Piers Morgan Uncensored - 'Men Have No Place in Women's Sports': House Passes Ban on Trans Students in Girls Sports

Episode Date: January 17, 2025

House Republicans pushed through sweeping legislation on Tuesday to block transgender women and girls from school sports. The bill passed 218-206 in a vote that saw two Texas Democrats break ranks to support the Republican measure It’s the latest signal of a significant cultural shift on gender ideology in the wake of President Trump’s re-election. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta will now allow the questioning of gender identity without censorship. That includes allowing the view that being transgender is a mental illness. In the world of science, meanwhile, three of the world's most eminent scholars have quit an atheism foundation over its backing of what they call a new "transgender religion." One of them is Jerry Coyne, emeritus professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, whose bombshell article 'Biology is not Bigotry' claims categorically: In biology, a woman can be simply defined in four words: “An adult human female.” He speaks to Piers, followed by a debate involving Executive Director from the progressive organisation, Rebellion Pac, Brianna Wu, Trans rights activist, Eli Erlick And host of Tomi Lahren is Fearless on Outkick, Tomi Lahren. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

House Republicans have yet again stood up for women. Men are men and women are women. The Democrats were telling people things that they could see were not true. Yeah. That there are more than two sexes. He is completely unscientific and so bound up in his ideology. I don't like even referring to myself as a biological woman. I'm a woman, okay? I was born that way.

Eli is out there pushing this narrative. The science doesn't matter. We need to put some adults in charge of our movement again. It's embarrassing. There's a sea change now happening and where it's a formally taboo subject can now be discussed openly. Leave children out of that,

and that's what a lot of conservatives are simply asking for. Leave kids alone. If I'm transphobic, then why are two-thirds of this panel trans? What a thicket of weeds we have to hack our way through. The new Republican Congress has pledged to hear arguments on a builder banned

trans athletes from women's sports, and it will do so within its first hundred days. Our speaker Mike Johnson made headlines recently by declaring categorically that a man cannot become a woman. It's a latest signal of a significant cultural shift on gender ideology in the wake of President Trump's re-election. Mark Zuckerberg's meta will now allow the questioning of gender identity without censorship.

That includes allowing the view that being transgender is a mental illness. In the world of science, meanwhile, three of the world's most eminent scholars have quit an atheism foundation over his backing of what they call a new transgender religion. One of them is Jerry Coyne, Emeritus Professor of Ecology, at University of Chicago, whose bombshell article,

biology is not bigotry, claims categorically in biology, a woman can be simply defined in four words, an adult human female, or the author of the New York Times bestseller, while evolution is true, Professor Coyne George Benner. Professor, great to have you on a sense of him. Thanks for having me. I've been literally using that definition of a woman for about three years. It's an adult human female, that's it.

To me, it is breathtaking that people like you actually have to write books pointing out to people, the bleeding obvious, that actually it's just a biological fact. Are you as staggered as I am? Yes. I never imagine this would hurl me into the middle of a fracas, like it did. But, you know, I'm sticking by the biology. So I feel like I'm on solid ground. I mean, it's extraordinary when I read the article, which prompted all this mayhem. I just find myself nodding my way through it, thinking, well, what's supposedly so controversial? You say some non-binary people or men who identify as women feel their identity is not adequately recognized by biology. They choose to impose ideology onto biology and concoct a new definition of woman.

Why should sex be changeable when other physical traits cannot? Feelings don't create reality. I mean, Ben Shapiro's had a pinned post on X, pinned tweet as it was at the time, and simply says, facts don't care about your feelings, which could pretty well represent what you wrote there. I mean, when do we get to a place where indisputable fact became something that people felt they could completely ignore? Well, it's ideology, as it often is, and the whole history of ideology, is that it can displace fact.

It did so in Russia in the time of Lysenko, the famous Charlottetton, who completely transformed Russian agriculture to the deaths of 20 million people because he thought that he had a sort of dualistic view of nature that was wrong. And Stalin adopted it, and the result was that probably millions of millions of people died in China. And now ideology has come back again. It's never gone away completely, but it's making its incursion into the science is both hard and soft, and not to a good end either. No, I mean, the second point that you make in the piece,

there are plenty of problems with the claim that self-identification maps directly onto empirical reality. You're not always fat if you feel fat, the problem with anorexia, you say. Not a horse if you feel you're a horse. You don't become Asian, simply because you feel Asian. But sex, we're told, is different. It's a one biological feature of humans that can be changed solely by psychology. And it reminded me, I had a debate on International Women's Day a couple of years ago,

where I had someone on trying to argue that all self-identity should be limitless. And I said, okay, so on International Woman's Day, I would now like to identify as a black lesbian. And she looked completely horrified. And I said, but that's ridiculous. I said, yeah, that's the point, is that if you have limitless self-identity, the logical conclusion of that journey is to the risk. particular. True, but there are limits to what can be self-identity, and those limits are at gender.

