Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 702 | The Pedophilic Underbelly of Transgender Activism | Guest: Genevieve Gluck (Part 1)

Episode Date: November 3, 2022

Today we're joined by a favorite guest, Genevieve Gluck, co-founder of (along with Anna Slatz) and investigative journalist for Reduxx to discuss the horrors of gender and trans theory. We begin with a recap of the roots of transgender ideology and its progression from academia to mainstream. We discuss autogynephilia and the dark, real reasons why grown men might want to identify as women. We look at the case of Dylan Mulvaney and his desire to identify as a "girl" rather than a woman. We look at the origins of the trans flag and discuss Jacob Breslow, a professor at the London School of Economics who stepped down from his position as a trustee for U.K.-based trans activist organization after it was revealed that he made statements and published academic work that favorably portrayed pedophilia. Then, we look at WPATH and its advocacy to lower the age of kids who are able to get gender-affirming treatments, as well as what the fascination is with freezing kids in perpetual pre-puberty. Watch our 2022 Democrat Campaign Ad here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgoGn5AGQXU&t=60s&ab_channel=AllieBethStuckey --- Timecodes: [02:20] Interview with Genevieve begins [7:19] How did trans ideology become mainstream? [11:23] Males of Reddit & autogynephilia [15:20] Dylan Mulvaney's view of women [20:30] Trans flag origins [27:40] Gender dysphoria & trans ideology for men vs. women [33:45] Jacob Breslow and porn's influence on pedophilia [46:05] Child indoctrination / WPATH --- Today's Sponsors: A'Del — go to adelnaturalcosmetics.com and enter promo code "ALLIE" for 25% off your first order! Naturally It's Clean — visit naturallyitsclean.com/allie and use promo code "ALLIE" to receive 15% off your order. Genucel — go to genucel.com/ALLIE and use code "ALLIE" at checkout for a special discount. Blaze Election Night — join Allie, Glenn Beck, Jason Whitlock, Steve Deace, and all of BlazeTV LIVE on election night and watch the results come in together. Join us at 7:45pm ET over at BlazeTV.com or the BlazeTV YouTube channel. Use promo code is REDWAVE for $30 off your BlazeTV subscription. --- Links: Reduxx: "Resigned Trans Youth Charity Trustee Authored Blog on “Minor Attraction,” Praised a Child Porn Creator" https://reduxx.info/resigned-trans-youth-charity-trustee-authored-blog-on-minor-attraction-praised-child-porn-creators/ --- Previous Episode with Genevieve Gluck: Ep 636 | How BDSM, Porn, & Pedophilia Are Tied to Transgender Ideology | Guest: Genevieve Gluck https://apple.co/3UiGWwq --- "R.I.P. ROE" Sticker: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey/products/rip-roe-sticker "Go VOTE" Sticker: https://shop.blazemedia.com/products/vote-sticker?pr_prod_strat=use_description&pr_rec_id=6552e1052&pr_rec_pid=7931910291709&pr_ref_pid=7926489317629&pr_seq=uniform --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Opposition to gender ideology is winning. But if we want to continue to successfully push back against the insanity of this ideology, we have to understand it. That means we have to know from where it comes, the ideas and motivations that serve as its foundation, how, we got here and the people in power pushing it. This movement is darker, more perverse, and more

dangerous than you and I could possibly imagine. The truth is this. There is no way to separate it from pedophilia, from pornography, or from violence against women. And today, my guest, a feminist and journalist who spends her days deeply researching this breaks all of this down for us. And we've spoken to her before. Her name was Genevieve Gluck. It's one of our most popular episodes ever. We'll link it in the description here. This conversation that we had today was so much that we had to split it into two parts. I could have talked to her for five more hours. I mean, she really does know so much about what is behind all of this. So we had to split it up. I didn't want to, but we just had to, for your sake, to be able to take.

each part in for what it is. So you don't want to miss tomorrow's either. Make sure that you tune in for it. And also, Christian, as you listen to or watch this, keep in mind Psalm 37, go read it, that one day God will defeat wickedness and darkness forever and that we are until then to be ambassadors of his goodness, of his light, of his justice, evil will not win. Evil will not win ultimately. And that is what keeps us hopeful and joyful and same. But unfortunately, sometimes we have to stare into the darkness to successfully push back against it. This episode, as always, is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. That's American Meat delivered right to your front door. Go to good ranchers.com slash alley. That's good ranchers.com slash alley.

