The Glenn Beck Program - Ep 77 | Gender ISN'T Fluid: Debunking Sexual Orientation Lies With Science | Dr. Debra Soh | The Glenn Beck Podcast

Episode Date: August 8, 2020

What happens when Glenn tells sexual orientation expert and neuroscientist Dr. Debra Soh that he feels like a woman today? Well, he gets a hard dose of objective truth based in science. In Soh's new book, "The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex & Identity in Our Society," she gives parents the tools to fight back against the lies their children are being taught in school: "Gender is a social construct. There's no such thing as boys and girls." She says it's anti-science to encourage children to transition to the opposite sex. Soh explains why she had to leave academia to speak freely about sex and identity, and why as even as a liberal, she and Glenn have a lot more in common than one might expect.  This Week’s Sponsors: Go from dreaming to doing. Your bigger future starts today at Ashford University. There’s NO FEE to apply or standardized testing required to enroll. Go to http://Ashford.edu/BECK Want to know the secret to staying sweat-free this summer? Glenn recommends Tommy John’s ultra-breathable underwear! They have a range of summer-ready, breathable options, but their Cool Cotton underwear for men and women is like having your own on-body AC. For a limited time, go to https://TommyJohn.com/BECK to get 20% off your first order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today I want to ask the question, what is truth? What is reality? I think that's what we're going to talk about today. The questions are not easy to answer anymore because of the system that radical progressives have taken. And we don't have a concept of truth anymore. There's more controversial questions to answer these days like, what is gender? What is the truth on gender?

What does it mean for a man to be a man or a woman to be a woman? Is gender concrete or is it fluid? I thought the idea was, if you're gay, you were born that way, but now, no. These questions have been buzzing around campuses for a few decades, and now they are in the real world, and they are everywhere. These ideas that men aren't really men, and men can be women. Those with a cervix should have a test. Wait a minute, that would be a woman, right? No, can't say that.

All of these ideas have become mainstream, thanks to a small group of bullies, quite frankly, who mostly gather online, or at least they used to, and most people are too afraid to stop the bullying. The heroes of the maddingly heated culture that surrounds us are the people who are willing to stand up to those bullies and stop those bullies, and they are superheroes, but actually they're not. They're just regular people who are like, I am not going there with you. Dr. Deborah So is one. She used to have an ordinary life until she said, no, I'm not going to say those things. She had a life uncomplicated by the vitriol of total strangers who threaten her and harass her, eager to destroy her any way and every way they possibly can, and that's the life she lives now. For Deborah So, the fortuitous event, the moment that changed everything, was a furry convention in Toronto.

Furry. For the uninitiated, I learned the last time Deborah was here, that furries are people who dress in animal costumes for recreational reasons. Okay. She wrote about the experience. Harper's Magazine picked it up. By then, the Marxist invasion of academia ramped up and then exploded into society as a whole. As an academic, she felt threatened by the activist in academia. There are people dressing up as animals. What is the controversy here? They were everywhere suddenly. Even, even in. in the hard sciences, which are supposed to be immune to that kind of nonsense. What's at risk for a scientist or an academic who wants to challenge the narratives in society? Academics, even in the hard science, increasingly feel threatened by activists who don't want any evidence to contradict their narrative. Who are these people? Deborah didn't see the point of being in a field where she couldn't pursue the truth, and so she left because she couldn't stay quiet either. She just refused to let herself be bullied. After 11 years as an academic, she left academia.

She said it was the best decision she ever made. She loves research. She keeps in touch with her former colleagues and keeps up with academic advancements, but it's not the same. Not too long ago, she was a humble Canadian sex researcher with aspirations of running her own lab one day. That would never happen now. This is the era of social constructs and fluid genders and transgender flags being

marched through the street. The science of sex has been politicized, and Deborah So wasn't on the right side. She wasn't having any of it. She was on the side of truth. So she found herself catapulted into a culture war. She wasn't fighting on the side she'd assumed she'd always been fighting for. Now, as a sexologist, a neuroscientist, a journalist, and a columnist, she is caught in the tangle of politics, sex, free speech, academia, science, all of which are her specialities. She's fighting her. own people, or at least they used to be. Before George O'Rwell's 1984 became a reality, before statements like men are women and women are different and children shouldn't be sexualized, before those things became controversial. Back when truth was indisputable and gender came in two variations, and you didn't really get to choose. She tries to be optimistic and thinks that we'll come back from it. I admire that in her. The science will survive. that reason will emerge unscathed.

It gets harder to believe that every day, but she does believe it. She's the perfect person to talk to during these incredibly Orwellian times. The name of her podcast is literally wrong think, a concept right out of 1984. The last time she was here, she educated me on the furry culture, and we debated the moral implications of sex robots. There's no telling what we'll end up with on this podcast. Welcome, Dr. Deborah So. So, doctor, I come to you as a patient, and I tell you I'm a 56-year-old man, but I have been convinced forever that I am actually a woman.