So you can identify, or sex, actually, biological sex, let me not confuse them. But you can, I mean, there's a big kerfuffle about this a couple of years ago when Rebecca Tuvel wrote an article in a philosophy journal saying that there's no substantive ethical difference between claiming that you're a member of a different race or claiming that you're a member of a different sex than you were born with. And she's right, as far as I can determine. But the first one is anathema.

The second one is applauded. I don't know why that is. There's just something about the nature of sex that makes it almost untouchable to question. Is it... In your estimation, Professor, is there any way for a biological... man to become a woman?

No. They can say they're a woman, and I will respect their self-identification to the extent of using she and their preferred pronouns. But as a biologist, no, that will not happen until you're able to transplant the gonads of a male into a female or vice versa, because the biological definition of sex is based on the reproductive apparatus that can produce either sperm or eggs. And so you can't change that. Right.

You know what I mean. And when you see, for example, the fiasco, as I would call it, of people who were born biological men competing in women's sport as trans women and destroying women sports women, because obviously they have superior physiology, which reminds everybody why we separate the sexes in the Olympics, for example. Yes. I mean, what do you feel as a professor who studied all this? About that.

Yeah, about that in particular, yeah. Well, I mean, I made it pretty clear that, well, let me start off by, like, with a caveat, that I think trans people deserve all the ideological, moral, and ethical rights as anybody else. Yeah. I'm not a trans foe, although I've been tired with that. Yeah, I'm exactly the same. Except that there are situations that hold for trans people that don't hold for, say, gays. and that's that there are a clash of rights

that transgender people have against other groups like women. So there are so-called women's spaces that you have to carve out some of the rights from transgender people to give rights to other groups like women. I mean, it's women mostly that come into play here or not men.

And one of those is sports. You simply cannot allow somebody that's gone through male puberty to compete against the biological woman. Well, you never read, do you? about trans men dominating in men's sport? It happens because they can't. Well, yes, that's true.

And so people have proposed that we have an open category that comprises men, trans men, and people of indeterminate gender. And that will be the second category and then biological one and the other. I think that's a pretty good solution. Nevertheless, some men's sports have banned women on the grounds or trans men.

i.e. biological women on the grounds that they could get hurt. Yes, of course. And World Rugby has done that, for example. Yeah, quite rightly. Yeah. I mean, I always use the argument. Look, if Mike Tyson or Floyd Mayweather suddenly put the hand up and said, I'm now a woman, would we allow them into a ring,

even if they were paired against a woman, a biological female woman, an actual woman, who weighed the same? No, because the physiology of the bone mass, the lung capacity, the strength, the power, everything. And on every metric you could think of, obviously Mike Tyson and Floyd Mayweather would probably kill that woman in a ring. We saw it in the Paris Olympics with the Algerian, Imam Khalif, who no one's quite sure what the reality is of that situation. But it appears that she was banned from the World Championships for having male chromosomes. But a woman who fought against her in an early round quit after 40 seconds saying she'd never been hit that hard in her entire career.

So this is dangerous now. Well, the ideology, and I totally agree with you, it's right to the point where trans rights start to erode existing women's rights to safety, to equality, to fairness. That is the problem. It's not about wanting trans people to have fairness and equality. Of course I do. And I want them to be safe.

I just don't want women's rights to those things to be trampled on in the process. And when I see the scene like we saw in the Olympics of this poor boxer literally throwing metowal in after 40 seconds because they couldn't stomach or withstand the pain of being hit that hard by somebody who is almost certainly more a biological man than woman. You realize how dangerous this becomes. Yeah, it's palpably unfair. I mean, this is why, if you ask Americans as a whole, whether they think that biological men, i.e. trans women, who identify as women, should be competing with biological women in sports. 70% of them say no. So, I mean, there's a sea change now happening in which a formally taboo subject can now be discussed openly.

And that's what I tried to do in my article, which was censored with the FFRF. And unfortunately, I'm receiving more hate mail now for that than I ever have in my life. Most of them calling me a transphobe. I don't hate transphobic people. I'm just trying to adjudicate the... clash of rights that's going to be inevitable when you have this kind of thing happening. And you're completely right, and the people who hate you are completely wrong. I had Neil deGrasse Tyson on recently, the astrophysicist, and I asked him about this issue,

and he gave an extraordinary response, which did lead to him being mocked quite widely, but this is about the whole transport issue. The future of sports does not distinguish sex. It distinguishes and sorts people by hormone ratios. I'm making this up. Imagine that if that were the case. That would be interesting. You get a hormone test if you're in this range,

and then you compete against other people with the same range of hormones. That's ridiculous. What did you make of that? Unfortunately, he's very wrong because they did use hormone tests in the Olympics and in other sports competitions, and that's the way they distinguish the two groups. But it's proven now that that isn't correct,

that if you go through puberty, and you take hormone supplements, it doesn't matter because the advantages that you gain at puberty. Yes. And I'm talking about male puberty, the strength advantages, the bone advantages, the muscular advantages. Those seem to stay with you for years, if not the rest of your life. For forever. And so you can take as many as much testosterone as you want, but that's not going to eliminate palpable physical advantages of males over females. or trans women over women.

