The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 266. Gay Parenting: Promise and Pitfalls | Dave Rubin

Episode Date: June 30, 2022

In this episode, Dave Rubin and I discuss the evolution of his lifestyle, the recent Leftist push of transgender ideology and the uncharted territory of gay fatherhood.

Hello everyone, I'm here today with my colleague and my friend, Mr. Dave Rubin. Post of the Rubin Report, a top-ranking online talk show known to many of you. He's an author, comedian, and TV personality best known for his political and cultural commentary. Mr. Ruben began his career like so many people in the online world as a stand-up comedian and continues to perform on stage in that, guys, throughout the US. In an effort to combat big tech censorship, Ruben founded locals.com, the subscription-based, digital platform that empowers creators

to be independent by giving them control over their content and data, something we could all use. Dave's first book, Don't Burn This Book, thinking for yourself in an age of unreason, was a New York Times bestseller. His second book, Don't Burn This Country, Surviving and Thriving in our Woke Distopia, is published by Penguin Random House on April 12, 2022. Dave and I got to know each other first when he was one of the earliest public

figures to support my efforts on the fight against compelled speech in Canada and elsewhere. And then more deeply, when he opened for me in 125 cities during my 2018 book tour, I concentrated during that tour, talking to my audiences on many issues, pertaining to responsibility and meaning, including family life. And that's what we're going to talk about today. Mr. Rubin currently resides in Miami, with his husband, David Janet, and their rescue dog, Clyde.

Good to see you, Dave. It's good to see you, my friend. I have to say, this feels a little bizarre to me. We've done so many of these in so many different cities, and countries countries and different chairs and on Skype and Zoom and every which way. And I'm usually reading your bio. I know. This is bizarre. I don't usually interview you, but we talked together a couple of weeks ago, you have big changes coming up in your life. And we talked about having a serious conversation

about that. I know that, and please correct me if I'm saying anything that isn't accurate, a lot of what I talked about when we were together on the 2018 tour was the meaning that's inherent in responsibility and the kind of meaning that sustains people through crisis and catastrophe. And part of my, the propositions I was putting forward, I suppose, was that most of that meaning is to be found in responsibility, especially to other people. And I talked a lot about the role of family in people's lives. And at that point, you really hadn't been considering children, not seriously, although your partner, your husband, was more committed to that than you were. You said you've told me that your views changed to some degree,

at least in part, as a consequence of us communicating over the course of that entire year, so maybe you could fill people in on that front and let them know what's happening. Yeah, sure. Well, so David and I met 13 years ago yesterday, and I know it was yesterday because we met on my birthday, believe it or not, it was on my birthday, and then I got an even weirder one for you. It was at the gay pride parade in New York City, which now they've become sort of these sort of crazy

circuses, but back then it wasn't quite like that. But I actually literally remember when he walked into the room and he was wearing an American flag tank top, which I'm pretty sure you can't wear it to a pride parade anymore. But in any event, we've been together for about 12 years, we've been married for seven years, and I'm 46 now. So I grew up in a time when I never, even, first off, I struggled with my sexuality for a long time.

Partly, we've discussed this. I felt, you know, people, it's sort of like a Homer Simpson quote that I love, and I know you can do the Simpsons thing all the time. I like my beer cold and my homosexuals flaming. And I sort of thought that was what it meant, that gay, even though I was attracted to men, that gay meant something else.

Gay meant like you like the theater or you like to dance or you like Madonna or something, and I didn't really care for any of those things. So I really had some distance between my feelings and my attractions and sort of the way the world could map to that, so to speak. And as a Jan Exer, there was nothing we never talked about gay marriage. You didn't even talk about anything gay. There was nothing growing up in the 90s.

There was no role model to look at. The only person that I ever saw on television that made any sense to me was in two episodes of the Golden Girls Blanche's brother comes out as gay and he marries a cop. This is 1991 NBC Primetime. Obviously gay marriage wasn't legal for another 30 years or something.

But I had no role models. I had no nothing. I sort of just never thought about getting married, having a family truthfully. And I didn't even realize this till we were on tour. I never thought of the future. I sort of thought of my present all the time. And then when we were on tour, flash forward a bit, David and I got married. And even when we got married, we never really talked about having kids

or even what a family meant. We knew we love each other and we have a great time together and we love the same things and I think in most ways we bring out the best in each other. Sometimes we bring out the worst in each other and that probably is, that's probably good for you. You're married. Exactly.

But then right around when we were on tour, so now this is 2018, David started talking about having kids and we were texting a lot about it while we were on tour. And then I'm with you on, you know, on stage every night, as you said, in 125 cities for about a year and a half, and you're constantly talking about the importance of family and the importance that for most people, and this is the way you would always say it. It's hard to quote Jordan Peterson exactly. But something to the effect of that for most people to live a fully actualized life, that being a parent is an integral part of that. There's almost no exceptions to that. You would always make a point. There are some exceptions. You might find them.

Yeah, but you have to be exceptional to have an exception to that. So maybe always make a point. There are some exceptions. You might find... But you have to be exceptional to have an exception to that. So, maybe it's a third job and career and that sort of service to the broader community and it's a third your intimate relationship and then it's a third children and family. And those proportions can vary. But if you miss one of those, there's a big gap to fill and maybe you can fill it. If another one of your endeavors has the expansive quality necessary to occupy 2 thirds of your time, more power to you, I suppose, but it's a big risk. And so you also told me, Dave, when we were talking about this before, that you started to think about being older as well.

And I suppose that with your concentration on the present and the lack of role models, that there was no real vision for what it might be like to, well, to grow old in the gay community, I suppose. Yeah, and you know, it's funny, the gay community, I hate that phrase. I know, even as you said it, it's like, it doesn't mean anything to me.

I don't think of you as part of the straight community You know, it's just one of these things we say these things. We don't even know exactly why we're saying them But I didn't have that role model. I didn't have that there was no map. They're really one Brotherhood of the margin line. I guess that's a group I could be part of as opposed in some bizarre sense But even that is sort of nauseating I guess but but so we're on tour together and But even that is sort of nauseating, I guess. But so we're on tour together and David's texting me and we're going back and we're talking on the phone and we're FaceTime and it just keeps coming up and you keep talking about

this on stage. And on top of everything else, I'm meeting all of the people that are attending the shows. And you know this, the amount of people that were in new families or that the wife was pregnant for the first time. And I'm seeing the joy on these people's faces. All of this is hitting me. And then you keep saying this thing that for most people, they have to do it.

But there are these exceptions. And I kept thinking, well, wait a minute, could I be the exception that I could live a fully actualized best possible life without having kids and at the same time be married to someone who wants kids? That then what am I even married for? Well, that was big, that question. Right, so now these things are really hitting each other.

And because the map wasn't there, the road map just wasn't there, I started going, man, I really have to think about this now. And I remember one night we were on stage and I had the best seat in the house every night because I'm just off stage left So I'm basically watching you right is actually better The stage right I guess yeah, I suppose it depends which country we were in but I'm you know I'm basically watching you from behind so I have sort of the back view of you to the crowd

So I genuinely felt that every night that I was part of the show every night in that sense part of the audience And I remember you said it one more time and I thought, all right, I have to do this, I have to do this. And that's why it was always incredibly honest when I would say to the crowd that being on tour with you for every reason that they were there, that you helped these people change their lives, that you did that to me too. But now, and I think the purpose of this conversation, which by the way, if you would have said to me 10 years ago that I'd be having this conversation publicly, first off, that I'd be married, I wouldn't have believed you,

that I'd be having kids I wouldn't have believed you, that I would be willing to talk about this, or even someone that someone else might look to to help map it for them, I'd say you were completely insane. This is not really something, you know, I'd rather talk about politics, I'd rather talk about the culture wars and all these other things. This is a political issue too, because we're trying to sketch out a pathway, I suppose. I mean, our culture appears to have decided that gay marriage is, well, I don't know if acceptable is the right word.

It's become part of the structure of marriage itself. And so now the question is, okay, what does that mean? And that certainly opens up the question on the child front because, I mean, in some ways marriage is the union of two people, but in a possibly more fundamental way, it's the union of two people to provide the foundation for children. And I would say that's actually paramount.