What advice do you give me? Well, I should start by saying, I'm not a clinician. I don't do clinical work anymore. But what I think good clinical practice would suggest would be to ask you, what makes you feel that way? and what's going on your life currently that may be leading to you wanting to tell me these things. But if I say

I've always felt this way. I've always just felt like I was more of a woman rather than a man and I just have the guts to do it now because the rest of society is giving me affirmation that yes, indeed, I am a woman. Well, in which case I think a good clinician

would try to see whether what you're saying is actually true, because in some cases, I think when people look back at their own history, especially when it comes to something like gender nowadays, it's very easy for them to reinterpret their own history in a way that fits the current narrative because that's what trans activism is pushing. But I think in the larger picture, what is really troublesome is the fact that clinicians can't even do that in terms of doing a proper assessment with a patient to see whether transitioning would actually be helpful to them. Nowadays, really a clinician has no choice but to say, if you feel this way. So if you were to come to me and I were a clinician, I would have to affirm you

and help facilitate your transition without asking you any sort of questions. So I just saw a, by the way, hi. That's good to see you. Hi. Time is going so fast. I know it has. I just saw a, what was it for? from the CDC, and it said, those with a cervix should have an exam. And I thought, well, there's only one group of people with a cervix, and that's women.

And I was stunned at the fact that now you can't say women should have their cervix checked. You have to say those with a cervix. Am I wrong? I mean, we're not doing cervix transplants. are we? Well, there's a double standard too because news organizations, not all of them, but I've been seeing this trend and people have been very critical of this. They will not use terms like women have a cervix, but they'll say something like men's semen. There's no issue in terms of referring to men when it comes to their anatomy or anything that has to do with

their bodily functions. And so I have no issue referring to trans people using the pronouns they want. I will consider trans women to be women. However, I do this. think there are differences between trans women and women who are born women, and that acknowledging those differences is not transphobic. And I think also to say that women have a cervix, I don't think that should be considered transphobic either. I understand the concern because I think some trans activists feel, and trans activists don't speak for all trans people, but I think some activists get upset by this because they feel it's not fully inclusive to say that women have a cervix because trans women do not have a cervix.

So by saying so, you're essentially excluding them from the category of women. But we're ending all. I mean, this is the name of the book, the end of gender. And you are getting a lot of pushback on this because I think that is the goal to end gender. You know, you were just on with Joe Rogan and they're trying to get that podcast delisted. So you can be even more depersoned and people won't hear what you have to say. But that is the goal, isn't it, to end gender? Well, so I should clarify the title.

I chose the title, The End of Gender, to refer to the fact that science, denial and denial of biology and all of this misinformation that's currently being perpetuated in our society pretty much everywhere. I mean, even by medical organizations and scientific organizations now, this is really doing us, a disservice and this is leading us to have a failure of an accurate understanding of gender. So I want to clarify that that's what the title is referring to because I think on the surface it can sound as though I'm saying gender is whatever you want it to be, right? That very far, far left progressive view. And I still consider myself to be liberal, but I'm definitely not extreme left to say that

gender is whatever you want it to be. It's purely self-identification. There is no tethering to reality. Your gender can change multiple times a day. all these ridiculous things that people are saying and that as a society we are almost being forced to comply with because there is so much science denial that people don't actually know what's true anymore.

So in the book I do, I go through nine different myths and I can talk about what those are if you'd like and I offer scientific research to demonstrate why those myths are not true so that people can really fight back against this. So I do want to go through some of the myths. Some of them that I found really fascinating your explanation of gender is a social construct.

Explain that concept. So it's very trendy. I wouldn't say it's trendy anymore. It's just taken for granted. People believe people say that gender is a social construct, even though that's completely not true. And then from that, it's spread now to gender as a spectrum, which is gender is not a spectrum,

and also that biological sex is a spectrum and socially constructed, which is not physically possible. So the idea that gender is a social construct, this means that the way we experience our gender-associated gender roles are due to socialization in society. They're due to media. It's due to messaging that we receive when we are young. That's not true. Gender is very much biological. This has been demonstrated in a number of research areas.

All of the research literature is very consistent. And last time I sat down with you, we talked about the ways in which, scientists are really denying these facts and that new research is actually coming out, the new research that is coming out is very much politically motivated in saying that there are no biologically based differences in the brain between men and women and gender is something that we learn. And that basically any sex differences we do see between men and women are due to socialization or sexism. When you think of your future, you think of goals. where you want to be. Substitute dreams for goals and suddenly you are planning a bigger future.

Because no one ever has small dreams. Dare to dream bigger and start your bigger future with a degree from Ashford University. Ashford University's online bachelor's and master's degree programs allow you to learn on a convenient and flexible schedule. At Ashford, expert faculty teachers teach you real world skills. from real world experience in online classes built for life's twists and turns. You can learn from home or wherever you feel comfortable. You can pursue a degree in one of Ashford's 60 plus programs like business, administration, healthcare administration, psychology. With 24-7 access to your classroom, daily support and financial aid available,

Ashford will give you the tools you need to go from dreaming to doing. Go from dreaming to doing something that you never thought was possible. It's your bigger future. And it starts today at Ashford University. No fee to apply or standardized testing required to enroll. Just go to ashford.edu slash Beck. That's Ashford. dot edu slash Beck.

Not all programs are available in all states. So then what is the, why is this happening? What is the Explain the mind of somebody who's pushing this Who knows what they're doing Explain this in a good way What is their what is their noble attempt here My sense is that they think they're helping

To move society forward that this is positive for women And I think also more broadly for people who maybe are gender nonconforming People who are gender dysphoric So with all of the nonsense about gender that's being pushed I think that when I see them speak or when I talk to these individuals who are pushing these claims, they say it's because they think it's going to help people be more comfortable in who they are and help them reach their full potential, not being held back by gender stereotypes. But I say we can do that.