But when you see someone, you know, as eminent as Neil Grass-Tyson, proper scientist, when he says that kind of thing, what do you feel? Well, my first reaction is charitable. I'll say he's a physicist. He's not a biologist. And he's not aware of the literature looking at the strength and the athletic abilities of trans women.

To say something like that. And 70% of Americans would disagree. with them. You know, I mean, they can see the unfairness. They can see that there are new sexes, but, and this is probably one reason why that played into the Democratic defeat in the election, is that the Democrats tend to be progressive, the extremists. I'm a Democrat, but I'm more centrist than I hope more rational. The Democrats were telling people things that they could see were not true, that there are more than two sexes. No, no, I agree.

Men and women have equal athletic abilities, things like that, which simply falls. You know, the most successful political ad in recent times was the one that the Trump campaign put out, which ends with Carmelah Harris' is for they, them, and Donald Trump is for you. And it included the issue of transport in the 32nd commercial. They reckon it moved the needle three points because it resonated with most Americans. We're like, well, yes, of course. Yes, that's very clever. It's not clear how much role that played,

but it's also clear that the Democrats had nothing to counter that ad with. No, well, they couldn't because karma was on record in supporting all this nonsense. So the scientific case for trans was outlined in a scientific America article called Stop Using Phony Science to justify transphobia. They argued there is bigotry in the position adopted by Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, and yourself. And I'll go through some of the stuff they said. They said the popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is your biological sex isn't carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.

A half century of empirical research has repeatedly challenged the idea that brain biology is simply X, Y, equals male brain, or XX equals female brain. In other words, there's no such thing as the male brain or the female brain. The science is clear and conclusive. Sex is not binary. Transgender people are real. It's time we acknowledge this. Defining a person's sex identity using decontextualized facts in inverted commas

is unscientific and dehumanizing. What did you make of that? Well, I would say, what a thicket of weeds we have to hack our way through in that sense. I mean, there's so many things wrong with what it said. I'll just single out, too. First of all, sex is binary. that we have males and females that are defined by the types of gametes they produce sperm versus eggs or the reproductive apparatus to produce sperm eggs.

If you're a sterile male, you're still a male. And so sex is binary. The proportion of exceptions to that in the human species is between 1 and 5600 and 1 and 20,000. So basically, it's binary. The chance that your non-binary is the same as the chance of toss and a quarter. on the air and having it land on its edge. And when people, you know, the people that say that sex is a spectrum, when they toss the coin, they don't say, call it heads, tails, or edge.

I mean, they recognize that basically there's two outcomes and the intermediates are minuscule. Now, that's not to say that these intermediates should be demonized or erased or dumped on in any way. As I said, I'm not a transfoam. But you have to recognize that sex comes in two forms. So that's the first problem with that. The other one is, and I noticed this immediately when I read this article, they say that there's no such thing as a male brain or a female brain, and yet they say that trans people have

brains that are intermediate between male and female brains. Well, you can't maintain both of those positions at the same time. In fact, you know, the science of male versus female brains is in flux, and especially the science of people who claim to be a better-beating gender is influx. It's not clear whether trans people do have intermediate brains, if there is such a thing as brain differences, or if those trans people that do show intermediate, you see are really gay people who say that they're trans.

And there's a difference between being trans and being gay. So, yeah, how would you describe that difference from a biological perspective? Well, trans, you feel like you're born in the same, in the wrong body, and you want to assume the other body. And I'm not denying that those people exist either. I think they really do. I don't know when it starts this feeling of being in the wrong body. But, and so therefore, and some of those people try to assume the features of the body they

were not born in. So they'll have surgery. They'll have top surgery or they'll have bottom surgery. They'll take hormones. They'll shave, et cetera. But some of them don't. Some trans women, for example, who are biological men, will just present as biological men. and have, you know, beards and things like that.

Whereas a gay person is somebody, or a gay male or a gay female, or somebody who has a sexual attraction to members of their own natal sex. It has nothing to do with feeling like you're in the wrong body. It has to do with who you're sexually attracted to. Now, they can be connected if you feel like you are attracted to men if you're gay, and maybe you want to have sex with men,

and you think you'll have more sex with men, And if you look like a woman, then you could say that you're trans and undergo that kind of transformation. But really, there are two different things. I mean, what people on the other side of the arguments say, they say, we haven't found a gene for homosexuality, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Why should transsexuality be different? Well, I mean, we just don't know. I'm pretty sure because every biological characteristic that differs among people has some genetic basis. although sometimes it's very tiny.