I mean, our society tends to flip that around and we tend to think of marriage as something that, well, you find the partner right for you and you live happily ever after. It's, well, no, not exactly. But or maybe, maybe exactly if you also understand that living happily ever after means living for other people in many ways, particularly your children. And so, and then, of course, that complicates the issue on the gay marriage front because as we're

going to talk about, it's also more technically difficult to have children if you're a homosexual couple. Right. So if you take just the marriage part first, meaning that two people are going to choose to share their life and live together, you know, share a bed, et cetera, et cetera, I would say culturally in America we kind of move past that. I mean mean Trump ran these the first first time president. He was on stage with a rainbow flag. It was, you know,

and nobody cared. Or not, I shouldn't say nobody cared, but the enough people felt, okay, you let people live the way they want to put this down and move ahead. But you're right, that marriage has to do with something else. Otherwise, otherwise, the word marriage wouldn't mean anything. It's like, nobody really cares if you live with your friend for the rest of your life or you live with a man or a woman. People do this all the time in life and it doesn't really matter. So what really is the purpose of really living with somebody and really being with somebody and sharing your life with somebody is to build something lasting,

something that I think, something that you've learned and know and were taught and that you can hand that on to the next generation and hopefully they can attain and retain some of that. Right, well, I give you that permanence in your life too, right? Yeah. That multi-generational permanence stretching

indefinitely into the future. And I mean, part of what marriage does, I think, technically, it's the psychological equivalent of what sex does genetically. You know, if people mix comedies, gametes, gametes, gametes, gametes, partly because to ensure variability and to stop the propagation of parasites. That's why we don't clone, but there's that mixing as well tends to ensure that deviations from genetic health are minimized. And so the same thing happens on the psychological affront, I would say, is that each person has

their own idiosyncrasies, and some of those lead them down the garden path to terrible places. But if you're with someone else and you have to negotiate with them constantly, then that opens up the possibility of you mutually modifying each other's personality, so that you both become healthier and that your joint existence

can be a paragon of sorts. And then that's what the child interacts with is that united front of the two parents. Right. And so you get that longevity of view, which I think helps to mature you, but you also get the opportunity to become more fully fledged as a psychological being. And then I think that's furthered as well. I've often thought and said this, and I do believe it's true. It's very, very difficult to mature until you have children. And there are other ways of maturing, but it's hard, and the reason it's hard, I think,

is because you're not mature until someone else is more important than you. And it's possible that that would happen with your wife, your husband, but not like with children. Well, I've been thinking about that. So, you know, we're about to have our first child in a month, and I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Like, it's just something that's constantly stirring in my head that I feel like I've sort of gotten to the end of where I can get mature in my maturation process. Not that I can't change or get better at this or that or something,

but I do feel like I'm at the end of one phase right now. I really, I very much feel that, and I think I'm feeling it more and more each day as we get closer to August 22nd, which is the due date. But, you know, the first part, you know, you can take whether it's a straight relationship or a gay relationship, the dance that a couple can do and the way that they can mature each other

and love each other and all of those things, that's one thing, but the peace with the kids, with building this sustainable thing, it's not something that has been proven in society yet really. There are obviously our gay couples with kids, and this has been happening for decades. But it really is sort of unseen at the moment, which is why we wanted to have this conversation.

And I was like, boy, I don't even know that, in some ways, I don't know that I'm the person that's supposed to have this conversation, but maybe that's exactly why I'm supposed to have this conversation. But we're both exploring it, you know, trying to figure it out. I mean, maybe we can talk about exactly how it came to be that you'll have a baby in your household in six weeks.

Talk about what you had to do to make that happen and why you made the decisions that you made and what advantages and hazards come along with that. Sure. So, first, technically, because there are biological differences between men and women, I don't want to get us canceled on YouTube, but it actually is true, Jordan. We could not biologically have kids, so just ourselves. So we talked about adoption for a little bit.

We both felt that the genetic component of this was important to us. So for a little while, we debated going with my sister's egg. We thought we'd have two kids. That was the general thought process in the beginning. And we thought we could take some of my sister's eggs, and she's a mother now. She's actually pregnant with her third, but that we could get her eggs, and then we would take David's sperm, and then we would have two children from that.

After a long time of talking about a year debating that back and forth and going through all that, there were a lot of ethical and moral issues and my sister then would sort of be the biological mother of my children. I mean, there were all sorts of things that we were about to traverse. Right, and that's all the charted territory, right?

All sorts of things. You think you know how that might go, and you think you know how it might go if you have good will, but that does not mean that you know how it will go. And I have to say, even that conversation, having that conversation with my sister, who was interested in, you know, when we came to her, she was sort of flattered and honored that we were even considering it. But then, you know, we said, why don't you say with this for a little bit, and then suddenly she had a lot of those questions, and she was concerned if, you know, she shows up to

the birthday party and then feels this odd jealousy or what if she suddenly wasn't happy with the way that we were parenting or... Right. That's a big one. Or a litany of other things. So, even going through that, and this obviously is not the way that we ultimately went about it. Even that was sort of a maturation process and like,

what are we really trying to do here? So anyway, ultimately we decided to find an egg donor. I mean, basically, it sounds sort of glibber-sign, but it's sort of like Tinder. I mean, you can, there are these websites that exist where the egg donors are on the site and you try it. We tried to find a girl. I didn't really care that much about the pedigree in terms of,

did they go to an Ivy League school or anything like that. We wanted to find a girl who obviously was physically healthy, most importantly, that didn't have major issues in terms of genetics and all that sort of stuff. We thought that sort of looked like the type of girl that we might be with, so I didn't want, you know, a six foot five Swedish woman, let's say. And so we have one egg donor, meaning there were multiple eggs, and we fertilized one with David's firm and one with my sperm and we'll have two kids right now. We have two serigates that are pregnant. And even talking about this, it's like, man, I get this is, this is all kind of crazy stuff. Putting aside, putting aside gay or straight related to all of this, the whole serigacy thing is, it's fascinating that there are first up women who are willing

to donate their eggs. And you know, I hear a lot of people, and we talk about this. There's this criticism of somehow that you're buying the egg and you're renting the woman, meaning the serigate. And of course, there is a financial component to it. There is, I'm not denying that there isn't. I can tell you, having gone through this process and we had a previous surrogate who had two miscarriages, they were also, we were doing a lot of this during COVID. And during COVID, they were all sorts,

the miscarriage numbers were through the roof, they were all sorts of weird things, the quality of the eggs wasn't great, they don't know exactly, they'll have to study this for years in terms of what actually happened. But I can tell you that the women who offer to be the surrogates and who are offering their eggs, they are not doing this for the money. There's all sorts of other ways that you can make money, that anyone can make money. They are doing it. They talk about that they have

disability and this gift that they can do. A lot of them, there are some that won't do it for same-sex couples because of their own ethical or religious views. The surrogates that we found, they actually wanted them had a gay brother. They were all sorts of things that they feel that they can help other people have a family and what a better gift there is. But all of that aside, all of the science and genetics and all that, it leads us to this thing,

which I think is the heart of what we're trying to talk about here, which is, so we're gonna be a family with two fathers and no mothers. And what does that really look like? You know, it's very easy to just say, okay, gay people should have kids, or gay people should get married and gay people should have kids. It's easy to say a lot of things.

It's easy to say a lot of things. It's easy to say a lot of things. It's easy to say a lot of things. It's easy to say a lot of things. It's easy to say a lot of things. It's easy to say an awful lot of things. And it's not as you said, it's not that easy for a gay couple to have kids. It's very complicated. So putting aside the, if you're gonna go to the Sarah Gacy, putting aside all the finances and all of that stuff that eliminates an awful lot of people from even being able to do it.

Fortunately, we're able to do it, okay? But now it gets us to the real part here, which is that now we're gonna live in a household with two fathers There's going to be no mother involved and what is that really mean? Well, and I understand some of the reservations. Well, yeah, well, so we do know we do know that Children who are breastfed do better. Yeah, I believe that one year of breastfeeding is equivalent to, I think breastfed kids have a five-point IQ advantage and one point IQ is worth one year of education. I have two freezers in my garage, two industrial freezers full of breast milk. Right, so it's done all the research on this.

Right, so another complication, but okay, and so, and we don't have data. We don't really have data on Motherless children Raised by fathers from infancy, right? Because it's pretty rare I don't know if there's a literature pertaining to that at all. We do have a literature on Mother-headed families without fathers and the data there are crystal clear. It's not good to be fatherless. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't some women who are struggling mightily as single mothers who don't do an outstanding job, but what it absolutely and 100% means

that on average, that's suboptimal and badly suboptimal. And so, it seems to me that the minimal stable requirement for ensuring the psychological health and financial viability of a child is something like a nuclear family structure minimally, right? So you need a mother and a father, or at least you need two people, one who plays a maternal role and one who plays a paternal role, or that they split those. Two seems to be better than one. Now, how much of that's linked to sex? We also don't know. It seems that the feminine role is more accepting slash nurturing. You see that with the proclivity of women to be more agreeable temperamentally.

That kicks in at puberty. And so I think that you have to be accepting and nurturing, especially in your attitude towards infants before their mobile. So say before six months, before nine months, an infant does no wrong. It's 100% acceptance. The problem with that is that that's not true as the child develops because it has to switch to more of an encouraging role. It's like out of your dependency into the world and the paternal spirit encourages that development. Now, mothers can do that too, but roughly speaking, women tend to do the nurturing thing more, and men do the encouraging thing more. So now the question is, how do you mediate,

how do you manage to fulfill both those roles in the absence of heterosexual arrangement? Right, so now naturally we understand that there are men who are more nurturing and women who aren't as nurturing and all those things. You know David pretty well and we've been out to dinner with Tammy many times. And you know him. He is incredibly warm and nurturing and loving and deeply cares about all those things. And I'm telling you, he is reading about skin to skin contact every day. And all of the breast milk stuff and everything. And I know he will have a huge percentage of the stuff that a mother would bring.