We don't have to deny what the science says around gender or deny that it is biologically based. And I think for some people, especially those who are in academia and who are pushing this, it is very lucrative. It's helpful to their careers. and they get a lot of positive praise and I think positive opportunities that come from it. I mean, you mentioned some of the things I've had to experience since this book came out only three days ago. And it's not, you know, it's not for everyone. So it's a much easier path for people to simply say, if this is what I need to say to be liked

and to get certain opportunities and move ahead in my career, then that's what they're going to do. Do you think they believe it or they choose to believe it? it's probably a mix. I think some people actually believe it because when you are in particular circles in academia, it is an echo chamber. I think for some academics, and definitely not all,

but I would say there isn't a pushback. They talk to their friends, they talk to their colleagues in the department, and they all think the same. So they have no opportunity to really question whether their beliefs actually make sense. But doesn't this thing, I mean, this is the thing that bothers me so much about where science is gone.

They have become the church of the dark ages to where they're all talking among themselves and they all know what is true and they will demonize and destroy anybody who goes against the doctrine. How do they not, how do people of science not see that squashing others who disagree is a a really bad idea. Well, I think many of the people who are fighting, who are anti-science are not the actual scientists. There's definitely a contingent growing within the academic sciences of people who are fully invested in social justice.

I do have a chapter in the book that's dedicated to discussing why social justice and activism in academia and specifically in sexology, which is my former field, which is the scientific study of sex and gender, why this is extremely harmful. but I think for the most part, it's just they don't understand the scientific method. They have no respect for it. And so they have no issue in tearing it down. Okay, what's the secret to staying sweat-free this summer? May I recommend Tommy John's ultra-breatheable underwear and bras?

I'm not wearing their underwear right now, but yep, I am sweat-free up here. You know what I'm saying? They have a range of summer-ready breathable options, but their cool cotton underwear for men and women is like having your own on-body AC. Tommy John's cool cotton is made from premium, natural, Pima Cotton for advanced airflow, and it evaporates sweats super fast, keeping you dryer cooler and more comfortable than regular cotton. If you want to add some chill to your cheeks when summer heats up, I'm down with that. Oh my gosh, I think there are many people that just threw up in their mouth just a little bit.

choose Tommy Johns. They're cool cotton underwear. All of Tommy John's layers are built for next level comfort, whether you're on the hunt for lounge pants, lazy day joggers, or the softest Zoom ready teas and polos you've ever worn. Tommy John's, as you covered. Tommy John, upgrade to Tommy John today with enhanced designs that are super breathable and way more comfortable than anything else out there.

Tommy John, so confident in your underwear. that if you don't love your first pair, you'll get a free refund with their best pair you'll ever wear or it's free guarantee. Tommy John. No adjustment is needed for a limited time. Go to Tommyjohn.com slash Beck and get 20% off your first order. That's Tommyjohn.com slash Beck for 20% off.

Don't forget Tommyjohn.com slash Beck. You talk about gender fluidity, which, and I know you address this. in the book, but I'd like you to talk about, I think a lot of people are confused because the argument was, if you're gay, you're born that way. Okay. But now that's not the message. Now you can just choose to be gay. And the argument was you can't choose. So which is it?

And what happened here on the fluidity and just it's your choice? Sexual orientation is definitely biological. And I do have a chapter also in the book dedicated to discussing why that is. So then, yeah, as you mentioned more recently, there has been this switch now to say that sexual orientation is fluid, that it can be changed. I think this is part of a larger movement just to completely denigrate biology. and to say that if we are going to be truly free, we should be able to make our choices in every aspect of our lives,

including something like sexual orientation. Me personally, I have no issue. If sexual orientation were a choice and people chose to have same-sex partners, I think that's totally acceptable. My issue is that people are now activists are intentionally denying what science says because it doesn't fit their agenda, and they have a very specific agenda, so they're willing to basically throw aside everything.

I mean, all of the research literature to date, has shown that sexual orientation is very much innate. And this is something that was, you know, heralded by the gay rights movement. And I'm very much in support of gay rights. To say, they're born this way. So tell me about the... Tell me the neuroscience behind being gay.

So it has to do with exposure to prenatal hormones. So in the womb, a greater exposure to testosterone is associated with being attracted to females. So most males are exposed to higher levels of testosterone, and they are attracted to females when they are born. And the higher exposure is also associated with male typical activities. And so if you have someone who is attracted to,

say a gay man would be on average exposed to lower levels of testosterone. And conversely, lesbian women are likely exposed to on average higher levels of testosterone. Okay. So that is the evidence that everybody was looking for the gene, the gay gene, you know, this is years and years ago. But this is the evidence that you are born that way, which makes the argument that, you know, it's almost like with, you know, Martin Luther King. Okay, you've convinced everybody, I think, that Martin Luther King was right. But now, Martin Luther King is, you'll have to throw him out, you know, because Martin Luther King is, was for nonviolence. And so we got to throw him out. He's no longer an icon of the Uber left. What are we supposed to believe?

What are we supposed? I mean, is there, is there anything that's not fluid? Does this keep changing? And what is it going to change to next? Well, the scary thing is I would say, trust the scientists and trust the scientists. and trust the science as it comes out. If new studies came out showing something different, if studies came out that actually demonstrated that sexual orientation is something that can change

over time or that gender is something that changes by the day or by the hour, I would say most people are general sense of who we are with regards to how masculine or feminine we feel probably does fluctuate to some degree, but it's not something that necessitates completely changing what the definition of gender is. And gender fluidity, again, it's just, we can talk about how gender is binary because it is for 99% of us are biological sex and biological sex is determined by whether you produce sperm or eggs. So there's no in between there.

