What Is a Woman? had a divided reception. It was described in journalistic and academic sources as
anti-transgender or
transphobic.
Eli Erlick, founder of the organization
Trans Student Educational Resources, told
Rolling Stone that "to believe what's in [the documentary] requires a fantastical hatred of trans people" and that it shows an "appalling lack of research on the trans community". Tamma Moksha of
The Hindu called it a "twisted exercise in narcissism", adding that "The quality of research and editorial choices of the filmmakers are jarring and ... Walsh's journey in finding out the true definition of a woman seems to come from his decades-long affair with misogyny and not genuine curiosity". AJ Eckert of
Science-Based Medicine called it "every bit as much of a science-denying propaganda film disguised as a documentary as
antivax films like
Vaxxed or the
anti-evolution film
Expelled!, and such films tend to be potent messaging tools", concluding that "Walsh clearly did not set out to honestly seek answers to a perplexing question, even if they are complex. Instead, he started with a conclusion and then sought out sources to support that conclusion, no matter how dubious the source, making this film an exercise, not in honest truth-seeking but rather motivated reasoning." Some of those open to Walsh's perspective, such as Zoran Janković of the Serbian magazine
Vreme, nevertheless said it had propagandistic aspects. Adam Zivo of the Canadian newspaper
The National Post, who agreed there was "absurdity" in the rhetoric of some LGBTQ activists, said it used "bad-faith storytelling to rile up audiences while oversimplifying complex issues", most present in the focus on "'gotcha' moments with his interviewees". John Kendall Hawkins of
CounterPunch, who called it "more conservative silliness", concluded that it "just adds to the relentless white noise we can't seem to escape and adds nothing to our humanity. The film is not worth watching, but its posture is worth noting." The
Texas state representative,
Matt Schaefer, a
Republican, promoted it on Twitter, encouraging his followers to "ask your Senator or Representative if they have watched". Transgender
YouTuber and conservative political commentator
Blaire White praised it in
The Spectator Australia. In an 2023
tweet by
J. K. Rowling, she wrote positively of
What is a woman? saying that it "exposed" the "incoherence of gender identity".
Rich Lowry of
National Review called it "mesmerizing and extremely disturbing" from the snippets he saw, Amy Welborn of
The Catholic World Report "well-produced, amusing, and frustrating", and Gaby Gaduh of
Movieguide "lively, provocative, informative, and brilliant". A few journalists provided favorable comparisons, such as Leor Sapir of
City Journal, citing other books and movies that spark "a demand for social reform" such as
Ralph Nader's 1965 book
Unsafe at Any Speed. Jennifer Graham of
Deseret News, who said that Walsh "may be
trolling all of us with the film", also suggested Walsh's potential impact on the
culture war with his questions. Karol Markowicz of the
New York Post and Kai Burkhardt of
Die Welt compared it to the works of
Michael Moore. In fact, Burkhardt and Dimitrije Vojnov of
Radio Television of Serbia wrote that with it, Walsh established himself as the conservative Michael Moore, although Vojnov presented it as a critique of Walsh's bias.
Jason Whitlock of
Blaze Media criticized it for not mentioning God or Christianity, saying that "it fights a
spiritual war on secular terms" and that "before we answer 'what is a woman,' we need to relearn the meaning of being Christian." Both
Hayton and Bartosch wrote that it would have benefited from interviewing
gender-critical feminist critics who have also looked askew at similar gender concepts over the years, such as American feminist
Janice Raymond, English writer
Julie Bindel, Irish journalist
Helen Joyce, British philosopher
Kathleen Stock, American journalist
Abigail Shrier and
Women's Declaration International (WDI) president
Kara Dansky. A couple of pro-Walsh reviews also questioned it's balance. Mathew De Sousa of
The Catholic Weekly said it "provides a fair scope of both leftist and conservative beliefs on core gender issues", but that it "could be a more robust resource for Christians if a little more time was given to those arguments against gender ideology and the transgender agenda." Brett McCracken of
The Gospel Coalition added that "a bit more empathy could have strengthened Walsh's case", criticizing his "name-calling" of transgender people as "not a great tactic in persuasion, nor in evangelism." ==See also==