But I also know it's not all of it. And he knows it's not all of it. Well, the other thing too is that you guys have to do that consciously. Yes. Right. With research in hand and to build up that proclivity that would be there more automatically, arguably with a mother and all the psychological and hormonal transformations she undergoes and that transition into breast milk production and all of that which is a fundamental transformation in a woman's biology and or psyche.

Now you and David have ample resources at hand financially and intellectually that enable you to traverse this pathway, as well as anyone is likely to do it. But it is very interesting and salutary to hear you also talk about the complications. So, on the feminine side, let's say, you think you have the nurturance Angle well-covered you talked me a little bit about having women around in your infant and child's life as well Yeah, so David's mom is going to be living with us for a few months at the start as well as his sister who's taken care of young babies already But now I understand that they're they're not the biological mother, but they will be there You know, we're gonna have night nurses also for a few months

to help the babies get on a normal sleep schedule. But these are all the pieces that we're trying to put together. But can we just back up for one second? Because I think before we go too deep into just the parental part of this, there was another thing that came up when we sort of roughly sketched out this conversation over dinner that I think's important, which is that if you weren't to allow gay people to either get married

and enter relationships that will last the test of time, or have children to really last the generations, then what are we reducing these people to? And I think that's a huge part of this for me, that I think had the world not shifted to be a little bit kinder, had I not maybe been on tour with you and come to some of these realizations or found someone in the world that I wanted to put there world not shifted to be a little bit kinder, had I not maybe been on tour with you and come to some of these realizations or found someone in the world that I wanted to put their needs above my own, that I could have been left to a life that would have been sort of purely narcissistic or self-destructive or anything. You know, I used to live in- Well, I don't see how that, in some sense, I don't see how that can be, there can be any alternative

to that if there isn't another pathway forward. Yes. And so that's the, to me, that's like the unknown road that I'm going down right now, that I want. I'm choosing to go down that unknown road of, oh, it can be better than that, right? I don't, as I said, I don't have, we have two or three couples that are gay parents that are doing some version of this. But we don't have that model,

but then when we lived in West Hollywood, West Hollywood is the gaiiest place on earth, rainbow crosswalks and the whole thing. And to me, I would see these guys that were 65, 70 years old that all they had basically was that they worked out, they sprayed tend and got hair plugs, they had their little dogs and they partied on the weekends and probably chased the same sexual escapades that they were chasing 40 years ago.

And it's not a lie. And it's not a full life. And I actually, it's like, I feel like I have almost like a visceral feeling when I talk about it because I know that that could have been me. So when I see these people that either at this point are against gay marriage, but in general, there don't seem to be that many voices publicly about that anymore. So here's a rough question. So do you think both the flamboyance, now I want to get into this in some detail, but the

flamboyance that's been historically associated with the male heterosexual community, community, sorry about that. And the promiscuity, do you think, to what degree do you think that both of those are a consequence of not having a more integrated and conservative path potentially open in front of people? I think it's a huge amount that probably will never be fully explained. If people don't have an ability, look, what was the gay rights movement for in the 70s in New York City and Stonewall and all of those things? These people just wanted, well, they wanted to be able to get married. That was part of it. But it was also that they wanted to be able to go to a bar that wasn't underground, that

wasn't hidden, that wasn't it in, that wasn't, you know, this CD thing, but that's what they had to do because they were getting raided by the police and this was going on, obviously, in other countries, and it was going on for decades before that. But they wanted some sense of normalcy. If you don't leave people some little seeds of normalcy, then they will do all sorts of things. So the flamboyant part, there's two parts you're asking about. So the flamboyant part, I'm just not built that way. I'm not. Sometimes I used to, you know, I used to, when I was first sort of coming out or coming to grips with myself, I actually liked guys that were kind of flamboyant because I, in my, to me, it was like, oh, they're so who they are. Like they had just let go of every sort of normal cliche or

something like that. They're so good. Right. You saw in that kind of existential courage. Yeah. And yet, they always really like, generally gays, they like straight acting. That's a real thing with gays. They like straight acting.

So guys always liked me because I didn't seem gay, whatever that meant. And I thought it sort of meant that I was broken in a weird way because it made me feel like a sort of like double freak in an odd sense. Right. And I thought it sort of meant that I was broken in a weird way because it made me feel like a sort of like double freak in an odd sense. Right, right. Because I was struggling. To clear for the straight community. To straight for the queer community.

Well said, man. And so I was sort of grappling with that. So there was this, there's the flamboyant part and then you're asking about the sex side of it. It's like if you don't leave people with some ability to say, oh, you can be in a real lasting relationship. This is why marriage equality was so important now. This is a sidebar, but I would never force a church

or a mosque or a synagogue to perform a wedding that was against its beliefs. But from a secular perspective, to whatever respect we remain secular in this country, if you don't give people the same opportunity to be in a relationship and then learn all of the things that you talked about before how you go through that churning with your partner and hopefully make each other better and sometimes make each other worse and all that stuff, what will you leave them with?

You will leave them with their carnal desires. And I definitely could have gone down that road with a... And I definitely did go down that road for a defiant rebelliousness right because who knows what happens if you're not allowed so to speak to be who you are then it strikes me as highly probable that an excessive amount of Rebelliousness is going to start to look attractive right and maybe to be indistinguishable from courage I would say it's got to be the case that the hope, so to speak, of the more enlightened conservative types who were willing to open

the Dordagay marriage was that by bringing those relationships inside the traditional fold that things would normalize. Yeah. And that there would be a promotion of something like stable, mature, responsible, long-term monogamy. Well, I think maybe I'm trying to prove that. I'm not trying to prove it, like I'm setting out to prove it, but I suppose de facto because of my life, I'm trying to prove that.

I mean, in a weird way, although I'm probably the unlikliest of conservatives in that sense, it's like what life am I trying to live? I'm trying to live a life that is somewhat conservative in nature, in that sense, it's like what life am I trying to live? I'm trying to live a life that is somewhat conservative in nature, in that sense, meaning that I believe that family is important and probably the most important thing after the individual. That's how societies are built. I fundamentally believe that. So it's weird. It's like my worldview, because otherwise, what are you saying to people? So, okay, okay, you're gay.

So you can either just endlessly have sex or endlessly disregard every norm known to man, and just have nothing other than wake up and just live the life how you want. What other way is there to integrate into society? To really integrate into society. I mean, to me, this is it. Well, I think that's why the culture did take the decision that it took, which was to open the doors. Let's say, now we talked about that. I want to get into that too, because the clip, we have this notion that's right in our culture. Let's say that's insisted upon that all families are equally are equally equal. And I understand the emphasis on that from the, let's call it the tolerance perspective. But I think that it's badly flawed in one

manner. And I think this will be the hardest thing probably for us to discuss is that you can't flatten out distinctions without a tremendous loss. And I don't think it's possible to dispense with the ideal of heterosexual monogamy. Now as the ideal, if we think, well, there's an ideal individual who's responsible in mature and far-seeing and honest, an honest trader, a good player, an honorable person, an honorable decent person. And then there's the minimal requirement for a family that's ideal, and that's something approximating heterosexual, long-term heterosexual monogamy. And maybe you have two decent people united together, and then there's a firm platform

for children. Now the problem with that as an ideal is that we all fall short of the ideal. And so half 40% of people are going to get divorced. And of the people who don't get divorced, a good percentage of them are in pretty damn miserable marriages. Now, that doesn't condemn marriage, but it does show how difficult attaining that ideal is. And then there's going to be people who lose their partners and raise children alone. And they're going to be people who raise children alone by happenstance or choice. And it doesn't seem reasonable to what would you say? Put them outside the bounds of civilized society, let's say that. By the same token, it doesn't seem reasonable to dispense

with the ideal. So maybe we need something like, well, we know what the ideal is. It's a divine ideal in some sense, in that none of us can live up to it. But then there has to be a space around that ideal where the individual differences and flaws and peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of people aren't treated so harshly that that becomes counterproductive in and of itself. It's standing with faint praise, but I don't see. No, that's it. That's it. That's it. That's the meat of this more than anything else. Of course, there's an ideal. Of course, there is an ideal. There has to be an ideal. Well, there's nothing to aim Of course, there is an ideal. There has to be an ideal. And if we can do that. Well, there's nothing to aim at if there's not an ideal.

Because if there isn't, if the ideal isn't two people male and female in a heterosexual relationship, then what is it? Is it four people? Is it eight people? Is it one person? Like instantly you go from that kind of narrow ideal

to an intense multiplicity. And we certainly seen the problems that are associated with that. And so you can't just blow out the conf kind of narrow ideal to an intense multiplicity. And we certainly seen the problems that are associated with that. And so you can't just blow out the confines of the ideal without destabilizing, well, maybe you destabilize society at the level of the family. And that seems to me to be a really bad idea. Well, it's a really bad idea. And I think we're seeing some of the repercussions of that right now, right?