So gender is not a spectrum. You're talking about science and science that is verifiable. We're not talking about science anymore. And I don't know if I buy any. Yeah. And I don't know if I believe any scientists anymore on so many things because they're rewarded for giving the the correct response now. They're rewarded financially. They're rewarded, you know, with with fame and peace and love and everything else because they're on the right

side. So do we even trust science anymore? How do we trust science? That's a very good question. I mean, it is a really sad time and it's a scary time. I think part of it too comes from, In the book, I interviewed Jonathan Haidt, and he talked about how there is definitely a bias in terms of the ratio of liberals to conservatives in academia. And there's actually, for every conservative, there's 36 liberals, which is a very astounding gap. And I think that says a lot in terms of what we see coming out. And fortunately, that does influence the science that's being produced. I think a good scientist is aware of their biases, because we're human beings. We all have biases.

That's very normal. But as a scientist, your job is to be able to put that aside. be aware of what your biases are and design your studies in a way that you're going to get as close as possible to what the truth is, not influenced by your own particular values. There was a story that I read today. Gosh, I think it came out of California. Yeah, it was a California law that states that if you're a clinic and you give hormones to children to help them in their transition of gender, you'll get some. state grants. And I thought, this is one of the most evil things I've ever seen. You're saying, I'm going to reward you with cash if you give these hormones to children, which I think is wrong

in the first place, look, whatever you want to do with yourself later, fine. But as a child, no. What do you think the ramifications are of that law in California? I'd be. I'd be. I'd curious also to see how widely that news gets spread because I'm willing to bet that it probably did you see it reported among many places? I find whenever it's something like that that's a little bit critical, it doesn't get spread very much. People don't hear about it. So how do you mean critical? It was just a, it was a report on a new law. Okay. So I, because I find anything, I think most people would look at something like that and say, well, now there is a conflict of interest, right? We can't

really, we can't trust that necessarily when these interventions are being implemented that they are necessarily in the best course for these children. I'm not saying that's a case for all people who are prescribing

them, but in terms of yeah, I don't, I mean, I don't agree with, I've been very, very critical of childhood transitioning. All of the research shows that the vast majority of these children will outgrow their feelings of gender dysphoria by puberty. They're more likely to grow up to be gay than be transgender in adulthood. So it doesn't make sense to be putting them

down the path of transition. I think like you, when someone reaches adulthood, if that's what they choose, that's their business. But for children, especially, it's anti-science to say that these children should be transitioning. How do you mean anti-science? Why is that anti-science? Well, if all of the scientific research shows that most kids will grow comfortable in the body that they were given to say that they should, you know, go down the path of transitioning to the opposite sex at increasingly young ages, I've seen numbers that show that children as young as age three are being referred to gender clinics, which to me is wholly inappropriate. So you've been called transphobic and all kinds of names.

because of your view. But yet you started the interview saying you will call a trans woman, a woman who used to be a man as a woman. You will claim that they are a woman. I don't feel comfortable doing that because I don't think, I mean, you just don't have the parts. And you also don't have, I mean, to say that, do I check? Do I check you for prostate cancer? You know what I mean? I mean, it just becomes so meat grinder that I think it can become dangerous.

Why are you under attack for what you say about transgenderism if you're willing to say, yeah, that man is now a woman? Well, I agree with you in the context of a trans woman. This is why I think it's important to be able to point out that there are some differences because for trans women, they do run the risk of potentially having prostate cancer and they need to be checked for that and to pretend that they are no different from women who are born women actually does a disservice to trans people. So I think the reason, I mean, it's hard for me to know exactly why people come after me, but my sense is because I do say these things that are not popular and that I don't completely, I'm not completely 100% on board with the transgender ideology that's being pushed

and I am critical, again, of child of transitioning, which is a big no-no if you're supposed to be a trans ally. So, I mean, I would say I am in support of trans rights, but I don't, I guess I don't go far enough in that direction. So I think anyone who really criticizes any aspect of trans ideology gets labeled, hateful, gets called transphobic, is deemed the enemy. It's really about pushing one very specific message, and if you deviate from that in any way, then you become the enemy. So where would I be on the spectrum? When I first saw Bruce Jenner say, I've lived this secret my whole life and I've been torn apart my whole life. I immediately felt compassion for him. And if it makes him feel better to live as a woman, who am I?

Who am I to say anything other than I can't imagine living your whole life feeling that way? The torture his life must have been. And I don't want anything but happiness for him. However, that doesn't take science out of it now. I mean, there are certain things scientifically that you are not a woman. But if you want to live that way, that's fine. That's fine. Why is that so hateful?

Why is that an opinion that is so damning to the left? I would say also most trans people would feel the same way. They just want to transition and get on with their life. They don't want people making a big fuss about it. And in fact, some of them have said to me, the things that trans activists advocate for are not things that I would have ever asked for. And they're actually quite mortified at the fact that some trans activists and their allies, So certain people who are not transgender,

but who have decided to take on the trans fight for their own reasons, you know, trans people are saying they don't speak for us. So I think part of it is that because of all of the attention that trans activists get, they get a lot of praise as well and they get a lot of attention. I think it's about a very specific, I would call it a power grab. I mean, it's really at the end of the day. It's about individuals wanting to get more accolades, for themselves and so anyone who gets in the way they won't stand for it.

