“Les grands hommes, en apprenant aux faibles à réfléchir, les ont mis sur la route de l'erreur.”
(Great men, by teaching the weak to think, put them on the road to error)
– Marquis de Vauvenargues, Maxims et Réflexions
Matt Walsh, author, columnist, and host of the Matt Walsh Show podcast with The Daily Wire, has found himself in hot water on multiple occasions when discussing the issue of transgender ideology. This controversy perhaps reached its height when he made an appearance on Dr. Phil to discuss the issue with transgender individuals. Walsh has again become the spotlight of attention for his opinions on swimmer Lia Thomas. Thomas, a transgender athlete who swam for three years on the University of Pennsylvania men’s team, has presented a real dilemma over the past swim season in competing on the women’s team and shattering women’s Ivy League records. Matt Walsh has made his opinions clear on this issue: Lia Thomas, a biological male, swimming against female swimmers is blatantly unfair. The NCAA women’s swimming and diving championships are going to be held at Georgia Tech March 16-19, and Matt Walsh will be here to speak on “Why Men Don’t Belong in Women’s Sports,” on March 14, from 5:30-6:30 in room 103 of the Instructional Center.
With Matt Walsh coming to campus, the issue of transgender ideology will most likely be on the forefront of the student body’s mind. I would like to detail a few of my thoughts on this issue, as well as comment on why I think it is a good thing that Matt Walsh is not only speaking here, but speaking his mind on this issue in general. I do not wish to merely commentate on the Lia Thomas ordeal, but rather to question the very foundations of transgender ideology. I fear that conservatives often think of transgender ideology as irrational jargon. To be fair, it is jargon – but it is far from “irrational.” In fact, I am of the opinion that it is one of the very products of a hyper-rational culture that the West has been bedeviled by in our post-Enlightenment era, a manifested example of Michael Oakeshott’s idea of “Rationalist politics,” the offspring of an Existentialist–Postmodern consummation, and a philosophy to be taken seriously – not because it is a serious philosophy, but because it is a philosophy capable of inflict