I mean, we've seen the excesses of what the woke or the progressives or whatever that is that are now destabilizing everything. This is why I've said this. I've gotten into trouble for saying it a few times, but I'm sympathetic to conservatives who go, boy, you know, we let gay marriage happen and look what's happened since. Now we're into all this gender stuff and they're literally teaching gender theory to five year olds who know nothing about gender or sex or anything else. But the issue really is, so okay, so if we have the ideal, really what we're talking about here is what do we do with these marginal cases?

The marginal case is meaning okay, so now they're- No, for a modern question. Right, so what do we really do with that? So now okay, so there are going to be gay couples who want to approximate to that ideal. So what does a society do? Does a society try to help them get there? Or does a society just never talk about it, push them to the margins, or...

And push it underground. Right. So what we're trying to do right here is unearth that a little bit. So I don't deny the importance of a mother. I know stretch. as I said, we're going to try to have as many strong female role models as possible, but I don't think it will replicate a mother. By the way, when you talk about children are pretty good at bonding with adults who aren't their biological relatives. What children don't like is instability in their

primary caregiver. They really hate having primary caregivers swap because their primary caregiver is their whole world. And so basically, if you substitute one for another, say, six months into the child's life, then it's as if everything the child knows has been flipped upside down. So they don't like that. They're perfectly capable of bonding with multiple people, though. And there doesn't seem to be any developmental downside to that. In fact, perhaps quite the contrary. I don't think it's so bad for a child to have a variety of role models to choose from. And I certainly don't think it's impossible for you to replicate both the masculine and

the feminine influences in your children's life. I would just say, well, it's difficult. Might be more difficult, even if you're a homosexual couple, but it's difficult if you're, it's difficult enough. And there are plenty of heterosexual couples. So where both partners are essentially feminine and their temperament, or both partners are essentially masculine. Now, we don't know enough about that to differentiate it right down to the ultimate degree, but the problem that you guys will face isn't of a categorically different type,

necessarily, than the problem that many couples face. Absolutely, and there are also, when you talk about the ideal, and then the way that everyone fits into that ideal, or tries to get to that ideal, there are parents who obviously abuse their kids, or abuse each other, and alcohol, and so on, all those things.

I mean, no way comparing being a gay parent to that, but the point is that there is, there is an ideal situation and then there's what society will allow. And then there's reality. And then there's reality. So it's like, okay, so should society stop people who are alcoholics from having kids or stop people who... Or license parents after intensive training. Right.

Well, that's the road that this really would go down. Yeah, well, we already kind of decided that too because one of the things the state doesn't do is determine who's a fit parent. Right. And we've decided. We love rules. Well, it's very strange in some sense because it's the most important thing you'll ever do. And yet, while you're not compelled to have an education, for example, around parenting issues before you become a parent. And we've decided everywhere in the world, I would say, maybe without exception, that that's one place the government doesn't go. And that's a very interesting decision for everyone to have made. It's quite surprising in some

fundamental sense. I guess we know that in that situation in particular, a variety of approaches might be the best. So, something like that. Well, so I guess my question for you as I traverse this is so if we acknowledge that ideal situation. And again, just using the word ideal, I know that there's a certain set of people that will watch that go and see Rubin saying his relationship or he is less than. Yeah, well, isn't.

Right. Well, that's the key part. The deal where it dispenses with the bloody ideal just because it's difficult to attain. Right. And just because we all are, we all are, all are flawed in our own way. I mean, really, who I think you said this to me at dinner, but it's like who amongst us is walking around as the ideal partner, the ideal person, the ideal, the ideal everything, the ideal father, all those.

The ideal anything. That matter, yeah. Virtually nobody is doing that. Well, if they are, then the ideal isn't high enough because an ideal should be something that beckons to you from the distance, right? It's not something that's right there in front of you for you to grip.

That's much of an ideal. Well, if we'd have a lot more people who are acting that way, if it was that easy to hit by, I suppose, right? There's not a lot of people doing it. So I think what I'm trying to figure out here is how does that, how does this life, I think, fit into whatever's coming in this new world? You know, we seem to be entering a new world right now. We're watching an old world go away and we're entering this new world. I'm sort of part of this new conservative world and kind of where, where does it all fit? I ask that. Well, so here's a question that's relevant

to that. So it's good, politically incorrect question. And so in some sense, the more traditional community has opened itself up to the possibility of including gay marriage in the purview of the acceptable and traditional. Yeah. Okay, so what responsibilities come along for people who are homosexual in relationship to the expansion of that right? What do you think about that? I mean, I know what you've done.

Yeah. Well, I think it's a respect for that. It's an acknowledged meant that something is good there. And that we have to, we have to be tolerant of the questions. I guess that's it. We have to, when I see this now, suddenly, like, you know, when we announced that we were having kids, there was some pushback online from more religious people on the right. By the way, 99% of it was all anonymous people. It was virtually nobody, well, certainly nobody that I knew,

there were one or two people that had blue checks on Twitter, but it was all these people talking about the sanctity of marriage and all of these things. But I'm willing to have that conversation. I accept that this is, I genuinely accept that this is a little bit weird. This is a little bit, but genuinely accept that this is, this is a little bit weird. This is a little bit, you know,

but it's like if we don't have these conversations, then the thing that we're pulling apart by pulling apart marriage and the family, just by saying it is anything and everything at the exact same time, that is far more dangerous. That's far more dangerous. So that's why even as I'm sitting here now, I'm sort of like, I partly don't want to have this conversation

because it's like, I don't know the answers to all of these things, but I know that we have to be able to do it. Well, you're supposed to talk when you don't know the answers because then maybe you can think it through and you can exchange views with other people and you can expand your knowledge in that domain of ignorance.

I want to go back to something you said. You decided, the two of you decided that genetic similarity was an important factor to take into account. Now obviously that's issue doesn't arise in the case of fertile heterosexual couples. It does if they have to adopt or if they decide to adopt instead. And we know that people, there is a preference, quite a marked preference, although this might not be so clear with adoption. If you have a stepparent, and you're a child who's not biologically related to stepparent, you're at way higher risk for abuse. Like way way higher. I don't remember how

many fold higher, but it's, it's a tremendous amount. I think it's the single most predictive risk factor. I suppose that would probably scrap with alcohol use. But so people are more positively inclined to their genetic relatives. Now that exact details of that aren't clear. And it's not surprising if you think like a biologist that that would be the case. But, but this had to be a conscious decision on your part. And it wasn't a decision that you guys necessarily had to take. So why did you decide that that was important? Yeah, man. It's one of those things. Well, you know, I also had heard you talk about this part of parenting and seeing yourself in this child.

And you see your relatives too. You see everything, I suppose. I think, I don't know that I have a good answer for this actually. But you both decided this. We knew it. We knew it. We knew it. We knew it.

When we decided we didn't want to adopt it. We just knew, I don't know what that I don't even know how to describe it. There was something important when we had that conversation, okay, are we going to adopt it? We really did think about it. It would have been way easier. It would have been way less expensive

in all of those things. And we both, It's a strange thing that that can't be articulated. It is, I don't know, I don't know that I can articulate it. Well, you might ask yourself on the similar front front is like, well, there's lots of unwanted babies in the world. And so why isn't the ethical thing when you're a heterosexual couple just to a dog that wanted baby? Why bring another baby into the world when there's a baby that

could use a home? And the answer is, that isn't what people do. And then the question might be, well, why? And you can come up with a biological rationale, but that doesn't mean that there's a conceptual, a conceptual answer handy. Like, why do you want your own kids? And the answer to that is something like, well, that's what everyone has always done

since the beginning of time. It's something like that, right? Right, but it's not really an answer. No, no, no, no, no, it's not a well, or take this is part of partly why conservatives are set back on their heels so frequently when they're questioned by radicals. Because the radicals will do something like,

well, justify marriage and the conservative things. Well, we all agreed about that like 50,000 years ago. And so I don't actually have a fully fleshed out explicit rationale and defense for the institution of marriage. I thought that was self-evident. And I would say the preference for your own biological children has that self-evident about it. There is a cruelty about that in some real sense, right?

But I suppose that's the cruelty of specifically loving some people more than you're capable of loving everyone else. So maybe we just have to accept that some things are self-evident, rather than endlessly wonder why they're self-evident, right? Well, that's what it is. Servant of what you say.

Well, and I suppose I became most unlikely conservative of all that in some ways it doesn't really matter, but I know that it is. I know that it was when we sat there and had that conversation. When push came to shove, we said, you know, we want to have, if we're having two kids,

let's have one from each of us by a lot of the kids. Well, some of the ideas, look, look, I really love Tammy. And it's quite something to see your echo in the kids. Yeah. My son, it's turned out that Michaela perhaps looks more like me and Julian looks more like Tammy, but I can see Tammy and him. And I'm pretty happy about that. You know, and so, and I suspect, hopefully, she feels the same way on the other side.