So I'm I'm struck by something that happens with social justice warriors seemingly on all fronts is Anteimima was a real person. She had a real life born a slave, became very, very popular in person at the Chicago World's Fair. she lived a great life. Her family was a little upset that she was just erased. The guy who's cream of wheat, he's just been erased. He was a successful black man as well and had his own restaurant, and that's why he was selected. And yet, Antimima has a rating of, I think it's $199.200 is a perfect score. With whites, Antimima served. we got about 70% or 70, a score of 70. For blacks, Antimima syrup got a score of 199.

I think it's a bunch of white people that said, oh, this is horrible. Let's take this away. And I see this happening everywhere, where it's a small group of people that, you know, Antifa marching in the streets and burning things down when you have, when you have blacks on the sidelines going, this is not it has nothing to do with us how big is this group that seems to just want to tell everyone we're here to protect you and we're here to tell you what you really need and what you really want i would i would say it's definitely a vocal minority there are certain people who definitely

get a lot of air time there are certain names that are known in terms of who the media turns to when they want an opinion about something when it comes to trans issues. But yeah, like I said, they don't speak for the community. And I think, you know, trans people are lovely people. They're no different from the rest of us. And I feel bad for them for the fact that there are some people in that community. I would say even among trans activists themselves, not all of them are horrifically aggressive and awful. Some of them are actually quite pleasant when you do interact with them. So it's really, again, about just I think some people have their own issues and they're latching on to this cause as a way to make themselves feel better or feel more whole.

It is, it's remarkable how this group of people have, have just latched on to all of these causes and, and, um, and don't seem to really embrace the mainstream or even, uh, the smaller minority groups. that they claim to be helping. There's something deeply disturbing by that behavior because they're, in many cases, acting out in violence or acting out in destroying people's lives because they think they have a right to. And I just don't understand that in the West. I don't, I just, I haven't seen it except for, you know, communists and Nazis, but maybe that's who we're fighting. I don't know anymore.

You have been outspoken on the big things in society, but I am concerned, and I know you address this about women acting like men and dating, etc., etc. I'd like to talk about the things that actually are influencing and what's coming in the future. What do you see over the horizon that's actually going to impact the regular person? And how some of the stuff that is being taught right now is going to impact our kids as they grow up, go to college, and what their point of view is going to be? What's coming?

Can you do that? Yes. I was just going to say, actually, going through your last point, I wanted to mention there's a study that I did talk about in the book that showed that political correctness is not actually something that ethnic minorities like. They actually think it's gone too far. And it is actually very wealthy, well-educated, white people who are pushing this. So, again, it speaks to, you know, do you actually care about the group you claim to be speaking for, or is it really just about you and making you feel better about yourself? But in terms of your... Hang on just a second. Before you go there, I think it is, I mean, I find it, I find it incredibly

racist, you know, the way they are fighting and basically saying, look, these poor people over here, we as white people have to jump in and save them. What are you saying about that group of people? You're immediately setting up the very system that you say you're trying to destroy. It's just so remarkably. They think because we aren't white that we're not

capable of taking care of ourselves. That's what it comes across to me as. It's very worrisome to me because I feel like this conversation of race, of course it's important to be against racism. Of course, I'm against racism. But this is not what it's about anymore. And I feel like it's about people, they don't, there's such an obsession with race now that I think it's actually going to be more divisive and it's actually going to make us not a cohesive society. I don't think it is about race. I think it is about just dividing us. It's very, you know, Middle Eastern, I guess, in its thinking, that's the wrong term for it. But how we are being divided is exactly how the Middle East divides itself as a tool, I think.

And it's not about race because you're Asian. where's anybody saying anything about Asians? I mean, the Asian, the anti-Asian bias in school. Yeah. And you're not. You know, whites are supposed to be so superior, really? Because, I mean, you know, talking in a very broad term, I'm not going to put my kids up against a real Asian family.

that has the real Asian roots to them because they're they, they just, they work differently, they think differently, the family is different. Where is anybody saying that, you know, Asians are being, you know, discriminated against because they are. They are being discriminated against in the opposite way.

It, because it doesn't fit the narrative. And the thing is, I don't think it's anything inherent to us as a racial group or as a racial category. I think, like you said, it's hard work. It's an emphasis on education. Yeah. And so these are things that anyone, you know, if you strive to be successful, anyone can achieve these things. It's not particular to our race.

So I don't see why people can't take the positives from that instead of essentially punishing Asian people for doing well. Yeah. The Asian people, and again, generalization, but ones that are actually living the culture, respect the family, They respect education. They respect all the things that make you into a successful individual or successful family or group. And the opposite. I'm sure you saw what the Smithsonian put out about the white culture. My gosh, that's not white.

That's a successful culture. I know. I saw that and I thought of way Asians, we really are white, I guess then. Yeah. I saw that and I thought, I wouldn't. I would expect something like that to be said by the clan. That could have been issued by the clan. And we all would have went, wow, that's racist.

