Tangle - Excluding trans women from women’s sports

Episode Date: February 11, 2025

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order called “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports” prohibiting all participants who do not meet the government’s definition of biological females from competing in girls’ and women’s sports. The order directs the federal government to withhold funding from K-12 schools and colleges that do not comply, drawing authority from Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Furthermore, it requires representatives of the governing bodies of major sports to standardize eligibility requirements for sports, including the Olympics, within 60 days. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: Do you think trans women and girls should be allowed to participate in female sports? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. FanDuel Casino Daily Jackpots. Guaranteed to hit by 11 p.m. with your chance at the number one feeling. Winning. Which beats even the 27th best feeling, saying I do.

Who wants this last parachute? I do. Daily Jackpots. A chance to win with every spin and a guaranteed winner by 11pm every day. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of our take. I'm your host, Will Kabeck, and today we're going to be talking about President Trump's executive orders restricting transgender girls and women's participation in women's sports. We're going to be looking at the intent of this order, how it's justified, and some of the

practical implications of it once it goes into effect. This is obviously a very polarizing issue for many and a sensitive subject, so we're going to try to handle it with grace and humility and acknowledge the many perspectives that do exist on either side of this issue. Before we get into that though, we have a few corrections to highlight three, unfortunately, all of them relatively minor, but three nonetheless. The first one comes in Friday's piece on the plane crash in Washington, DC. This was a typo where we wrote that the accident was the deadliest air accident since November 11th, 2001. The correct date is November 12th, 2001. And errant keystroke, unfortunate that we missed that one.

The second is from yesterday's piece on the Department of Government Efficiency. We said that 51% of Kamala Harris voters preferred a smaller government and the correct number was actually 22%. We had misread the line in the poll where we pulled that number from. Finally, in the same edition, we said that scientific research was the number five area where US voters think the government overspends. It's actually number eight and the fifth least area is actually where voters think the government spends too little, so we just flipped those when we were reading the graph. These are our 128th, 129th and 130th corrections

entangles 288 week history and our first correction since January 28th. We track corrections and place them at the top of the newsletter and the podcast in an effort to maximize transparency with our audience. All right. With that out of the way, I'm going to pass it over to John for our quick hits and today's main topic, and then I'll be back for my take. [♪ Music playing. [♪ Music playing. Thanks, Will, and welcome, everybody.

Here are your quick hits for today. First up, Hamas said it would delay its next plan hostage exchange with Israel, accusing Israel of violating the terms of their ceasefire agreement. Hours later, President Donald Trump said Hamas must release all remaining Israeli hostages by Saturday or all hell is going to break loose.

Number two, Acting Deputy Attorney General, Emil Bov, directed federal prosecutors to drop the corruption charges against New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, saying the case had been tainted by publicity and was hindering Adams' ability to do his job. Adams had been charged with bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy, and soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals in exchange for political favors. Number three, a federal judge in Rhode Island said the Trump

administration must immediately comply with his order to unfreeze federal grants following complaints by several attorneys general that the directive was not being followed. 4. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem reportedly asked Treasury Secretary Scott Besant to deputize some law enforcement workers in his department, including IRS criminal investigators, to assist in immigration enforcement. 5. criminal investigators to assist in immigration enforcement. And number five, an investment group led by Elon Musk said it offered $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly rejected the offer. Donald Trump is at the White House right now about to sign an executive order prohibiting transgender women from participating in women's or girls' sports. Through the Trump administration, we will defend the proud tradition of female athletes and we will not allow men to beat up, injure and cheat our women and our girls. From now on, women's sports will be only for women. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order keeping men out of women's sports, prohibiting all participants who do not meet the government's definition of biological females from competing in girls and women's sports. The order directs the federal government to withhold funding from K-12 schools and colleges

