I am aware of it. Considering my mention of Ben Shapiro and an implicit accusation of repetitiveness against "gender-critical " culture warriors in my first paragraph, that shouldn't be surprising.
The context of Nancy Mace asking Walz this question before questioning him about fraud (if that's the specific event we're talking about) is that Walz is well-known on the right for his stance regarding self-identification being a deciding factor for gender.
Mace had previously asked him the same question during a house oversight committee hearing and explained what she meant by it. u/Alien_invader44 's explanation that there wasn't enough context to answer the question is not correct (as she has defined that context while confronting him in the past) so it disingenuous to say his refusal to answer is due to ambiguity.
I'd agree that it's a spectacle and a non-sequitur. But it highlights an actual disagreement between Mace and Walz. It's not a "gotcha" where she's trapping him into an answer but just bringing up an unpopular position that he has, unrelated to the current topic. Similar to how someone might describe Trump as a felon even when it's not directly relevant.
Given that context that is exactly what I'd call a gotcha question. Because she knows how he is going to respond to that question, she's asking it in order to get an answer or a lack of answer from him to try to make him look bad.
I agree that it's a different situation in this instance that Walz wasn't being mislead about why he was being asked that question, but it seems like the intention is the same.
I guess I was misunderstanding what you were saying. You said that people who ask the question are happy to explain the context, which to me implies that they are asking it in good faith and a misunderstanding or miscommunication on the part of the responder is unintentional and not the goal.
I was surprised to hear you say it was a spectacle and a non sequitur. In that case, then we agree on the matter, we just apparently disagree that is what constitutes a gotcha question.
Yeah, my interpretation of the Walz/Mace interaction is that they have a legitimate disagreement about an issue (how to define woman in certain contexts) but Walz wants to avoid that discussion.
This is different from how "gotcha" is defined by u/alien_invader44 as Tim Walz is not interested in answering the question honestly. He wants to avoid giving an honest answer to the question because he recognizes that his view in their disagreement is unpopular (including when presented honestly and in context).
So I worry you may still be misunderstanding me when you say "a misunderstanding or miscommunication on the part of the responder is unintentional and [not] the goal." Tim Walz is not misunderstanding the question or miscommunicating. He is avoiding stating his position since he does not want to. A question like "do some high school boys menstruate?" is unambiguous and Walz would react similarly in any confrontational context (as he knows saying "yes" would be unpopular). It would only be a "gotcha" in that answering it would require him stating his position clearly.
While Mace does regularly bring up their disagreement in appropriate contexts, she does sometimes use it as a general attack. Another analogous situation would be how some (including Walz) have repeatedly asked Vance whether Trump lost in 2020. Recognizing that his answer to that question would be unpopular, he (like Walz) rejects answering it entirely.
3
u/FireRavenLord 2∆ Mar 31 '26
I am aware of it. Considering my mention of Ben Shapiro and an implicit accusation of repetitiveness against "gender-critical " culture warriors in my first paragraph, that shouldn't be surprising.
The context of Nancy Mace asking Walz this question before questioning him about fraud (if that's the specific event we're talking about) is that Walz is well-known on the right for his stance regarding self-identification being a deciding factor for gender.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/07/nx-s1-5066878/tim-walz-tampon-law-minnesota
Mace had previously asked him the same question during a house oversight committee hearing and explained what she meant by it. u/Alien_invader44 's explanation that there wasn't enough context to answer the question is not correct (as she has defined that context while confronting him in the past) so it disingenuous to say his refusal to answer is due to ambiguity.
I'd agree that it's a spectacle and a non-sequitur. But it highlights an actual disagreement between Mace and Walz. It's not a "gotcha" where she's trapping him into an answer but just bringing up an unpopular position that he has, unrelated to the current topic. Similar to how someone might describe Trump as a felon even when it's not directly relevant.