The Joe Rogan Experience - #1895 - Matt Walsh

Episode Date: November 7, 2022

Matt Walsh is a political commentator, author, filmmaker, and host of "The Matt Walsh Podcast." Stream his new documentary "What is a Woman?" at www.dailywire.com. www.dailywire.com/author/matt-walsh

The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. Hello, Matt Walsh. Joe Rogan, hi. Nice to meet you. Yeah, you too. Officially. Your documentary, I can't tell you how many people have asked me if I've seen it.

I think it's one of the most eye-opening things that's ever been done on this whole gender confusion thing that we're going through right now in our culture. And it was just like one of those things where I had to watch. So many people were like, you have to see this. You have to see this. And I expected it to be like, I mean, I thought it would be like arguments with people or be very,

you know, very confrontational. But instead I think you did it masterfully. What you did is you just let these people explain themselves the way they would talk. If you weren't there, the way they would talk to you weren't there the way they would talk to people who agree with what they're saying and by not pushing back i think you allowed them to to let all the crazy out and it's like it's it's just it's hard to describe to people that aren't

aware of what's going on of how wild this stuff has gotten. But first of all, tell me, what was the process of making this? Like how long did it take? What was the motivation behind it? Yeah. Thanks for talking about it so much in your podcast, by the way. It's been a huge boost for us. And we, you know, I had this idea, you'd really have to go back several years because it occurred to me maybe back in, I don't know, 2017, that when this transgender stuff was starting to really gain mainstream traction, which I think happened really, that was like maybe when Bruce Jenner became Caitlyn Jenner. That was the moment that I think it exploded onto the mainstream. Not when it began, but it exploded into the mainstream.

Right around that time, it sort of occurred to me that the people promoting this stuff have a problem, which is that we're supposed to accept someone like Bruce as a woman. But then what exactly does that mean? What are we accepting him as? He says, I identify as a woman. Well, what are you identifying as? What are we, if you're a woman, well, I know what a woman was before, but if now we're including a guy like Bruce, then what is a woman now? And so I started asking this

question. It was really basic. Just like, what is a woman? What are you trying to say about womanhood now? And couldn't get anyone to answer it. I mean, and mostly it's just on Twitter, you know, and challenging someone on the left. Just give me a definition. What's your definition of the word? And none of them would do it. So at a certain point, I thought, well, we have to find a way to go out and put this question in front of them. And that's sort of where the idea for the documentary came from.

And we knew going in that we wanted two things. Well, three things. One is we have the mission behind it, the message that we want to get across. But we also want it to be a piece of entertainment, because a lot of conservative documentaries, not all of them, but many of them are just, you feel like you're watching an extended version of a podcast or something. It's not a piece of entertainment. So we wanted it to be that. And then we also knew that the way this is going to work, if it works at all, is if I'm just asking questions. Because if it's me going on a tour around the country yelling at

people, that would be satisfying for me emotionally, but it just wouldn't prove anything other than what people already know, which is that two sides yell at each other. So we wanted to give sort of gender ideology a chance to hang itself by its own incoherences, which I think is what happened. I think you definitely accomplished that. And it's so funny that that question, what is a woman, is so difficult to answer. And then they'll say, well, someone who identifies as a woman. And you say, well, what does that mean, though mean though right and then they want to just stop talking like what was the the politician that actually had you leave his office when you yeah we actually we had a couple that uh stormed out but only one made it on on camera and that was the that was um mark tucano

congressman in uh california and he's California. And he's one of the advocates. There's a reason we chose all these people. It wasn't just random. He's an advocate. He's not just a Democrat politician. He's an advocate for the Equality Act, which is this push by Democrats to kind of federalize all this stuff on a national level so that all across the country, for example, men have the right to use a women's restroom and opens up all the sports teams and all that just settles it, takes it away from the States. And so he's an advocate of that.

And he's a good guy to talk to. And he sat there for about 30 minutes, especially when I'm asking him the easy questions and he would give his like filibustering answer. But then once I started asking real questions, that's when he got really uncomfortable. You could even see in the film, he keeps looking over my shoulder and that's because his aid is standing right behind my back the entire time. And, uh, but she never, I was, I kept expecting her to cut it off and shut it down, but she never did. And eventually he just had enough of it and he got up and left. But the thing that made him leave was I didn't even get to ask him the what is a woman question. I asked him, I asked him, you know, there are males who want to

use the women's restroom or the women's locker room, but then there are females who don't want to see an individual with a penis in the locker room. So you've got two competing claims here, two people who have feelings, the women who feel like they don't want to see this, it makes them feel bad to see it. And then the men who it makes them feel bad if they can't use the restroom. So who wins out? How do you balance that? I think it's a fair question. It's a very good question. And that's what he just got up and said, the interview's over and walked out. Well, in those scenarios, where this is where women, particularly feminists, who've always been like hardcore lefties, they're like, they're finding themselves in this ideological quagmire. They're like, they're feminists, they're pro women's rights,

they're on the left, and they're not anti-trans. But then all of a sudden this is getting imposed into their world and they're told they have to accept it or they're transphobic regardless of this person's sexual history. Like if this person is a sexual abuser, if this person is a, like a literally registered sex offender, they can go into certain places, dress like a woman and use women's spaces. It's the We Spa case in Los Angeles. Yeah, that's exactly what it is. It's like, I mean, there's so many instances of people gaming the system, right? There's the prisoner who went to jail and immediately decided they were trans and impregnated two prisoners while they're in there. Yeah, that's happening all over the country, by the way.

Yes. And these women have no, you want to talk about giving a voice to the voiceless? These women have no voice. They're in prison. Who are they supposed to talk to? And they're getting locked in. Can you imagine that? You're a woman.

And many women who are in jail are in jail for nonviolent offenses. And now they're locked in a cage 24 hours a day with men. Many of them are sex offenders. Well, that guy was a murderer. I mean, that guy had murdered his foster care father. And the cops who went to the crime scene said it was the worst murder they'd ever seen. He'd been stabbed from his face down to his ankles. He'd just been stabbed an insane amount of times, just a bloodbath. This is the person that just decided right after

getting arrested, they identify as a woman. And you know, the other thing keep in mind, too, is that, yeah, there are men who are just gaming the system, as you point out. I think in prison, that happens a lot because they'd rather be in a women's prison than a men's prison. But also in general, like there are different categories of people who transition. And we kind of talk about them like they're all the same, but they're not. And you can kind of break it down by age. Like there's the very young children, a five-year-old, and we hear that, oh, my five-year-old is trans. That's a thousand percent the parent just deciding they're going to do that to the child because no child is going to make, no child even knows what that is. So you have to, you have to suggest that to them. Then you have the adolescent girls and,

you know, Abigail Schreier has written about this in her great book. And that's the social contagion. They pick it up from society society but then there's the older men who are adults and decide one day that they're women and for so many of them this is a fetish i mean this is like the the thing we're not allowed to say or acknowledge but it's totally true that for most of most these older men who decide that i'm a woman it's a fetish it's autogynephilia yeah they're they They're enchanted by the idea of themselves as women. And so now we have to participate in your fetish. Like you get off on the idea of being seen as a woman. And I have to be a participant in that. It's really

degrading to all of us, you know, that we're all being forced into this. Well, it's always been a psychological condition. It's always been known as being like a psychiatric condition, like it's a mental health issue. And now it's being accepted as a gender identity issue, where it was always just like a weird kink that people had. And now you're, again, regardless whether or not this person's a sex offender registered sex offender repeated sex offender you have to accept this otherwise you're a bigot it's just this this rigid adherence to ideology is so cult-like it's so why it's so fucking hands-made tale it's it's so wild that people are just wholesale adopting this. And this is not to deny that there's people that are trans.

I've met people that are trans. It exists in nature. I mean, you occasionally, guys will shoot a buck and they'll find out that it's actually a female with antlers. Nature's weird, right? I think nature does put people, make humans for whatever reason that really feel like they should have been born a female or should have been born a male. But that's not all of what's happening. And in our desire to be compassionate and to have care for these people and to love these people and respect these people, we're opening the door to all this chaos Yeah, I think that's what you highlight so well in this film

And it's just it's so strange to me how so many people on the left People that I you know before this I generally respected their opinion just buy into it wholesale and Will spout out things as if they're facts about how much this helps people and keeps people from killing themselves and helps kids. But it's not true. Yeah, it's not true. blackmail that they tell parents that, you know, your daughter identifies as your son now. And then the classic line, the now classic line is, would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son? Like you have to affirm this or your daughter's going to kill himself. And so many parents, especially, you know, you go back a couple of years when this conversation wasn't

being had on a very visible level, they just, they don't know what to do. They're panicked. And they've just been told by a mental health provider who they trust that, they don't know what to do. They're panicked. And they've just been told by a mental health provider who they trust that if they don't go along with their child's delusion, that their child's going to commit suicide. So I can understand when you're told that, that you're going to kind of panic, but it's just, it's not true. The evidence, in fact, tells us the opposite, that suicidality, we cover this in the film, Scott Nugent mentions it, that the only reliable long-term study we have on this shows that suicidality is the highest years after transition. That's the highest point for suicidality among trans people. But the other problem, too, is that there are a couple of maybe reliable long-term studies, but there aren't that many because we haven't done this to people on this scale ever

before in human history. So the current crop of especially trans, quote unquote, trans kids, they're the guinea pigs. We're experimenting on them. And they're making a lot of, the healthcare providers are making a lot of promises about how this is going to turn out when they can't possibly know this because we've never done it before. Well, that's one of the more sinister aspects of it for me is the way they're encouraging hormone blockers and hormone transition for people that are going through puberty or haven't gone through puberty. We don't have any long-term studies on this. And now they're finding that these hormone blockers aren't innocuous and that they cause a lot of health problems. innocuous, and that they cause a lot of health problems. And they're saying this now out in the open when people have been for years, the last few years, promoting this as if it's a pause button. And it's just absurd because that's not how human biology works. I think there's a lot of what they

claim. Intuitively, it doesn't make any sense. It defies common sense, even before you look at the data. And then you look at the data and you realize that, yeah, it doesn't make any sense. It defies common sense. Even before you look at the data, and then you look at the data and you realize that, yeah, it doesn't make any sense. But even before that, you can't, what's being claimed? That you can kind of put a child in a state of suspended animation where they're kind of lingering on pause?

That's not how the human body works. What you can do is try to suppress the human body's normal natural functions. But when you do that, it's a tradeoff. There are consequences. There are always consequences. That's how nature works. And we also know that one of the drugs they use, like Lupron is a drug they use as a puberty blocker.

And it's just a fact that this drug, number one, to begin with, is a cancer drug, originally for older men who have prostate cancer. And they've also used it to chemically castrate sex offenders. I think in Georgia they've used it for that purpose. So it's an actual chemical castration drug used off-label for 10-year-old, 11-year-old, 12-year-old kids. With no long-term data. Right. Because there can't be.

They're promoting it as this is the silver bullet. This is going to fix you. Right. This is can't be. happening, especially younger kids. It's puberty blockers, not surgery. And yeah, it might be true that they're not performing actual surgeries on 12-year-olds at this point. At least that's not a common practice. But what they don't tell you is that once you put the kid on this conveyor belt, they're going to probably stay on it all the way to the surgery. You've put them in the system. You've put them on. It is like a conveyor belt system. And they're most likely not going to jump off. You start with the puberty blockers. In almost every case, it's going to lead to hormone therapy. And then in a great many cases, they go from there to surgery. And the other thing too is that as they're going along with these drugs, you are taking away, you're sterilizing them,

you're oftentimes permanently taking away their future fertility. So, you know, you've taken away their capacity to, like a girl, you've made it so she'll never be able to have kids in the future. You've already taken that from her. She has given it up before she even could know what she's even given up. And then for her, it's kind of a logical process. Well, I've already given that up, so I might as well go get the double mastectomy and then all down the line. process. Well, I've already given that up, so I might as well go get the double mastectomy and then all down the line. And then there's the euphoria that comes with taking testosterone that happens to them. Like almost immediately they have a different feeling and they go, oh, this is how I should have been all along. Now the medicine is helping me. It's also if someone identifies

as male or identifies as female and this is just how they feel they are. What is like, what's the logical argument for starting to give them hormones that are not natural in their system? I don't think there is a logical argument. Um, the only argument you ever hear from them. And I know because I've, I know because I've asked, is the emotional blackmail argument. You have to do it because if you don't, they're going to kill you. But another point about the suicide thing I want to mention is that we know that trans identification has risen, in the youngest generation, has risen like 20 or 30 fold. And what they tell us on the left is that, well, that's not social contagion. This is just people now feel comfortable to live their truth.

So there's always been this many trans people. It's just that in the past they couldn't announce that to the world because it was it was an unaffirming society. So they tell you, well, if that's true and you had like millions of trans people in the past who are living in these unaffirming societies. you had like millions of trans people in the past who are living in these unaffirming societies. And we're also told that if you don't affirm trans people, it leads to suicide. Then shouldn't we see, if we look back through history, just this unbroken mass epidemic across the world of people killing themselves in mass because they're not being affirmed as trans. That's not what we find. Shouldn't we see like, you know, you should, you should be able to go back to 1850 and find millions of kids killing themselves because it turns out they were trans and not being affirmed.

But child suicide almost like didn't exist up until very recently. It was basically unheard of. So it's just everything they say. Just when you when you when you apply a little bit of common sense, it all starts to break down. When do you think this shit? Do you think it's the Caitlyn Jenner thing that shifted it? Like when did this become a big part of the cultural narrative? Because I would have never imagined if you came up to me 20 years ago and said in 20 years from now, like gender identity will be one of the big points of contention in our culture among politics. Yeah, I think you kind of decide where you want to start.

Because like in the film, we go back to Alfred Kinsey and John Money. That's mid-20th century. So these ideas were out there. I mean, these are the guys who came up with it. The phrase gender identity was invented by these guys. Kinsey was a wild dude. Yeah, he was. They both they both were.

They were degenerate pedophiles. And it's clear in both, especially Kinsey. It's pretty clear that he had his sexual fetishes and fascinations and he wanted to prove to himself that he's not weird because everyone's like this. wanted to prove to himself that he's not weird because everyone's like this and so he goes out and uh you know he declares i think he said that 10 of adult males are gay or something like that and uh and then you find out that he's he's mostly surveying prisoners and sex offenders and you know people like that he's not he's not going to just a normal intersection of of americans so you go back to those guys but i but I think what's the moment when all this exploded into the mainstream? It was like seeded into our institutions. And then there was a moment when it

all became mainstream. And I don't know if Bruce Jenner is the definite starting point, but I do think that that was a pivotal moment. It was a pivotal moment, not just because now the media is celebrating this, but also because conservatives, you know, had an opportunity right then and there to take a stand against this, to recognize it for what it is, for the threat that it is, and to take a firm stand. And I think so many conservatives didn't because they just imagined that this is either they don't want to get in trouble, be called a transphobe, or they just thought it's sort of a sideshow. And so they just, many conservatives basically ignored it. I don't think anybody realized it was going to get this big. Yeah, I think a lot of people didn't, but I mean,

it should have been more clear. I guess woulda, coulda, shoulda, but it should have been more clear because this was this was they're waging an assault on like basic fundamental reality and uh so it goes way beyond this is not just about gender this is about reality that's why in the film every conversation i had with someone on that side of it every single one devolved into this well what is truth and who's truth and how do you know what truth is yeah you know so i'm sitting in the same room as someone and, and, and the, but I can't get them to acknowledge that we exist in the same reality. We can share a room, but we, but we don't share a reality. You know, I had, there was in the film, there's one woman that we talked to on the street and she was giving me this, we all have our own truth thing. And then I said, uh, well, what if it's my truth that you don't exist?