that do not comply, drawing authority from Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Furthermore, it requires representatives of the governing bodies of major sports to standardize eligibility requirements for sports, including the Olympics, within 60 days. The executive order is worded broadly, but specifically applies to transgender women and girls, referencing President Trump's January 20th executive order, defining sex at conception. Specifically, the order calls sport-specific guidelines that base participation on testosterone levels, allowing athletes to compete in divisions matching their sincerely held gender identity

or avoid explicitly outlining policies regarding trans-identifying athletes as unfair and unsafe. President Trump has signed three previous executive orders outlining new gender policies. The orders recognize and define two biological sexes, ban federal funding for gender transitions for minors, and direct the Department of Defense to create a policy on transgender service members. From now on, women's sports will only be for women, Trump said at a signing ceremony at the White House. With this executive order, the war on women's sports is over.

The executive orders have already prompted a reaction from government and non-governmental actors. A number of government websites have changed or removed information to comply with Trump's orders, including a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webpage outlining health risks to gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Following the most recent executive order on Wednesday, 15 state attorneys general signed a joint statement committing to providing gender affirming care. On Thursday, the National Collegiate Athletic Association or the NCAA revised its policy to state,

a student athlete assigned male at birth may not compete on a women's team. Trump's recent order has prompted a wave of both backlash and support. Let me be clear, this doesn't protect women, Representative Jasmine Crockett, the Democrat from Texas wrote in a post on X. I'm grateful to President Trump for signing his executive order banning male athletes from women's sports because it will protect future generations of female athletes from having to experience what I did, said Paula Scanlon, a teammate of former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Leah Thomas.

Today, we'll get into what the right and the left are saying about the order, and then Tangle editor Will K. back after this quick break. Jackbots, a chance to win with every spinner and a guaranteed winner by 11 p.m. every day. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Select games only. Guarantee void if platform or game outages occur. Guarantee requires played by at least one customer until jackpot is awarded or 11 p.m. eastern. Research and supply. See full terms at canada.casino.fandoo.com. Please play responsibly. With the Fizz loyalty program you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know for texting and stuff and if you're All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right supports the order, framing it as a common-sense policy with broad support.

Some note that the issue seems to have unified Americans despite our polarized politics. Others say the left's critiques of the action fall flat. National Review's editors called the order a victory for women athletes. As long as we've had organized sports, no one thought it would be a good idea for men to compete against women until the last several years. As part of the trans craze, male athletes infiltrated women's competitions, teams, and locker rooms. The consequences were woeful, and sometimes men claimed a spot on each rank of the podium in women's divisions, the editors wrote.

The Department of Justice is instructed to coordinate and provide the necessary resources to enforce these policies, but perhaps only minimal enforcement efforts will be needed since it seems that even the most high profile organizations have already proposed plans to make changes. Not every athletic association or competition circuit that permits athletes to compete in divisions with respect to preferred gender identity

have the same policies. Some guidelines require nothing more than an explicit statement of an athlete's gender identity, whereas others require males to receive hormonal treatment for a minimum time period and reduce testosterone levels below a certain level," the editor said. Progressives aren't gonna give up on the issue, although polling shows that a super majority of Americans want women's athletics to be women only.

Organizing sports by sex, rather than the nebulous concept of gender, is only common sense, and the executive order is a big step toward finally restoring it across the land. In City Journal, Leor Sapir explored why Trump's action was hugely popular. Of all the policy areas affected by gender ideology, sports may strike some as the least consequential. Forcing women to share homeless shelters or prison cells with men poses more obvious dangers, especially considering that male inmates identifying as women are more likely to have convictions for sexual offenses, Sapir wrote. But sports are important, too.

Not only because they are a vital human activity, but also because, for better or worse, the U.S. higher education system showers so much attention and so many resources on male and female athletics. For many girls, excellence in high school sports punches their ticket to prestigious universities and lucrative scholarships. Sports is the policy area where public opinion shifted earliest and most clearly against gender ideology. A 2022 Pew poll, for example,

found that while only 46% of American adults agreed that it should be illegal for kids to receive gender-affirming care, 58% said that athletes should compete in the category of their sex, Sapir said. By January 2025, a New York Times Ipsos poll reported 79% of Americans agreed that athletes who were born male at birth but who currently identify as female should not be eligible for female sports.