All right. Now is our conversation with Genevieve. Genovieve, thanks so much for joining us again. And before we get into our conversation, I just want to encourage everyone again, go listen to our last conversation that's going to help kind of lay a foundation for what we're talking about today. But just as kind of a brief recap, can you tell us who you are and what you do, why you talk about these transgender issues? So I'm a feminist. I have been for many years now, maybe about 10 years. ago when I started to get interested in this issue. And because of that, I was concerned about the erosion of the rights of women and the rights of children as a result of gender identity ideology. I work with Redux, which is a pro-woman, pro-child safeguarding publication, which I

founded with Anna Slats at the beginning of this year. Since that time, we've published, I believe, over 400 news-related articles since the end of January, focusing on this topic. And I'm mainly concerned about, you know, the denial of reality, but also how dangerous this is for women and for children, how it puts both groups into harm's way. And what we talked about last time was something that a lot of people either don't know or they don't want to admit. And that is the connection between gender ideology and the boom of gender ideology, especially among men and pedophilia, specifically pornography that depicts pedophilic type tropes and how this has actually seeped into or has maybe always been a part of some of the biggest transgender advocacy organizations in the world,

like W Path. So I know that it's a lot to kind of summarize, but could you talk just a little bit about how you kind of made that connection? You're right. It is a lot. It's a lot to summarize. And I think one place to start is by looking at sexology, actually. I know that a lot of people tend to focus on queer theory and academia, which is true. But sexology predates that. And we can look at the work of a sexologist named John Money, for example, who is credited with coining the term gender identity and his awful experiments on children. In particular, he experimented on two twin boys, the Rimer twins, and tried to convince one of the boys that he was actually a girl, but also made pornography involving these children as well and had written for a pro

pedophile academic journal at the time. So this would have been during the 60s and 70s and 80s when he was most active. But not just him. There's a really strong overlap that tends with the pornography as well. I've talked about something called sissy porn. Now this is a little disturbing, but it tends to revolve around the idea of turning a man into a woman through erotic symbolism, usually make up lingerie dresses. and humiliation. But even within that, the sexualization of humiliation is the concept of being turned into a child. These are called age regression fantasies, and they can be found amongst transgender erotica. You can easily do an Amazon search for this, and self-published books will come up, but also images that feature children with sexual writing and stories on them that can be found online,

that are associated with this whole gender swapping, body swapping, and each regression, all as forms of erotic play that they call it. So the overlap can clearly be seen within sexology, as well as within the user-generated pornography and erotica related to having a quote-unquote gender identity. And this isn't really new, as we talked about briefly. last time. And I know that this is kind of a dense part of this conversation, but just so kind of people know the roots of this stuff, we can look at the sexology from the 60s and 70s. We can look at Gail Rubin and John Money, the queer theorist and the sexologist of the time, who not only

advocated for this novel idea that gender and sex are independent from each other and are just kind of gender is just a product of feelings or of nurture, as you mentioned, the Rimer twins. But also, I mean, there was, especially in Gail Rubin's writing and among, you know, John Money's studies, there was this advocacy of pedophilia, as you said. How did that become then mainstream and then manifest itself into this boom of men saying that they are women? And yes, women saying that they are men, but I think that that's almost a whole different thing and that there's like a whole different reason for that. So like tell me how these strange academic ideas started characterizing pornography and then became part of such mainstream public dialogue.

Well, I mean, that is a really big question. You know, how did it go from academia into the mainstream. Of course, there's, you know, textbooks. There's people you can cite like Judith Butler, who was immensely popular in academia, beginning from the 90s. But I really think that people don't talk enough about how pornography is mainstreaming these concepts, particularly the concept that a woman could have a penis, which is such an absurd concept on its face. But when you actually look at some of the surgeries and themes within pornography, it's not that, well, you can see where it's coming from is what I mean, because transgender pornography has just skyrocketed in terms of popularity. Particularly, there's a huge demand for men who have

feminized themselves in some capacity, whether that's plastic surgery, hormones, both, the more He might resemble a woman, then the more he might be paid. Often these men could be paid double what a woman is paid in pornography because the demand is so high. And then it normalizes this concept of unnatural bodies, bodies that you wouldn't find in nature, having them to be sexually thrilling. It's creating, I believe it's creating a form of fetishism, which I've never previously existed to this extent. And so when we talk about academia, we have to understand as well that pornography is influencing people in ways that we don't see as well. We can clearly look at academia. We can look at published works.