And she said, well, then I don't exist. She was willing to erase her own existence if that's how I perceive it. It's totally incoherent. I found out about the reaction that people have to this and how strongly they're committed to this. that people have to this and how strongly they're committed to this when there was a transgender fighter that was uh hiding the fact found fox was hiding the fact that they were biologically male and competed twice as a woman beating the fuck out of these women and i was like this is crazy like you can't and in trying to say that it was just a medical procedure. And when I, I thought, rightly got angry at are a transgender athlete and you tell someone, hey, I was biologically male, but now identify as a female, would you like to fight? And that person

still says yes, all in. Go ahead, have fun. Just like I think you should be able to ride bulls and go dirt biking and skydiving, do whatever wild, dangerous shit you want to do but to hide the fact that you're biologically male and you were a male for 30 plus years that was madness to me but they had already drawn this line in the sand and i was i remember arguing with someone on twitter about it when this woman said she was always a woman i go even when this person impregnated a woman and had a child with them she's like even then like even then she stuck her penis in a woman got her pregnant that's the science became a father and even that during that act she was a woman like what exactly what is a woman what the fuck are we talking about they what they're really saying is that this person

they're talking about self-perception like this person perceived himself that way but but self perception is not always reality this is like of course we all right in most other contexts we recognize that a person can have a self-perception that just is not true it's just inaccurate i mean you could walk down the street in any city and find drug addled homeless people talking to themselves. And if you were to ask them about themselves, you're going to find they're going to say a lot of things that just don't line up with reality. And in every other context, we're allowed to acknowledge that even in medical context. in the form of anorexia. You know, a young woman goes to the doctor and she's 90 pounds and she says, I feel like I'm a 300 pound, you know, fat ass. Yeah. The doctor's not going to affirm that and say,

well, if that's how you feel, that's how you, fatness is on a spectrum. I mean, they're not going to give her diet pills. They're going to. But why gender? Like, why is gender this ideological battleground? Like, how the fuck did that become this thing where it's it's encouraging like this cult-like mentality where you can't even

if things are clearly odd think clearly don't make any sense they don't they don't fit with logic or reality you have to adhere to whatever this ideology is promoting. I think it's, I mean, at a most basic level, I think that this is, like I said, this is an attack on truth. And this is, you know, if you want to, if your project is kind of relativism and you want to get rid of objective ideas of truth, what are you going to go after? I mean, if you can go after someone's really fundamental understanding of themselves, it's not just that they're attacking reality. It's like they're attacking the reality of the self. And so they're depriving a person of the ability to understand themselves. And once you do that, if you're successful on a societal level,

then it's sort of like the sky's the limit. You can go anywhere from there, I think. So do you think this is like a conscious decision or do you think this is just something that people have adopted because it seems to be the ideology du jour? I think it depends on who you're talking about. I mean, at an institutional level,

I think a lot of it is conscious. Some of the people that I talked to in the film, I think that they know that this doesn't make any sense and that it's wrong. And I think because they have to know it. If you're a doctor, you do have a basic understanding of male and female. You must. You wouldn't have been able to get through medical school if you don't. So I think that for them, it's intensely ideological. It's also profit driven. They've made a lot of money off of this. If a six-year-old boy says, I feel like I'm a girl, and the response to the boy is, no, you're a boy, and that's what you are, and that's okay. And he'll get over it, and he'll get over it because it's just a phase, and he'll live a normal life, and that's fine, but there's no money in that. Whereas if you encourage the delusion, now that boy individually is worth millions of dollars down the line to therapists and doctors and endocrinologists and surgeons and everything. So I think it's, I think it's profit driven. And then there, and then there's also just a lot of actual confusion out there. People don't really understand what's going on. And then there's

cowardice too. People are, are just terrified. You are just terrified. I've certainly seen a lot of that. People just are, they are scared shitless about being accused of bigotry, losing their social media platforms, losing their jobs, losing their friends. I get this question all the time, everywhere I go. Well, how do I deal with this at my job? Because if I reveal that I understand reality at my job, I'll lose my job or I'll lose my family. You know, it's, this is what people are dealing with. And it is what people are dealing with. That really is what's happening, which is one of the more confusing aspects of this is that there's no logical discussion about this. It's just, you are either on the good side or you're a bigot and that's the binary. Yeah. And that's because they, they know that they can't, the people that are pushing this stuff know that they can't defend it. They can't

defend it intellectually. They also feel like they shouldn't have to. I think that they, some of the people we talked to, what is a woman, they were offended that we were even questioning them. Because from their perspective, especially if you're a college professor or something, the relationship is supposed to be I pontificate and you just sit there slack jawed and nod your head and go along with it. So they feel like they shouldn't have to defend it, but they also know that they can't. And so what are you left with? You're left with speech suppression, scaring people. That's the only tool in your bag. And it's been really effective, unfortunately, so far.

Now, what has the response to your film been? What's it been like? Was anything surprising? I guess I would say I was surprised by just how big the response was. I knew we had something. I knew we had something with the idea. And then once we filmed all the footage, before we even put it together, I'm like, I know we had something. I knew we had something with the idea. And then once we filmed all the footage before we even put it together, I'm like, I know we have something explosive here. But you never know exactly how people will respond to something.

It's the first time I've been involved in a film myself. So I was expecting a big reaction, but not quite to the extent that we got. And across the spectrum, too, because I knew that our audience of the Daily Wire would love the film and appreciate it, but it's, it's gone way beyond that. I mean, I hear from people who tell me that they're, they identify as liberal or they're independent, they're not ideological. They saw the film, they tell everyone to watch it. You know, I hear that all the time from people. Well, that's where I got it from. I got it from a liberal mother. She was one of the first people to tell me about it. And she's concerned about it

because she sees children in her kid's school that are identifying in this way. And she has this fear that it's a social contagion, but she also feels the suppression of that idea. Like that other parents, if she brings it up with them, they're either dismissive or they don't want to talk about it. And she's like, Jesus Christ, it feels like people are under a spell. Yeah, it does feel like that. It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers or something. Exactly. It does.

And the other thing that I hear from people about the movie, probably the number one piece of feedback I get is that they just didn't realize it was this. They didn't realize how bad it was or how pervasive it was. realize it was this they didn't realize how bad it was or how pervasive it was like a lot even even people that I thought were sort of politically engaged on the right I hear the same thing it's like I didn't know that it was this bad I didn't know that it was that had gone to this extent well when Jordan Peterson's first started talking about compelled speech and compelled use of pronouns I remember people thinking like why do you care about this this is like

such a small issue with a marginalized group of people, like let them have their identity and use the pronouns they want. And, you know, this is like, what was it, 2015, 2016. And I remember his warning. And I remember many other people like this is going to spill over. Like this, if you can enforce this on a professor, and if you can enforce compelled speech, because Canada doesn't have the same free speech laws we do in America. Yeah. And if you can like where does it go? How are you compelling it? Well, it means through violence or through police or through the fear of being arrested, the fear of having your job taken away from you. Like this is literally what happens when you use laws to compel people.

Like, you have to have some sort of a punishment if they don't follow through, if they don't follow your orders. And this is what he was worrying about. And I remember at the time being like, I hope he's wrong. Like, I hope it doesn't get that big. But now here we are, seven years later, and he was right. Because there's also a difference between telling people they can't say something, which is what free speech suppression usually is, and that's bad enough. But then telling people that they have to say something, compelling them to actually say something, putting words in their mouth and telling them you have to say this.

them to actually say something, putting words in their mouth and telling them you have to say this. And it's not just, it's not, it's not, you know, pronouns, it's not a small thing because when you, when you use the she for a he, you're not only being forced to say something, but you're being forced to affirm and acquiesce to a claim that you don't agree with. You're being forced to express a belief that's not yours. I mean, it's like it's not much different from, you know, a dictatorship forcing someone to profess belief in a religion. You know, it's like it's forced conversion basically is what it is. And and once you allow that, it doesn't matter. Of course, it's going to start somewhere small. It's just pronouns.

It always starts that way. But but like I said, it's actually not small. Pronouns are, there's a reason why the left makes a big deal out of it. So anytime people on the right say, well, it's not a big deal in response to the left making a big deal about something, well, they wouldn't be making a big deal about it if it wasn't a big deal. The fact that they're choosing this hill to defend should tell you that there's something here worth fighting over. My kid was going to school with a girl who was a they-them she decided she was a they-them and

She demanded that they talk in they-them way Like you had to use when you were referring to her as a plural This girl wore makeup Dressed like a girl just decided that she was a they them and would get angry if you misgendered her and not calling her her a plural yeah and what does that what does that mean so we have enough of a problem getting someone who identifies as a woman to tell us what a woman is but right what's a they yeah what do you what do you like describe to me the feelings of being a they describe you know can you describe that what is? What is that experience like?

And anytime you ask someone to do that, it immediately descends into incoherence. And also, by the way, the actual gender neutral pronoun for an individual is it. It's not they. So it's interesting that, well, nobody wants to be an it because it's dehumanizing. Right. They want to be a they. But yeah, if you're calling yourself non-binary, you have dehumanized yourself because human beings exist in a sex binary, male and female. If you're rejecting that, you are rejecting your human identity. And so you've already dehumanized yourself. You are actually it. If it's true that you are not a male or female, then you are it. We don't know what else to call you. And then maybe more importantly, one of the things that you're doing when you're doing that is you're giving people, especially if you do it to young people, you're giving them an opportunity to be special and to get special treatment without any special act.

They haven't done anything that warrants that unique behavior. Yeah, I think that's a really important point. I think that's actually so much of this and people don't notice it. But a lot of this is just standard narcissism. Yes. Especially you listen to these, you know, why is this so common among celebrities now? All the celebrities have trans kids and they're coming out as non-binary and whatever else. And then you listen to them like Demi Lovato or whoever.

And you listen to them explain why they're them. It's always, well, I just don't identify with these labels. I'm beyond that. I'm above that. It's like these labels were good enough for billions of humans before you, but it's not good enough for you. You can't find yourself there. But all these other billions of human beings, it was fine. They had no problem.

But you're so special that we need to change the rules of the English language for you specifically. It's incredibly egotistical. It's bizarre. It's like if you feel that you're different than everyone else, you're still a female. You're just a different human being who happens to be a female. If you're so unique, go prove it with your actions. Prove it with your work. Prove it out there in the world.

But to demand this very special attention. And that's what we give people. Like if you give people that thing today, they'll tell – there's groups of people that will tell you you're amazing. You're incredible. You're beautiful. You're brave. It gives them positive affirmation for making these decisions. It's also part of what you're describing is personality, right?

So if you're saying, I'm a female, but I don't identify with girly things and I don't like the color pink and whatever. Okay, that's your personality. And it's fine. There are many ways to be a woman. There are many ways to be a man. there are many ways to be a woman. There are many ways to be a man. There's like almost infinite ways of doing it because each man and woman has their own personality, their own perspective of the world. And that's fine. So I think that what I'm expressing is more, the kind of traditional idea is much more expansive because it allows you as a man to just, you know, be, be who you are.

You're still a man, but be who you are. The idea now is that if you're a man, but you have interests or ideas that fall outside of the standard norm, now you lose your manhood. You're actually a woman. So they're actually reinforcing the gender binary while trying to destroy it at the same time, which is interesting. But I think most of what they're trying to describe is actually just personality. And now we have this situation where, you know, you could have a person who has five different genders and six sexual orientations but no personality because their personality has been subsumed by all of these labels.

They've categorized and labeled and everything, and it's really strange. The art exhibit recently where the girls threw soup on the Van Gogh, you know about that story? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. They asked, someone was interviewing them. Oh, Patrick Bet-David was interviewing them and asked them, can I ask what your pronouns are? And she said she was he, she, they. He, she, and they.

So you're masculine, you're feminine, and you're plural. She's all of them. She's everything. She's basically like a Hindu god. It's like, what are you? This is just laziness. At least choose one. It's just pompous nonsense.

It's just, in that particular case, thinking that you're going to fucking cure climate change by throwing soup on a priceless painting and then gluing yourself to a wall. priceless painting and then gluing yourself to a wall. And also, what does it tell you that the person interviewing her knew that she definitely has different pronouns? You just know it comes with the package, which tells you, again, that this is an ideological and political thing. It's not an actual identity. If you were one of those people that thought that there was a literal attack on the foundations of this country to try to destroy it from the youth up what better way to do it than with social media reinforcing all this stuff i mean how many how many tiktok videos have you seen like libs of tiktok is a fucking insane account so many people get so angry at that account. She's not creating anything. She's curating. So she's finding all these videos that absolutely exist. And you're angry that

someone puts these videos that actually exist of people actually saying insane things about recruiting kids and about, you know, teaching kids things in class that makes parents upset, about gender and that all your kids are going to be trans, and all these videos that she's posted. And people are furious calling it this hard right, far right account of hate-mongering account. It's a curated account. She's just finding insane shit that kids are actually being exposed to in mass and and bringing it to people that may not be aware of it which is journalism that's why i

really think lives at tiktok is one of the most important journalists in america right one of the only ones because there's not there aren't many journalists out there that are actually doing their job of finding things people don't know about and alerting them to it because that's what you're supposed to do but i think a lot of it is is uh yeah these are things that people post on their own also when she posts um stuff from a you know children's hospital saying that these are these are the procedures we perform on kids they're just reposting what the hospital said themselves but the point is that it's they don't want us to see it. So the children's hospital, they've got it on their website and they want only the people who have already bought it.

Because if you're going to a children's hospital's website to look up gender affirmation care, quote unquote, then most of the time you've already bought in. And so they want you to see that. TikTok, they look at that as like, it's all the young progressive people and they're okay with them seeing it, but they don't want us outside of those bubbles to see these things. Yeah. And the idea is against it, is that it's misrepresenting, that she's unfairly highlighting these radical people that are not the norm. Says who? Says who? All you're doing is looking at real videos. Like if you look at Project Veritas and you catch Twitter employees talking about how they silence conservatives and they have like some hidden camera. The argument, oh, they caught those people off camera. Like how do you fucking know?

Are you talking to them? Like this is our only window into this. Like to deny that you get a chance to see a doctor saying, we'll get a kid in at 16. It's okay. Well, I thought you only do it at 18. No, we'll do 16. Like they've said that before. So we will accept minors for surgery.

Yeah. Yeah, that's when we, in Nashville, we got Vanderbilt Hospital and they were doing this stuff to kids too. they were doing this stuff to kids too. And I did my own Libs of TikTok routine where I put on Twitter, I had this whole thread outlining what Vanderbilt, all the services they provide. And I was accused of the same thing. Oh, you're taking out of context. Or this is misinformation. It's like, I'm documented. This is what they said. This is on their website. I have the documents. I have the videos. And they said all that. But then the interesting thing is that This is on their website. I have the documents.

I have the videos. And they said all that. But then the interesting thing is that after we reported on it and it was this big deal, Vanderbilt Hospital, after a couple of weeks, sent a letter to our state legislators saying that they're going to put a pause on gender affirmation surgery for minors. Well, if you're pausing it, I thought it wasn't happening. Because if you're pausing it, it means that it was happening. Right. Because, of course, it is happening, especially the – another thing that they do to kind of obfuscate is they say, well, genital surgeries are not happening to minors. And even that isn't true because that is happening.

But that is more rare. What is much more common are double mastectomies on minors. And that is very common. And that's happening in almost every state in the country at exponentially increasing rates. You're taking the body parts away from girls without them understanding, again, what they're actually giving up or what the consequences will be in the future. And especially knowing what we know about the human mind and the development of the human mind, that your your frontal lobes not even fully formed till you're in your 20s to make give these people this even to give them the option to change your life forever irrevocably you're going to give them

a surgery you're going to allow them to have a surgery or force them to have a surgery encourage them to have a surgery that's going to change their life forever you don't allow them to do that with anything you can't even get fucking tattooed you can't get tattooed until you're 18 yeah i mean when i was growing up i remember the job of adults was always to stop us from doing all the incredibly stupid things we always wanted to do especially as you become a teenager you're hormonal you're uh, you're impulsive. And so the jobs of an adult is to be the guiding force to be, uh, to be, you know, to provide insight, to be a source of maturity, but they've just abdicated that completely. I mean, I was Dwayne Wade has a quote unquote trans kid, the NBA player. And, um, and now his, his ex-wife

has come out and said that she, that he thinks that she thinks that he has sort of is encouraging this and has imposed it on his son and so he can profit off of it, which, which seems like a fair theory to me. But anyway, there was an interview he did where he was on a red carpet somewhere and he was being praised by the journalists. Oh, you're so great. Do you have advice for parents out there? And he said that, yeah, your job as a parent is to sit back and see where your kids want to go and go there with them. And I'm thinking, I mean, I have four kids. And if I adopted that strategy as a parent, all of my kids would be dead by the time they're two years old. Like sit back and see where they want to go and just go with them. That's like the opposite of your job as a parent. Your job as a parent is to be, you can listen to what they want,

but then you are going to, you have their desires and their opinions and you're filtering it through your own understanding, your much superior understanding of reality. And then you decide what makes sense for them to do. Yeah. that's a ridiculous notion that you're just supposed to sit back and watch. You're supposed to have wisdom. You're supposed to have a life lived longer and more knowledge, more information, and you do your very best to help them develop and find their own way through life while protecting them from dangers and from things that they don't understand yet. And protecting them from themselves.

Yes. Yes. And, you know, this notion that this is the one time where we're supposed to abandon all these principles when it comes to gender. That's what's so confusing. There's a political push for this that comes from the left. And one of the things that I found when I was going over that prisoner case was that the whole thing about it where they made it optional. It was – I'm going to try to find this fucking article. I know I saved it. But the story about it was that it was something that George Soros was involved with. That wouldn't surprise me. Yeah. I'm going to find it here.

So that person has a website, and you can go to the website, and it's like Justice for Demi. They call themselves Demi now. And it's like justice for Demi. They was the program behind it. Yeah. Gender Self-ID Policy by George Soros Open Society Foundations. So they're the ones who pushed this through in New Jersey. Yeah. So Gender Self-ID is like a policy that they instituted for prisoners, that they had done that in New Jersey just a year before that. And so this was just like, what are i'm a boy okay you get to go to the boys prison if you're a

girl if what are you i'm a i'm a girl you get to go to the girls prison if you're a boy like all you have to do is just say it like yeah which is fucking madness when you're talking about someone who got arrested for fraud has a fake Rolex, three criminal aliases. He would never lie. This is like a literal liar and a murderer. And you're like, well, he wouldn't lie about gender. It's impossible. There's no way someone's scamming the system.

Well, they really have no choice but to institute policies like this. This is the corner they painted themselves into. This is the corner they painted themselves into. Because if they suggest that there's any – you have to offer any proof at all, then that is to acknowledge that there's some sort of reality outside of the individual whim. Even to say that, well, there has to be a letter from – because this used to be the thing. You got to get a letter from two mental health providers who will affirm that this is true about you. Well, they don't even want that because then who's to say, well, why does that person get to say? It's like only I. I'm the only one who gets to determine my own biological identity.