It's hard to think of another issue in contemporary American politics where the American public is split 80-20. In the New York Post, Isis score wrote, Trump is not the radical. He's simply undoing radical things Dems did. After President Trump signed an executive order compelling America's schools to allow only women to compete in women's sports, the usual suspects gnashed their teeth.

The talking point was as simple as it was ubiquitous. With the stroke of a pen, Trump had launched an unprovoked attack on an embattled community, Scor said. Balderdash. In truth, it was the Democrats who declared cultural war on their political opponents and waged it unreservedly from the confines of the Oval Office. Within hours of taking the office a little over four years ago, President Joe Biden had

signed an executive order asserting that children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. Another way of putting that is, girls should not have the right to learn or compete without boys invading their most private, intimate spaces, Scor wrote.

Now that Trump has undone that evil, we're meant to take him to be a power-hungry monster? That dog doesn't hunt anymore. Americans have come to realize that for the most part, it's not the right that is pushing an agenda. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left opposes the order, calling it a cruel attack on a vulnerable group.

Some criticize mainstream outlets on the left for contributing to public skepticism about transgender rights. Others say this is a complicated issue, but Trump's approach is calculated to do harm. The New York Times editorial board criticized Trump's shameful campaign against transgender Americans. Some of the most deplorable episodes in U.S. history involve the government wielding the power of the state against minority groups – black people, indigenous people, and gay people, to name just a few.

Though these campaigns might have received popular support at the time, history has consistently judged them as immoral, illegal, and un-American, the board wrote. Rather than understanding this history, President Trump is borrowing from the worst of it. The chaos of the past few weeks shouldn't mask that in this period, he has also waged as direct a campaign against a single vulnerable minority as we've seen in generations. It should be recognized that society is still grappling with the cultural and policy implications of the rapidly shifting understanding of gender. There are some issues, such as participation in sports and appropriate medical care for

minors, that remain fiercely debated even by those who broadly support trans rights. There should be room for those conversations. But what shouldn't be debated is whether the government should target a group of Americans to be stripped of their freedom and dignity to move through the world as they choose. This is a campaign in which cruelty and humiliation seem to be the fundamental point. In her Erin in the Morning newsletter, Erin Reid said outlets like the New York Times have been influential in fueling attacks on the trans community. The New York Times editorial board published an opinion piece decrying the state of transgender

rights under the Trump administration. What the piece conveniently omits, however, is the Times' own complicity. "'No other major paper has done more to legitimize the very arguments fueling these attacks than the New York Times itself," Reid wrote. No hand-wringing over Trump's most extreme policies can undo the reality that the paper helped lay the groundwork for them, lending credibility to the very narratives

that now fuel sports bands and health care restrictions. These so-called middle ground arguments, that a little discrimination was a reasonable compromise, were always a smokescreen for a broader campaign to eliminate trans existence from public life. Even in an article where the New York Times acknowledges that Trump's attacks on trans people have gone too far, the paper continues to frame issues like youth healthcare and sports as reasonable areas for restriction, playing directly into the very strategy that anti-trans activists designed, Reed said.

The Bands were never about fairness in sports. They were always about manufacturing fear, normalizing discrimination, and laying the foundation for broader rollbacks of transgender rights. And the Times played right into it. In the Washington Post, Sally Jenkins argued Trump's ban on trans athletes seeks to demonize, not protect. There is a reverse bigotry in the accusation that those who object to transgender athletes in girls' high school sports or misuse pronouns are handmaidens or fascists who don't toe

the correct intellectual line. But there is a cavernous cruelty and the distinct smell of autocratic sourbrotting in the Trump administration's targeting, no, terrorizing, of athletes who represent just 0.6% of the American population," Jenkins wrote. How you do something matters as much as what you do. Donald Trump doesn't just want transgender athletes out of track meets and swimming pools. His latest executive order is calculated to inflict maximal fear and public humiliation on them.