So that love for the person is also echoed in their replication in the children. And then there's more than that too, because like when my son was really little, he really like an infant, just a newborn infant. He would have facial expressions that I could see were my dad. It's like, oh man, that looks exactly like that. He has exactly the same facial expression. And so that echoing of other people that you love, that's not nothing. And that doesn't mean that if you adopt a people that you love, that's not nothing, you know?

And that doesn't mean that if you adopt a child, you can't come to love that child as if they're your own. Clearly, that's possible. But that doesn't mean it's optimal. And it doesn't mean it's easy. And without pitfalls, and I think the data on step parents makes that really clear. It's just part of the reason we talked about this a little bit too. Part of the reason that heterosexual monogamy is the ideal is because it's also got, you can't beat it in terms of efficient, right? You said how difficult it was to produce a child. It's not that difficult at all if you're too heated up 15 year olds in the back of your

father's car and you're alone, right? Yeah, exactly. It's like, it's as easy as falling off the bed too easy in some sense, perhaps. But, but that also indicates that ease and efficiency also is a solid reason why a certain kind of ideal exists. You guys had to jump through hoops and not everyone could do that. They don't have the resources.

And so that, that's another obstacle. It's a lot. And again, without that map, without that, you know, that's the interesting thing for me. It's like, as I've sort of shifted politically, as you know about, and so much my life has been about politics and talking about what I think for a living. And then suddenly, man, all of my political thoughts, all of the stuff that I talk about all the time and government, all these things. Now it's really like, it's all sitting right in front of me right now, the difference between your own personal morality and the way government is and our role in all of these things. It's like I'm trying to do, I'm trying, it's the self-evident part of this, I'm trying

to do what I know is right. Right, right, right. Trying to do what I know is right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right.

And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right.

And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that's right. And that is and to walk that path. That's a good thing if you can manage it. Another thing we talked about a little bit in relation, decided to discuss today in relationship to the ideal was, this is also an extremely contentious issue

in case we haven't covered enough contentious issues already. As the, and this goes back to the issue of the conservatives who took issue with gay marriage, it's like, okay, we're trying, we're starting to break down the categorical boundaries here. Where is that going to go? Well, we've seen where it goes, at least to some degree. And as I said, I'm sympathetic to this.

I really am sympathetic to this argument. I see it. I see it. I see what they were worried about. And unfortunately, the left, you tweeted out something a couple of weeks ago. I was never a conservative until the liberals decided there were no rules. I'm paraphrasing you roughly, but I'm sympathetic to that. So much of all of the things that we knew, we no longer know at a societal level, apparently.

And that's because of the... Yeah, like this is a session between a man and a woman. Well, we could talk about that in relationship, again, to use this hated phrase to the LGBT plus community. Yeah. First of all, the notion that that's an integral community is foolish, especially as you add more and more letters. I have no innate knowledge of what it is, more innate knowledge of what it is to be like

to be trans than you do. I happen, I am male, I am a cisgendered male, I am a man born in a man's body, I happen to be attracted to men, you are a man born in a man's body, I happen to be attracted to men, you are a man born in a man's body, you happen to be attracted to women. I have no more in common with a trans person than you do. Except the fact of marginalization,

the argument will factor. But that is not a unifying force. That is not something to put on a flag and say, now we are all together because of this thing. Well, the question is, can you see, that's the theory in some sense, is that the marginalized have more in common than that, what differentiates them? I don't buy that.

Well, there's a quasi ethnocentrism and even a racism that's associated with that, right? The different are categorically different, and they're all different in the same way. Well, that's the next step. But the rubbers really hit the road in a terrible way recently because you tell me what you think about this. I followed Ken Zucker's work on the trans kids. Now, Zucker worked at a place called Camage in Toronto, major mental health institution. And he was a mainline scientific researcher, not a political type at all. Really a dedicated clinician and researcher and he ran a gender dysphoria treatment clinic,

probably the clinic. And he was the editor of the main journals where research on that sort of topic was published. And what Zucker, his treatment program for kids with gender dysphoria was quite straightforward. He observed, as a consequence of his careful research, that about 85% of kids who manifest extreme gender dysphoria. So the sense of discomfort in their own body and a desire to be the opposite sex, 80 to 85% of them would desist on their own by the age of 18 or 19. And so his hypothesis was, leave them the hell alone because you do the least harm that way. And most of them will settle into their bodies as they mature,

knowing that puberty in particular, especially for kids, you could imagine a male who has a more feminine temperament and who's also perhaps higher in openness, so as a more mutable identity, more creative, is going to be, and is going to be, especially if high in neuroticism as well, is going to be uncomfortable around puberty. Everyone's uncomfortable around puberty.

We should make that straight. And so you just leave the kids alone. But what he also showed, and this is the killer fact, as far as I'm concerned, is that a very large proportion of kids with gender dysphoria grow up and are homosexual. Yes. And so what that means, what that certainly means is that the vast majority, and it might be as

high as 80% of the kids who are being convinced now, that they inhabit the wrong bodies and are being surgically mutilated in a permanent and this terrible manner, the overwhelming majority of them are gay. Well, think how twisted this is. Well,, so I know you know this, but so think about it this way. So as I said before, I, I seem to be, people always say to me, I'm more straight acting. I seem to be more, you wouldn't just meet me on the street. No, I'm actually, okay, this guy is gay, right? So when I was five or seven, when I was growing up or up 10 years old, I was playing with GI Joe and Transformers. And I liked more and battling all of those boy thought of things.

Now there are plenty of gay kids that are growing up that like Barbie or they like, you know, dressing up or whatever that might be. In today's world, the teacher at the school or the administrator or the gender expert or whatever would probably be coaching them toward saying that they were trans, where they would have left someone like me alone. They would be nothing to think about. So in an odd sense, the trans movement is extremely anti-gay. That's something that these people really have to grapple with. There are gay people who are very effeminate, but they still happen to be men. I mean, there is, by the way, a growing movement in,

again, that gay community phrase of gay people who really are pushing back on this. They're really realizing how right it is. Well, it's the worst possible outcome in some sense. Well, because it's also making, right, because it's making gay people all seem like extremists. It goes back to what we started with. So when Stonewall happened and the fight for equality,

the fight for equality is just, the fight for equality is just, the fight for equality is always just so black people can vote, so women can vote, in my estimation, so that gay people can get married. The fight for equality is good and it's a true liberal thing to fight for. Once you go from that, the activists still needed more and what did they turn that to?

They turned that to the kids. The average person who was protesting at Stonewall, if you would have said to them, the average person that was 35 years old, that was at a bar at Stonewall, I wanna be able to go to a bar that has windows, maybe that aren't blocked out, that isn't underground and all of these things,

and be in a relationship that I don't have to hide, whatever. Actually 30 years from now, 40 years from now, this is gonna be about sending your kid to school where they're gonna privately discuss sex with teachers. They've been in a professional term. As a hormonal transformation and surgery, right? And more than that, to make, and here's another perverse element of this,

so many legislatures around the world now have banned so-called conversion therapy. And to me, this has been a catastrophe. Now, I know that there was a small percentage, mostly of fundamentalist Christian therapists types in the US who were offering their services to homosexual people who were unhappy with their sexual orientation.

And so you could have a discussion about whether that's ever appropriate or not. Although I would say that's bloody well between the person and their therapist as far as I'm concerned. But now that's illegal. And it's illegal to the point where you are required by the conditions of your psychological association, your professional associations, American psychological association, let's say, to affirm the stated identity of your client, which is completely insane.

And also very different, affirming the stated identity of their client of the client is very different than affirming that someone happens to be attracted to the same sex, right? Those are very different things. Well, even if affirming the gender identity. You're not, as a therapist, your role isn't to affirm or to deny. It's to listen, your role isn't to affirm or to deny. It's to listen right and to explore. That's your purpose. In all your years of clinical therapy and all the patients that you ever saw, I'm sure you saw dozens, if not hundreds of gay patients, did you ever meet a gay man who successfully be gayed and then went on to live a completely functioning life. No, I did have a client who was questioning who went the heterosexual route.

Yeah. He was questioning under some duress because he was the target of somewhat unwanted amorous affections by a fairly persistent gay gentleman who, and this person was, I would say easily swayed and confused, but that was the closest I'd ever seen to the situation that you're describing. Now this conversion therapy issue is,

so now you, as a therapist, you're ethically and legally bound not to question the identity of the stated identity of your client, which to me is preposterous because all you ever do as a therapist is question identity. That's the whole bloody, that's the whole enterprise. And you don't do it affirming or denying. You really don't.