And you end up with policies like that. And not surprising that George Soros is behind it. Well, Oregon is one of the weirder ones because Oregon will allow places to prescribe testosterone to young girls when they're as young as 15 years old without consent from the parents at all. Yeah. There's not another thing that you can get at 15 that's going to change your life like that. Yeah. And that might change because they are changing the ideas of consent that we've all agreed to. We all understand.

We all understand that children cannot consent. Even if they say yes to something, not really consenting because they don't understand what they're doing. They don't have, they don't have a fully formed brain. Especially taking hormones that aren't natural to your body at 15 years old. And you're, and you're,

you're sterilizing the kid. They're not gonna be able to have kids 15 years old. And you're sterilizing the kid. They're not going to be able to have kids in the future. And you can say all you want. Well, we told them that, and they were okay with it. At 15, they were okay with it. I mean, you know, I had started having kids when I was 26. If you had asked me when I was 24, I would have said, no, I don't want any kids. You know, because even when I was 24, I couldn't imagine having a kid.

I couldn't imagine wanting a kid. Now I have four kids. I can't imagine not having kids. I couldn't imagine wanting a kid. Now I have four kids. I can't imagine not having kids. But those are the changes that happen. Even in your mid-20s, people go through changes like that. So the idea that a 15-year-old can just resign from childbearing, and that's supposed to be a meaningful choice, like they know what they're doing, it's total madness.

Now, have you received offers to debate people that have differing opinions on this? Oh, no. No, no. I would love to. I've challenged. I've put the challenge out there. I go around to college campuses. We're on a college campus tour right now screening the film.

And everywhere I go, of course, there's protests and everything. But it's a YAF tour and Young America's for Freedom. And the policy there is if you're in the room for the lecture, we get to the Q&A portion. If you disagree, you move right to the front of the line. But no one, they'll stand outside with signs and they'll scream. And one of the most recent ones I was at, they were tearing pages out of a Bible and eating them. So they will eat the Bible, but they won't come in and like isn't that in the bible that might be in

the bible i don't know maybe the sign of the apocalypse people are eating the bible it might have a kind of an exorcist like a exorcism type of fact i don't know we'll see but what the fuck yeah but they no they don't they don't want to uh They only want to talk to you if you're a conservative, if they think they can roll you. These are the conservatives that are allowed to go on CNN and all the rest of it. They believe that you're going to play the patsy, but if you make it clear that you're not going to play that role,

then they have no interest. Did you see that Jon Stewart very confrontational interview that he had with that woman who was bizarre. Yeah. The whole, the whole episode was, was just, was frustrating to watch because it was total nonsense. He was burning down a whole bunch of straw men with that episode. And then John Oliver did the same thing. And the woman that he was, that was the attorney general of, He was that was the attorney general of, I forget, Arkansas, I think. Yeah. And yeah, he, you know, it's not everyone. What she is doing to protect kids is is great.

I mean, she's a great American for doing that. And she has a lot of political courage. But not everyone is equipped to sit in a room with the cameras going and, you know, defend their position in that kind of environment. And so she got kind of, she did get a little bit rolled during that conversation, which is unfortunate. I would love to sit down and talk to him. Yeah. But he's not going to talk to somebody like me. Well, why, that's the point. Like, that would be a real conversation.

And the way he did it with the straw men and the way he was talking about affirming their health care and affirming their gender. His whole thing with her was just about the medical consensus. And he kept saying, well, all these doctors say that we should be transitioning kids. So who are you to say otherwise? The mistake that she made was to play that game. And then she said, well, but there are other doctors who say that it's not okay. And so now you're playing this credentialism game. Right.

Appeal to authority. Right. And once you do that, first of all, you're going to lose because it is true that the medical industry has largely bought into this. And so you're going to lose that contest. But what you should be pointing out is that, first of all, the people that you're appealing to as authorities are all the people who are making a lot of money off of this. So the only people we should trust about the questions of gender affirmation are the ones who have a financial stake in it. That doesn't make any sense to me.

And then also, I don't care what letters they have next to their name. I don't care if they went to medical school. If they're making claims, we can assess those claims on their merits. We don't have to be credentialed to do that. And I can say that what these doctors are saying just doesn't make any sense. But it is bizarre that so many are saying it. It is bizarre that so many in the community that we have always assumed is protecting

the best interests of personal health and wellness, that these are the people that are saying it so often. Well, there's the money. The money part scares the shit out of me because I don't want to think that that's real. I mean, I want to hold out hope for the better aspects of human nature, that people wouldn't do that and think of children and being able to diffuse responsibility and say, well, this is bigger than me and I'm just part of this and this is what we're doing now. Yeah. You would hope a person individually wouldn't do that, but people definitely will do that. I mean, acting as a group, you know.

And when you've got the twin pressures of – well, you've got twin incentives of the political ideological incentives and the monetary incentive. That's, that's very powerful. And I think that does explain, I mean, there, there are, you know, there are like child endocrinology clinics barely exist anymore because they've all become transgender. They've, they've all, that's, this is what they do now. There are a lot of, there are a lot of people people doctors who got into the medical field and they did a certain thing and then the transgender stuff came along and that's and that's their whole that's what they do well it's the same for a lot of plastic surgeons that this is this is basically their whole business now is doing the gender surgeries um and so you see the incentive for them i mean if they've they have staked everything on this they've also staked their professional reputation because that's

the other problem. Not only is it the political incentive and the money, but if they admit that they're wrong, then they're also admitting that they have horribly disfigured and abused thousands, maybe millions of kids. How many people have had this done? Depends on what, I don't think we have exact numbers, but if we're talking about the drugs, I mean millions.

You're talking about hormone blockers yeah millions of kids have been on hormone blockers really uh i'm sure someone's gonna fact check me on it but my my my guess is that we're in we're into the millions now at this point yeah that would be my guess um uh i i can say for double mastectomies, I read a report recently that there were over a thousand done between 2016 and 2019. And when you compare that to how many were done between 2008 and 2015, it's a massive increase. And over a thousand girls had gender-affirming double mastectomies in that time frame. And when you say girls, you're talking about prepubescent? Right, minors. And that's just up until 2019.

And then we know that there's been this exponential increase with all this stuff year over year. So it's a lot. It's too many. Having this happen to one kid is way too many. It's a lot more than one. Yeah. Look, if you're an adult and you want to do that and you understand who you are and what you are, and this is how you feel you should progress, you're an adult. This is a free country. You should be able to do whatever

you want. But when you're talking about doing that to children, the fact that so many people are on board and so many people are angry, if you have like, people are going to be angry at us that we're having these conversations. Yeah, they will be. And I also, I actually think that this shouldn't be happening to... That's a very small number, if that's right. It says over the last five years, there were at least 4,780 adolescents who started puberty blockers and had a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis. It says it's kind of undercounted, but that's... That would be a big undercounting. Less than 1,000 people a year.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I would guess hundreds of thousands, but I could be wrong. Million sounds great. Yeah. I could be wrong. Yeah. Media Matters will have fun with that clip. Yeah. Matt could be right. Yeah. The media matters will have a fun with that clip.

Matt Walsh claims it does. But part of the problem though is that we don't... It's very hard to get numbers on any of this stuff. And who are you going to trust when they're telling you the numbers? So that's one of the issues with all this stuff. Does this have to be reported? Is there a database where they're looking at long-term results of how this works out? I mean, are they studying this now in terms of following these kids?

Because if we don't have long-term data on what happens when you give young children puberty blockers or double mastectomies, I mean, are there at least following up on these kids so we can have long-term data in the future? I think each clinic has their own policy. I've asked this question of some of the detransitioners who went through this and then detrans and what was the follow-up process like? And I've heard different things, but it's not extensive. I haven't heard that they're following up five years later just to see how you're doing kind of thing. I certainly haven't heard that. And the one thing that I always hear is that if they have complications, it's very difficult for them to get those complications addressed because the doctors that did this to them aren't interested in dealing with it. And then there are other doctors, too, who don't know how to deal with some of this stuff.

What kind of complications are they experiencing? Well, it depends on what we're talking about. I mean, you know, if we're talking about genital surgeries, the complications are just endless. I mean, you're trying to create false genitals on someone. false genitals on someone. It's just, it's, it is a, in fact, one of the, we talked to Marcy Bowers, who's a sex change surgeon in the film.

And he said, I think he said it's a, it's a Faustian bargain. Like he even admitted that this stuff, he says it's more, it's more sophisticated now than it was, but there are a lot of complications. And all this stuff is experimental. It's not like you have centuries of data to fall back on here. And another thing that's interesting, as I've been paying attention to this, is the experience of the detransitioners when they go public with it. The amount of hate they experience and that they get attacked. and that they get attacked. It's like you're talking about someone who should be an example,

a cautionary tale of like, hey, this doesn't always work out well. Let's look at this and get an accurate... If you were looking at this in good faith, that you would say, let's look at this and get an accurate assessment of like, what's the worst case scenario? What happens to some people? But that's not what's happening. They're getting attacked. I mean, what happens to some people. But that's not what's happening. They're getting attacked. I mean, I've paid attention to some of it, particularly some of these girls that transitioned to boys and then tried to go back to being a girl again.

It's horrific. Yeah, I mean, we did a rally on this a couple weeks ago in Nashville against child mutilation, and we had a detransitioner named Chloe Cole who came in and spoke. She's 18 years old and she got double mastectomy when she was, uh, I believe 16. Um, and she's up, she spoke at our rally and she's up, uh, on, on the, you know, at the microphone telling her story. And that's all she was doing was trying to, she was there to tell her story. I wanted her there to tell her story and she's getting screamed at by counter protesters in the crowd saying, F you fascist.

Fascist? Yeah, F you fascist to an 18-year-old girl who is a victim of medical negligence and worse. But this is the response that they get. Because they also see it's like you're a traitor to the community or whatever. Because they also see it's like you're a traitor to the community or whatever. So they get what someone like, you know, they'll get what I get, which is just you're speaking out against this and we hate you. But then it's ramped up even more because there's this element of perceived betrayal. What a bizarre definition of fascism.

Call her a fascist because she's talking about medical malpractice and getting her breasts removed when she was 16 years old before she knew what the fuck was going on talking about this horrible experience that she's had and yeah and you decide that that makes you fascist yeah i mean fascism the word is way overused but if it if it means anything i would think use using intimidation tactics to stop someone from speaking if fascism means anything these days then that that certainly has to qualify so i would call that fascism maybe you're days then that that certainly has to qualify so i would call that fascism maybe you're literally in this case it was like you're in the crowd trying to drown out her voice by by screaming at her uh you know i don't i don't use the fascism label because i think it's silly how often it's used but i would if we're gonna call if we're gonna call something fascist i would call that a fascist response it's certainly more fascist, I would call that a fascist response. It's certainly more fascist than her.

It's bizarre to me that no one is standing up to try to counter your claims and wanting to go public and wanting to have some sort of a public debate. Because I would imagine that something that's so ideologically rigid in people's minds that someone would at least have the ego to step up and say, I can counter these arguments and I could be the person to publicly shame this person and, and have a debate with them and trounce them with facts and reality and opinions and describe the shared experiences of these people that have gone through this and it's greatly enhanced their lives, but no one's doing that. Yeah. I mean, there have been, uh, right uh right they they might post something on twitter or they'll they'll say something in their own bubble but to me directly they're not going to do it i mean even even uh just getting media outlets to review the film i i thought put this film out i knew it was

going to be panned in in corporate, but I figured... Was it? Well, no, because they just ignored it. They just pretended it exists. I mean, if you go to Rotten Tomatoes right now, I think we have something like, I don't know, five reviews or something. We've got thousands and thousands of audience reviews, but we've got, I think, five reviews,

and none of them are from the major media outlets either. So they're just ignoring it. But I don't think... They't, they don't want to set it. They don't want, they don't want to sit down in an uncontrolled environment and, uh, and, and talk to you because I think again, that they know at some level that what they're saying doesn't make any sense. And they also know that they know they can't answer the question. You know, I've, I've staked everything on this. What is a woman question? And if one of them could come along and coherently answer it, then that would just, that would blow me out of the water.

I mean, that's, everything's done then. Yeah. And they've had all this time to come up with it, with an answer and none of them have gone with it. So they know they're not going to sit down because they know that it's, that's going to be a big part of the conversation. Like if you, you got it,

we got to start by you defining your terms. And if you can't do that, then I don't know how to talk to you if we can't define the terms. Well, they always want to dismiss you as some far right talking point person. That's the first way they do it. And to ignore your film seems to me to you're ignoring an opportunity to take something apart that you disagree with.

Like, why would they do that? They do that with everything else. It's one of the more unique things is that They feel like things are moving in the right direction. It's almost like strategically, it would be detrimental to engage with you because they must understand that a lot of these belief systems that they've adhered to, they're cult-like. It's ideological. It doesn't make sense. It's not grounded in reality. It's also, there are inherent dangers to doing this to children

that are very difficult to ignore and that parents are going to resonate with, like, instantaneously when they think about their children and how vulnerable children are and how malleable they are and how susceptible they are to cultural trends. And the fact that they won't engage with

you on this it really speaks volumes yeah i mean it does i think they also realize that um and we call it ideological and political i think it's it's also it's it's a really a spiritual it's like a religious claim i mean that this is a gender ideology is a religion i think um it behaves in every way like a religion and And it's actually interesting. It's kind of revealing that one thing you hear from the proponents is this claim that actually there are analogs for transgenderism all across the world and other cultures and throughout history. That's what they always say. We tested this in the film. We went outside of the Western culture bubble.

We went all the way to Africa to talk to a traditional tribe there about this stuff and um and they were just they were their minds were blown by in a bad way um they had never encountered ideas like this before because of course these you know the gender binary is not a western construct the rejection of the gender binaries is a western construct but uh going back to you know when they point to what are supposed to be analogs or other examples of this kind of thing in other cultures, sometimes they're just making it up. But then there are times when, you know, there might be a culture that has some notion of like, you know, maybe a man acting out the part of a woman or something like that. That happens in other cultures. Cross-dressing, yeah, that exists in other cultures. But the difference is, number one, in those cultures, they don't think that the man actually is a woman. They don't believe in pregnant men in those cultures. They know that he's acting out something. That's the point.

thing. They talk about, in fact, they include it now in the LGBT acronym is Two Spirit, which is supposed to be the Native American version of transgenderism. Yes. And that was invented in 1990 by gay activists. So it's not like this goes all the way back to the Comanches on the Great Plains. But even that, think about the Two Spirit. It's spiritual. That's a religious thing um which is really what they're doing here this is that's what the two is yeah two s two spirit yeah so in the lb g t i a two two plus yeah two s that's what it's got the acronym that's what two is it's two spirit two spirit yeah that's a new one how long is that going to get? I mean, there's no limit.

And also because the identities are becoming redundant. Right. Like gay and queer. Yeah. I mean, demisexual is one of the newer ones, I think. Is that in there? I don't know if it's in there. I mean, it's a thing, demisexual.

It should be. What are they, bigots? Put it in there. Yeah. But what is... You know what, Demi... I looked it up once demisexual is um a a person who needs to be emotionally like attached to someone or needs to emotionally connect to someone in order to be sexually attracted to them and you hear that

and you're like well that's so that's women that's what a woman that's like every woman um and then there's and then there's also it there's also, it's ridiculous. I don't remember the label, but there's the opposite of that too. There are the people that don't need the emotional attachment, but they still have sexual erotic feelings. I was under the impression that in Native American populations that that two-spirit thing was, that was a historical thing. that that two-spirit thing was, that was a historical thing, that they had always had members of their tribe that they valued that seemed to have the perspective of both a female and a male, and that they could make sense of things.

The term two-spirit was coined, I believe, in 1990. What they'll claim is that, yeah, the term might have been coined in 1990, but it speaks to something that existed before. But even if that's true, my point is that, number one, you are talking about something spiritual, okay, which is not what the gender ideologues are claiming here. They're claiming something. They're not saying it's spiritual. They're saying it's physical. Like a trans woman is a woman.

Like a man who says he's a woman actually really is one not just spiritually as one but is one that's the difference in the way it's being approached today and it's a really significant difference now if we if we want to if they want to just admit that they're making a spiritual claim and what they're claiming is that i don't know a man can end up with a woman the soul of a woman or something like that um that would be progress at least because now we're now we are framing this conversation correctly i still think it's an incoherent claim but i mean how can a man have the soul of a woman um sort of by definition a man's if a man has a soul then it's a man's soul by definition it's like how you define the soul of a man but yeah i guess

that's a tricky one because what's you know prove a soul right but that's but that's my point at least if they if they would just admit that this is a what we're trying to point to is something some kind of spiritual essence um then we can have that conversation and i still disagree but you know at least you're admitting that this isn't that there's nothing there's nothing physical here. What is the longest conversation you had when you were filming this documentary? What is the longest sit down you had with some of these people? Somebody on the...