We don't often see what's happening when people are consuming pornography and how that shapes their perception of the world. Hey, this is Steve Deast. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God. humanity and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. I think people, I mean, most people just don't have exposure to that and they're not considering those things. The only thing that we are seen is what's presented to us in the public, which are look, these are marginalized people who are misunderstood, who are so mentally tortured because they were born in the wrong body.

And all they need is our tolerance and love and acceptance. Most people don't kind of see the dark underbelly of this. I follow an account called Males of Reddit, which I'm sure that you follow to. Most people don't. But you see the thoughts and the processes of these men trying to identify as women. And there are some common themes in there that are really disturbing. But one theme that I see over and over again is autogynophilia, that these men are really turned on by the idea of being a woman,

of having female body parts, of being referred to as shonephalia. she wearing a skirt. And they kind of dismiss the diagnosis of autogynophilia. They say, oh, no, it's just because I'm so happy finally being myself has nothing to do with any kind of sexual perversion. So I'm wondering if we should be asking ourselves, really, what is causing the boom of autogynophilia? Even more than we're asking what's causing the boom of transgenderism. I think it's being mislabeled. In most cases when it comes to men, I don't think it's really gender identity confusion or gender dysphoria among these men. I think that they're porn sick and they've developed autogynophilia as a result of that in a lot of cases. Yeah, absolutely. I think you're

spot on. I hesitate to use the term autogynophilia myself because I feel it's a bit misleading because in my opinion, they're not turned on by being women. They're turned on by being objectified, which I think is different. But certainly that's the case where it's sexualizing, objectifying oneself, which for these men is a fun game because it's not something that they have to do or deal with in the real world. It's just something that they can do for their own thrills. And that's why it's hugely insulting to women, actually, because they're getting a thrill out of some facets. of women's reality that are quite oppressive and quite mean and degrading concepts of involving you know masochism humiliation the thrill here is the humiliation as well that's involved with

having one's status reduced to that of a woman which is why it escalates further and further like I mentioned with the continued humiliation of being turned into a child for example that we also see so I don't feel that it's quite so clear cut with autogynophilia I feel it's that range of fetishization of erotic symbols. And I do think that it could be social contagion spread through pornography, actually. Yeah, yeah. And I guess if you don't, if that is affirmed, if it's affirmed as an identity, especially an oppressed identity that gets certain privileges, then it, I mean, why not take on your

sexual perversion as who you are. Like, why not allow it to become your personal and political identity? Why does biology matter more than those feelings if you are getting kind of a status of some kind of heightened status, I guess, of fame or acceptance or pity? I think a lot of people are seeking that victim status, I guess. And so the more we approve of and accept and and celebrate this, of course, there's more people that are going to take on their perversion as their identity. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, Dylan Mulvaney just went to the White House, didn't he?

And now he's got something like a million dollars worth of sponsorship deals out of this. And for what? For insulting women on a public scale? I mean, the content for those who don't know that this TikToker, Dylan Mulvaney, produces, is shockingly insulting. Most people when they first see it, they think it's a joke because he refers to having a Barbie pouch. He refers to women's genitalia in that way. And he acts in the most stereotypical insulting manner of being afraid of bugs, wanting to go shopping.

Calling himself a bimbo. He said day one, I think he said, oh, day one of being a girl, I have already cried for no reason, sit an email, sent an scathing email that I, didn't or wrote a skating email that I didn't actually send. Basically, he thinks being a woman is being a flusie. But it's worse than that because he doesn't call himself a woman. I mean, he's probably in 30s. I don't know. He has a five o'clock shadow. He calls himself a girl, though. I mean, he says, he justifies it by saying, well, I never had a girl upbringing. And so I want to know what that's like. What do you think is behind a 30-year-old man calling himself a girl and wearing pigtails and being afraid of bugs. It's the humiliation again. Obviously, he's eroticizing being reduced, having his

status reduced in this way. And the girl thing isn't new either that there are hashtags. I mean, on Twitter, there's the hashtag girls like us, I think is one of them for the trans, but also that term, girl. When most people think of that term, well, I shouldn't say most people, that term, that term is associated with pornography and with the sex industry, actually. So if you say girls within the sex industry, that's how they're referred to. They're not referred to as women. So it also carries that meaning behind it as well. But also in the 70s, starting around 1969 through the 80s and 90s, there were these publications

that were being printed across the U.S. And I think in New Zealand as well of cross-dresser organizations, so transvestic fetishists, and they would refer to themselves as girls also. They would pretend play as though they were sororities. They would give themselves sorority names and call themselves girls. And in some cases, write poems about being turned into girls. So, yes, it is very creepy. In Dillon's case, I wonder if it's just because the term girl,

has become so sexualized now. I don't know if he actually has any context of those other historical aspects. But yeah, it is it is about being less, being made lower. So why do you think though? I mean, he's got millions and millions of followers on TikTok. He's got lots of followers on Instagram. As you said, he's making maybe a million dollars a year on these endorsements. And so incredibly mainstream. And I mean, I watch him obviously, I see a lot of disturbing things. But, you know, he's an actor. He was a Broadway actor. And so I understand why the character that he is playing is funny or entertaining to people. So it's not really hard for me to see why he has gained, I guess, some kind of audience.