No, that's coming from the federal government now. Yeah, but going to your question about how this is going to affect children, and this is just the gender ideology, because this is targeting kids in school. It's actually in their curriculum, which is the most disturbing thing, because I have parents telling me all the time about what their kids are being taught in school. It's not fact-based. I mean, they're being taught things like, again, gender is a social construct, that it's due to traditional stereotypes that some people identifies both genders or neither.

There are no such thing as boys and girls. And it's very confusing to children. And I think so for these kids who are being raised on this, they're going to see that the real world is not in alignment with what they were told. And I think it's going to be very disorienting for them. So the book I did write it actually as a resource for parents, and it is child-friendly in that there's no swearing. Any reference to sex is very clinical and anatomical. So it's something that you could give to your children if you want a resource to combat what they're being taught in school. And as well, the audiobook, I think, would be very good if you want to listen to it in the car with your family.

I was really inspired by many colleagues who reached out to me saying, you know, they have no way to fight back against this because when they meet with the administration at their kids' school, people, those people will say the newest, the quote-unquote newest science shows that gender is fluid. And my colleagues are saying, well, I have no way of fighting back against that because I don't know what studies to bring up or what I can say. So I have all of that in the book to help them. And then in another related area, another chapter is about sex and dating. And I think especially for young women and men who are trying to navigate romantic relationships and dating, if they're being told that men and women are the same or that something like evolutionary psychology is sexist, well, the way that your relationship is going to play out is not going to be the same in terms

of what your expectations are. And I don't think that's, I think again, people are going to be very disappointed and very confused because they won't understand what's in front of them. To explain evolutionary, what did you say, psychology? Psychology. Yeah, so it's just the idea that our... Explain that. So our behavior, and especially in the book. in terms of what I'm referring to, our reproductive behavior, how we approach relationships and even interactions with the other opposite sex if you're straight stems from a very long

history that's been beneficial to us in terms of procreating. So some people will argue, well, you know, we have birth control and this is outdated, but birth control is only really been around for 50, 60 years. So that's not enough time to override millions upon millions of years of evolution. And I think it's especially for, I think for young women who feel that they are empowered and their independence, I mean, I write in the book about how I used to be very feminist. I still am in favor of gender equality, of course, as a woman. But I think feminism has started to prioritize things that are not actually good for women

necessarily. And I think for young women, especially if they say, if they believe that they are feminist, then they will say, oh, course, I'm the same as my male partners and I should, I should approach sex the same way as my male partners. And that actually does a disservice to women. How? Well, because as women, we have evolved to be more selective in terms of our partners because there's the risk of getting pregnant and then having to raise that child.

So if you are not as choosy about who you have sex with, there's a chance that you may get pregnant by someone who is not going to be around to help you raise that child. That's where it comes from from an evolutionary perspective. But I think modern-day feminists will say, well, that has no bearing on my decisions and the way I behave today when it very much does. Well, I can just raise the child myself. I mean, why do I need a man? I mean... You could.

You could. But, I mean, it's going to be more difficult to do so. Arguably, one parent raising a child is more difficult than two parents. Regardless, I think, of whatever your political leanings are or how you feel about the nuclear family. That's just from a very practical point. So have you been following the, you know, social justice and especially Black Lives Matter now, that is talking about the destruction of the nuclear family and destroying the Western myths of the family? is that not crazy talk?

I mean, a stable family, while it's not always achievable, a stable family is proven to be the basic building block of a great society. Is it not? Right, but you can't say that. Well, I just did. I guess I mean, they expect me to say that. I mean, the strange thing is, though, the weird thing is all of this talk about anti-racism. Again, of course, I'm against racism. I'm against racism.

I would like to end racism against black people. But I don't understand why intersection, how does intersectionality fit into this? And like you're saying, why does this have anything to do with the nuclear family? It's very strange to me why these ideas are coming into play. Unless you attach political gain from them. I mean, all of these tactics are Marxist. And so it's divide and conquer. It's put everybody in categories and destroy the family and make the state the family.

And it, I mean, that's really, it's the only way you can explain it because there's too many things now that are like, wait, wait, wait, wait. I agree that, you know, if you want to be a woman, you have every right, let's just not do it to the children. You know, there's real scientific reasons. You know, I understand that all families have problems and this is the ideal family and not everyone is going to be able to achieve that, but that's a good thing. There's no way to explain what's happening to us other than you are intentionally setting out to destroy a society. that you deem as bad for some reason, and you will throw everything and sacrifice everything on that altar. But you are trying to destroy the Western society. It's the only answer I can come up with.

Right. And, I mean, this ideology is also in children's curriculum. There's actually a march here in Toronto a couple of days ago that was about fighting racism in elementary schools. which, you know, I think is a good cause in theory. But when I actually looked at the website of the organization that was running it, they were talking about how there's white supremacy in our school curriculum. And I was just thinking, I don't know where to go from here. This is just one of those things, right?

It's like you're not speaking the same language. No. There was an Illinois state rep that just called for the end of all history, all U.S. history from being taught in schools at any level because it will only lead to more generations of racists. I'm thinking, wow, okay, okay, sounds great. So take me through, take me through the, let me play the average parent in a couple of ways. Let me play the average parent that is thinking, you know, at college or school, I know the teachers. It's not all that bad.

And yeah, the kids are learning some of these things, but maybe it'll help them be a little more open-minded. And I'm teaching something different at home. So I don't really have to worry about it. Talk to that parent. Just you wait until they go away to college, because I've heard this happen for many parents. The kids go away to college. They're spending an insane amount of money on tuition and the child comes back on the holidays and they say, I don't recognize my child anymore. They're completely radicalized and it's almost like I can't relate to them.