But we don't know much about the genetics of homosexual. I think there is some evidence that being gay does have some genetic basis. That's supported by the fact that a lot of gay people feel that they're attracted the same sex from a very young age and it maintains itself throughout puberty and up into adulthood. About being trans, we have no information. We have no information yet because it's such a new feature of human sociology about the genetic basis that. It could well be that there is a genetic basis for it.

But remember, if there's only a small genetic basis for something, then biologists would tend to ignore it. Moreover, the degree of genetic basis of a trait says nothing about how much you can transform that trait by social intervention, for example. When this whole fraccar, as you put it, blew up, I mean, when you were talking to Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker about what was going on, were you all equally kind of bemused, baffled, or how would you categorize your thinking about it? Well, sandbagged would be the American word for it, because we had no idea this would happen.

We're all on the honorary border of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, And we have in the past warned them that they're widening their mission, going outside their mission, by dealing with things that don't involve church-state separation, which is the purview of the FFRF. It's to enforce the First Amendment to keep church and state separate. But they started getting into the so-called woke ideology, transgender politics, things like that, which don't really have much to do with church-state separation. And we warned them about that twice, and in this case in which they published an essay saying that sex is whatever you feel it to be, a woman is whoever she says she is, that that was too much because we all are science-friendly and we know that the definition of a woman. And you can look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which our regard is sort of the Bible

of linguistics to use a religious metaphor. It defines a woman as an adult human female, and it defines female and male based on the types of sperm or eggs they have. And so, you know, we were both, we were all upset about this. I was allowed to write a counter to this self-definition of male or female, and they published it. And as I wrote it in my essay, they let it stay up for a day before they decided it was hurtful. And they removed it, censored it, right off the internet. And none of us like this kind of sensorious behavior. We believe in the value of free expression of the clash of ideas, the John Stewart Mill view, that if ideas clashed, the truth will eventually emerge.

And so when they took it down, I decided I should resign, and Steve and Richard independently decided to resign. And so we did. And I just discovered yesterday, there were 18 of us on this honorary board of the organization, chosen. because of our accomplishments and keeping church and state separate, that three of us resigned, me, Richard and Steve, and the FFRF decided,

okay, we're going to get rid of the rest of them, which I thought was a pretty crazy thing to do because it eliminates the meritorious aspect of their sponsorship. But 15 other people bit the dust yesterday. Extraordinary. Yeah, I mean, I just couldn't believe that really took me,

for a loop. I think they did it. I don't know what their psychology is so that this kind of thing could not happen again, that you would not get pushback from intellectuals and scientists. I mean, it's completely preposterous, isn't it? I mean, the whole point of being an intellectual or a scientist or a professor is you put back, push back on stuff, right? You challenge conventional norm and you ask questions. Yeah, I was told later that we weren't supposed to do it. anything on this board. But I felt that my purview was not to constantly intervene in the organization's doings, but when they went off the rails, I would try to slightly correct them and put them back on the track again. But when I tried to do it, you know, it just blew up in my

face. And unfortunately, I had to resign. I didn't want to. I still think, and I should emphasize this, that the Freedom from Religion Foundation is a good organization that in the main does very good things because after all the First Amendment to the American Constitution is to keep church and state separate. And that's what they do. That's their main thing. And to educate the public about this kind of thing. But when they start getting into woke ideology, that's when they start jumping the rails. And this elimination of the honorary board seems to me to be typical of wokenness. Yeah. Because when Merritt clashes with ideology, in wokenness, in woken, it's always the merit that gets discarded.

This is why, for example, in America, the SATs and ACTs, indices of how you did in high school, have been eliminated in many schools as criteria for getting into college, because it's merit that conflicted with ideology, which is to create equity in colleges. You said you've had a lot of hate and stuff. Have you had death threats as well? Yes.

More or less, I was told, I don't know if I can use this word in your show, I'll try. I think it's fair. I was told that I should fillate a shotgun, I put a shotgun in my mouth and fire it, and I have other such emails. That's not really a death threat, but it's a warning that the guy didn't like what I said and I should kill myself. Unbelievable. And I get, yeah, I get called transphobine. daily basis, merely for saying that the rights of trans people and the rights of cis people

are going to come into conflict sometimes, and they have to be adjudicated. Merely saying that is enough to get you deemed as someone who hates trans people and indeed who wants trans people a little bit from the planet, which is the farthest thing from my mind. Yeah. It's been great to talk to you, Professor. Thank you very much indeed. My pleasure. Well, here's a debate what we've just been listening to and whether gender ideology has a future,

