is better than others. This is not to say that Matt is a narcissist- because that is something for a psychologist to decide- but to show the absurdity of his loosely-based claims.
Why does this matter?
The overgeneralization and overuse of clinical terms can cause a lot of harm to those with actual diagnoses, as it creates an incorrect view and stigma around it. Mental health should not be used as an insult, especially when there are more accurate and simple ways things could be phrased. So next time, instead of saying terms such as “sociopath” or “narcissist” to describe someone who is just self-centered and gives little regard to others, just say it as it is. The human body and mind are complex things that cannot be generalized so simply by someone who isn’t an expert. One may think they know everything about psychology and biology after reading a two-page article, but those who have studied for years would beg to differ that it may not be as simple as you think.
Featured image by Oriel Frankie Ashcroft from Pexels
Aindrias Hirt
Hello,
It might help you to think like a linguist. One of the key way in which people can be manipulated is by transforming the meaning of a word to their own devices. For example, God didn’t give Moses His name because the Egyptians would take the name and maul it – write it on a piece of papyrus and burn it in front of the Israelites, carve it into a rock and break it and cast it into the ocean, etc. Another example would be to disguise the fact that the mRNA treatment is an experimental drug and violates the Nuremberg Code when forced on people is to call it a “vaccine” when it’s not one. If you understand the categories of gender, sex, and species, you can cut down on the confusion. The main problem with understanding the word “gender” is that there is very little of masculine and feminine nouns left in English, so people generally don’t know what gender is. Some important words still have a masculine or feminine gender and are important: God, man, one (masculine) and ship, goose (feminine). Where I live the words weather (feminine) and dog (masculine) are as well. One says, “She’s warm” and not “It’s warm.”
So, you never say “gender” unless you’re talking about how a WORD is addressed. If you’re talking about a PERSON, you say “sex.” The confusion is that a person might have a position described by a word and the gender of the word doesn’t match the person’s sex. So, you might say, “The chairman of the board is Mrs. Smith. He should do a good job.” This is correct if you are talking about how a chairman should behave. If you are emphasising the behavior of the person, you shift to the person’s sex and say “she.” Gender and sex also might not line up without their being titles. In German (English is a Germanic language and has three genders as does English; French and Gaelic have two; Spanish has three and perhaps four – some suggest a gender of “common”), one might say “Das Mädchen, es ist shön.” That means, “The (neuter definite article) girl, it is pretty.” You cannot say “she” because the gender of the word “Mädchen” is neuter, not feminine. There’s a word in Scottish Gaelic for stallion: sìolaigh. The gender of the word is predictably masculine since the gender gender of a descriptive word and the sex of the creature often match. However, if you mean the progenitor of a breed, it becomes feminine. All words for race, breed, language, topography – oceans, lakes, mountains, hills, etc. are always feminine in the Indo-European language group (exceptionally, in Spanish, the word for the weather is el tiempo, which is masculine). So, if the stallion is the sire of a breed and had a large penis, you would say in translation, “The stallion, she had a large penis.” You cannot say “he.” My saying is, “Words have gender; people (really animals) have sex.”
There is more confusion if you are speaking about a species. Important Indo-European species had unique names for the species (horse, cattle), but often many species terms used one of the two sex words to represent the species. If you have a gander (male – masculine word) and a goose (female – feminine word) the species name is “goose.” If you’re looking at a gander and said “What a beautiful goose.” The answer must be “Yes, she is.” This happened to me recently in Nova Scotia where the gender of the word “dog” is still known to be masculine. My friend Mike Silver came over (his brother is a premier out west) with his new dog. She’s female and is a bitch (female dog; the word is feminine). The word “dog” is the male name (masculine) but is also the species name. My wife knew the animal was female; she was wonderful. When the dog left, I wanted to compare her to all of her species, not just females, so I said, “What a great dog.” My wife said, “Yes, he is.” As soon as I said “dog,” my wife had to agree in case and gender. They do that here all the time whenever I am speaking about a bitch but say the word “dog.” This is important because human beings have the same problem in choosing a species name. There are men and woman. The species name is “man/men.” It’s masculine. So a congressman (a human in congress), foreman (the foremost human), chairman (the human sitting at the head of a table), etc. are all masculine and should be addressed as “he” unless you drop back to the sex of the person.
Simply put, you should never use the word “gender” to describe a human being. There is no such thing as “gender transitioning,” “gender fluidity,” or “gender identity.” Importantly, gender, sex, and species categories are discrete and finite. You can’t change them. If you want to know the gender of a word, you look it up in a dictionary or conduct a survey to see how the population addresses a word. There is no such thing as “gender fluidity.” The word’s gender is carved in granite. It takes decades if not centuries for the gender of a word to change, and it’s changed by people slowly over time unconsciously. Sex is measured by chromosomes. Your intension is irrelevant, just as a priest claiming that wine has been turned to blood on the alter. You don’t take the alleged blood from the alter and supplant blood drives, taking the “blood” to a hospital and infusing it into surgery patients – they’d die.
The measurement of women’s athletics is not sex dysphoria, but sex. The same thing is true with women’s prisons, locker rooms and bathrooms.
I’m suggesting that you stop saying the word “gender” and start saying the word “sex” unless you are explaining how a woman isn’t being referred to, but to the word that describes her position. You should say, “When one (masculine noun) writes a book, he should do a good job” not “s/he” or “she/he,” etc. Having said that, it is rare but possible in high-register English to occasionality shift to the third person plural when speaking about a person originally in the third person singular. Jane Austen does this occasionally. As an aside, the formal voice in English is the second person plural, not the third person singular (as I used it here). That’s from Latin and Italian (Come stai? Bene, e lei (and she)?). The formal voice in German is the third person plural. The informal voice for the second person is “thou art” but it has become minimized as English society became extremely formal. The false, formal voice swept through Europe around the fifth century and morphed into different languages differently…
I’m just trying to be helpful. Everyone is being used. It’s extremely annoying and is causing a lot of suffering.
Regards,
Andy Hirt