I can't talk to them. I think for many young people who are critically minded, it could just be a phase that they will grow out of. And there are some young people definitely who, you know, I think should be given credit because they are skeptical of these ideas and they don't buy them. but in terms of what parents should do, I mean, I think there's still value. I haven't fully given up on academia. I think there is still value for a child going to university. They just need to be aware that they're going to be faced with a lot of nonsense.

Yeah, do you think that you can survive? I mean, some can. You know, some will be strong enough mentally or whatever. to be able to take that system on and go, all right, I see what they're saying, but I'm not going to, but a lot of people, probably 70%, maybe, 60%, just cave to whatever the culture is. And they just buy in and they don't, they're not, they're not being taught how to critically think. So isn't that just rolling the dice and hoping that you're going to win the lottery with your kids? I think parents are in a good place to just you know I would think to that point you would have raised you'd know your child and you would have raised them to be critical in that way would you not I think parents parents know and I think it's a it's an opportunity for children when they do go I mean they're going to be facing these ideas in society even if they don't go to university it's going to be in the workplace it's going to be with their peers it's you know if you turn on any main mainstream, not all news networks, but a lot of them. Yeah. So I think that could be an opportunity

to learn how to push back. And I would say, don't fight every fight for sure. Pick your courses based on less ideological professors. And in some cases, I've heard stories of students who will say, I just write what I need to write to pass the course. And they know they're doing that. So that's the difference. I think it's one thing if you're doing that, you're actually believing what you're saying. But it's another thing if you know, this is just what I'm need to do to finish my degree and take courses that are hopefully meaningful to you that you can get something out of. But at the end of the day, it will sharpen your argumentation skills and you'd be more equipped when you come out. So there are things, I mean, I've worked in the media in New York.

So I know I can go in and I know how to navigate meetings. I know how to navigate hostile rooms, etc, et cetera, et cetera, and I can be perfectly delightful. However, is there something to be said about losing something? I guess maybe if you know exactly what you're doing, but how many 20-somethings really know who they are? I mean, you know, college is to go find yourself. No, it's not. It's to learn.

It's not to go find yourself. and so many go in and they want to go find themselves, what is the psychological ramification of going in for four years and writing things you don't believe in? Well, you know, even two years ago I would have said maybe my position would be different. Maybe it would be beneficial to consider other avenues. But the thing is, as I said, even if you don't go to university, you're going to be facing this.

If you go out and get a job and you choose to work, instead of going to higher education, you're going to have to face the same ideas and have to figure out how are you going to navigate that? How are you going to push back against that? Do you just put your head down and basically go along with it? So, I mean, these ideas are spread so deeply in our society now that there's really no escaping them. So is there a way back to sanity without a tragic reset? I think we will get there. It's going to probably get a lot worse.

I didn't think it would ever get as bad as it's gone. Even in the last three to six months, it's just absolutely insane right now. But I do think we will come back from it, and it's just a matter of hoping that the damage won't be too bad when we do. I think in terms of the issues around gender, I think it's when all of these children who have transitioned start detransitioning. That's when people are going to start. Those who are really heavily invested in this narrative are going to realize

they cannot deny the truth anymore. But you know, there was, I mean, I hate to go here because, you know, it's just so stereotypical. But just look at the science of the progressive movement, you know, in Europe, in the, from the turn of the century to, you know, 1945, there was a place to where it was going along. And then people were starting to warn and go, yeah, maybe we shouldn't be looking at. into all of these things and this kind of this ideology is getting a little spooky and then it just went to hell and it took a giant reset. I know that people in my business are looking and saying if we continue down this road at this pace, gosh, am I going to be able to speak out in a year? Am I going to be able to have this job because between tech and everything else,

I'll just be depersoned and just you're done. Cancelled. You know, you would just be canceled, entirely canceled. I mean, by the banks, they're already starting, they're already starting to say, you can't have banking services if you, you know, have these views and you're trying to be a public figure. You won't have banking services. That's crazy. You look at your own field on how it's changing.

Do you see a future where you are not allowed to speak and have these kinds of views? Me personally, I would hope not. But I've set my life up in a way where I have more freedom than most people. And that, you know, I did leave academia for that very reason because I wasn't willing to stay quiet. And I wasn't willing to just put my head down and do what people were telling me to do and say. I do feel more optimistic because even in the last six months, I've had people reach out to me. People who had said even five years ago, this is a problem that it does not directly affect me. There's no point in me speaking out about this because I have nothing to gain.

So I'm just going to go about my life and help it sorts itself out. They're now saying to me, this is really bad and I need to figure out how I can help change the course that we are headed on. And it doesn't matter if there's going to be a cost to me personally. I just can't. I've had it. So I think the line will be when the majority of people, I think it is the majority, say we are fully fed up and we are not buying this anymore. We're not going to live in fear anymore. I saw that you and you spoke about it.

They used to spend some time with Jonathan Knight, who I think is brilliant and really has many of the answers to be able to pull us back together, to even understand one another. The work that he has done on language is so important. But when I talk to him, he said, you know, that we just don't, we're not hearing each other. And he seemed pretty bleak because of the uphill battle of how many people would have to really get involved and say, wait, stop. We're not really hearing each other. We're using two different languages. Was he more optimistic or what was your exchange with him like?