Plenty of citizens reasonably object to transgender athletes in women's sports, treatment for gender dysphoria in the young, or pronoun policing, but they manage to do so with civility and respect for fellow souls," Jenkins said. Trump's order and his language in presenting it seems calculated to provoke hostility and misunderstanding, and they're liable to poke collateral holes in the civil rights of all. This is quite possibly the point, to dragoon good people into a dark place they never intended to go. Alright, let's head over to Will for his take. All right, that is it for what the right and left are saying, which brings us to my take. Reminder, this is Tangle editor Will Kavak, and I wrote today's take.

One quick note before we dive in. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to refer to the debate about transgender women and girls participating in female sports as just trans women in women's sports. I won't say trans women and girls in women and girls sports every time, but that phrase should be understood to encompass both and I'll distinguish between women's and girls sports when necessary in the context of my writing. When Tangle has covered transgender topics in the past, executive editor Isaac Saul has grounded his take in an idea I think is worth repeating here. We should approach this topic with humility and resist the urge to draw black and white conclusions. Unfortunately, the debate about

trans sports is a prime example of how people on either side of polarizing issues tend to assume the worst intent of differing opinions. For those who oppose measures like medical treatment for transgender minors or trans women's participation in women's sports, these beliefs are often framed as common sense, while the other side is seen as pushing a subversive worldview. Conversely, supporters of these measures view them as a moral defense of a vulnerable group in our society,

while the other side is motivated by bigotry. Trump's order has brought this dynamic back to the fore. Before I weigh in on the order itself, I want to describe what it does and the authority that it's based on. Now, the White House frames the order as a quote, ban on trans women in women's sports, but the action itself is actually narrower, making Title IX funding contingent on whether a school allows trans women to compete on its women's sports teams. The Trump administration justifies this order based on its interpretation of Title IX, the 1972 law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program or activity that

receives federal funding. Recent presidential administrations have interpreted the law in different ways with the Obama administration advising that Title IX protects LGBT students from sex discrimination, the first Trump administration changing standards for sexual harassment and assault cases, and the Biden administration proposing rules to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, rules that were later struck down towards the end of Biden's term. Now the second Trump administration's view holds that allowing trans women to participate in women's sports violates the laws requirement of quote, equal athletic opportunity

for members of both sexes, end quote. Now legal challenges are certain to come and we may see the Supreme Court weigh in on this issue in this term, but the popular interpretation of this order is already pretty clear. certain to come, and we may see the Supreme Court weigh in on this issue in this term. But the popular interpretation of this order is already pretty clear. This action could be the most popular thing Trump has ever done. Recent polls from the New York Times, Gallup, and NORC found that a sizable majority of

Americans think athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that match their biological sex, including a majority of Democrats. Most people agree that inherent differences between the sexes create unavoidable issues with how trans women can compete fairly. Virtually all sports have some boundaries for participants, age groups, weight classes, equipment guidelines that seek to promote competition on the basis of effort and skill. While natural advantages also come into play, one of my favorite examples is the NBA's Victor Wembenyama.

We accept those individual differences within divisions. However, we have very little tolerance for inter-category differences, those between competitors across those divisions. For instance, sports leagues don't allow 25-year-olds to play on middle school teams, or for any athletes to take steroids. The average person who goes through puberty as a male will similarly have categorical advantages

in athletic performance over a female who goes through puberty. And even though hormone treatments can negate many of those differences, some traits like bone structure, heart size, lung capacity, and even just having grown up competing against boys remain. The idea of post-puberty males competing with post-puberty females feels improper. That viewpoint isn't rooted in bigotry, it's rooted in a sense of fairness.