You do it as a, as a questioner and a strategist. But then we have the other conversion therapy, which is surgical conversion. And that's not only legal, but opposing it has become a crime. And so that's a form of insanity that I just can, I can just barely wrap my head around. So, so what do we do going back to the, to the conservatives that were worried? Yeah. That this is where we were going to end up. In some sense, I should probably be their greatest hero because it's like, oh, here's someone who wanted to enter civilized society, wanted to affirm most of the long fought

time tested ideals, wanted to enter the world with those things, help defend that world. It happens to be a little different than we would think, right? It's two guys, I can't deny it. I should sort of be a hero to them. It's not the ideal one that they went for, but it's approximately close enough that this should be pretty good.

I suppose that will be my challenge in life. Well, I think that's true. But I also think that's probably true. My suspicions are that when we release this discussion, that the overwhelming majority of people will be sympathetic to your situation. And I'm willing to render harsh judgment. And maybe that does exclude and we should get to this too, some of the more fundamentalist religious types.

But you also said earlier that as far as you're concerned, they also have a point. There is a point. Okay. So what's the point? Well, there has to be a point there because, look, gay marriage was legalized, I think, at a federal level in the United States in 2015 if I'm not mistaken. So that we're now seven years off of that. Look at all of the craziness that has happened since. I am not directly connecting into that. But when you change fundamental structures, some weird things are going to happen.

This is again where I would lay most of the blame here. I would lay on the sort of liberal establishment where nobody was willing to defend anything. And it's why the progressives basically were able to destroy everything. Well, the problem maybe comes is so we had this implicit ideal which we've already discussed, which is heterosexual monogamy, long termterm, faithful, all of that good will, that impossible ideal that people strive towards. And there's a real boundary there, right? Like a real boundary.

It's a man and a woman. It's one man and one woman. They're bound together over the course of their life. The community supports that. I get some pretty definable box. And then you say, well, we'll let the walls down. And so we include single mothers, and we include gate couples.

And it's like, yeah, but the wall's gone now. So what else do you include? And the answer is, well, we don't know. And that's actually not a very good answer. Right. Because what happens is anyone who knocks can now come in. And you think, well, that's great because we're being tolerant. But the problem is, well, what happens when all the people in the room

who are now invited in actually do not agree at all. And so any of this was ever good in the first place. That's sort of that sort of way where that should be done. Because you can imagine now, if you you had about if you're dealing with a 10-year-old boy who's who's or 11-year-old boy, let's say, a little closer to puberty, who's ambivalent about his sexual attraction and his sexual identity, but also has a more feminine temperament, which is not rare, by the way, because there's a lot of overlap between masculine and feminine temperaments. And now you have to decide, well, is this boy likely to be gay or is he trans? And that's a hell of a decision to have to make, especially when you can't actually have a real

discussion of the parents. The parents can't. And the clinician isn't allowed to say what they think or asking essence, yeah. And then especially when it's accompanied by the pressure, which is a complete bloody lie, that well, if you don't let this kid transition right now, all you're going to do is cause him more damage. You're going to increase the risk of suicide, which by the way, I think is a claim that there is absolutely zero evidence for zero evidence for. We just don't have even as the American Psychological Association admitted, we have no good long-term follow-up data on the mental health of people who've transitioned over a reasonable period of time. It just doesn't exist. For obvious reasons,

it's only just started to have. Right. So probably in 10 years we'll have some beginnings of evidence of it. And I have assuming assuming that we're in a situation where such evidence could be collected and discussed in anything approaching a rational and truly empirical fashion. Well, as you know, you know, Dr. Debra Soe, Dr. Debra Soe, who's a sex researcher, I mean, she was bringing up a lot of these issues and basically just pushed that of the field together. Oh, yeah. Well, and increasingly, the scientific journals, the scientific journals, won't publish that sort of study. And look, they cut Zacher off at the knees, man. They threw him out

of Cam H. He was the world's preeminent researcher in the field of gender dysphoria. And he, like I said, he wasn't a political guy, which is partly why they could go after him so easily. So he sued the Toronto star. He sued the University of Toronto newspaper and he sued Cam H. He won all three lawsuits. So then he has to spend most of his life suing places. He was a journalist. Instead of doing the work that he wants to do. He was seriously canceled, right? And that's a devastating for someone. It's, I would say it's equivalent being canceled in a serious

sense is roughly equivalent to having a near fatal illness. It is no bloody joke. And so, yeah, so I don't know if we'll ever be able to gather the information we need to gather about such things. So it seems to me what we're talking about here is with that ideal, then what are the levers that we have for sort of judicious gatekeeping so that the single mother who really is doing her best will be welcomed into society or that the gay couple who wants to be part of what the ideal is will be welcomed in. I don't know what all the firewalls are on that. I think that's partly what the problem is, right? We don't have firewalls. Liberals put tolerance

above everything. And their hierarchy, tolerance is the most important thing. Okay, we've tolerated everything now. Now everyone's in the house. Between tolerance and carelessness is a very difficult one to establish. And if you are careless, especially in your conceptualization, and perhaps in your actions, the best mask for that carelessness is to proclaim yourself to be tolerant. Oh, everything goes. It's like, well, that's because you have zero discipline and you're and no, no ordered conceptualization of the world whatsoever, because of your lack of discipline. Now you're going to pass it all off as a moral virtue. And well, we're definitely seeing the consequences of that, especially in the trans issue. I mean, it's completely burst forth. So that's why when people say the LGBTQ, I don't

even know what I'm not exactly sure what the Q is. I have no idea what the I is. As I said, the teas as our friend Douglas Murray wrote in his last book, you know, when he wrote his chapter on the gaze, the Ls and the Gs, the Lesbians and the Gays, he separated that from the teacher, very effectively, these things have nothing to do with each other, and the more that we conflate these things, the more that we're gonna be unable to have any level of this conversation in a functional manner.

Well, and the conflation is dangerous because the assumption is that the workers know, the workers, the students made the same erroneous assumption back in the 1960s when they allied themselves with such people as the Hells Angels, for example, the student radicals. It's like, well, we're all marginalized. We all have that Marxist oppression in common and that unites us. And unite means that we're aiming for the same thing. It's like, well, we found out at El alt-a-boss that the hells-angels weren't exactly aiming at the same thing,

or maybe they were, you know, in some nefarious manner. So the mere fact that, and it's also clearly the case, that the more people that you aggregate on the margins, and then attempt to bring into the center, the less likely you're going to get some homogenous viewpoint, and you might think, well, we don't need a homogenous viewpoint, but we certainly do if it comes to such things as surgical transformation of children who are more likely to be gay. So then what do you think that what do you think my role in that could be or people like me? This conversation, right? Because this is uncharted territory. Like you literally are in uncharted territory. And your attitude is something like, well, I'm already deviating a lot from the norm.

And so maybe I should not deviate any more than I absolutely have to. And I would also say that should apply to everyone. It's like everyone's got their idiosyncrasies and thank God for that. And we definitely need creative people. And we even need some creative weirdos, because God only knows when they'll come in handy. But the rule of thumb should still be to the degree that you're able to uphold the norms and

ideals of the collective society. You have a moral obligation to do that. You know, I wrote in my first book and I think it was an idea. I sort of morphed off saying, Peter Tielo once said to me that straight people spread the genes and gay people spread the memes. Meaning it's obvious, the genes part is obvious how straight people multiply. But gay people, why did so much culture and art and music and so many interesting things about societies wherever gay people are?

Why are the artists so he's living around the gay people? Why is that the place where all the kind of weirdos and marginal people are, why are the artists so he's living around the gay people? Why is that the place where all the kind of weirdos and marginal people are? And then that creativity is first from that. So how do you combine those things? How do you take that? That might be, you know. So we know that that intense creativity is a trait, right?

It's a temperamental trait. So you can be very intelligent, you can have a high IQ and be low in creativity. Intelligence is a good predictor of creativity, but they are somewhat separable. So then the question is, well, what is creativity? And some of it is mutable identity. Like a creative person, the more creative you are, the less you're the same from moment to moment hour to hour and day to day. Well, almost by definition, right? You're a shapeshifter and a changer, a trickster, and the boundaries of conception that bound you are much looser if you're creative.