Yeah. Probably Marcy Bowers, the sex change surgeon. Talked to him, who identifies as a her, for, I don't remember the exact amount, but I think it was over an hour. She seemed very confident when she was talking about these things. Yeah. Most of the people we talked to on that side were really closed off and didn't want to open up and say anything. That was not the case with Marcy Bowers. really closed off and didn't want to open up and say anything that was not the case with with uh marcy bowers although there's an interesting there's an interesting thing that made it into

the film there where i brought up um uh transabled people which is a real phenomenon people who feel like you know they have two someone who has two arms feels like you should have one arm yeah um should we take that self-identity seriously and what i I was told by Marcy Bowers is, no, that's kooky, exact words. But then the WPATH, which is the world, which is supposed to be the preeminent transgender health organization in the world, they had their conference, I think it was in Canada a few weeks ago. And they had a guy presenting something in the conference saying that actually this kind of body dysmorphia is now a valid gender identity. A eunuch, someone who's a eunuch who wants to amputate their male genitals and yet does not identify as female, just wants to amputate them. They identify as that way,

that now that's a valid gender identity. So I was told a few months before that, that that's kooky. And then fast forward a few months, WPATH is saying, well, that's a valid gender identity. That's what's interesting about the social contagion aspect of it is that it does seem to spread and change and morph depending on what people accept and what people are willing to agree to. And then once people do agree to that, that a eunuch is a valid sexual identity, well, that'll become doctrine. Yeah. Yeah. And because it makes sense too, because if what we're being told is that you cannot disagree with someone's self-identity,

then there's no floor there. I mean, then whatever someone claims about themselves, we have to affirm it. That includes trans species, transracial, all that kind of stuff. And that's not even, I don't even think of that as slippery slope. Something like transracialism, that's not further down on the slope.

That's actually less crazy than transgenderism. Yeah, because all human beings evolved from Africa. It is less crazy. I mean, the reason why there's differs, than transgenderism. Yeah, because all human beings evolved from Africa. Yeah. It is less crazy. I mean, the reason why there's differs, the differences in the way human beings look and the way we evolved is because we spread to different climates in the world and the human body adapted to those climates.

It's the reason why people are so pale in the place where there's no fucking sun. I mean, this is all biology. They understand this. It's more logical to be transracial. And race actually is fluid. Like, you can be multiple races. Yeah.

But we kind of skipped that, and we just went right to the transgender thing. Yeah. And most people that support transgenderism will say that Rachel Dolezal, they'll say, oh, she doesn't count as black. So they kind of skipped over it. Yeah. I think eventually we'll sort of circle back and hit all those bases we skipped. You think so? You think transracialism will be accepted?

It has to be. Did you see that TikToker who identifies as Korean? So they got their eyes done. Yeah, Ali something, I think. Yeah. But even, yeah, again, I mean, that's, it makes more sense to me to be trans. It doesn't make sense, but it makes more sense.

Yeah. Do you ever sit back, I mean, you're probably as deeply invested into this after doing that film as anybody in terms of like the amount of time and effort that you've put into this subject. Do you ever sit back and wonder where this goes? If this continues to accelerate, because it seems like something that's accelerating, is it just a pendulum swing where it's going to go so far one way that people are going to reject it and it's going to swing back

the other way? where does this go? Yeah, I do think about that a lot and I really don't know. I think the stuff with the kids, I think what's happening to kids, I do think there's a building backlash to that and I see the dam breaking there. I think people are just rejecting it. And so that's an area, that's a part of the fight that I think we can actually win and relatively soon. I think we are winning it because people intuitively, they see that and most people, you don't have to explain to them why it's wrong to transition kids. All you have to do is tell them that it's happening. And once they're, because most people don't know that it's

happening. And then once they're aware that it's happening, they're like, oh yeah, that's crazy. We can't do that. No matter where they fall in the political spectrum. Have you thought about putting together like a comprehensive group of interviews of detransitioners and making a documentary on that? I don't know about a documentary, but we are, we actually are working on something like that right now. Talking, talking to detransitioners and. That's the fallout from all this. That's the horrible loss is these people that made these decisions when they were kids, whether they were urged to or influenced to or whatever. And now they're stuck and all of their stories. And I've, I've talked to a bunch of them and, and, uh, you know, there are other interviews that are out

there telling their stories. The stories are just, are so infuriating and tragic what's happened to these these kids. And now they're stuck. It's like the adult version of themselves is stuck in this prison that that was stuck with choices that the child version made. But really, the child version didn't make those choices because children can't make choices like that. The choices that were imposed on them. And that's the kind of thing that, yeah, when people hear those stories, I think most Americans, no matter where they fall on the spectrum, they hear that and they immediately viscerally react a certain way. So I think that we could see a backlash because when it comes to gender ideology in general,

I think it's a much longer fight. That's a generational battle. How much coverage has this gotten, or how many views do we know? How many people have seen that documentary? Not exactly, because what I can say, so The Daily Wire, when the film came out, we got 300,000 subscribers from the film.

People that wanted to watch the film, 300,000 subscribers in a couple of weeks. Prior to that, the Daily Wire over five years had gotten 600,000 subscribers. So we increased it by 50% in just a couple of weeks. In terms of how many total people have been exposed to the film, it's, it's hard to tabulate because we've got all the people in Delaware platform and they're all the clips that are circulating all over, especially on Tik TOK. Apparently it's a big thing on Tik TOK. I'm not on there, but,

um, and then, and I wasn't supposed to mention it on air, but then also there's like these bootleg copies people have, you know, which you shouldn't watch, but they're uploaded to other platforms. So it's,

it's, the point is, it's just like, it's just a presence's just a presence it's out there and and uh millions i would say i mean i predicted millions before and i was wrong so i in this case definitely millions um and for you when you had a sense of what this problem was before you made the documentary, is it worse than you thought it was? Like, what is it like for you as a person, as a parent, going over this material and investing so much time into it and then having a newfound sense of what this problem really is? Yeah, it was – filming it was, you know, we would go, I can remember we went to California and we went to San Francisco or walking around San Francisco. That's where we talked to the sex change surgeon, Mark Takano, um, and, uh, talking to people on the street. And yeah,

it was, it was very emotionally, it just sitting across the room with people like this and they're, and they're saying all this stuff. It's very, it's, it's emotionally, uh, draining. And, but then coming home and seeing my own kids and knowing that all of this is like waiting for them out in the world and they're younger, they haven't been exposed to it yet. Thank God. Um, but it's, it's, it's there, you know, there are these forces out there that want to take their innocence, take their, again, their, these forces out there that want to take their innocence, take their, again, their, their, their knowledge of themselves away from them. And it's, yeah, it does fill you with a lot of trepidation. I mean, parents, especially parents of younger kids are just terrified. I talk to parents all the time that are terrified of this. They're terrified of the day when their daughter

comes home and says, I'm a boy, you know, um, like it's happened to so many other parents. They, they live in fear of it. Do you take any hope in the response to this film? Cause the response has been from the people that I've seen that I've talked to, and obviously it's a bias group, has been overwhelmingly concerned that at least you've sort of sounded the alarm and let a lot of people know that aren't on TikTok, that aren't paying attention to social media, but then some parent at a volleyball game pulls them aside and say, there's something you should watch. Yeah. I do feel encouraged by that. I find some hope in it. And even, like I said, going to college campuses and yeah, there's the protests, but also we've got these huge rooms of kids that are coming. They want to watch the movie. of objective biological reality. We're not as alone and outnumbered as we think we are. I don't think we're outnumbered at all, in fact. The problem that we face is that the institutions are against us. So we might have the numbers, but we don't have the institutions. The medical field,

the academia, the school system, government, they've all been captured. So that's the big challenge that we face, I think. I do agree that you're not outnumbered. And I think that the numbers overwhelmingly are concerned. The numbers of parents, the number of people that are rational are overwhelmingly concerned. It's just so strange to me that the media, especially left wing media, seems overwhelmingly to be in support of this minority position. Yeah, and because they're all, they exist in their bubble. They're all far left. And these bubbles are very real and powerful.

That's the other thing that really jumped out at me making the film, is that you go into these areas. I think it's one of the reasons why some of these people were willing to sit down with us to begin with is that they, they live in this bubble where nobody would ever challenge these ideas. Everyone is bought in and they can't even imagine that anybody would disagree. Um, and that's, and that's our, our media, you know, they're all Los Angeles, California, whatever that's Hollywood media, um, New York, right. DC. So they, they, they live in these, in these bubbles and they just can't, they've insulated themselves from, from criticism. Have you talked to anybody that had one opinion of it and then saw your film and it changed their

mind? Yeah, I've, I've heard, I've heard that a lot. I mean, I haven't, I haven't specifically heard from someone who is like far left, purple hair hair and then, you know, they had a awakening moment from the film. I hope that that happens and it has happened. I haven't heard that, but, um, it's, it's more, it's more, I've heard from a lot of people who didn't believe or weren't willing to accept that this was a big problem and now understand otherwise. And then, yeah, some people who identify more on the left and were sort of okay with it and weren't very comfortable with it, but they were okay with it and they thought that, well, let's just be polite and go

along with it. Then they see the film and they hear us talking about it and they see that this is not something that they can countenance. Where does this go, Matt? Where does this go? Yeah. Who would have ever thought we'd be here?

Yeah. So where does this go? It's hard because, like I said, it seems as though we've already seen the craziest manifestation of this. So I do think that we move on to, you know, this, this destruction of reality will continue and it will get into other forms of identity. And so transracialism, even trans species and all that kind of stuff. Um, so I, I think that that will happen. Um, and what I'm worried about is for the, for, you know, my kids' generation, Gen Z, like fast forward 20 or 30 years, what does it look like for them? What does that generation look like? What's the suicide rate among Gen Z and the youngest generation in 20 or 30 years?

After they've all, you know, so many of them have bought into this and maybe they've gotten the drugs, the surgeries, and then 20 or 30 years hence. And what's that? I think we're looking at just the suicide rate already is sky high. I think we're looking at a historic, unfathomable epidemic in the future. Do you think that litigation, do you think that people suing people for having done this to them when they were younger do you think that in any way would try to right this ship i don't think it writes it but i do think that needs and there needs to be legislation that opens up that possibility because as it stands right now people that are the victims of this they don't really have any legal recourse they don't um i don't think so this is what i've heard they've it's

essentially they don't one of the reasons is what I've heard. Essentially, they don't. One of the reasons is that, yeah, the doctors perform these procedures, but the procedures are illegal to do. And it is ethically and morally, it's medical malpractice, but it's not legally medical malpractice because they're allowed to do this to kids. But they're not allowed to do it to minors, right? Are they allowed to do it to minors? Well, it depends on what we're talking about. The drugs, they're certainly allowed to. Double mastectomies, they're not allowed to do it to minors, right? Are they allowed to do it to minors? Well, it depends on what we're talking about. The drugs, they're certainly allowed to. Double mastectomies, they're allowed to. And then- Genital surgery? Genital surgeries. It depends on the state and where you are, but there are definitely states

where these genital surgeries are happening to minors. Absolutely. They're not as common as the drugs and the double mastectomies, but they are certainly happening. So if it shouldn't be legal, but it is, doctor does this to you, then what's your legal recourse down the line? That's the problem. That's why the laws need to change, to give people that recourse, to protect kids right now,

but then also to give them legal recourse down the line. When you make a film like this, how much does this affect your daily life? I mean, obviously you got engrossed in the subject. How much does this affect your daily life? How much does this affect the way you view the world? And as a parent, looking at the future and hope for the future. Because it seems like this is just one aspect of a deterioration of our society yeah that's prevalent yeah it yeah it's I don't want to say despairing I you don't want to be

despairing because despairing is you've given up hope right and then what's the point I was the point of even talking about it at that point? So I'm not despairing, but it sometimes I feel close to the edge of that, I suppose. And it has been, it's on one hand, I feel like there's not a lot of hope for the future. But then at the same time, we put the film out, and it gets the kind of response that it does. And I do see this building backlash against at least what's happening to kids. So I think what I mentioned before is kind of it. That's the tension is that we do have the numbers, and so there's the hope in that. But the institutions that run the country are so completely captured

that to claim those institutions back, that's the generational project. Yeah. Like when you saw Biden get interviewed by that trans TikTok star, like imagine of all the people he chose to be interviewed by. Yeah. Like what bizarre narrative are they trying to push where they promoted the president getting interviewed by this super bizarre TikTok star that talks about being a woman for 260 days? I've been a woman for 260 days. Like, God bless you. Yeah. And meanwhile, Biden doesn't believe any of this stuff.

I mean, you know, he's 80 years old. He lived the first 70 years of his life and nobody was questioning whether men are men or women are women. Like for the first 70 years of his life, men use the men's restroom and men were men and women are women. And then I'm supposed to believe that at the age of 70, he had this awakening moment and realized that everything he thought he knew about biological sex is wrong. I just, I don't, I don't believe it.

I would love if somebody would ask him that. It just highlights the mercenary nature of politicians. I would love for someone to ask him, Mr. President, you decided relatively recently in your life that women have penises. What made you decide that? How did you have this conversion experience? Like what was your road to Damascus moment when you realized realized that women have penises that would be a hilarious clip that i would watch him stammer through that yeah i would love for someone to ask that question but

they're not going to ask it and then yeah dylan mulvaney's in the white house and and this is this is how this is how infuriating it must be for to be a woman is that um dylan mulvaney is a dude and then decides one day i'm gonna become a man and 45 seconds later he's got corporate sponsorships you know he's got brands lining up to do commercials with him he's speaking at women's summits and he's speaking to the president united states in the white house uh and meanwhile there are all these women who are actual women they've been women forever and they're sitting there like well if you want a woman to talk to you like i'm here dave chappelle is a great joke about caitlin jenner becoming

woman of the year yeah you know have you seen that bit yeah yeah right and m&m and 15 seconds late right yeah it's well look at this like this rachel levine thing like this is the first four-star admiral that's a woman and they even said female female four-star admiral that's a woman. And they even said female, female four-star admiral. Like what? You're not even saying woman anymore. Now you're using biological terms. Yeah, that's the sleight of hand trick that they pulled that not enough people have noticed. Because for so long they said, well, sex and gender are two different things.

You know, sex is your biological nature, and then gender is your whatever, your feeling, your perception of yourself. But now they, recently, they've started using the terms interchangeably. And yeah, Rachel Levine is a female. So they have, after spending decades saying, don't conflate sex and gender, that's exactly what they're doing now.

They've made the terms interchangeable, which is why we should just get rid of the term gender entirely. We don't need it. All you need is sex, and female gender you know words that comes from language like words have gender you know yeah people don't we don't need that because we already have sex to describe ourselves i think it's fascinating to the wholesale rejection of this in the latino community like especially that term latinx like they're like, no, like

the entire language is formulated on female and male like that, that like A's and O's like it's, it's been there forever. Yeah. This is white liberals who are trying to colonize. They accuse the other, you know, they, they're always using the word colonization, calling, calling us colonizers, but this is actual colonization of language that they're attempting by going to Spanish speaking people and say, you have to completely fundamentally alter your entire language because I don't like it. And I'm not, I don't even speak Spanish. I don't like it. You

have to change it. Of course they're going to reject it. But again, that's when you get outside of the white liberal Western bubble, you don't have to go that far outside of it. But once you do, you find that these are people who just don't they don't they don't have these fundamental presuppositions that we have here. So for them, it just doesn't make any it doesn't make any sense. For us, we've grown up with a lot of these ideas, like the idea that sex and gender are two different things. Like we've all, maybe we weren't very aware of it, but it was just kind of floating, you know,

out there, these ideas and we've absorbed them, whether we know it or not. And so there are claims that the gender ideologues make that don't make any sense. But if you, but, but,

but at first to a lot of people, it seems like they do. It just seems like intuitively it makes sense because they've grown up in this culture where these ideas are out there, but you go to cultures where these ideas don't exist at all. And you start talking about this. It just seems like intuitively it makes sense because they've grown up in this culture where these ideas are out there. But you go to cultures where these ideas don't exist at all. And you start talking about this. It just, it reveals the total absurdity of it. It's just, it's absolute nonsense. How did you get involved in being a social commentator? Like what was your path? You started off in radio? Yeah, I was a just small market, um, radio for, I don't know, eight years or so.

And then I just started blogging. I started a website, a blog, and I was just writing my random thoughts on anything. And I managed to gather a following relatively quickly. And this was back when, you know, on social media, it was, it was like the wild west days and you could, you could actually access, you build a following, you could actually access your whole following and, uh, and you could basically say whatever you want. You weren't going to get kicked off.

So I was able to build, take advantage of that. And, uh, but then once I saw them closing all of that off and you build your Facebook following, but you can, and you post something and you can only, they'll only show it to like 0.1% of your followers or whatever. At that point, it became clear that I need to, you know, to do this independently is, is not feasible. So I went over and worked for the blaze, which is Glenn Beck's outfit for a few years and then ended up with the daily wire. Did you have any inkling of where this was? I mean, initially when you were first on social media, everybody sort of assumed that you're going to have these competing ideologies. You're going to have people on the right and people on the left and they're going to have disputes and they're going to mock each other and memes.