the executive director from the progressive organization Rebellion Pact, Rihanna Wu, the trans rights activist Eli Erlich, and the host of Tommy Lerlin is Fearless on Outkick Tommy Lerlo. Welcome to all of you. I mean, Eli, we heard it pretty well there from the professor that from a biological point of view, never mind anything else, from a straight, scientific, biological point of view, a man cannot be a woman. What is your response to that? He is completely unscientific and so bound up in his ideology

that he isn't even paying attention to the vast majority of biologists, including those from the American Academy of Sciences, who disagree with him and do acknowledge that sex describes a variety of different characteristics, characteristics that can be changed. Do you not accept them? There's a reason, for example, that we separate the sex. at the Olympics, it's because there is a presumption based on reality, fact, data,

that biological men are superior in almost every physical way imaginable. They're more powerful, they're faster, they're stronger, they have greater lung capacity, and that if you didn't separate the sexes, you know, if you took this to its logical extension where biological men who become trans women start to just compete in the Olympics,

in a three-for-all, a gender-neutral Olympics, then biological women would simply never win a medal again. There has never been a trans woman who has won a gold in the Olympics. This is very cool. Hang on, hang on. We literally just had the Paris Olympics, the Algerian boxer, well-to-weight division. She's not a trans woman.

Hang on, about to tell you what she... For all that we know, she is intersected. She was assigned female at birth. All we know is she was banned from the world championships the year before. because she reportedly tested positive for male chromosomes. Now, she- Again, this does not mean she's a trans woman. Why doesn't she just take a simple sex test and show us?

We can't speculate about someone's... Actually, we can. We can when they win gold medals, because you just said it's never happened. When a woman, or says she's a woman, win a gold medal in a woman's sport, and when one of the female competitors who competed against it in an earlier round

said she had to quit after 40 seconds because she'd never been hit that hard. Damn right, we can ask some difficult questions, even if it travels on a few little oversensitive feelings. It is ridiculous. The same boxer said she supports a Maine Caliph's right to participate. Why didn't she have a sex test to clear this up? Again, I can't speculate about someone's gender.

Would you not support having sex test? It's the easiest way to determine. Somebody's sex, you give them a test. I think, like Neil deGrasse Tyson said, that we should have different levels of competition. How? Explain to me how that would work. There are different metrics, and this would depend sport by sport. Most sports now do allow trans women to compete.

I also do want to correct something, too, that there have been several trans men who have won in male competitions at the global level. What were the competitions? This includes everything from rugby to swimming. Rugby. You think there's a trans man who's beaten all the men at rugby? I'm not saying that a trans man is the best person in the world, the best rugby player in the world, but there are plenty of trans men who have competed at the global level.

This is very easy to Google. There aren't plenty. There are very, very few. And what they don't do is they don't win because they're physically inferior. Tommy Leran, I mean... Again. Okay, let me bring in Tommy. We've got two other panelists.

Tommy, to me, it's a simple question of biology, we heard from the professor. And when I hear with all due respect to Eli, I absolutely respect your right to have your opinion. But I just think it's flying in the face of basic fact. It is. And, you know, Pierce, I wonder, is it going to take a female athlete

being seriously injured or even killed for people to understand how serious this is? It has nothing to do with transphobia and bringing up trans men or biological women who are competing against men because they are trans men, whatever the terminology is for all of that. You don't see the outrage at that because, as you mentioned, peers, they're not winning. They're not crushing the competition.

And if they have, it's in very, very few cases that are negligible. What you're seeing also, you're not seeing the outrage about that because it's very few cases I haven't heard of any where trans men, biological women who are transitioning to men, want to be in men's locker rooms that want to make men feel uncomfortable while they're changing, being in their changing space, watching them undress. So it's a completely different situation. And when you ignore not only biology, but when you ignore gender itself, why should biological women, and I don't even like saying that, peers, I don't like even referring to myself as a biological woman. I'm a woman, okay? I was born that way.

I don't like having to preface that with what I am biologically. I'm a woman. Why should me and other women like me have to put up with competing against men or having men in our locker rooms, men in our restroom, because it makes a very, very small segmentary? of the population feel better about themselves. Why do their feelings trump the feelings of women? That's what I don't understand in this argument in this debate. No, I don't. And Brianna, as a professor said, he's had death threats.

People wanting you dead simply because, as a biologist, he spelled out the bleeding obvious factual reality of this. And as he points out, he's not remotely transphobic, nor am I. I want trans people to have exactly the same rights to fairness, equality, and safety that I enjoy. I've always said that. How is it a quality if we don't have the same access to you? Hold on, hold on, Eli.

