¿Qué es una mujer?

The most important thing about this documentary is that Matt Walsh lets the people he interviews talk. Very little of this film is Walsh speaking. That is worth something. You can actually understand the arguments people are making and consider what you think.

Now, where I think this could have been better is because Walsh has an agenda, he is overly-antagonistic. I get that everyone has an agenda, but if he would have kept the tongue-in-cheek stuff down and stuck to letting people talk about an issue that is interesting on its own, it would have been more palatable.

Still, there is not another documentary out there like this, and maybe there never can be as many might be afraid to be so candid on interviews in the future.

Despite the ruckus and waves this movie has seemingly caused, I think that before one judges it, one should give it a view. Perhaps there's a reason it's caused a fuss.. As with nearly any documentary, the writer does have a side he leans toward; however, that does not mean the information within is invalid. Both sides are interviewed and given a platform to speak "their truth." Both sides were also given a list of questions that would be asked. The difference was the answers given..or not given.

I must encourage a watch. It is a great wealth of information no matter where you fall.

So, its fairly well produced, it looks good (certainly comparable to other documentaries out there.) All of the technical aspects of the film are in order. Nothing truly stands out as exceptional, but everything is very much professional.

From an approach perspective, it really is more of a documentary than most "documentaries" in that, the main character (Matt Walsh) is asking questions to try and understand the opposing opinion. Most "Documentaries" have a side and then only interview supporting perspectives of the thesis. In this case, Walsh actually interviews the opposing side a lot. For that reason alone, this a more honest documentary. Now, fair-is-fair, I don't like the subject of documentaries to be the documentarian. I believe that would classify it as more journalistic or activist (a-la, Moore or Spurlock.) But it is a common documentary style.

That said, I guess we get into the meat of it and why people love it or hate it. As before mentioned, there is a lot of exchanges with opposing view points, and those view points did not make strong arguments. Did Walsh interview the actual leading experts on the subjects? Maybe, maybe not. They do have considerable credibility, but Walsh himself is by no means an expert in the field, so even if the people he's interviewing are not the leaders, it's not like it's an unfair fight.

I think if you're for or against this subject matter, it's probably a good film to watch. It's always good to know what the opposing arguments are, but for some reason this topic people get very passionate about. From a purely creative standpoint, I think it's great, not exceptional, but if you like documentaries, it's going to be one of the best ones this year.

Very enjoyable to watch, but too biased to be called a documentary, and is well designed to support e certain narrative. It cherry picks interviews with stupid or dangerous people in the LGBTQ+ community and well grounded/sophisticated people on the conservative side to present a reality with lunatics vs pragmatists. There are bright minds, like the ones that have helped society move forward the last 100 years, that could provide the real arguments on why gender as a term is a valuable tool in order to study social behaviours and understand ourselves. These bright minds were not presented.

I was quite surprised to see the level of respect this film had for the subjects, at many points reflecting on the sympathy for children suffering with gender identity.

I think what I appreciated most was that these weren't trick questions, the presenter asked very basic and honest questions - the fact that a univeristy professor was unable to answer simple questions in his own field was very telling. It was a running theme that those who wanted honest discussions were being shut down, lose their careers and even faced imprisonment.

Speaking with an African tribe was also an interesting juxtaposition of societal ideals.

My one criticism is that I wish he had not been able to open the jar of pickles.