And it was seen seemingly, you know, how it was for a while until it seemed like Donald Trump. how it was for a while until it seemed like Donald Trump. When Donald Trump came along, then people realized like, hey, this is a real problem. You know, these ideologies can actually promote a president and this guy can get into office. We're opposed to him. We have to do everything we can to stop this from happening. And one of the ways to stop it from happening is to sort of marginalize or silence right-wing voices online. Mm-hmm. silence right-wing voices online. But what that does is hardens people to this notion

that there is a conspiracy against them and that there is censorship and that there is an ideology that's overwhelmingly supported by the media that a large percentage of the population is opposed to. And that rational, reasonable discourse amongst people with differing ideas is discouraged, which is fucking dangerous. It's not good for understanding what ideas are good and what ideas are invalid. And seeing them all argued and fleshed out and having debates

has always been the way we can discern and discern what's right and what's not, what's correct, what resonates with me, what makes sense, who makes a more valid, logical argument. That's one of the more disturbing aspects of controlled tech, of tech being censored. And one of the reasons why I have great hope in Elon Musk taking over Twitter, because I think Elon has famously stated that he's a free speech absolutist. And he believes that people should be able to have differing opinions, speak civilly about these differing opinions and do it in an open forum.

Yeah. Yeah. I think you're right that Donald Trump was a turning point because that's that was something that from the perspective of the powerful elites, that's just not – that's not supposed to happen. He's not supposed to become president. And that was allowed to happen and he used social media largely to do it, bypassing traditional media and just going right to people on – to the people essentially. And they said, well, we can't allow this to happen anymore. So then they decided to shut it down. I also think that they realized that you can try to control people by telling them what they can and can't do, punishing them if they do what they're not supposed to do, what you told them they can't do.

You can control people that way, which is what, of course, they do that. But then what's a more effective strategy is to control what people believe. Like if you can get inside their heads and control what they think, then you don't need all the laws that tell them what not to do because you already own them. So you can control their behavior that way. And that's what a lot of this stuff is with let's police misinformation or disinformation. We live in the information age. We're all exposed every day to more information than probably the average person in 1800 was in a lifetime. And this is the world we live in. So if you can control that, control the information, control people are exposed to, manipulate what they think and what their beliefs are,

then that's much more powerful than simply passing laws and telling you what you can and what their beliefs are, then you, you know, that's, that's much more powerful than simply like passing laws and telling you what, what you can and can't do. Yeah. And that's why I think it's so important to have a neutral platform like Twitter, as opposed to all these other platforms that have emerged that have emerged in response, they've emerged in response to the, the censorship of right-wing voices, because the problem is those become ideological bubbles for the right. Yeah. And even in those places, like I've heard on Truth Media, if you say disparaging things about January 6th

or say disparaging things about whether or not the vote was stolen, that you'll be censored, which is like, Jesus Christ, this is absolutely the wrong approach to this. Now you're going to encourage even more right wing ideological thought bubble stereotype behavior. And you're not going to get the real logical debate, which is what's important. Yeah. Because there's a lot of people that, you know, this idea that there's people on the right and people on the left and that's it. That's nonsense. Many of these people share very similar ideas and very similar hopes for society and culture. And I

think far more people are probably in the middle. They just, they see something that's abhorrent on the left and they go, I can't support Antifa. Or they see something that's horrible on the right, well, I can't support these people. And they have to find a team that they join. And you feel like this team is the good team, and they're going to lead the country in the right direction. And that team is fascist or racist or whatever it is. And if you're connected to that team, you have to buy wholesale all the other shit that's a part of that team.

The only thing that's going to solve that is open debate and communication where people get to really evolve their own ideas and see these ideas discussed. Yeah, I think most people are not very ideological in general. And that's one of the mistakes that Democrats have made going into the midterms is they don't understand that about people. And so they've made protecting, you know, they've made protecting, quote unquote, abortion rights, one of their fundamental, like one of their central pieces of their campaign platform. But most people just don't care that much about abortion. From most people's perspective, it's an ideological issue. They don't care that much about it.

And the assumption was, oh, Roe v. Wade's's overturned it's going to mobilize voters to come out for democrats and it just hasn't because most people see that and they kind of shrug their shoulders and i say that as someone who i do care about abortion i think people should care about it i care about it as a pro-lifer but i also recognize as a pro-lifer especially in the pre you know during the roe v wade days um this was one of the this is one of the uh one of the obstacles that we encountered was just like getting people to even care about this to begin with. And now the left is experiencing the same problem.

And they, you know, they, it's just because most people, what are the issues that they're, they, they wake up in the morning thinking about, they think about,

you know, can they, they have enough money to put gas in the car. Do they think about their kids? They think about their family. Like these are the things I think, but they don't wake up thinking about abortion rights or January 6th or anything like that or climate change. I think most of the people that are concerned

about the future, they're concerned about the economy and they're concerned about the environment. And that's one of the reasons why environmental fear-mongering has taken this front and center stage with the left because they want it to be the thing that people think about the most and that this is, you're thinking about the future of the world and if you vote right, you're damning our country to destruction beyond our imagination. The oceans are going to boil and we're all fucked. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they think about those things. They also think about, they think about their kids, you know, and maybe this doesn't come through in some of the polls that people take. And when you poll voters and say,

what are the issues that you care most about? It's economy is always number one. And that probably is true. But people don't think of their kids as a political issue, even though the left has turned it into that. But that's why this push to indoctrinate kids into gender ideology, take away parental rights, the grooming of kids that goes on in the school system, the drag queen story, all that kind of stuff, that does mobilize voters. Even if they don't say it in a poll, it mobilizes voters because you're going after their kids. This is what they care about most in the world. Yeah, I think that mobilizes people too.

Now, from you starting out initially writing this blog and developing a social media following, how have your thoughts and your view of the world how how has it evolved and changed well i've probably become more i've probably become more right wing as this time has gone on um how did you start out well i i always have been i mean i know i can't say that i was like a liberal who had had an awakening moment or something like that um but uh who had had an awakening moment or something like that. But every year I see the kind of cultural decay get worse and worse and reach into other areas of life. And then I had kids myself. And when I see people going after kids, trying to take innocence away from kids,

it just, I guess the phrase is radicalized. I've become more and more radicalized as the years have gone on. And the left, they complain about people being radicalized. Well, it's you're doing it. That's your fault. It's just like with the Paul Pelosi thing and the media was hand-wringing

about all the conspiracy theories. Well, the so-called conspiracy theories, that's your fault because people don't trust what you're saying. They don't trust you. Right. Well, they blamed it immediately on MAGA supporters. Right. That was the first thing. When it turns out this guy lives in this weird sort of household filled with free thinkers and BLM flags and pride flags.

He lived in a bus outside of a hippie commune with the BLM flags. And he was previously a nudist activist guy. But then they say he got into QAnon and all this kind of stuff. I don't even know if that's true or not. But what I do know is this is just a crazy homeless guy. This is a crazy homeless guy. And he's in San Francisco. So this is a crazy, and he's in San Francisco. So this is a crazy,

violent homeless guy in San Francisco. You cannot blame Republicans for crime committed in San Francisco. It just doesn't make any sense. It's the chickens come home to roost. Right. I mean, attacking a politician is supported, or at least the home of a politician, who supported the very ideas that have enforced that shit yeah yeah a politician who has supported to my view the um destruction of law and order it has has now been forced to confront some of the consequences of that that's that's that's really the story there do you smoke cigars matt uh i do yeah. Want one? Sure. Let's go. Let me grab one. Seems like we need one. So the beginning of your career, when you first started doing this, were you more moderate?

You seem like you're in your 40s. How old are you? Wow. I'm 36. Are you like how old you seem like you're about when you're 40s how old are you wow i'm 36 are you well you seem mature 36 is young so that's you you grew up conservative were your fan was your family conservative yeah i i uh i grew up uh i have five brothers and sisters i grew up in a a Catholic house, still Catholic. And I went to public school. So I don't send my kids to public school largely because I went there myself. But I went in a kind of a liberal area. And we were always encouraged as kids to, and the situation wasn't nearly as bad then as it is now in public schools, but it was still – public school system was very hostile to people with conservative values. And so we were encouraged by my parents to stand up for our values. We were always told that, like, if you get in trouble in school because you're standing up for yourself, you're not going to be in trouble at home. If you're just causing trouble to cause trouble, you will be in trouble. But if you hear the teacher say something that isn't correct or that is, you know, like propaganda and you raise your hand and disagree with it, then we were encouraged to do that from a young age. So was it unusual for you to go into like political commentary? Was that something that was a natural course of progression for you

yeah it felt it felt like a the right thing to do i also don't i don't have any other skills so i don't know what else i'm supposed to do i think that's a lot of pundits it's like we we end up there partly because uh what else are we going to do with our lives? Did you have any idea, though, at any point in time, the amount of reach that you would eventually have? Is this beyond your imagination? I mean, you're a very popular online right-wing commentator. I suppose it was. I mean, I think the film, that's one of the effects of the film. I've noticed a change just in my own life just since the film came out.

How so? And I think some of that is like when you're in the conservative media space, it's important, I think, because that's where I am. And you have access to a lot of people. But if you kind of stay in there, that's its own bubble. So what is a woman was something that was able to kind of reach outside of that. And so I've certainly noticed that. And so when you first started doing social commentary, like what, what, what were the issues that were concerning you? I've always been a life, life, marriage, and family guy.

That's always what I've, what I've cared about. The pro-life thing. Pro-life, um, marriage and, and the gender thing. I mean, I, I, you know, for at least seven or eight years now, I've been on that. I've been on that for almost as long as I've been doing this on any kind of national level. And what was your initial pull to that? Like, what drew you into that? To the gender stuff?

Yeah. It was the Bruce Jenner moment. And again, it wasn't just that it happened and that the media celebrated and all that moment and again it was it wasn't just that it happened and that the media celebrated and all that and woman of the year wasn't just that it was that i i i noticed it seemed like people on the right conservatives were just were going along with it were willing to accept it and that's and that's what scared me um and so i've always seen it as the left's uh overall project as they wage this assault on life, marriage, and, uh, and gender. Now it's kind of a three pronged approach. I wrote a book,

uh, back in, I don't know, it was like 2016 called the unholy Trinity about their three pronged assault on life, marriage, and gender, uh, redefining both all three of these things, which are fundamental, uh, pillars of human society. And so if you can redefine those and tear those down, then you've won, you've captured the culture. Have you taken a lot of time to think about what causes people to have these fundamental beliefs? And I mean, I'm of the opinion that most people sort of subscribe to a predetermined pattern of thinking and behavior that either they see around them that's reinforced or that resonates with them because of their family and their upbringing. Like what causes people

to be so rigid in their ideologies that they're willing to subscribe wholesale to this idea that children can determine their gender at five years old and that a life isn't a life until it's out of the vagina, including at nine months old. Like, have you thought about that a lot? Yeah, I think, well, a lot of it is the environment you grew up in and you grew up around these ideas. And if you went to public school, I mean, you know, kids today, especially you go to public school and you're there for six hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year for 12 or 13 years. And this is that's the culture there. And then the kid leaves. But they don't actually escape that culture because now they're on their phone. And they're just in that cloud all the time.

And they're in a world where all these ideas are just assumed. You don't even question them. And especially if you can introduce kids at a very young age. They don't even have the mental capacity to distinguish between fantasy and reality. They don't really have the capacity to be truly skeptical about something. Skepticism is a skill that you learn as you get older. They don't really, they don't have that. So they'll just accept whatever you tell them. There's a reason why if you tell a four-year-old that there's a fat man flying through the sky,

comes down the chimney, they just believe it. They might have a few questions, but the questions are all about the details about this fat guy the questions aren't questioning the the basic premise that you presented to them so if you can get to kids that young um then there's a good chance you'll have them forever because this is just built into their their minds and it's one of the reasons why the left this is why they were so upset about the so-called don't say gay bill in Florida, which of course there was no such bill. But, um, and all that bill was saying is don't talk to kids about this before the, before third grade. Yeah. And they treated that like, uh, some sort of apocalyptic scenario because they need to get to the kids before they want to get to the kids in kindergarten when they're the most vulnerable and you can just

tell them anything and they'll believe it. And they a lot of people, they just keep believing it. Most people never stop to analyze the beliefs that they've always held in their heads. Wherever you're on the spectrum, that's most people. You never stop and really scrutinize your own beliefs that you've always had. It seems to me that the only thing that stops that is they're confronted by the realities of achieving things in the modern world. And that, you know, just getting responsibility, working, making your way through life. Those are the things that sort of turn people into more, into having more conservative mindset. I would hope so. and that's the assumption that I've always had, and I think a lot of us had.

You hear about the college snowflakes, and once they get out into the real world, they'll have a wake-up call. Right, but now the real world is kind of snowflake-ified. Exactly, because we forgot that, well, they're the ones who are going to determine what the real world says. I mean, they don't get to determine reality, but gonna we're gonna be in a country that they are running that they are reshaping and so um in many cases it hasn't worked out that way they they get out into the real world and but the real world is still set up to um affirm what they believe and you know

to insulate them from these harsh realities. Which is one of the more bizarre aspects of all this shit to me is that I don't necessarily see, this is why I'm asking you, where's this go? I don't see a clear path to logic and maturity. It doesn't seem like people are going to abandon some of these ideas that are not just ridiculous but dangerous and probably ultimately detrimental for who knows what number of young people they're going to go down this road. I don't see this clear – like there's going to come a point in time in their life where they're going to recognize. Like what's that old expression? Show me a young man who is not a liberal and I'll show you a man with no heart. Show me an old man who is not a liberal i'll show you a man with no heart show you show me an old man who's not conservative and i'll show you a man

with no brain yeah something like that doesn't it go like that yeah something like that i mean and that's but they've also been told that being that opposing ideas are physically dangerous and that uh if you're around opposing ideas, it could actually do you harm. And I think that they really believe that. I mean, think about if someone really believes that takes that to heart, you know, you're, you're, you're setting something up. I mean, Ben Shapiro shows up at this podcast conference and they call his very presence harmful. It's not even, we've gone beyond ideas. It's like a person who has those ideas and isn't even speaking them, It's like a person who has those ideas and isn't even speaking them, his presence, his essence is harmful to you.

Yeah, we read the apology on air. Yeah. It was ridiculous. He's literally one of the biggest podcasters in the world and you have a podcast conference. You'd think that you'd want him there. It's like line up to learn from this guy. He's one of the most successful podcasters in the world. But I know we don't want him there. It's like line up to learn from this guy. He's one of the most successful podcasters in the world. But I know we don't want him there because he's because his and it's like he didn't show up ranting a bunch of right wing things.

He just was taking pictures of people. But his presence is it's actually it's quite terrifying, too. It's like it's almost a pregenocidal language that you're using. Saying that a certain category of people, their presence is harmful, that sets us up for some dark potential, I think. It does. It does set us up for dark potential. Now, when you first started getting into political commentary and social commentary, the world was a much different place. And it wasn't so contentious. I think, I think it's a lot of these things have gotten worse, but it was, I mean, you saw the seeds of it even back. I mean, it wasn't all that long ago, 10 years ago. Um, I think it was, it was still, it was still there, you know? Uh,

one of the difference though, was that social media existed and it had already taken over society. But you at least were allowed to, you know, for a while, social media was a forum for actual discussion. And it might not have been the most intelligent discussion all the time, but you could you could be exposed to both sides of any debate on social media for a period of time. In the very least, you could develop a following. Right. So if your ideas resonated with other people, you could attract a group of people to come and pay attention to you or listen to you. Yeah. That was the case for a while, but they shut that down.

Maybe it will change now with Elon Musk. I don't know. Yeah. I don't think it's going to change with those other platforms. Not anytime soon unless someone like Peter Thiel buys YouTube. I just don't think it's going to change. And even with Elon Musk, I think it's great that he took over Twitter, but it's also, it remains to be seen what effect that's going to have. Because you also, it's not just one guy.

This is an institution with thousands of people. And if the whole institution is still against you, even at the top, we saw it with Donald Trump. I mean, he was president, but the whole federal government apparatus was against him. And so there's not a lot that can be accomplished. And what little you can accomplish can get erased immediately, which is what happened to Trump. The only thing they couldn't take away was the Supreme Court justice. I mean, they'd like to, but they couldn't do that yet. And at a smaller scale, I think it's the same thing kind of with Twitter. So you got a guy who's rational at the top of the food chain there but um he's sitting atop this pyramid of you know leftist radicals so how much how much change can actually be made i don't know we'll we'll see well one of

the more interesting things about a film like yours coming out onto the daily wire is that people would subscribe to the daily wire and at least potentially be exposed to other ideas that way. That if you're, you got to assume that the sheer numbers of people that watch your documentary, some of them have to be liberal and that might at least expose them to other ideas that they're getting suppressed from in other places. Yeah. I mean, we hope so. And there certainly have been plenty of people who are not dyed-in-the-wool right-wing Republicans who've seen the movie and appreciated it. Which, by the way, I'm supposed to mention,

if you go to whatiswoman.com, we just decided we're going to make the first 15 minutes of it free. So you can kind of get, you know, you can go check it out. You can see 15 minutes of the film and decide if it's- It'll wet your outrage.

Yeah. Decide if it's something you want to subscribe to watch. I think hopefully you will though. So Daily Wire as an enterprise started because of the suppression of conservative ideas online. Is that why they decided to have this network?