I'll come back to you, Eli. I'll answer that question, but let Brianna answer. But here's the point. It doesn't make you transphobic if you actually don't want to see women's rights eroded in the process. Of course it doesn't pierce. You know, this is the whole problem. The Eli and her trans fringe freak show friends are threatening anyone that disagrees with them. I, as a trans woman, have dealt with their death threats constantly since just standing.

standing up and trying to say, we've got to have some common sense conversations about this. There's nothing he said in that interview. They're remotely transphobic. And the thing is, he is in the middle, Pierce. He is in the middle. And what is happening with this brain dead progressive fringe movement is they are taking Democrats, Democrats that would be on our side that want to have trans rights protected. They are turning it into the enemy and they're destroying these organizations.

so they can't stand against the Republicans that want to take away everything here. They are annihilating our defenses. And Eli, I really want to know, this is my direct question for you. When does this brilliant progressive plan you have for trans rights? When does this curve kick in and we start winning elections again? Because my generation had this for years. And it was progress, progress, progress that you enjoyed when you had your stuff paid for.

When did all your brilliant ideas kick in and we start winning elections again? because you're destroying our entire movement. You're doing things like giving hormones to children. You're giving hormones to children online. You put together a network for this. You lied about it in the aftermath. When did your idea start working, Eli? Eli?

We heard this exact same rhetoric during the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement. Why is the point? When do they start working? Progress takes time. You know this. And we've talked before. It does take time. And we can't cut into the rights of anyone.

Trying to throw anyone under the bus means that we erode all rights. And we've seen this already with the Supreme Court knocking down certain transgender rights. Next comes abortion. Then comes cisgender women's rights. Then comes free speech.

We've seen it over and over again. We've seen it with the civil rights movement. We've seen it with the gay rights movement of the 1960s to 80s. There's going to be this period of demonization. That's your answer. Just keep waiting with these brain-dead town. tactics. They're losing elections. Trump is back in office with your playbook, Eli, your playbook. You put

Trump back in the words. Kamala wouldn't even say the word transgender. I really don't think that's very progressive. But you know what she did do? You know what she did do? Hang on, Brianna. I mean, what Kamala Harris did do, she and President Biden both supported having trans women in women's sport. And that was part of the most successful political ad in recent memory. As I said to the professor, when you had an ad that ended up, karma as for they, them, Donald Trump's for you. That was deemed to be the most effective ad in modern political American history.

At some point, Eli, you've got to look at yourself and think, wow, our campaign isn't working, telling people that it's okay for biological men to come into women's sport and be massively more successful as women than they ever were as men, which is what happens in almost every single case. That is not fair.

It's not equal. It's not right. It's cheating. And if you don't think it is, and you try and pretend it isn't, eventually, as we saw, most Americans wake up and go, bullshit. I'm going to vote for Trump even if I don't like him, because he'll stop this madness. And I simply say to you, I want all trans people to have fairness, equality, and safety. Why would you jeopardize all that at the altar of such obviously unfair, unequal, unsafe bullshit? genuinely.

If you actually look at the polls, the most popular, the most important electoral issue for people, it wasn't trans people. That was about 1% in those polls. I didn't say it was, but I did say the advert I talked about was the most successful in modern times. New York Times, a liberal progressive newspaper concluded it may have moved the needle by three points, right? That was the damage. The New York Times is not a liberal or progressive on trans issues. She can't answer, Pierce. She can't answer.

She will not defend these brain dead tactics. You know, Pierce, I don't want to go compete against Tommy in sports. I want to go have lunch up town with her and talk about normal stuff. That's why I transitioned to just have a normal life. Eli is out there pushing this narrative, that science doesn't matter, that sex doesn't matter, that we can just roll into every space. She claims to be a feminist, but she doesn't want to make any common sense compromises with the women she says she speaks for.

Yeah, and as we see as we saw with JK Rowling, and we saw with the professor, and we see with everyone, I've had it. When you poke your head over this, Tommy, and you say this stuff, the trans lobby, let's just use the collective phrase. I'm not saying they're all like this, by any means. I'm not even good at you, Eli,

but the abuse, the threats, the viciousness, the calls to be canceled, the targeting of your employment, of your bosses, and so on. It's so insidious. And to me, it's so self-harming to the cause. I know people who are trans, who are very quiet, want to get on with their lives. They don't want all this nonsense. They don't want the trans lobby trying to pretend it's fine for trans women to be in women's sport,

because they know everybody laughs at it and makes them a laughing stock. They just want to lead their lives like the rest of us. And I wish they could without being dragged into this crap. Yeah, and peers, look no further than the way that Caitlin Jenner is treated by the left and by many in the LGBTQ Rainbow Mafia, as I call them. That is that far-left fringe part of the LGBT movement that is seemingly louder than the rest of the movement, and that's really unfortunate. But I'll tell you, Pears, what I think a lot of this comes down to. I think that there are a lot of activists and a lot of activist organizations out there that make a lot of money on this issue. And if it were not for this controversy, if it were not for them continuing to encroach on women's rights and women's sports and women's spaces, they wouldn't have a job title, they wouldn't have a crusade, they wouldn't be able to fundraise.