Hmm. I since he was optimistic, I didn't get that feeling that it would be impossible, not to say that that's what you were saying. But just in terms of ideological, diversity, viewpoint, diversity. And I do think his organization, Hedrodox Academy, is making good changes. So I do feel hopeful in that way. It just, I think, where we are right now. I think also a lot of it, I'm not sure how much time you see. spent on social media, but I find when I'm on social media, it makes it so much

worse. There's almost almost nothing positive on there. I've been on there more often just because I, you know, I have this book and I'm happy to hear what people have to say about it, but otherwise I try not to be on there very much because I think it does also skew the way we view things. And all you see on there is just

negative videos and opinions and hot takes. I think that's why we're so divided is because we've gone from a, you know, a 24 hour news cycle to about a 24 second news cycle. Nothing remains. You know, since COVID, I've done all my stuff from my house with my family.

And then we went up to the mountains for about, what, three months and lived in a town of about a thousand people. None of these problems are affecting any of them. I mean, you know, and the pessimism was coming from, geez, what I see happening on TV and social media, boy, we're done. But in their real life, they don't feel that they're done. They're just getting this snapshot that is so inaccurate. I was worried in Facebook at first that people would look at Facebook lives and go,

geez, my life sucks. Because nobody's showing the bad side of their life. Nobody's showing their hair standing up when they get up in the morning. They're showing just the best things. And so everybody has a perfect life except for you and you're faking that perfect life on Facebook. That's what I was concerned about. That is, that problem is just dwarfed by the, the explosion of untruths from a very small handful of people, I think, that are just bullying everybody into thinking, you're in the minority, you're in the minority. Right. And I find the same thing when I go outside here in Toronto, because I've been here predominantly for the last while where I've been writing this book and now we've been in lockdown.

That when I talk to people, see people in the street, they're not concerned about the same things that we see on social media day in, day out. I think also working in media, the issues that we are faced with as part of our profession. So that does help me to stay a bit more balanced, I think, and realize that at the end of the day, sometimes it's better just to put things away and go do something else. Yeah. Yeah, and that's, I think, goes back to, we were talking about schooling. I think that goes back to part of the problem for us to do that. That is, it's important that we keep perspective and we disconnect from some of that. But then we look at the places where it actually is happening and really doing damage and influence.

you know, the things that are happening in our schools and beyond the universities. But our high schools and our elementary schools, there's some really dangerous things being introduced into those schools, and we can't dismiss that. So it's this hard space on, what do I dismiss? What do I not? Is it really on fire or is it just something that our kids are dealing with a different world? How do you know? Picking your battles? Well, I think that's part of the process. I'm not a parent, so I can't tell all their parents what to do.

I can't really speak from personal experience, but I would say my sense is that parents are able to prioritize what's important for their kids. And if you feel uncomfortable, especially with regards to what your children are being taught in school, don't be afraid to say so. And don't be afraid to even take your kids out of certain classes if that's the case. Because I have colleagues who are doing that. They say there's no other course.

You know, they don't feel that this is benefiting their children. They don't want their children to be indoctrinated. So that's perfectly you're right. And if other parents want to go along with that, then that's their business. Gosh, can you believe we're having this conversation? First of all, can you believe you and I are having this conversation where you and I probably would have thought we'll never have that conversation, you know, 10 years ago? and I can't believe that not only are you and I talking and are friends, but that we're talking about a world where I remember in the 1990s I read a quote from

Emanuel Kant that I could not understand at the time. And he said, there are many things that I believe that I shall never say, but I shall never say the things that I do not believe. And I couldn't understand a world like that. I thought, what must it be like to live in a world? like that. This one. This one.

I mean, I can't believe we're talking about, you know, you got to pull your kids out of school because they're just, you know, you just, there's just no other choice and you can't really fight against, you know, this or that. And I just, it's bizarre. I wake up in, and many times and just think, is this reality? Or did we slip through a wormhole? Oh, yeah. But, you know, I think part of the reason why you and I get along, even if we do have different opinions, is that we have that same personality trait, which is that we're not going to lie and we speak our minds. And so I think we're both open-minded people in that way because for me to engage with someone, I don't need to agree with them and I don't need them to agree with me.

I just, what I would ask is that they, you know, give me a fair chance. Yeah. And if you, if I entered a conversation, with someone who no matter what you said, you would not change my mind. That's a waste. That's a waste. And I think that's the problem. Too many conversations are happening with too many people

who are just trying to win. I just want the truth. And I've faced the truth about myself and everything else in my own life so many times where you're like, oh, I don't know if I want to believe that because that'll be hard. to do or hard to believe or hard to stay true to and, uh, and you decide is the truth worth it or not. And when you decide the truth is worth it, then you can have conversations with people because I don't know what's true. I know what I have found. And if you can find something that makes more sense, please tell me about it, because I'd love to be wrong on a myriad of items.

I always say there are two ways to live in the world, the way you, the way it is and the way you want it to be. And I think for people who want to see the world as it actually is, it is more difficult, but at the end of the day, you are seeing the truth and you're living in reality. Otherwise, the truth is going to come out eventually and it's going to hurt you even more. Thank you so much for your honesty. Thanks for being so open and willing to take the arrows. I know that you have, man, you have taken some really bad arrows. And courage is content. and I thank you for spreading

the message that we can disagree and I'm not going to sit down and I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me again. Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe

to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.