And so it's possible that, like, it's very difficult to account for homosexuality from a biological perspective, right? Because you would assume that if anything was going to be disappear in the course of sequential reproduction, the inability to reproduce would be at the top of the list. Not a mathematician, but it doesn't really have it. Clearly, clearly, clearly. And so what that has to mean, it has to mean something like there are reproductive benefits

to some of the factors that tilt towards homosexuality that are so powerful that they counterbalance the negative consequence of being unable to reproduce. And it might be that a fair bit of that manifests itself on the creativity side, you know, because create. And I would say that the kids who are most likely to be, we studied at Harvard, I never did publish this for a variety of reasons. When cutting in piercing first became popular, I was very curious about whether or not that was a marker for psychopathology, right, for the Progletty Awards mental illness. And before it became popular, it was a subculture thing, right? It was carnies and circus types, like marginal people, prisoners, it was a real subculture

art form piercing and body modification. And then all of a sudden it went mainstream and the question is, well, who was on the forefront of its introduction to popular culture? So we studied a whole bunch of people. This was very early on in that process to try to find out if they showed signs of mental illness or if it was a consequence of temperamental variability and what we saw was that there was no sign, whatsoever, that it was associated with mental illness. It all loaded on openness. So if you were more creative, more mutable, more able to shift shape, let's say, and perhaps

more likely to, and I don't know, I don't think there's any data on this if if people who are high in openness Are more likely to show some signs of same sex similar attraction wouldn't surprise me Yeah, it sort of sounds right right? Exceptual boundaries are the boundaries are thinner and more porous so it could easily be the case so it could be They owe if there isn't overlap there with creativity, that would explain the genetic tilt that would keep homosexuality in the population. But it would also explain what does, especially on the male homosexual front,

there does seem to be an axis of creativity there. And so it is the case that, well, certainly at least by stereotypical reputation, there is a higher proportion of gay people among the creative types than you would expect. So to go into really dangerous territory than if we haven't done it so far, I mean, does what you're saying right there sort of show you why they're going after kids right now. So the idea is they're going after kids because they're grooming them.

And I think a lot of people think that means they're grooming them for sex. I'm not exactly sure that's right. I think they're grooming them for something more perverse in a way, which is that if you can get these kids at five or six years old who know nothing about sex or gender identity or anything, I was just at my seven year old niece's birthday party at an art place, the idea that you would talk to any of these kids, whether you were there at Uncle or a teacher or anything else about sex and gender is crazy. It's completely insane. So it's something like they're not grooming them to molest them exactly, although obviously that exists.

It's they're actually grooming them because their minds are so malleable and open at that point and they're so sort of not fixed to any world view or anything that it's like, man, they can once they can get you at that age, everything's gone. Yeah, but the question is why? Or everything's on the table. I think you can make a psychological case for this, is like, well, imagine that you're deviant and you're guilty about it.

And so that's, and the guilt is going to be heavy and oppressive, just as the guilt is whenever we deviate from the norm or the ideal. And so one response to that is to straighten yourself up until yourself back towards the ideal or the norm. And another is to what do they call that? There's a specific overcompensation to overcompensate, say, well, not only is this not deviant, but it's a positive good. And you kind of said that a little bit when you talked about being attracted to the more flamboyant types when you were young, right? And so if it's a positive good, then,

well, why not demonstrate that by insisting that children are allowed or encouraged to go down that path. Now, but I think that's also twist. But there's a twist in that too. And that the terrible twist there is that, and this is one of the things that's pathologizing our culture in general, is that it's really, really easy to fly the tolerance flag as a marker for your stellar reputation. So there isn't anything more valuable that any of us owns than our reputation. It marks our utility as an interactive partner.

So reputation is everything. And so if you can, what, and the problem and you build reputation generally through personal interaction over the long run, that stable, productive, reliable, honest, generous, all virtues, right? Then, then you trust someone and you'll interact with them. The problem with reputation is that it can be gameed, narcissists game it, macchibellians game it, psychopaths game it, and it can be expert at it and can fool you into thinking they're competent

when all they are is confident. And so because reputation can be gamed, you can claim moral virtue, let's say because you're tolerant and you can ratchet up the reputation points. Like, I'll give you an example. Well, it's the flag, right? It's the gay pride. Yes. Well, that's it. That's it. It's unearned. Well, first of all, that they've combined this with pride, which actually makes no sense. I mean, I'm not any prouder. I'm not proud to be gay. It's not a, I'm not ashamed of it anymore. I spent a lot of years ashamed of it, deeply ashamed

of it. And that caused all sorts of problems. But it's not, it's not something to be proud of. It makes no sense. I'm proud of the work that I've done in the world that I think I've put something good and I've fought for some level of truth and I've helped amplify incredible people like this Canadian psychology professor who was, you know, seven years ago up in Canada and I put him on my show and then he became Jordan Peters and like, I'm proud of that, but I'm not proud. Well, that's not even pride, I wouldn't say. That's the sense of a job well done in a valuable domain, right? So I will take that. I'll take that. Yeah, but it's important to get the words right, isn't it?

Because pride has been in the service. Be precise with your speech. Being regarded as a sin, because pride means an over-weaning self-confidence that's not justified by the accomplishment. And the fact that we do have pride day and pride week and pride month now, which really is pushing things a little bit too far, I would say, is well. So the flag gets to exactly what you were saying, right? It's this thing that actually represents nothing. It represents tolerance. I'm hyper-tolerant. Therefore, I have a stellar reputation. It's the collapse of reputation into a single dimension where carelessness and tolerance can easily be confused.

And so it's a game that particularly narcissistic people will play because, well, that is the game that narcissists play, period, which is to elevate their reputational status without doing any of the work. And we've set up a society now where the most effective way of doing that is by claiming a universal tolerance. And if you have to sacrifice children to that, oh well, I saw this woman who worked for Disney. I don't remember what she was in charge of who said she had a- Oh, the polysexual- Yeah, yeah, she had a, what would you call it?

Pansexual, I think she said- Yeah, pansexual and a trans kid. It's like, okay, what are the odds of that? Let's say it's one in a thousand per child. So it's one in a million odds that you're telling the truth. One in a million, perhaps, especially on the pansexual front because what the hell does that mean since we only invented the term like three weeks ago? And what's the probability both those kids turned up in your family and that has nothing to do with your narcissism and willingness to exploit your children? It's like, well, it's one in a million. Okay, that's, it's one in 20 is enough to draw a scientific conclusion.

And boy, you're not just an accountant at Disney, you're someone that works in the diversity equity and inclusion office at Disney. Well, this is a heck of a coincidence. Yes, yes, yes, exactly. It's a real coincidence. It's a real coincidence. But look at the way Disney folded to this. Yeah.

Look at the way Disney folded to this. I just did a show in Orlando. It at the way Disney folded to this. Yeah. Look at the way Disney folded to this. Well, I just did a show in Orlando. It was the last show on my tour. And we purposely went to Orlando to Ambitur and Governor DeSantis, you know, they associate he's the biggest homophobic in America and don't say gay, even though the bill has nothing to do with being gay and DeSantis has been nothing other than kind to me and sent us, he and his wife sent us to baby onesies, you know, for our kids.

I mean, these are good decent people. He is fighting indoctrination in schools. But after the Orlando show, when I do the meet and greet, I met about, there were about a thousand people there. We did a meet and greet for about 200 people. I met probably 25, maybe 40 people who were Disney employees, who every single one of them told me they're completely against this. And that virtually everyone that they know at the company is completely against this.

But the inmates are running the asylum. So that video that you saw, that Chris Rufo was the one who founded and leaked it, where they're basically all, you know, getting the CEO, the Bob Chapich, they're basically getting him to bow. Bowling. We did that town hall, which was a huge mistake. It was horrible. I was just completely idiotic management decision.

But in any cow-toward, we haven't been sensitive enough. It's like, since Wendy let the whiny stock boys make the executive decisions. And what, Jordan, what was one of the first things that sort of put you on the map in the big sense? You were always talking about Pinocchio, right? Because it's the story is the perfect story of the child and the whole thing.

Well, now Disney is saying they're purposely conflating all of these stories when they're putting movies out. They're telling you that they're doing it and these people are proudly telling you. Yeah, well, they get all pretty hard on the Buzz Lightyear front last in the last month, right? Yeah, well, that's the thing is, you know, it's very difficult to turn stories in the free market into propaganda because people just say, well, I'm not watching that.

So what do you do with that? So they put a, I guess they put a same sex kiss in light here. So what do you do with that on a marginal side? So if you want to say, okay, it's okay to be gay, but then you also don't want to indoctrin it. Now what do you do? This is tough. Look, that's part of the battle that we're having in the school systems right now because

you go, and this is part of this slippery slope that we discussed. It's like it's unacceptable. It's tolerated. It's equal. It's celebrated. Okay. There may not be any border between once it's not forbidden, maybe it's mandatory to celebrate it. Now we don't know, right? We don't know. Now, let's prove that that's the case. I know you are. I know you are. Well, let's just go for equal, even, not celebrate equal. Yeah, but we don't know what to do about that because now we have children.

They're nine years old and they're being exposed to a diverse range of literatures. Well, what proportion of those should be gay themed? Well, the answer is we don't know. Right, should it be exactly proportional to the amount of gay people? Does that make any sense? So, okay, so it'll be 9% of the literature they read will be gay.

Right. Well, no way of, and it's also a hell of way of categorizing literature, which is, what the literary critics do now, but that's no one has ever categorized literature like that in the history of humanity. The literature that we have conserved is only the literature that for one reason and other people have been interested enough into remember, and we don't even know why. I mean, we've been able to model out some of the underlying archetypal themes, but if you

subjugate literature to statistics, predicated on ideology, all that happens, you don't enlighten anyone, you don't make anything more equal, you just destroy literature. And you get a real taste of that very quickly when you see how appalling at a narrative level, most woke propaganda is. And so in a free market, that's probably going to take care of itself. But I don't know what to do with it conceptually because the problem really is a difficult one is like, well, if it's not forbidden and now it's tolerated, but it's not tolerated, now it's equal.