So whereas many people are completely fine with LGBT, they support it, people living their lives. I'm one of those people. Once you start pushing people too far, you're going to get the backlash. But I don't think these activists mind the backlash. In fact, I think they thrive off of it, and I think they make their paychecks off of it. because they love it. They love keeping this at the center of controversy. That's the only way a lot of these organizations can exist.

That's the only way a lot of these nonprofits can exist. And that's the only way that some of these people can take huge salaries pretending to be and cosplaying to be advocates for the LGBT community. And it's really a shame. And Tommy, what did you make of Mark Zuckerberg? His extraordinary statement on all previous Facebook Instagram policies about, including the gender issue, he said, we do allow now, allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation,

given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like weird. These are revised company guidelines. Do you feel completely comfortable with that? I mean, do you think we should be encouraging people to say that all trans people are mentally ill or they're weird or whatever? Or do you think that slightly crosses a line of being fair and equal to them? Well, listen, free speech is saying what you want to say. It's also hearing what you don't want to hear. There's plenty on these so-called free speech platforms that I don't like to see.

I don't like to see transgenderism pushed on children. But unfortunately, that's been in existence on meta platforms and on TikTok for several years now. It's unfortunate. So I think you need to open up the other side of the conversation. I'm not all the way optimistic that meta is actually going to do that. I mean, anytime we talk about even equality for women in women's sports and them being able to compete at a high level with other women, you're censored on meta platforms. I know because I work for Outkick that talks about this issue a lot and is at the forefront of the issue. So I'm cautiously

optimistic, but listen, I don't agree with bullying people, calling people mentally ill or weird. I don't personally do that. I don't like it. However, if you're going to have a platform that talks about both sides of the issue, you have to let the other side be able to speak as well. I'm hopeful that we can see that. Yeah, and Eli, you know, if you're getting professors who are not remotely transphobic, like my last guest, getting told to shoot themselves dead, a flate a gun in their mouths, as he put it. You know, what right does the other side have to then say, well, you can't use mean words like weird about us, genuinely?

Well, that's a huge generalization, peers. I don't support anyone encouraging abuse or harm to anyone. And most trans people don't either. Like Brianna said, there is a very reactive. who may engage in these very harmful behaviors and rhetoric. This doesn't represent all trans people. And surprisingly, I also find myself agreeing with Tommy that, no, we should not have bullying on these platforms. And this means also not calling trans people weird.

This new policy actually infringes on free speech because when, I mean, personally, when I don't, when I'm called mentally ill or weird, I stop engaging. And that obstructs my ability and willingness to speak. So what this policy is doing is discouraging queer and trans people, along with migrants who are also included in this policy, from speaking on their own behalf. Yeah, I mean, I would say to that, that the behavior of the extremists in the trans community

has been a massive problem. When someone like J.K. Rowling tried to have a reasonable debate about this and just got utterly bombarded with death threats. and the whole turf stuff and everything. All of it is ridiculous. It's all got to stop. We've got to calm everybody down and have a genuinely reasoned

and sensible and calm debate about the reality, which is more and more trans women are now trying to compete in women's sport, for example, and that involves them using women's spaces and so on. Is that right and proper and fair or does it erode women's rights? And if, as I would conclude,

it arose women's whites, what's the answer? So that trans women can still compete in sport, but in a way that doesn't trample other people's rights. That's all I want. Breanna, last word to you on this. I mean, the new meta guidelines,

I think they're long overdue just generally in the sense that so much stuff was getting censored that actually you couldn't say anything about anyone without someone somewhere trying to get you cancelled and often being thrown off social media. So do you welcome them broadly or what do you feel about it? Pierce, this is the fundamental problem, is when Eli and Her

fringe trans friends make all this stuff and they try to deny reality they try to deny the reality i'm a natal male that transition to live as a woman most people call me she her as i go about my day that's fine that's all i need i don't need someone to have some existential belief that i'm a woman i need them to let me have control over my own body and go get health care what she has done and her playbook does is it elevates all these issues to like hidden knowledge and they try to shut normal people up when they have questions about trans women in sports or they have questions about calling themselves pregnant people like it is just imposition after imposition and we try to shut people up for so long eventually they're

just going to explode and this is 100% what we're seeing on Facebook in the American like system right now we've got to stop trying to win debates by silencing them and we need to come back with some And Pierce, here's a fact. There was a 2018 study that came out that showed that Eli and I both have protein receptors in how we process testosterone. This could be a reason about why we turned out the way that we did. We don't have to deny the reality of sex to admit that there's probably some sort of biological thing

that's going on with both of us that makes us behave the way we do. Right. And look. Feel the way that we do. So let's have an honest discussion about that. I agree. And look, the bottom line is, if I'm trying to do it, transphobic, then why a two-thirds of his paneled trans?