But why do you think there are tens of millions of people who follow this person and think, yeah, that's great. There's nothing weird about a 30-year-old guy calling himself a girl. I mean, I think this is something that we should applaud. I mean, how do we get there so incredibly quickly? Even just five years ago, I think most of us would have cringed. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know that everyone who follows him is actually agreeing with him, though. There are people who do follow him just because it's so shocking and as well.

But the support he has received from the White House is really telling because. Yeah, disturbing. I'm actually kind of speechless when I think about it because it, the message that it sends to girls especially to younger girls who are just sort of coming into themselves, trying to build their own sense of identity, are then being told that this is what they should be or who they should be. So actually the harm is being done to younger girls and confusing them about what it means to be a woman or a girl in this world. Yep. And also, I mean, young boys, any kind of person in those formative years who are just trying to figure out what it means to be a woman or what it means to be a man or what it means to be a human being, obviously, this throws them into a place of confusion.

And when they see it applauded, like you said, and when they see it accepted, I mean, you get invited to the White House if you do something like that. That's incredible. Something in his recent videos, he said when he went to the White House that he was wearing the trans flag color. which is baby pink and baby blue. And this is something that just hits me randomly, and I think we talked about it some last time, is how strange it is just to begin with that the trans flag is baby colors. And when you look at the person who I think identifies himself as Monica Helms, who came up with the flag, I mean, he has in his past, in his past writings, this glorification, romanticization of pedophilia, of marrying. a little girl of age regression trope. So basically this kind of erotic literature about being a young

girl, being with a young girl, he's the person that created the transgender flag that now is being worn to the White House. Yeah. And when you look into his history, it started with drag, actually, for him. So you can again see that kind of spectrum of crossing over. People like to think that there are these very clear, linear categories. You know, that drag is different from trans, that there are all these different groups, but really they're kind of a progressive scale. They're related to each other very much

in terms of reducing women to a performance. But Monica Helms was involved in the drag community in San Francisco in the 70s, and then he moved on to going to attend Orgy's sex clubs and he started to identify as a lesbian woman. And then he designed the trans flag in 1991. And somehow it's caught on. But basically, the stories that you mentioned,

he has this book of science fiction stories called Tales from a Two-Gender Mind, where he writes what's basically forced feminization, erotica. It's a lightened version where it's not quite as sexual. So to the casual viewer, it might seem a bit odd, but nothing more than that, except for this one story that I've mentioned before where he marries a young girl, basically a Girl Scout that comes to his door and tells him that she never ages and that it's her destiny to marry him. And then they get married and then they have a daughter who also doesn't age. He has another story that he wrote involving body swapping, where he's swapping bodies with lesbian women, and then his age regresses as well. And that one interestingly ends up with a strange threat to his ex-wife because he named one of the characters after her. So there is this sort of tinge of maliciousness involved in some of the things that he's written.

Yeah. And, you know, that's another theme that I often see in these people using, like, the males of Reddit subreddit to talk to each other. I mean, sorry, it's not called that. That's the Twitter account. The subreddit is called like male to female, transgender, whatever. And that's another theme that I see is envy towards women, what they would call cisgender women, which is another like nonsensical turn that was created by sexologists

and perverts. But like, and fantasies of violence towards them. and really hating them, of course, trying to inflict violence on people that they consider TERFs, trans-exclusionary, radical feminist. And so there's also, like you said, that malice there, that hatred, that threat of violence, I mean, which you could say is very typically and in the most toxic sense, masculine. So, like, what is that about?

If they want to be women, why do some of these men fantasize about violence? towards women? Well, they don't really actually want to be women, I think. They want to be objectified. They want to be sexualized. They're very angry that as they see it, women can be sexualized or even have as many partners as they like because they imagine that women would just do what they did if they were in their situation. They imagine that if they had a woman's body, they would do all of these sexual things. So yeah, the envy that's there is so malicious, I think, because it is so sexually motivated. It's motivated by a sense of entitlement to women's bodies, to women, to womanhood itself, and to be denied that because, you know, you can't fight reality.