In recent years, some trans women who went through male puberty have achieved notable successes in high-level athletics. In 2019, C.C. Telfer became the first openly transgender woman to win an NCAA track and field title. In 2019, J.C. Cooper won the Women's National Championship for bench press in the super heavyweight division. And perhaps the example that's most familiar to people in this debate is Leah Thomas in 2022 winning an NCAA championship in the 500 yard freestyle swimming. In these cases and others, inter-category physical traits, again, differences that

exist between divisions not within them, almost certainly gave these athletes an advantage in high stakes competitions. However, I don't think these individual cases justify the scope of Trump's order, which calls for a blanket ban on all trans women and girls competing in women's and girls' sports. For one, the evidence that this is a pressing issue that requires a sweeping solution is scant. At the collegiate level, NCAA President Charlie Baker recently told Congress that there were, quote, less than 10 transgender athletes in the NCAA out of roughly 510,000. We don't know how many trans girls compete in high school sports, but it's

fair to assume that it's a small fraction of the total participants as well. A 2022 study from UCLA's Williams Institute estimated that 300,000 U S teens age 13 to 17 identify as transgender. And put that in the context of the over 8 million students participating in high school sports in the 2023-2024 school year. Of course, a fraction of those 300,000 transgender teens identify as trans girls and another fraction of those will participate in sports and their participation in sports is spread out across many

different sports. Banning all of these teenagers from competing in sports with no consideration of factors like puberty blockers or hormone treatments feels at odds with fair competition. That viewpoint isn't rooted in extreme gender ideology, it's rooted in a sense of fairness. So what about this situation necessitates federal action? The White House's fact sheet on the order makes one attempt to establish the data on this issue, referencing a figure that female athletes have lost, quote, nearly 900 medals to men competing against them in women's sporting categories, end quote. This stat appears to come from a 2024 United Nations report, which itself credits this

finding to the Women's Liberation Front, an activist group that opposes many transgender rights initiatives. Setting aside the bias of this source, this stat applies to all women's sports worldwide within a non-specified time range. So even assuming this number is accurate, 900 medals across every sport, division, and country in the world still wouldn't constitute a strong case for federal action on this issue. Additionally, the order assumes that every case involving trans women in women's sports is essentially the same and should be treated as such. A middle schooler who

identifies as a transgender girl and wants to run on the girls cross-country team is just different from a trans college basketball player who went through male puberty and wants to compete on the women's team. Similarly, a trans high schooler on the girls junior varsity soccer team is just not the same as a fifth year college senior who comes out as a trans woman and wants to compete in women's shot put.

Just as we acknowledge the physical differences between males and females, we should factor in age, sexual maturity and sport specific demands when determining who gets to participate. This executive order is ill-equipped to navigate nuances like these, and it would be a harsh punishment to pull federal funding in cases that involve trans students participating in sports regardless of the level. Now, when 70 to 80 percent of Americans say they support bans on trans women and women's sports,

I'm confident that they're thinking of the high performing competitive athletes like Cece Telfer, J.C. Cooper, and Leah Thomas. But those examples can take on an outsized importance in our minds when in reality, there are countless more instances of trans girls who can compete fairly in girls sports. As I said in the beginning, this is an issue

that defies black and white assessments. Personally, I land around here. We should have restrictions on trans women's participation in high level women's sports, high school, college, and professional. And these are cases where scholarships, records, and careers are on the line. Whether those restrictions can be achieved

via hormone treatments, like the NCAA required until its policy change last week, is still an open question and requires more research. In the meantime, though, individual sporting bodies are in the best position to make that determination and that's with the understanding that no decision will be perfect. Now, at the elementary and middle school levels, as well as high school and collegiate teams that aren't engaged in the same level of high stakes competition like junior varsity or club teams, I don't see a need for a federal rule restricting participation. Now, that's not to say there should be no regulations.