Right. Eli? The last time I checked, Tommy, you're not trans. Representation doesn't have anything to do with ideology. There's a lot of work to do in our community, and all progress gets some pushback to answer Brianna. Yeah, look, it's a good debate. It's not an answer. It's not a serious answer.

You're not a serious person. We need to put some adults in charge of our movement again. it's embarrassing. You setting up a network to give children hormones illegally was hugely embarrassing. You should quit. You should stop doing everything you're doing

and never talk about this issue again. Stop. You're hurting us. Eli, you're gonna stop? Outside of... Outside of the... Why are you giving children hormones? I want an answer for that.

Why are you setting up a network to give children hormones... Outside of the clear ad hominem attacks. Why are you doing that? Just answer the question. Don't give me bullshit. All progress requires some pushback. Why are you giving children hormones illegal?

Why are you doing this? If we want to see trans youth protected and get the necessary health care that they need. She can't answer. She's not a serious person, Pierce. This is not serious time. I'm sorry, yelling over me isn't going to solve anything. You're not answering the question.

Why are you giving children hormones illegally? Why are you setting up networks to do this, E.Y? Why? This is a crime. I want to know why you're doing it. It really hurts this. It makes this look deranged. Why are you doing this?

Eli, why are you doing it? Well, this is going to make some great TV. Look, when trans youth are denied necessary health care, we always have to step in. And right now, under very brave trans lawyers like Chase Strangio are in the Supreme Court fighting for trans kids because of... In a case he's going to lose. I actually agree with that.

There's no such thing as a trans kid. Tell me. That's very silly. There's no such thing as a trans kid. That's actually, that's child abuse. When you take somebody who's still growing up, figuring out who they are, doesn't know anything about sexuality and shouldn't at that young age,

and you try to convince them that there's something other than what they were born to be, that's a problem. It's child abuse. That's my opinion. But also, you're talking about trans kids and their mental health. there was a study that was done about mental health for trans youth. And guess what? The results did not come back favorably, so they wanted to bury it.

And that is a fact. So if you show me some data that shows that this gender affirming care is actually beneficial, let's see it because the one that was done that a lot of money was poured into came out the other way, and the community tried to bury it. So don't target children. If you want to talk about adults and trans rights for adults, that's fine. But leave children out of that. And that's what a lot of conservatives are simply asking for.

Leave kids alone. Let them live their lives and figure out what they want to do when they are of age to make those kind of decisions. Yeah, I completely, listen, we had an infamous clinic in London called a Tavistock Clinic where no one was allowed to criticize what they were doing, which was mutilating young kids. And it's shut down now in total disgrace and ignominy and shame. But you know what isn't shut down? The damage it was done to those kids. And I'm afraid that I agree with Tommy. I don't think any pre-pubescent child

should ever be exposed to any of this nonsense. Let them go through puberty. And why is that, peers? Let them go through puberty and work out for themselves. We can have a discussion about that. That's fine. But don't mutilate kids or treat them this way or pump them with hormones or puberty blockers.

I was one of those children, peers. And I'm very, I'm very happy. Good for you, but many, many, many, many, many children were not. And many of them now regretted. were. Many of them regret it. What do you... I mean... Have you had kids, Eli,

between one and two. Eli, have you had kids? This doesn't matter. I was one of those children. Have you had kids? I'm asking, are you a parent? No, of course not. Okay, so I've got four kids.

Except for one beloved cat. I've got four kids, and I know, and my brother had four kids, my sister had four kids. I've seen a lot of kids go through puberty. They change enormously in that process in how they think. I've seen young girls who are tomboys,

who they completely change, having come out of puberty. Everything changes emotionally, psychologically, physically. And to try and tamper with that process, I think, is a form of child abuse. I agree with Tommy. Despite everyone being happier on the other side. We can have an adult discussion about that issue, and we can figure that out. We do need much better studies, and it's very clear the protocol is failing, which is why so many of these FtMs are, it does not serve them to get them on testosterone so quick.

We should have a discussion about that. This is my issue, Pierce. The Eli's response to that was not to call for scientific funding, to not look at what the NIH is doing and to open that up. We have the funding already. I'm going to finish my point. To not call for gender clinics to open up their data so we can actually see what's happening to these patients that are children.

Her response was to go out and get a bunch of trans people to send these children hormones illegally, which is insane. It makes us look crazy. We've got to get some goddamn. and the damned adults in charge of the trans rights movement again. You make us look so stupid and you don't see it. I agree with you, Brianna. Thank God you're saying stuff like this.

But Eli, I appreciate you coming on, uncensored again. Thank you very much. Tommy, thank you very much. Always good to see you. Thank you, Brianna. Happy New Year to all of you. Let's end on a happy note.