I don't think it was just that. I mean, originally it started as basically a conservative kind of news site, which is a political site, which there's still a lot of that. But one thing that we talk about at The Daily Wire is wanting to build an actual cultural institution on the right, which doesn't exist right now. You find that all over on the left, right? They've got a bunch of them, but there really isn't that on the right. The only thing that could make a case for itself would be Fox News. But I think even for Fox News, they reach a lot of people, but it's just it's like it's just it's Fox News and it's seen a certain way. And so it's its ability to impact the culture, I think, is somewhat limited because of that.

But with The Daily Wire, the desire is to build an actual culture institution that can reach into all these different areas of culture and really make an impact that way. So with fictional films as well with fictional films i mean yeah the daily what is a woman is uh it's a documentary it obviously has a point of view um i don't i'm not out there in the film preaching that point of view but i i as the person behind the film i had a point of view that i wanted to get across um a lot of the other films that the daily wire has made though especially the fictional films there really isn't there isn't like a political point of view it's wanted to get across. A lot of the other films that the Daily Wire has made, especially the fictional films, there isn't a political point of view. It's supposed to simply be entertainment

without the political stuff, which I think a lot of people miss that back when you could find those kinds of movies, which are increasingly hard to find. Do you have friends that are liberals? I do. Not as many as I used to have. They kind of drop off as time goes on.

Have you had disputes with any of your people that used to be liberal friends? They generally, they won't come back around and say anything to me. I realize, oh, yeah, I haven't talked to that guy in a year. Growing up, especially, like I said, I grew up in a liberal area, so I had plenty of friends that were liberal. We'd get into, you know. Where'd you grow up? Baltimore.

Not the city, but outside of Baltimore. And there was, you know, we would have knock-down, drag-out type arguments and that sort of thing, which was allowed back then. Not as much now, though, I guess. And so when you did grow up with these kind of thing, which was allowed back then. Not as much now, though, I guess. And so when you did grow up with these kind of people, did you ever imagine that there'd be this kind of a divide in this country? Because when I was a kid, I had, you know, there was plenty of people that were conservative and liberal. Even my parents had friends that were conservative. My parents were liberal. Now you don't see a lot of reasonable discussion.

Like people seem to have like shored off into their own camps. Yeah, I actually think people say that, oh, we're headed for a civil war and all that. And I don't think that we are headed for a civil war because the situation in our country is very different now than it was in 1860 in a lot of ways. And in one way is that the divide is not as explicitly geographical. I mean there is a geographical component to it, but you can't just split it down the middle, right? Everything's mingled together. So I don't know if we have the – we really have the atmosphere for a real civil war. But I do think that our country is probably more divided now than it was in the Civil War because there's just this vast chasm that separates one side from the other.

There are no shared beliefs. There are no shared values at all, at least from the two ends of the political spectrum. It's not even a spectrum anymore because there is this severing down the middle of it. Do you think that's by design? Yeah. I mean, I think it's by design. It makes it impossible to have a conversation. That's one of the reasons why political debates are so fruitless often is because in order to have a constructive conversation with someone or even a constructive debate, you have to have some shared frame of reference that you're both referring back to. And if you don't have that, then what are you talking about? That's one of the reasons why, you know, I can sit around in a room with other conservatives and have really

passionate debates that feel productive because we agree on the fundamental stuff, but now we're just arguing about some of the details, some of the things that you build on top of the foundation. But when you don't even share the foundation, then there's nowhere to go. You just reach this impasse. Like I did in What is a Woman? You eventually come back to, well, what is truth? How do we know if there's a truth? Well, once the conversation devolves into that, there's nowhere to go from there.

Well, when you get away from gender, what are the other? gigantic divides that you see that are impassable All the the big pillar issues life, you know the life issue gender marriage What about specifically about the marriage one? Well do you believe that marriage, is marriage fundamentally a procreative male and female union or not? There's not really much of a compromise position there. There's not a compromise in gay men that want to be married. They're in love and they want to formalize their bonds so they could see their partner if there's a medical emergency or if there's a death where you assign assets to your loved ones. Well, that's not a compromise on the fundamental definition of marriage because that's the question that lies underneath all this.

Well, marriage is a legal union between people who love each other, right? Isn't that what it is? For what purpose? Like, why do we need a union? Because they want it to be solidified. They want it to be carved in stone. They want to say, this is not just a person that I love. This is my life partner right but why as a society why do we need to solidify or

make official a union between people who love each other like if you're with someone you love them then why isn't that like what why do we what what purpose does marriage actually serve in society what is it doing for society but is it's not necessarily for society. It's for the individual's comfort. If two people decide to stay together and have children and don't ever get married, that's okay too. I mean, we don't have a law against that. So if two people decide that they want to be joined in union and they want it to be legal. They want to really commit. I'm committing so hard. I'm going to bring lawyers involved and we're going to sign papers and we're going to go over the terms of this. But I don't think it is just personal. It is a public, it is also a public

institution. That's what we're talking about. You want the public to recognize this. If it was just personal, then we wouldn't even be having the conversation because people are loving whoever they're loving and that's it. There's no way to control that and it is what it is. But what if any negative aspects would there be to people doing that if they're gay? Well, the issue is that from my perspective and from the perspective of most human societies that have existed in history is that marriage is the context in which the procreative union occurs. Marriage is the foundation for the family. it is uh it's something that is reserved for that because the male female union has this capacity to create life whereas no other union has that capacity and so it's it's a it is a different kind of thing and it makes sense to call it something different it's like if you know if if

if human society were to collapse overnight and we all woke up with amnesia and didn't remember anything about what happened before and we're rebuilding society from scratch and we look around and we see that, oh, there are some couplings over here that have this weird habit of creating people. And there are other couplings where there are no people being created. We would probably call that something different. It's a different kind of thing. It's also more important to society like society needs that you're you're you're going to keep society going because you're creating people um and that's what marriage was it was the it was the context for that procreative union but what about gay couples who get surrogate parents to carry their children or who adopt children. That's very common.

Yeah, it's common, but the union itself is not creating the child. But it's a man-made institution. We've decided that we should involve the law and to join a male and a female who create a family. Why would that be mutually exclusive? Why would that not apply to a gay couple? Well, again, part of it is it's a matter of definitions. So it's a little bit like the what is a woman question. It's like, what is marriage? I mean, I...

But doesn't that seem like an easier one? Like, two people who love each other. This is my life partner. This is the person i want to be with to the day i die let's get married everybody is happy everybody celebrates why just two people why just two people well i don't know why why only two people with heterosexuals because that's not always the case well because only two people can create a another person you know um no you can have another person involved and they can have your kid too.

I mean, isn't that what the Mormons did? Yeah. But only, but only two people can actually create two people at a time. Right, right. Exactly. Okay. Um, and that, yeah, that's one of the reasons why I would also, you know, if we want to call it heterosexual, uh, polygamy, I'm not a proponent of that because you know, when, people create another person the person the child that they've created now needs and deserves and has a right to um be raised in a in a stable environment with a with a with a mom and a dad who are living together in the house that's what we should endeavor as a society to provide every child and children need, they need both. A child needs a mom and a dad. That's, that's the way nature has set it up. Right. Um, so even this, I, you know, it's the idea of like, well,

two men will raise a baby. Um, so are we saying that the mom is not, we don't, like the mom is disposable here, expendable. We don't need the mom. That's not what we're saying. We're saying, is it okay if two men raise a baby? Like if a single dad can raise a baby, a single dad's not required if the wife dies, he's not required to get married and provide his son with a stepmother. Yeah. He's not, he's not required. And of course, of course we wouldn't, we wouldn't require that. So what if that single dad decides after the mother's gone, you know what, all this time, I've actually been gay and really I want to marry a man. Now marries a man still continues to raise the son that's his son. Well, I think you can have a single parent households, right? But in a single parent

household, and the child can be raised by a single parent, and the child can turn out, can turn out okay and have a great and fulfilling life. But it's going to be, it's going to be not because there was only one parents in spite of that. That's a hurdle you have to get over. The child is still being deprived of something that is important. So to, to consign a child to that to begin with and say, well, we're going to give you two dads rather than a mom and a dad. Because the child was, there was a mom involved in creating the child, but she's not going to be anywhere in the picture. I'm just of the, I'm of the view that that's not, that the mom is not expendable. She plays a necessary role that cannot be replaced by a man. You know, I cannot be my child's mother. My children have a mother.

They need her. She does something special and unique in our family. And if they didn't have her, it doesn't mean that they're not gonna be able to function anymore as human beings, but they're going to be deprived of something, something important. But even if that is beneficial to have a mother involved and a father involved surely having one parent only even though it's not ideal is certainly better than being in foster care it's certainly better than you know being in a in a home somewhere where there's no parental figure at all and i would think there's a lot of people that are out there that are living a life like that, unfortunately. There's a lot of

kids that are not adopted. There's a lot of kids that are in foster care. Wouldn't it be better for those kids to be raised by a gay couple who's married? I think every child deserves the best possible situation, the best chance that we can give them. And, uh, so I would say that every child, we should be looking for a man, woman, couple, and also keep in mind too, that, uh, especially when it comes to babies, you know, this, this changes as the kids get a little bit older, but, um, uh, with, with babies who are up for adoption, there there's a, there's actually a line five miles long of, uh, of married couples that want to adopt babies and they have to wait, they have to wait. They're on

waiting lists. Talk to, talk to parents that have been through this. They went on waiting lists for years. So, um, this idea that there's a scarcity of man, woman, couples willing to adopt kids. I just don't, I don't, I don't think that that's even true to begin with. I think it's a little bit of a kind of a misnomer. It's foster kids that have the issue, right? Kids that are 10, 11, 12. Yeah, that's where it becomes more of a challenge as kids get older. Most people who are adopting are looking for, you know,

they want a baby so they can raise the child from as close to birth as possible. Do you think of gay marriage as a personal freedom issue, that you should be able to do that? If you were born gay and that's who you are and you meet another person that's gay and you fall in love and decide that you want to be bonded in a union, isn't that a personal freedom issue? And shouldn't we encourage personal freedom issue? And shouldn't we encourage personal freedom? I think of it as a definitional issue. So what do you think it should be? I think of it as a definitional issue. I think of marriage is a certain thing, which is the context for procreation, for the building of the nuclear family. What about people that get married that don't have kids?

Are you opposed to that? What if they get married, they decide, you know what, we don't need kids. I'm going to get fixed. You get your tubes tied, let's travel the world. Well, what do you mean am I opposed to it? I mean, I think that every married couple should be open to life. But what if they don't want to? Are you opposed to them being married?

If marriage is only for procreation and to bond a family together, what about people that are deeply in love that never want to have children? I don't think it's – it's not only procreation, but that is one of the fundamental definitional aspects of it. Of course, there's more to marriage just than that. And what about people that are infertile? They fall in love and they realize that they can have babies and they don't really necessarily want to adopt. Is that okay for them to be married? Because then you're, by definition, marriage falls into a completely different thing because then it's a bond of love. It's a union of love.

Sure. I mean, that doesn't change the nature of marriage, though. It's a little bit like, um, I say that, uh, uh, what's the definition of a woman? Well, a woman is someone who by her nature can conceive children in her womb and bear children. And then the response is always, well, what about women who are infertile? Does that, does that destroy your definition of woman? And, uh, it, it doesn't because, you know, it's still, it's still a woman's nature to bear children. Not every woman will,

and there will be disease and infertility and old age and all these things that will preclude that, but it's still of her nature to do so. And I would say the same thing for marriage. I mean, it is natural in a marriage for procreation to occur. It's not always going to happen in reality, though, but that's still one of the natural functions of marriage. And married couples who can't conceive children, there are other ways to be parents, like adoption, for example.

If they want to. Right. But if people want to be married and don't want to ever have children, are you opposed to them being married? I'm not. I wouldn't advocate a law that would prevent it. But would it change the definition of what their marriage is to you because they don't want to have a family? They just want to have a loving bond. I think this would be a couple that is rejecting, uh, one of the fundamental aspects of marriage and that they should be, they,

they should be open to, to life. I would hope that in the future they would be, but. But isn't that just a personal choice? choice i mean you can have a very fulfilling life if you just follow your pursuits and your dreams and your your interests and you find someone that shares those interests with you and you share time together it's very fulfilling and loving yeah it's a it's a person it's a personal choice and that i'm not advocating for like a law that says you you if you're married you have to, you have to have X number of kids. But then why are you opposed to two gay people doing that? Well, because again, it's not about choice.

It's about what this institution, marriage as an institution, and what is it and what purpose does it serve? and what is it and what purpose does it serve and i i do not agree with um tearing down or or changing this definition especially because the people who have changed the definition haven't come up with a new one so they say well that's not what marriage is so for thousands of years we said marriage is the procreative union and then we had the other side that came along and said well it's not that okay well then like what is it exactly and i know you said well it's people who love each other two people love each other well but then why two people why do they have to love each other um you know all these kinds of questions you get into what if they're in the same family what if brothers and sisters want to marry and i know every time that comes up you

know the advocates for gay marriage will say well well, that's a slippery slope argument. That's a fallacious, but it's actually not. It's like, we're trying to get to what do you even think this institution is now since you've rejected out what we were saying it was. And, um, I've never found a compelling definition and any definition offered. It's like, well, what are you, what's even the point then why do we even need this now i just don't see how a gay marriage in any way damages a straight marriage i don't i don't see it at all it doesn't make any sense to me it just seems to me that people want to be look if you if you wanted to look at logic, especially in our modern society, which is pretty fucked when it comes to relationships, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of all marriages end in divorce anyway.

They don't make it. I don't know if anything would damage marriage and damage the institution of marriage. It's the option of divorce. marriage and damage the institution of marriage is the option of divorce. I don't think gay people and gay people getting married in any way, shape, or form changes a bond that you have with your wife. It's just called marriage. It's a human invented thing. If we decide that gay people can get married too, I just don't see how it damages anything. I don't think it tears down the definition of marriage in any way. It just opens up the possibility that people who are gay won't be discriminated against

Yeah, I don't think that a gay couple existing Directly impacts, you know, there's a gay couple and you know, wherever and and I'm with my wife and in our house like obviously there's not But I'm talking about I'm talking about on the individual level and talk about on the societal level. Right. I would agree that divorce, especially, you know, there's no fault divorce, rampant divorce. I don't think it's as high as 50 percent. I know that that's the that's often quoted. I'm not sure where that comes from, but it is high. It's like it's too high. And Chris Rock has a great joke about that. Those are just the people with the courage to get out.

It's like how many cowards stay? But it's also true that the advocates for what we call now traditional marriage, which I just call marriage, but the advocates for traditional marriage put themselves at a disadvantage by allowing, especially in the churches, like allowing this rampant divorce to occur. the churches, like allowing this rampant divorce to occur. And then you've already sort of given up on some, marriage is supposed to be monogamous and permanent as well as procreative. Well, you've given up monogamy and permanence. And so now it's not, that's two of the three legs gone. And so now this assault was waged on the procreative part of it. And it was just, it was difficult to withstand it because the institution had already been weakened. So I agree with you there. Um, but my answer to that is to try to reinforce what marriage is not to just give up on it entirely. And I, I still think you're left with this question of like, if marriage is not what

I'm saying it is, then what then why do we even need it? I mean, you're saying it's a man-made institution. Yes. But you're also, like the way that you're presenting it, it's also a totally meaningless institution. No. You don't need it at all. No, it's not meaningless

because it means something to the people that get married. So it's just a subjective, symbolic thing? Yeah. It's kind of what it is. Look,, symbolic thing? Yeah. It's kind of what it is. Look, there's a massive responsibility when you're married and when you have children to keep your family together and keep everybody happy and healthy. And there's great reward to that. Yeah. But it doesn't always work out.

It's not – people change. People are fucked up. It doesn't always work out. It's not, it's not a, it's people change. People are fucked up. That doesn't, it doesn't always work. And so I don't think it should be outlawed because 50% of the people fall apart. Just like, I don't think it has any effect whatsoever on a straight couple. If a gay couple decides that they want to make it official and that's what it is to them. It gives them a feeling that they're accepted and appreciated and that they're not discriminated against because they happen to be homosexual. So what you're articulating to me is the damage that's done by gay marriage

to the institution of marriage. But how is it done? How is that in any way damaged straight people? Because we are making the institution meaningless. But it's not meaningless. It's very meaningful to the people that have it. Subjective, symbolic, and it's about your own personal feelings.

Isn't it, though? Well, no, I would say that it's not. Well, if it's not subjective and it's not symbolic... It codifies and protects and gives a name to a thing that actually exists, which are man, woman, couples creating people, creating babies. But not always. Right. But that's still the nature of the union. But what are the percentage of people today that are married that don't have children?

I bet it's pretty high amongst heterosexuals. Probably. Is there something wrong with that? I think there is something wrong with that. I think there is something wrong with getting married and saying, we're not going to have any kids at all. But why is there something wrong with that of someone's personal choice? Why is it wrong that two people are like, you know, i am deeply committed to work and i don't want to sacrifice any of my career and i don't want to ruin a kid because i'm constantly at the office but that's where i get

deep satisfaction and and that's that's what i'm focused on and the woman says that's great because i don't want children either. I really am attached to my interests and my career and what I like to do. That's not damaging your relationship with your wife and your family. I certainly don't think of it as a threat to my marriage or my family. Yeah, it is a personal choice. Right, but shouldn't people be allowed to make those personal choices? Like, isn't that a fundamental aspect of what it means to be American, to have that freedom?