It's just reality that they will not ever be women. And to have something like that denied when you feel so entitled must be incredibly frustrating. It's almost a bit like the narcissistic rage that one might feel at having their constructed identity denied. So, yeah, women who have been in relationships with men who then started to declare a transgender status have talked about this. There's an account called Transwido's Voices that highlights some of these stories of women who escape these incredibly abusive relationships where they're having to perform for them sexually, things that they want. want to do. And the psychological abuse that they inflict on these women who then go on to be ashamed by society for leaving these men. Yeah, it's really terrible. There is, and I'm sure you would agree, a distinction between those who really truly

have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is a real diagnosis. But It was a very, very, very, very small portion of the population who, from an extremely young age, have had insistent, persistent, consistent, just almost unbearable discomfort with their body that comes both male and female. It doesn't seem to me like someone who has that genuine diagnosis would be flaunting their masculinity, would be trying to enter the spaces of women, would be. be trying to impose upon women's rights and privacy because that discomfort, I would think, would kind of make them do the opposite. They would be embarrassed by this conflict. That to me, these people who are so flagrant in their, you know, in their really hatred of women and desire to objectify women, they don't have symptoms of the dysphoria that we thought was underlying all transgenderism.

Right. I'm going to say something that might be a little controversial. And this whole conversation is controversial to a lot of people, so it's fine. I have my doubts about gender dysphoria as a term. I have no doubts that body dysmorphic disorders exist. I'm not contesting that. I am questioning the use of this term and how helpful it is because we know that body dysmorphic disorders overwhelmingly impact girls and young women. We've always known that.

Something like 90% of anorexia diagnoses have been in girls and young women. Okay. And so the reason I'm saying that gender dysphoria is something I'm not quite sure about using as a term is in the first place, one, we wouldn't have gender dysphoria if everyone was free to live as they liked. If we didn't impose these, you know, really strict gender stereotypes onto people, then in theory, we wouldn't have gender dysphoria. But the other reason is that, as you briefly mentioned before, the motivations, I feel, are quite different between an adult man and a teenage girl in terms of the whole, you know, wanting to transition or wanting medical interventions. I believe overwhelmingly that men are driven by sexual motivations, whereas women and girls are not. They're driven by a desire to escape objectification, I would say. So I actually feel that the term gender dysphoria is a bit of a co-optation of women's body dysmorphic feelings.

I feel that it's almost like a forced teeming that we're now including women and girls who suffer with body. image issues, we're now forcing them in with this group of men who have some extremely disturbing fantasies about what it means to be a woman or girl. So I've talked to both male and female detransitioners, and I agree with you that it does seem like overwhelmingly for women. It's because they were objectified. They were uncomfortable with their bodies. They were sexually abused very often.

And so they thought that becoming more masculine would make them less vulnerable. And then a lot of times for men, it's that sexualization kind of fantasy a part of it. But some of the detransitioners that I've talked to and whose stories that I've read who are male, it really wasn't sexual for them. The common thread that I see among both men and women who transitioned and detransitioned very often, not always, but was sexual abuse. That some adult in their life, like I think of Walt Hire, who transitioned as an adult to a woman, then detransitioned.

totally changed his life, became a Christian and all of that. He was sexually abused as a child by his grandmother who forced him to wear dresses and talk to him like he was a girl. So it did, I mean, he's he's a lot older, so he didn't have access to internet pornography and things like that. But from a very young age, someone put into his mind that kind of confusion. I also see that as a common thread, the early sexualization and confusion of kids, even before they have access to technology or pornography, that also seems to be what is driving some of this gender confusion in boys and girls, but also boys. So they would say it's not because I had any sexual desire. It's because someone from an early age sexualized me and confused me.

So I just don't want to count that out that some of these guys are also victims themselves, unfortunately. Yeah, absolutely. And that's why I think it's a huge disservice to put all of these differing groups and experiences under the same category. It's a disservice to those who suffer from these types of traumatic historical problems in their past. It's a disservice to girls to be lumped in with men who have deviant desires.