All right. So what do you teach kids? And I think the answer is going to be, you don't teach them about sex at all. That might be one answer. And then the conservatives were kind of right about that when they opposed sex education to begin with. And so that's pretty terrifying. Or you take your kids to the hell out of the public school, which seems to be what people are doing. And then there's a diverse range of solutions. And you let the market sort it out. But I also think this is a major catastrophe because I'm convinced that the biggest predictor of the wealth of a society is interpersonal trust.

It's the only genuine natural resource, is interpersonal trust. And in a society where the default presupposition in a trade is trust, everyone's gonna be rich soon. Regardless even whether they have any natural resources. The Japanese don't have any natural resources, but they have a very honest society and

they're rich and the honesty is a huge part of why. What happens when you start distrusting fundamental institutions? Well, everyone's skeptical about everyone else and that's a horrible cognitive and emotional burden. And then what's a marker for that emergent distrust? How about I don't trust my children in the hands of the agents of the state, Jesus, dismal, and we're running down that road. And we're running down that road. And we're running down that road.

So the question really is, so anyone watching this probably saying, hey, we're there already. We're two thirds of the way to the bottomless pit. You know, it's bottomless. So the question is, well, how do you get out of that? I guess societally, maybe there is no real way. There is no grand experiment to get a societally out of that in a country from an American perspective of 350 million people with 50 states

and all the religions. I mean, America has a weird version of this because of the way we are fundamentally created in that, you know, from every walk of life, from every corner of the earth, people came here to make a better life. So it's a little bit easier if you were to look at Japan and say, okay, here's a homogenous society. Well, one of the questions this might seem only obliquely related, but when the people who your country is founded on the notion that there are self-evident truths. Now, as far as I can tell, the truth is right there.

The right exact question is why were they self-evident? And I would say the reason they were self-evident was because the political narrative and the political philosophy, including the small, liberal philosophy philosophy was embedded inside a bedrock Essentially of Judeo Christian presumptions and that was so pervasive that the idea that that would disappear was incomprehensible because those things were taken as well. Of course, that's the way things are it's self-evident Well, when that self-evident starts to dissolve that's the the death of God, the Nietzschean death of God, then all of these, all of what unites the society starts to disappear right down to the conceptual level, even down to the point

where you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman. Exactly. So Jordan, if you now, now maybe we're getting to the answer to the previous question, which is, so now if you say to a six-year-old, you're biologically not what you are. Maybe those self-evident truths at every other level will dissolve pretty damn quickly. Well, I think that will speed that along. It's also a reflection of the fact that that's happened. I mean, when Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, he believed that all our conceptual categories would fall. And I think one of the conceptual categories that is falling, even on the scientific

front, is belief in the reality of the objective world. That's maybe a transcendent belief, too. We don't know, could easily be. And so what I've been trying to do about this in the deepest sense is to try to understand consciously the psychological substructure of that which produces self-evidence. And I did that, I've been doing that partly because that was what Carl Jung recommended. He thought that was what we were going to have to do over the next 100 years, let's say, has become conscious of the religious bet, the necessary religious bedrock of our society. That's a complicated thing to do consciously.

Well, it's sort of like whether you believe you believe or not, you still believe. Yeah, well, that's right. That's right. You're, you're pregnant. Yeah. And disunited. You know, and so I've been trying to delve as deeply as possible into this underlying substructure of so-called self-evidence. And for what that's worth, I mean, people seem to be responding to it very positively, at least in so far as I can determine that by the reaction to my books and my lectures, but it's a hell of a job to undertake. It's sort of like trying to come up with an explanation for why you and Dave decided that you want to have

genetic relatives for your children. Or it's sort of like why? It's sort of like why am I right this very moment? Having a conversation that if you would have said to me 10 years ago I'm having, I would have said there's no way in high hell I would ever be having that conversation. I'm the last suited person on earth

to have that conversation. With the 20 last suited person on earth to have that conversation with the 20 years in my life that I spent struggling with my sexuality and doing drugs and all of the self-destructive things that I did that I thank God got out of in large part because of you, in large part because of David and in something that was sparked in me somehow. Right.

What do you think it was that rescued you from that self-destructive and shallow hedonism? Why did you, how did you manage to, okay, why do you think that the notion that you overcame it is the right notion, right? Because you're making the case that your current mode of existence is preferable practically and ethically to that. And so why do you think it was falling in love? It was falling in love.

That probably sounds like the most cheesy thing you could ever say or maybe it sounds like that. Well, maybe not. I mean, love is supposed to be the universal redemptive force. So then that's it. Then that's it. At some point, you know, I had had all sorts of relationships or one night stands or God only knows what I was doing for a long time.

And then at some point, when David and I started dating a little bit more and being together a little bit more and then at some point, like it just hit me one day. I remember we were sitting there. We were sitting at a Mexican restaurant on 83rd Amsterdam that we had been to a million times and I was like, I love him. I can't believe it.

And then I thought, well, if this me, like there's something here, that thought just hit me, which was just there and it was there. And then I was like, well, I damn well better be better than I am. Because I knew I was still broken still. So why did you think that? Because I loved him and I wanted him to be around someone that was probably better than me or something like that. That's a good definition of love, right? If you love someone, wouldn't you try to offer them the best version of yourself? And that's also why. So when we were on tour and I'm watching you 125 nights in a row,

talk about this, this incredible innate need for almost everyone to be a parent, watching you do that. Yeah. Well, there's a lot of them. And I'm going, man, this guy's changing everybody's life that, that these thousands of people that are coming to this thing. And I'm talking to him on the side about how he wants kids. And I'm looking at myself going, no, I'm the outlier in this thing.

I'm the outlier. My partner wants kids, wants us to live a life together, wants us to live as full of thing as humanly possible. The same thing that our parents did before us and our grandparents did and everybody all down the chain. And I'm on tour with this guy who's saying the things that I'm literally seeing people's lives just absolute open up in the best possible sense and put down all of their crap And I'm on tour with this guy who's saying the things that I'm literally seeing people's lives Just absolute open up in the best possible sense and put down all of their crap and all that stuff But I'm the exception to all of right and that seemed crazy. There's pride

That's pride man. Yeah, and the question too is do you really want to be the exception? No, I didn't want to be accepted. That's a brutal place to be I mean sometimes you're cursed, you know want to be the exception. No, I didn't want to be accepted. That's a brutal place to be. I mean, sometimes you're cursed, you know, maybe you're even a spectacular genius of Nietzschean proportions, and you're the exception. It isn't clear that you'd wish that sort of fate on your worst enemy. But that's, see, when I said to you before that, like, so I'm 46 now, I'm ready for the next phase. I've done everything I can do at this phase, at this phase of life. Like, yes, could I have more nights out next phase. I've done everything I can do at this phase, at this phase of life.

Like, yes, could I have more nights out drinking and I'll still have those nights out occasionally or whatever, is there anything else that I can do? I've done everything I can do. I know there is some piece of the thing that I just know it, it's again, it's like, I can't tell you how I know it. I just know there's some piece now

that is supposed to put this full puzzle together and it's pretty damn close. And as I said to you when we had dinner a couple weeks ago, you know, it's like, I don't know how many people would be able to walk into parenthood regardless of whether they were gay or straight or anything else that have put enough of the pieces together in a way that I have that were financially comfortable and were in a loving relationship and have loving families behind us. And that I loving families behind us and that I'm a full person and that I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing. I wake up with a passion and a desire.

I've had my moral qualms about the suitability of gay relationships and gay marriages, puzzling that out, knowing that especially on the side of male homosexuality that as long as there's been recorded history, there's some percentage 2 to 3% perhaps of males who have a strong homosexual Proclivity, it's less clear on the female side, I would say. And so there's no denying that as a reality and then You know, I really I like you and admire you and I certainly feel the same way about Douglas Murray So I've had very close friends who admire you and I certainly feel the same way about Douglas Murray. So I've had very close friends who were gay and many students as well. And so

you know, that's that's a case in point. But then I also found talking to you on the tour. I thought, well, my personal sense was, well, if you want to have kids, that's a good thing. And so I would be fully supportive of that. And so congratulations, Dave. Yeah. And that's the same smile and consistent beauty that you have always shown to me and shown to everybody, to everyone that's walked into this thing. And, and, well, I hope that it changes you even more for the better.

That's very likely. And I would say one of the things that's so remarkable about having children is if you're careful and you want it, you can have the best relationship that you've ever had in your life. It's right there. That's what the kid wants. You could have that. So have it, man. Good talk, dear Dave.

Yeah, Jordan. There aren't words. There aren't words. A lot of talking, but there aren't words for what we did here. Hey, thank you, my friend. You bet, man. There aren't words. A lot of talking, but there aren't words for what we did here. Hey. Thank you, my friend. You bet, man. I'm looking forward to seeing your kids.