Well, right, yeah, but right now we're not talking about what people are allowed to do. I'm not saying that— Well, we're talking about marriage, gay marriage. Okay, we were just discussing straight couples who choose not to have kids. Straight couples, that's also a personal freedom issue, isn't it? Yeah, and I'm not saying that straight couples should be legally required to have kids. But if you're asking me, do I think it's the right choice to just get married and choose not to have kids ever, I do not think that that's the right choice. It's their choice, but people can make choices that are wrong.

But how is it wrong if they have a fulfilling and wonderful life together with that choice? have a fulfilling and wonderful life together with that choice. If their thing is that they just want to have a bond between the two of them to just like take it to the next level, let everybody know, like we are married. If I die, my money's going to go to Helen. And if Helen dies, you know, I'm going to mourn her because she was my wife and now I'll be a widower. Like to some people, that distinction gives them peace and security and makes them feel better about the relationship. They're both so committed that they've legally signed documents that say that they're bound by law and under the eyes of God

or whatever you believe in. Yeah. They're able to make that choice, but I think they're still rejecting one of the purposes of marriage. And in the scenario that you just outlined, you're also deciding to live a really self-centered life. What if you're not? What if your work is very charitable? What if it benefits humanity in a deep way? What if you spend a lot of time doing, you know, health care work and, you know, and social work and you're deeply committed to your community?

It's not selfish at all. You're just dedicating your time to something other than raising new human beings. You're dedicating your life to enhancing other human beings that are around you. That's a hypothetical. It is a hypothetical, but so is yours, right? Yeah. But I think most of the people that choose, like, we're not going to have kids, and the rate of those rates are declining,

and the age when people first have kids is also going up and all that. Most of the people that are making these choices, I don't think it's because they're involved in charity work. I do think that it is more the scenario you outlined the first time around, which is just like, well, this is what I'm doing. I have my job. I don't want to give it up. But don't you think that people should have the freedom to live their life in that way? I think human beings vary widely in a huge way. And I think there's some human beings that find a very

fulfilling life just reading books and traveling and experiencing different things and seeing art and doing whatever the fuck they want to do. And they don't necessarily have to have kids to live a fulfilling life that way. And if they choose to do that with someone who they have a loving bond with and who they get married to, I don't think it's a bad thing that they don't want to have kids. Well, I think, I guess we have to, maybe we're running into a question of, you know, now you get to the real fundamental question. I think it's a fundamental freedom thing. Yeah. We're not disagreeing, I guess, on the freedom aspect of it, because again, I'm not saying that you should be required to have kids. But you're imposing your sensibilities on what you think is important in life to other people. But everybody has a different idea of

what's important in life without hurting anyone. The thing is like, what I'm saying is these people that are married, that don't have children, they're not harming anyone. They're not harming these unborn children that they never have. They're not harming anyone. They're not harming these unborn children that they never have. They're not harming anyone. And it doesn't affect your relationship with your family and your marriage at all. Yeah, but I'm also not imposing myself on them or harming them by answering a question about how I feel about their choices. Right, but nor are gay people doing that to you. I think the harm comes from

on a societal level when we start breaking down these basic central institutions like the institution of the family and marriage. That's where the harm comes from. And the more that people believe, the more that we build a society where it's believed that marriage is objectively meaningless, right? It's entirely subjective. It's just about making you feel better. The more that we build a society like that, I think that's where the harm comes in, the worse it is. And people are going to reject marriage. And that means fewer kids are being born.

Also, more kids are being born in a context where they don't have that stable family structure. So the harm definitely comes. It may not be this immediate connect the dots thing. But we can already see that. So you think by adding gay couples to the definition of what a marriage is, by defining it in that way, it's two people that bond each other. Somehow or another, that harms people that have successful marriages that are nuclear family marriages like you enjoy? I think it harms when you say add them to the definition. You can't really add them to the definition. You can only just get rid of what the definition was. Well, that's your definition, though. The definition

of marriage is just a legal bond. I mean, is there, what is the definition? Like if we Google it today, I'm sure it's been like politicized, right? Like what, like Google marriage, what is the definition of marriage today? I want, that's, that's an interesting question. Like how is that defined? Because you know that most of these places that they do change them with culture. Legally or formally recognize union of two people as partners in a personal relationship. Historically, in some jurisdictions, specifically a union between a man and a woman and, in quotes, a happy marriage. A combination or a mixture of two or more elements. Okay.

That's different marriage. Yeah. Recognize union of two people. that's different marriage um yeah recognize union of two people so like what's the damage that gets done to a straight relationship if we change the definition of marriage and allow it to include gay couples by by by making marriage meaningless that that's that's the damage make it meaningless doesn't make it meaningless it doesn't change your marriage at all it's just now gay people can get married too like why why is i just i don't see that that even deteriorates the idea i mean we're already seeing this on a societal level i mean we're seeing that people are rejecting marriage they're saying that um

you know you have people who live together and they say well there's no point in getting married it's because it's just it's all it is that definition. It's just, it's just utterly arbitrary, meaningless paperwork that says, yep, you're in a union and you love each other. I mean, why would you need paperwork to codify the fact that you love each other? It's like, it's a good question. Well, right. Exactly. That's my point. That's why, that's why marriage, marriage can't be just that because if it's just that, then it's it's like that's a good question well right exactly that's my point that's why that's why marriage marriage can't be just that because if it's just that then it's not anything well maybe it is just that and yet it's still rewarding for the people that participate in it because it is sort of silly that you bring in other people to codify your relationship and to like legally bind each other together it is kind of crazy right. So I feel like in a weird way, we're agreeing because I'm saying that

if we expand marriage to include gay couples, we have made marriage into something effectively meaningless and silly. And you're saying that that's what it is. But that is the harm that I'm worried about. But I don't think gay people getting married changes that. I think if gay people didn't get married, you'd still have a bunch of people that think that marriage is silly and that marriage is just a legal bond and it's not necessary and you can have a family without marriage and there's a lot of people that do it. Maybe. You'd have fewer, but the bigger point is that as a culture, we would not have affirmed and validated that view that marriage is silly and pointless. But now we have as a country, the Supreme Court validated it.

And that's a problem because I think that marriage is so important to a functioning human civilization, which is why there's never been a civilization without it. And so this is another one of those experiments that we're trying out. I don't think it's going to work out too well. But it's dependent upon people agreeing to stay married. That's what it's dependent upon. And there's always that escape clause and people pull that chute all the time. I don't think gay people being married has any effect on whether or not straight people stay together or whether or not straight people get married or whether or not straight people appreciate marriage. They're staying married because there's a benefit to it. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not gay people are also married. I don't think

that affects them in the slightest. I don't think my marriage is affected at all by my friend getting divorced. I don't think it has any effect on me. If I decide to stay married and my wife decides to stay married to me, that's our own decision. And we do it based on our own commitment to being together, to having a family, to raising a family. Two other people getting married or not getting married or Elizabeth Taylor getting married ten times means nothing. It has no effect on me. And it shouldn't. Yeah. When you're looking at it on the smallest, most individual level, you could say that. And at least if there is an effect, it's really hard to see. But that's why you have to expand the view a little bit.

Have you talked to happy gay couples and about what it means to them to be married because it's significant it means like you think do you think people if they feel like they're is this a religious thing like do you think the people who are gay should practice homosexuality or do you think that they should try to avoid it because biblically it's frowned upon I am I am a Christian I'm Catholic so if you want to talk about the biblical aspects of it I can I can do that but what are your own personal feelings about like gay people should they avoid being gay? You know, I believe in sexual immorality is that the sexual act properly ordered belongs within the marital bond, which should be reserved for a man and a woman. Which also means that it's like sexually immortal have sex before marriage. All these things happen. I'm aware of that.

But I do believe that it's immoral. But so that's – we could talk about that part of the conversation. But then there's also just the definitional side of it, which is what we've been talking about up until now. definitional side of it, which is what we've been talking about up till now. And I can explain or attempt to why the definition of marriage is important. And I can do that without saying, well, here's the Bible verse and quoting the Bible. But obviously there has to be some religious reason why you think it's immoral for people to have gay sex, for people to have sex with each other, even if they're married. Because if you think that extramarital relations are immoral, sexual relations are immoral, what about gay people that preserve their virginity until they're married?

There's people that are just gay. They know they're gay. They've been gay forever. I have friends that are gay and they've always been gay. I have friends that are gay that are really damaged because they have to hide it and they're closeted. Some of them in the entertainment industry, some of them that are like alcoholics because of it, and they're all fucked up because they have this secret and they are gay. And it's not something that was forced upon them. It's not something that was asked of them or something they were manipulated into being. They're just gay. And if those gay people find other gay people and they fall in love and they decide to get married, I don't see how that affects anyone other than someone that's not gay who has this idea that they shouldn't be that way. But they're just gay. You're not going to fix that. And by telling them to ignore that aspect of who they are as a human being and to deny that that's always been a part of human history.

If you go back through like ancient stories, there's been men who've been in love with men. Like ancient stories, there's been men who've been in love with men. It's always been the case. I mean, you said before, you're saying two gay couples get married doesn't affect your marriage. Right. Just like you said that if your friend gets divorced, it doesn't affect your marriage. Yeah. Which is probably basically true. But the question is, when you have this happening on a massive societal scale,

and you have a society that has embraced this and has officially sort of embraced the idea that marriage is not permanent, so anyone can just get divorced for whatever reason. Marriage is not procreative, so it doesn't matter, man, woman, just get married. That's where the effect comes in. And yeah, as someone who's already been married as an adult, you might not feel it as much, but it certainly will. You said earlier that it's not going to stop other people from getting married. I think it does.

I think actually it is. I think it will stop. I think it is right now. Marriage rates are declining at a historic rate right now. I don't think it's a coincidence that that's happened and that this process has been sped up after, you know, the gay marriage Supreme Court decision and also alongside divorce being rampant. I think people are they might not articulate it exactly like this. I mean, some of them probably would. But people are looking at marriage and they're seeing the way that it's treated now in society. And they're saying, it's just, I don't need it.

If all it is is a piece of paperwork saying, I love this person, what the hell do I need that for? Like, why don't you, you know? Yeah, but isn't that their own personal decision to make? Like, if we believe and value personal freedom, the freedom to choose your ideology, the freedom to live your life how you like to, the freedom to choose your occupation, freedom to choose what education or discipline you pursue. Don't shouldn't we encourage the freedom to leave a relationship that's toxic? that's toxic. Like if someone is married and they're married to someone and they don't grow together and they grow apart from each other and they resent each other and hate each other, why should they stay together? Just because they said it? I mean, isn't that ridiculous to assume that people are not going to change? You're talking about people that get married for 10,

15, 20 years. You're not the same person you were 20 years ago. I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago. If you're lucky, you marry someone and 20 years ago I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago if you're lucky you marry someone and you grow together and your bond strengthens over time but that doesn't always work that's just part of being a human just because we have this institution that we've developed

that we think that oh it should till death do us part well that's it you said it forever now you're going to be miserable because in the eyes of God you have to be together forever and ever and ever. Amen. That's it. That seems ridiculous to me. Yeah. I don't think that divorce should be just made illegal across the board. I do think it should at least be made more difficult than it is in certain circumstances. Like there's no fault divorce. Just anyone, you know, for any reason. And I think that that has contributed to the divorce epidemic.

But isn't it an epidemic of people growing and changing? And people, they evolve over time. They devolve over time. They fall apart. People develop gambling habits and drug addictions. And the idea that marriage should be encouraged to be for life no matter what, it seems crazy. I think it's an epidemic. You could phrase it that way. I think it's an epidemic of people. First of all, no, I wouldn't phrase it that way, that it's an epidemic of people growing. I don't think that divorce is a- Growing apart? Yeah. I don't think divorce is a product of personal growth. I think very often it's an epidemic of people growing you know i don't think that divorce is a growing apart yeah but i don't think divorce is a product of personal growth i think very often it's sort of the opposite opposite of that but sometimes it is though sometimes one person personally grows and

the other person falls apart and you don't want to be bonded to them anymore yeah but it's it's an epidemic of of people not taking the marriageows seriously of the marriage vows, not really meaning anything because most people still, when they, when they get married, even if they're not religious, you know, most people still stand on an altar and the death do you part and they say all that.

Um, and then, so then, and now we're saying, well, that's it. It was just words. It doesn't actually mean anything.

It's like, does that mean something or not? I mean, it does mean something, but it means something at the time and people do change. And like, I think you're coming at it from a perspective of a healthy user bias. You're in a good relationship. You're in a good marriage. You're happy. Some people are not, you know, some people in a marriage with someone who's abusive or someone is stealing from them or,

you know, there's a lot of reasons to get divorced. Yeah. But it's also not like a happy marriage is not something that you just fall into like a puddle. I mean, it's true, but a happy relationship kind of develops in that way where the relationship is healthy and it's happy. And you say, you know what? I can do this for the rest of my life. And the other person says, I can too. It takes, it takes two to tango. So, and marriage is something that you work on every day and you know loving your spouse is uh not an emotional it's not just emotions it's not a feeling that you have about them it's a choice that you make love is a is a is a choice of you know to sacrifice and yeah live in service to this

other person um if both if both members of the couple do that then the marriage will the marriage will stay intact and my position is that that can be the case with gay people but if but if you if and and if if one member of the of the couple is just unwilling to and and is just gone then there's only so much you can do to fight for it so that's all that's all the case but you know what you're articulating is like well the marriage vows don't actually mean anything at all no they mean something clearly because you have to get out of them like if you want to get out of them you have to go to court they clearly mean something in our society in our culture they mean something financially they mean something legally they

mean something emotionally they mean something in terms of the definition of are you single or are you married? Are you a mister? Are you a miss? They mean something. Yeah. But you said at the time. But it's something that we've created. We've invented this thing and we've ascribed meaning to it.

But the reality is, I mean, as much as we'd like to idealize about it, the divorce rate is extremely high. Even if it was 30%, that's pretty crazy. Yeah. I mean, I would say we've invented marriage in the same way that we've invented the family, which is that— No, there's always been a family. There's always been people raising children. And, in fact, in tribal situations in the past, it was like a whole village would raise your kids. We'd all raise children together.

They would grow together. That's my point. I don't think of marriage, traditional marriage, quote unquote, as something that was invented per se. I think of it as something that exists. Men, women, man and woman creating a baby, living together. This exists. It exists. And we gave a name to it

well couples exist but the idea of a legal bond and marriage most certainly is invented yeah the paperwork and all that there's the there is the um the you know and if that's not important then marriage could be just something you say to each other. Like the whole idea is that you're bringing it to court and there's legal reasons for that. You get better insurance. You get to see your spouse when they're in the hospital. There's all sorts of benefits to people being legally bound together. There's tax benefits.

There's a lot of benefits to that. And why should we give those benefits to someone, to a couple, just because they love each other? Well, why should we give them to a couple that doesn't want to have children that are married? Well, we can give it to a couple that by its nature can create children. What if they can't? Should we exclude it from people that are infertile? create children what if they can't should we exclude it from people that are infertile well but again this is it's still they still are partaking in the the nature of marriage okay it's still gay people aren't if two gay people decide that they want to adopt children and they get

bound together legally like isn't that the same thing let me just ask you this. Would you say that there is an important difference between a couple that can create a child, a couple who's, you know, in the marital act, it can create a person, versus a couple that fundamentally could never create a person? Well, that's the same thing as infertile people or people that have had their twos tied. Well, fundamentally, once you have that operation, you are infertile. If once a woman has a hysterectomy, once a man gets fixed, you're infertile. So I'm not talking about an individual. I mean, the type of relationship or the type of coupling that by its nature can create people versus the type of coupling that by its nature can create people versus the type of coupling that by its nature never can?

I mean, is there a difference between these two? Well, I think we even describe that difference differently. We call one of them gay marriage. I mean, we literally have a name for it. That's your position. What I'm saying is it— But isn't that society's position in a lot of ways? Like what percentage of our culture—

We don't call it gay marriage. Now we just call it marriage. Yeah, but I mean that's how it's referred to. It's like we have to protect the rights for gay people to get married. We have to protect the rights for gay marriage. Right. But would you say—so you are saying that there is a difference between these two types of couples? Well, there's a difference between the human beings, clearly.

There's a difference between gay people and straight people. Straight people can procreate through the act of sexual intercourse, and gay people can't. Yeah. But I don't think that's everything that a marriage is. I think a marriage is a bond between people that love each other with all the aforementioned benefits. Tax benefits, insurance benefits, the benefit to see each other when the loved one's sick. It's not everything that marriage is, but you are agreeing that it's a difference. Yes.

And it's an important difference because the ability to create people is a significant distinction. But my position is that that shouldn't be the only reason why people are allowed to get married. And my position also is that it seems that people are inherently gay. There are people out there that are just gay. Do you think that those people that are just gay should not engage in gay activities? They should engage in gay sex and gay love? I'm a Christian, so I believe in Christian sexual morality, which is that the sex belongs within the bonds of a marriage and marriage between a man and a woman. So you're opposed to all sex outside of marriage? Morally, yes.