I mean, we're talking about such vastly different groups. And I do think that the cohort is starting to change among the younger men as well, like you suggested too. I think that that's increasing. And I feel terribly sorry, of course, but I don't think it's helpful to use the same words for such very different things. Yeah, yeah, I agree with you. Let's talk about, though, because this is like one segment of this population that people don't want to talk about what we we're just previously talking about. The segment that is driven by porn and humiliation fantasy is age regression tropes, sissy porn, all of that. I do want to dig into some real stories

of that. You sent me an article about Jacob Breslow. He authored a blog on minor attraction and praised a child porn creator. He is also a trans youth charity trustee. So tell us. us about this person and why this matters? So Jacob Breslow is an American academic. He was an instructor. I believe he still is an instructor at the London School of Economics. Now, recently he resigned from his position for a trans youth charity called Mermaids, and he resigned over a controversy related to his lobbying, his pro-pedophilia lobbying,

Something that was brought to light was that he attended a conference in 2011 alongside members of an organization called Before You Act, which lobby is for the destigmatization of pedophilia and attempts to make it a sexuality. And he was there at that conference, but then it also came to light that he had had a blog previously where he was actually posting links to child sexual abuse materials. and he was praising this man, Carl Anderson, who created child sexual abuse materials of young boys. So it wasn't simply just a one-off of him going to this conference. He was actually promoting these materials on his blog as well. He has suggested removing sex offender registries, for example. He has used the term minor attracted persons. And so he had been on the mermaids on the board of trustees, I believe, since the end of July, or that's when their documents show him up for the first time.

So it was just sort of briefly that we know of that he was involved with mermaids, but obviously they didn't do the correct vetting or if they had, they didn't care about his past or his past lobbying, which is extremely concerning because it means how many more of. examples of these are there going to be we keep seeing this association between you know queer theory pedophilia gender identity even from its roots like we mentioned with john money how much more often is this going on that we don't know about yeah wow and tell us um tell us about the before you act So before you act, most people think that name means think before you act. It does not. I didn't even put that together that it was trying for that. Okay.

They advocate a position that's called virtuous pedophilia, basically. They're similar to virtuous pedophile organizations like this, that lobby for recognizing it as an identity or something innate that that needs to be addressed as something innate rather than, you know, basically a predatory sexual interest. And before you act was founded by a convicted child sexual abuser named Michael Mel Schimer, I think it said. And he actually claims to have gotten approval from Nambla for his project. And if people don't know that's the North American man-boy. love association makes me want to throw up and he had stated that he would be using child protection as a guise or a cover um for which to promote his views and he specifically stated that in

um screenshots that you can see in the article where he was telling people who were questioning him that he would never use the term non-offending which means you know not sexually abusing children um so anyway before you act was set up for this reason to promote sympathy for pedophilia, actually. And their latest tactic that I've seen is to claim that children can be pedophiles. Because, again, if we go down that road of things being innate, identity being innate, that's the next step, you know. So it follows along the same pattern of the gender identity activism to claim that even

children can know their identity or their sexual identity at a young age. It's very, very sinister, actually, because they're trying to get people to have sympathy for children in order to actually then promote the sexualization of children. Wow. So this is part of Breslow's talk that he gave at this Nambla or was it the, let's see, the presentation was given at the before you act conference. I don't know, lectures. It was for the DSM. Okay. They were presenting to make changes. Wow.

Okay. So here's part of, gosh, this does so deep. So here's part of what he said. Allowing for a form of non-diagnosable minor attraction is exciting as it potentially creates a sexual or political identity by which activist, scholars, and clinicians can begin to better understand minor attractive persons. Many tend to begin with a linkage of pedophilic desire to harmful and abusive relationships and acts and end up personally.

proliferating rather than questioning normative, gendered, and sexual intelligibility. And then he has also said things, I am constantly struggling not because of my homosexuality or because my gayness is so repressed, but because of because of my sexuality is deviant. It isn't because of my gender of my sexual object's choice that is the sole basis of my desire, but the age and subsequent deviants of that desire, that is important. So what in the world? What does all this mean? And by the way, like, how did he get on the board of mermaids since all of this is public? That's, again, sometimes you ask me questions and I just, I don't know what to say. How did he get on the board?