Shared locker room spaces in particular should be handled with care. But once more, these are best handled at the community level. If a trans girl wants to play JV Girls Across, that's a decision Taylor made for the athletic conference her school's a part of. Ditto for other sports at a similar level. Again, some decisions will still result in discontent on one side or the other.

I'm not dismissing that. And I of course don't mean to imply that high level athletics are the only competitions that should matter But allowing local sports leagues and schools to make the call is a better solution than the federal government doing it via executive action As with his executive actions on immigration President Trump is acting on a campaign promise that resonated with a large swath of the electorate and not just Republicans that resonated with a large swath of the electorate and not just Republicans. But it's disappointing to see a broad reaching order

couched in language about how trans women's participation in sports is quote, dangerous to other women and justified by a few extreme examples that also include some outright falsehoods. I still believe we can value fairness in competition while keeping avenues open to participate in sports and all the benefits they bring in many cases, drawing on the input of families, schools, and communities to make

decisions rather than top-down decrees. We'll be right back after this quick break. exclusively on FanDuel Casino, where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Please play responsibly. With the FIZ loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with FIZ. Switch and dollars off with your mobile plan,

you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply, details at fizz.ca. All right, that is it for my take. We are going to skip our reader question today to give a little bit more space to our main topic. So with that, I'll send it back over to John for the rest of the podcast and I'll talk to everyone soon. Have a great day.

Thanks, Will. Here's your under the radar story for today, folks. On Monday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Justice Department to revise its enforcement guidelines for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, a 1977 law that prohibits United States companies from bribing foreign officials to advance their business interests. The White House said the law hurt American companies' ability to compete for business abroad due to overzealous enforcement. Violators of the law can face up to 15 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, and the

Justice Department logged 24 enforcement actions related to alleged violations of the FCPA in 2024. A White House official said Trump's order will pause the law to determine how to streamline the FCPA to make sure it's in line with economic interests and national security. CNBC has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright next up is our numbers section. The number of United States laws banning transgender students from participating in sports in line with their gender identity is 25 according to the Movement Advancement Project.

The estimated percentage of transgender youth aged 13 to 17 who live in states with laws banning transgender students from participating in sports in line with their gender identity is 37%. The approximate number of athletes competing at the collegiate level is 510,000, according to NCAA President Charlie Baker. The estimated number of athletes competing at the collegiate level who publicly identify as transgender is less than 10. The percentage of transgender and non-binary Americans aged 13 to 18 who said they participated

in sport between December 2019 and March 2020 is 17 percent, according to The Trevor Project. The percentage of Americans who said that transgender athletes should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth gender is 62% according to a 2021 Gallup poll and the percentage of Americans who said that Transgender athletes should only be able to play on sports teams that match their birth gender is 69% according to a 2023 Gallup poll Alright and last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Studies examining the social aspects of disasters have shown that help from community members

outside of official channels is a crucial and effective aspect of disaster recovery. The California wildfires produced countless stories of civilian heroism, from helping vulnerable community members evacuate, to neighbors sharing trailers for horses, to local businesses opening their facilities for support services. The rising local support has spotlighted the significance and necessity of these, sometimes seemingly small, actions. Nice News has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, you can go to ReadTangle.com, where you can

sign up for both a newsletter membership and a podcast membership. For the next 48 hours, we are offering a special discount on a bundled membership in celebration of being able to finally offer a genuine bundle membership. We've been working on this for a while, and I'm just so excited that we finally have bundled memberships that are available directly on our website. We'll be right back here tomorrow for Will and the rest of the crew. This is John Law signing off. Have a great day. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Duke Thomas. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Will Kavak, Gail Esul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was made by Magdalena Bikova, who is also our social media manager.

The music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go check out our website at reedtangle.com. That's reed 11 p.m. with your chance at the number one feeling winning which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do. Daily Jackpots a chance to win with every spinner and a guaranteed winner by 11pm every day. With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan.

You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with FIZ. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at FIZ.ca.