But yes, morally. Do you think that should be legal? Should it be illegal to have sex outside of marriage? Should that be a legal distinction? That sex is only legal while married? No, I would not support a law that bans sex outside of marriage. I mean, for one thing, it would be impossible to enforce. I don't know.

If I was like a dictator of the universe and I could control everything, we could talk about it. But no, obviously you couldn't have a law like that. But even then, it goes against human nature. But with the marriage discussion, we're not really talking about a law. It's not that before it was illegal for men to get married. It was that marriage just precluded two men partaking in it by definition. But wasn't it illegal? It wasn't legal for men to marry each other

for a long time. Or women to marry each other. That's the whole reason why they wanted equal marriage rights. Yeah, but it wasn't like you have a law in the books that says men can't do this. It's the law says, this is what this thing is, and that's it.

This is what it is. And if you are able to partake in it, then you can. Well, there were legal restrictions that prevented them from doing it because one of them wasn't a woman, right? Right. So it's kind of a law preventing it. Yeah, but I would say it's the same distinction as uh you know a man wants to use the women's restroom um is it you know is he being prevented by law from from doing it well it's just like we shouldn't it's you're not a woman you're just not that and so that's why

it's not like there's a there's not like there's a law targeting you individually. If the law prevents you from going into the women's restroom, it's not like this law is specifically targeting you. It's just that you're not that and the law is protecting the privacy of the women in the restroom. If you had a conversation with a gay man and you were going to tell them what you thought morally was correct to do, would you tell them to not be gay? It certainly wouldn't be as simple as that. I don't think you'd just walk up to someone and tell them. What would you give them as options? I mean, if you have that proclivity,

it's not as simple as just someone to say, you don't, don't be that anymore. Right. So what would you tell them to do? Just, just like, you know, if you want to stop premarital sex, it's not as simple to just say, oh, don't do it. You know? And it's, it's to actually live according to the sexual morality doctrines of the Christian faith, for example, is really difficult. But at least with premarital sex, they have the hope and the option to one day get married and engage in natural sex that they're attracted to. What would you have gay people do? It's a difficult road, that's for sure. So they should do nothing? They should have no sex ever?

What if you have gay people that are also, they meet other gay people, they love each other, they want to have sex, they should avoid that because of what? Because it's written somewhere? Because at one point in time, someone believed that God told them that they shouldn't have sex with other men? Well, we're having this is now we're in the realm of a moral conversation.

And that's that's my moral view. That's sex also has, you know, we should be open to life. Sex has a procreative element. Again, it doesn't mean every time you have sex you're a creative baby. But that's an element of it that we should be open to. And that's sex when it is properly ordered. What do you think is the cause of homosexuality then? Because it's always existed. because it's always existed yeah it's always existed even with healthy people with healthy balanced happy people that are in love with other healthy balanced happy people that happen to be

gay yeah uh it's i think it's a multi-faceted question i'm i don't know if we could point to one quote unquote cause. So I'm not, I'm not exactly sure. I think that there is a, there is a, there is a societal element to it. Especially in the, in the formative years, you know, of a, of a child. We are, we are seeing the LGBT identification. We talk about trans, but not just there. I mean, LGBT identification across the board is, is increasing exponentially. So that indicates to me that there's some sort of environmental societal sort of element

to it. Right. But there's always been a certain percentage of the population that's gay. So what would those people do? What would you have them do? This is where like the rubber meets the road when it comes to Christian ideology and enforcing or encouraging those belief systems on other people that don't agree with them.

Well, we're not talking about enforcing. Well, okay, encouraging or even discussing in a way that you disagree with it. Why would you care? That's what I don't understand. If you want to live the Christian lifestyle and you want to live the Christian lifestyle and you want to be an obedient Christian then you know sex is is happens within the confines of the

marriage and marriage between a man and woman and but do you think that that comes from God or you think that comes from men do you think that that's human beings that have developed these ideologies that they would like people to follow, these behavior patterns that they'd like people to follow? Or do you think it really comes from God? And if it really does come from God, why would God make people gay in the first place? Well, of course I would say it comes from God. If I didn't believe that, then I wouldn't be Christian.

Why would God make people gay if he didn't want them to engage in gay sex? All people have proclivities or towards different sins, different things that we would call sins. Yeah, but if that's like their fundamental attractiveness, they're attracted fundamentally to other men or other women. It seems like something that God gave them. Why would God give you an attractiveness? Why would you be attracted to the same sex if that was morally reprehensible, if that was against God's will? Why would he instill that lust and that desire and that feeling of being attracted and feeling of being in love with someone of the same sex? I don't think instilled is not the word that I would use. I don't think God instills it. I think that, you know, one of the, again, you want to get into Christian

doctrine. I mean, one of the basic one of the, again, we're getting, you want to get into Christian doctrine. I mean, one of the, one of the, uh, one of the basic elements of Christian doctrine is that we're a fallen species. And, uh, and so there's, there's, there's, there are many things that come out of our kind of fallen human nature. and we all have, like I said, we all have proclivities towards sin, and no one's going to live a perfect life. To live a moral Christian life is really difficult. It requires a lot of sacrifice, no matter who you are. And that's it. Have you wrestled with these thoughts before? Have you had these kind of conversations and really like— Sure, absolutely.

Tried to figure out why. Why would God create gay people? Do you think that God has created gay people or do you think they have a choice? God has created all people. So every person that's gay was created by God, of course. Where exactly does that proclivity come from? Like I said, I don't know exactly. To say that someone's born gay, I have issues with that that go beyond theology

because now you're talking about if you're born with any sexual proclivity, then that means that we're talking about like gay infants and so on and right but do you don't you think people are born straight that some people are born straight were you born straight it's just it's an odd way of talking about it like to say that to say that a a baby is heterosexual i think babies don't don't have a sexuality in that in that sense. Right, but eventually they will develop a sexuality and a small percentage of them will be homosexual. And that's always been documented. It's natural.

It's even natural in some animals. Yeah, well, I mean, we started by talking about laws and what laws are put in place. Now we're talking about Christian teaching. But don't you think that— Christianity has a—I don't deny that Christianity has a challenging sexual moral code. But we're also, I'm not suggesting that the Christian sexual morality should be codified into law. But isn't that what's happening if that's how we define marriage? Because marriage is law.

And if marriage shouldn't involve gay people, then you are saying that it's because of Christian fundamentalist ideology. No, because I think you can talk about the marriage issue without even getting into biblical morality, which is what I was doing. I mean, you brought up the Bible. I didn't introduce it. We talked about Christianity in particular. Right. But that's my point. You introduced that to the conversation. Yes. Because I wanted to find the reason why you opposed gay people being married and i think i gave the reason which is that marriage serves a certain purpose for society it is a certain thing definitionally and it is as you even agreed, the union between a man and a woman in principle is different from the union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

And that difference comes down to its capacity, its procreative capacity or lack thereof. So we're in agreement that there's a difference there. I would say that it's an important distinction. I would say that it's an important distinction. And so it makes sense for society to have a certain name for this procreative union. But should we have a different name for people that have zero desire to procreate but are also heterosexual? They want to be married? No. I mean, no. Then why should we have a different name for gay people

that are in love that want to be married? Because the union between a man and a woman, even if they choose not to have kids, it is still a fundamentally procreative union, apart from choices they make or if someone someone has, you know, a condition where they're not able to conceive. Even in those cases, I think we're still called, you know, we're still, you're still called to a kind of parental service, maybe in a different form. Like you mentioned before, charity work or something like that. People that can't have kids, you know, that could be a form of paternal or maternal service. I think that most people are called to have kids and raise families that way, but not everybody. But I think everyone is called to a life of paternal and maternal service.

Maybe. Because the other option is a life that centers around, you know, the individual, around yourself. And I don't think that's a path to happiness or fulfillment for anybody in the long run. And I think, you know, someone is on their deathbed and they're dying and, like, you ask dying. And you like, uh, you ask them what their regrets are.

There's not very many people that on their deathbed are going to tell you they regret that they had kids or that they gave their life to their kids. A lot of people, as they get older, say they regret not having them. Um, that's sure. But you don't believe it should be a requirement, right?

No, not, not a, not a legal requirement. Of course not. Cause it is also a moral requirement. You think it's, it should be a moral requirement for people? No, not a legal requirement. Of course not. Because it's also a moral requirement. You think it should be a moral requirement for people? Well, what do you mean should be a moral requirement? Well, you should think of it that way. Like you have a moral

obligation to procreate. I think you have a moral obligation in your marriage to keep your marriage open to its capacity for life. But I don't think that the – I wouldn't put the state in charge of enforcing that. Clearly. But we do involve the state in our relationships, which is very strange. That's what I think when people make this sort of logical assessment of what a marriage really is, that's when they start thinking it's silly. Because you're involving people that really don't give a shit about you and you become a part of a machine. It's a financial machine. There's a lot of money involved in marriages and divorce.

Yeah. There are even conservatives now who will say, well, just get government out of marriage completely. Just, you know, just the whole thing. Just get government out of marriage completely, just the whole thing, just get it out. I can understand that view, especially at this point, just saying it's caused more problems than it's worth and all that kind of stuff. But I don't agree with it because I think that there was a reason why the government recognized marriage in the past because it has this really significant

consequential capacity. And society has a vested interest in your marriage if it has the potential to be procreative because you're creating people, you know, and the rest of us are going to have to deal with those people that you create. So, you know, I think ideally that's what I would still like to see. I still think that society and the government should recognize that. So what do you think they should do about gay marriage? I think we should – it's not going to happen, but if it were up to me, I would go back to what it was six, seven years ago, you know, where marriage is definition, initially this, this one thing and that's it. And as you say, people, what should they be allowed to do? Civil unions? Well, it's not about allowed. I mean, if...

But that is kind of what it's about. If we're talking about laws, if we're talking about definitions, we're talking about how society accepts and whether or not you get the insurance benefits and the tax benefits of a heterosexual couple, whether you can visit your spouse when they're in the hospital. Those are significant things for gay couples. your spouse when they're in the hospital. Those are significant things for gay couples. Yeah. But again, I wouldn't say that it's that, you know, it's, well, we're not allowing gay people to get married. It's that marriage is this. This is what it is. This is what it's for. And that's it. That's the definition of it um and there should be no similar option for gay people well if you are are with someone and and

you you love them i mean there's you know like you've been saying this whole time uh it's it seems almost silly that you need to have paperwork to to affirm that like there was no there was no one was ever suggesting a law that would say you're only allowed to love people in marriage. If you're not married, you're not allowed to love people. No one was suggesting that. I just don't, with this current idea of marriage, I don't even see the point of it. If that's all it is, if all, I still go back to why would you even, I know, I know the purpose of marriage and why society had an interest in it if it's fundamentally procreative, but if it's not

and we're just getting rid of that, then, and all it is is paperwork to say, I love someone and not even permanently, cause I might not love them tomorrow. You know, it's just it's like you turn it's turned into sort of a charade, which is what which is what many people think marriage is essentially. And that's kind of what I'm that's what I'm worried about, you know, because one way or another, we I don't know, you fast forward 20 or 30 years and marriage rates have continued their decline. And maybe 30 years from now, there's almost no marriage at all. What does society look like? I don't know exactly, but I don't think it looks better. I don't see that as an improvement. And you think somehow or another that allowing gay people to get married contributes to that decline?

contributes to that decline? I think it contributes to the idea that marriage is essentially meaningless. And so, yeah. But it's meaningful to those people. Right, but it has no objective or real significant meaning outside of like... Other than the ones we discussed about insurance, taxes, and being able to visit your spouse,

and affirming your love together in what you feel like is a permanent way you're making a bond you're making a pact with this other person that you love yeah it affirms how someone feels in the moment it makes them feel good but but as you said it might not tomorrow right but what bothers people is that religious ideology will be imposed upon them in that sense. And that the only reason why people would oppose it in a different way than they're opposing heterosexual people that have no intention of having children is because they have an opposition to homosexuality based on religious beliefs, which they feel like should be excluded, and I feel should

be excluded from law. Yeah, but I don't think that the question of the definition of marriage is a question of religious ideology. The question of Christian sexual morality and what is that sort of thing, that is a religious question. Yeah. Definition of marriage isn't, I don't think. It's not merely that or not only that anyway.

And one of the ways that I know that is that marriage has existed as an institution in societies all across the country and throughout history. And regardless of what religion was predominant in those societies. in those societies. So, you know, I don't think Christians, like, just invented this idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. Because if they did, then you wouldn't find it anywhere else. Have other cultures embraced gay marriage in the past? Certainly today, it's gaining wide approval.

Is that something in the past that people embraced while they embraced heterosexual marriages is it a cultural thing i don't think so i mean i i'm not aware of any historical precedent um going back in history to a culture that would affirm you know two men as being married in the in the same sense that a man and woman are married. I'm not aware of that existing in history. I don't think that it did. Certainly was not common if it did. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, that was the next thing that people were worried about. They were worried about gay marriage being overturned.

Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen. There's no political will for it. Everything that I'm saying here, you know, you don't see Republican politicians out on the campaign trail saying it. No. It's not going to happen. Then again, I mean, I didn't think Roe v. Wade was going to be overturned, and it was. But this is a different sort of thing. And, um, I don't see that on the, on the, on the horizon. I think this conversation that we're having,

one of the more important things of being able to have conversations like this is that people that do have differing perspectives can have a civil conversation on why they believe what they believe. This is so sadly uncommon in our culture. And there's going to be people out there that agree with you, that are listening to this, that are like, I am on Matt Walsh's side. And there's going to be people that see my point. But that's part of being a person. Part of being a human being that exists in 2022

is there's a lot of different ways to live your life and a lot of different ways to see the world and whether or not you got you and i ever come to an agreement about this it's not really that important well what's important is you get a chance to discuss it and that is what scares the shit out of me about our culture today that these kind of conversations are not encouraged they're're discouraged, and that some would say, oh, you're platforming a bigot to have this conversation. You're putting those ideas out there. I think that's what one of the things has led us into this fucking mess we're in right now. One of the reasons that we can have a civil conversation is that we still, even though we differ widely on really important issues,

there's still, there's like, there's a commonality. We started the conversation talking about gender. So we can agree there's basic biological reality. Well, we have a lot in common. We're both married. We both have children. Right. So there's those, the commonality there too, that I think makes the conversation possible. We both agree in civil discourse and be able to express yourself articulately and express your thoughts, allowing that person to express their thoughts. Yeah. But then one of the problems is if I'm sitting across the table from someone who doesn't even believe any of those things, then we might be able to refrain from shouting at each other but to have any kind of productive conversation at all it's like really impossible

because there's there's just no shared framework at all maybe but at least people like in the movie, in What is a Woman, you at least let those people explain themselves and you made it clear where you stand. And people get a chance to assess these ideas for their merits by themselves. Which is, that's what I think is important about a documentary like yours. Not just exposing these horrific practices of doing these things to children before they can even have any idea what the fuck the consequences are. But also that you let people know that the ideological bubble that you're living in is not the only way to see the world. And there's a lot of people out there that disagree. And they have opinions, and a lot of them are very intelligent as well.

And we should hear them. Yeah, and if you're confident in your own viewpoints, then you shouldn't be threatened by allowing people to speak. I think there's a lot of people that are just not really all that confident in what they believe. And so they're afraid to let other people speak. Maybe because at some level, too, they're afraid that they'll be, if not exposed intellectually, maybe they're even afraid that they'll be convinced they don't want to be convinced. Maybe. I think they just don't want to lose. I think people, a lot of times, they equate their ideas and their positions on things to them as a human, to them as an entity.

And anything that opposes things that they've agreed to or believe in or ascribed, they think of that as being an assault on their very being. Yeah, they do. It's a stupid way to think. Assault on their being and somehow a danger to them, even physically. Even violence. Those ideas are violence, and they cause harm to people. Yeah. And if you're defining yourself, too, by your own, you know, we put people's self-perception above everything. You know, we have to affirm someone's self-perception.

And no matter what. Well, then if someone says something that makes a person question their own self-perception, it's almost like it's an act of murder. You're killing their self-perception. And they can respond to it that way. Yeah. Like it's an actual act of violence.

That's why they say misgendering is a violent act how could that possibly be justified well it's a violent act because it's a is it it's an assault on not them physically but on what they consider more important which is their idea of themselves right which is why silencing people is what they're trying to like yelling at that person who's a transition or detransitioner calling them a fascist like that you can just minimize everything that they stand for instantaneously with one word or with one phrase yeah yeah well listen matt i enjoyed talking to you um we disagree about a lot but i get your perspective and uh i think your movie very important. It is eye-opening. I think a Lot of parents should watch it a lot of people that are that are in that liberal ideological bubble

I would encourage them to watch it and see what they're up against because I don't think it's everything they think that is that it is I don't think it's what you're getting Described to you by Jon Stewart and John Oliver and any of these left-wing talking heads that are on these media platforms that seem universally to be accepting these ideas wholesale. And I'm glad you made it. Yeah, I appreciate it. Again, thanks for talking about the film. And I hope people just give it a chance. Don't make an assumption about what you think the movie is. Just watch it and see if it speaks to you. Go bootleg it.

It's available everywhere. It's on YouTube. No. Go to dailywire.com. Is there a website specifically for the documentary? Yeah, whatiswoman.com. Okay. All right.

Thanks, Matt. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Bye, everybody. alright thanks Matt bye everybody