I don't honestly know. He's an academic. He speaks very well. He's very verbose, as you can tell, by his writing. He basically is able to couch these desires to sexually abuse children in this. rhetoric, this fancy sounding language, it's academic obtuse language. He's basically trying to disconnect the desire to sexually abused children from the act, which is a key cornerstone of the pro-petophilia lobbying, which is to say, I can have this desire and that's separate from

actually doing something. It's all just a ruse. It's a gimmick. They're actually really lobbying for things like sex dolls and in the resemblance of children to be made legal. They're lobbying for, they want now AI child pornography to be made legal as as therapeutic materials for them, which is, again, it is disgusting. And it's, it's totally wrong. It's totally wrong. This theory of catharsis that by using such things that they would lose their desire is absolutely upside down. It would only cause further. Yes, absolutely. You've been talking about

pornography and how these types of pornography, cissy porn and all of that, transgender porn has increased in demand. That's because that's what pornography does. It is a gateway into worse and more perverse and darker pornography because the normal kind of pornography at the beginning doesn't give the same thrill. And so it just opens the door to new and more to some people exhilarating types of porn. And it's the same way with sexual perversion, giving a pedophile, a sex doll that looks like a child is only going to make that person more likely to sexually abuse an actual child. And so that's, and they know what they're doing. They know what they're doing. They are getting into public and even maybe politicians more and more comfortable with the normalization of that.

And are you surprised that he was forced to resign from mermaids? I suppose so because I don't think I've seen this much uproar in the years I've been looking at this issue. I haven't seen it quite like this now. there seems to be quite a lot more pressure and highlighting of the sexualization of children that's happening. I think more people are becoming aware of it or maybe we're reaching some kind of a tipping point, I hope. But yeah, the way that the information about Breslo spread online through social media,

there was pressure on mermaids to why are you associated with someone like this. But again, it just begs the question. of how many do we not know about? And also, is it even possible to disentangle the two things, the gender identity and the sexualization of children? I mean, I don't think it is, and we've talked about that as well. But, you know, John Money suggested showing pornography to children to help them understand their gender identity.

And when we were talking about the issue of pornography, it's actually quite, there's some research. that shows that the younger children are exposed to pornography, the more likely than they are to go on to consume things, including bestiality and children, as adults. So we're now having this mass grooming of children through pornography. Children are seeing it at a younger and younger age. So starting 12, 11, I've heard nine. I've even heard of an eight-year-old who had seen pornography before. and there's no restrictions for them on the internet whatsoever.

I mean, it's being shared openly through Twitter, through Reddit, all of these channels through Discord. So even if you're monitoring your child's internet activity, they could join a Discord group and have it be sent to them by adults within that group. However bad people think the pornography issue is, I promise you, it's 10 times worse than that already, and we just don't even know. Yeah. And I think a really scary part is, so people,

parents could say, okay, I'm going to keep my kids off technology, which, by the way, most parents aren't doing that. A ton of kids are on things like Roblox, which, by the way, there's sexual predation there. You've got adult men who are posing as maybe 12, 10 year old girls, talking to little kids, as you said, discord, TikTok. I mean, it's really amazing to me what parents allow their kids, like knowingly allow their kids to put on these platforms. And then not to mention the parents who think that they're monitoring their kids, but really, they aren't going into their messages. They aren't really watching what their kids are posting and who they're communicating to

and things like that. But then it's not just technology. I mean, it's also what a lot of kids are being introduced to at school. I mean, that's been the uproar at these school board meetings with parents that their kids are coming home with these books like genderqueer or there's one called like Not All Babies Are Blue or something like that. where, of course, the LGBT lobby, the transgender lobby says, well, these are just books about acceptance. These are books helping kids on their journey to find themselves, but you look at the

pictures and the depictions in these books, even in some of the sex ed curriculum. And it's targeted towards young children, pornographic material, pornographic pictures. Even in some cases, this sex ed is teaching kids how to get on Grindr, how to talk to adults on the internet about their sexuality and their gender. And so it's not even just technology. It's what kids are learning in schools. It's what kids are picking up at the public library. And then of course, you've got things like Drag Queen Story Hour. And we're told that all of these things that are happening in schools and happening in libraries are not sexual and that we are the ones who are sexualizing it by having a problem with it. That we're the weirdos for how

having a problem with it. They say it has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with tolerance and love and acceptance. What do you think? Do you think that it has to do with purposely sexualizing children or am I just being traumatic? Well, what is it we're meant to be accepting here? You know, I saw that gender queer book. It's a depiction of a strap on. Is that what we're accepting? We're accepting children should be able to see men's genitals because that's what it appears to be to me. We're supposed to be accepting of certain fetishes that adults have. We're supposed to be accepting of the projected desires that adults have onto children.

That's not something that we need to accept. So whenever someone says acceptance or inclusion, I like to ask, well, of what? What am I meant to accept? What am I meant to include? And also, why does this form of activism focus so heavily on children? Why are they so interested in children? Well, we know the answer to that, I think, but I think that question needs to be asked a lot more. Why are you telling me that my child is innately dysphoric? Isn't dysphoria a bad thing? Isn't that something that we don't want to

encourage or promote in children? Why are we trying to do that? Why are we showing them images of bodies that don't exist in nature to make them feel uncomfortable with their own? Why can't we tell them that they should be proud of themselves if they love themselves? Instead of the opposite, right right yep man it just goes so deep so much further i think than a lot of people realize i mean obviously we see that it's being approved of by the white house but it's in the teachers unions it's in academia it's in the public education system it's in the halls of power i mean it's obviously in these advocacy and activism groups um tell us a little bit more i know this is what we talked about last time, but W-Path has been in the news again recently for advocating

for lowering the age of lowering the age that they think kids should be able to receive puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. And like I just like to ask the question, like what group of people do you think benefits from trapping kids and perpetual adolescents, both mentally and physically, which is what puberty blockers does? So just tell us a little bit again about W-Path and what you found in your research, why they are no good. I really want a formal investigation opened into W-Path. So just try to summarize the last time we talked. Sorry, this is really hard for me to talk about.

Of course, it's all really, really disturbing. So W-Path, I discovered, was involved with a forum that was writing, hosting, producing child sexual abuse materials, written child pornography that sexualized the castration and torture of children, particularly the surgical castration, but also chemical castration, which would be what we think of when we talk about puberty, lockers. Um, Luperon was actually named in some of these fantasies. I'll be quite honest. And, um, there were stories there about lowering the age of consent to 12. Um, there were stories in there about doctors, sexually abusing children or keeping them in a puberty like state, um, halting their puberty, um, through medical means. Um, so this forum that was producing this content for decades, um, several academics, from that forum who were involved for, again, for decades in the forum, are involved with W-Path.

One of them is Tom Johnson, who he authored, or at least assisted in authoring a chapter on a unique gender identity recently. But that had been in the works for over a decade. He, along with some other men from the forum, were speaking at a W-Path conference, early as 2009. This conference is where a decision was made to change gender identity disorder terminology to gender dysphoria, gender incongruance and then gender dysphoria. So you see the weakening of the language becoming more and more subjective. They were a part of that. They were at least in attendance for that. And yeah, so W-Path was knowingly involved with these men. They actually even published research that Tom Johnson was putting out, getting directly

from men involved in the forum. He would conduct surveys with them and then publish them in the International Journal of Transgenderism, which is put out by W. Peth. And again, some of the things in this forum did include videos of surgical castration being posted as pornography. My gosh. I mean, it really, it does not get darker than that. It doesn't get more demonic than that. And if we had a functioning DOJ, they would be investigating that. But instead, they're going after peaceful protesters who happen to be on the right, at least when it comes to the issue of abortion. We have a politicized DOJ. And so they're not interested at all in harm like this. All right, guys. I hope you enjoyed part. one of that conversation. Like I said, part two will be coming tomorrow. I know that this is some dark and deep stuff, but I think it's so important for us to understand where all of this is coming from. I think it's so important for us to know the roots of this, how just how deep this

goes, how dark this is, because as you'll hear me say tomorrow, it strengthens our resolve against it. It helps us recognize that this is not an innocent movement, that there may be some innocent or some victims, I should say, within this movement that are not all part of its nefarious motives. And we should have compassion for them, but understand that its roots are demonic, that there is a spiritual battle at play here. And Christians absolutely have the right and the responsibility to push back against it with the full knowledge that is out there about what this is and where it's coming from. All right. Before we close this out, I just want to remind you guys that Election night is right around the corner on Tuesday, and we are going to be having a Blaze TV

live event on election night. And so all of us, Glenn Beck, Jason Whitlock, me, Steve Dase, many others are going to be talking about the midterms and the results coming in and our predictions, what we think about the results. I think there's going to be a lot of surprises. on Tuesday night. There's going to be a lot of debate, even within this network, about what we think is going to happen, what we feel about the results. So it's always a really good time. You guys are going to love it. So make sure you go to blazedtv.com at 745 p.m. Eastern time. That's blazTV.com.

Or you can go to our YouTube channel, or you can go to our YouTube channel. Also, you can subscribe to Blaze TV to get access to all kinds of content that you can. can't get on YouTube, that you can't get on Twitter. By going to blazTV.com, you can use promo code Red Wave for $30 off that subscription. That's promo code Red Wave for $30 off your subscription at blazTV.com. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our

country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos.

If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.