The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1044 - Dismantling John Oliver's Ridiculous Trans Propaganda

Episode Date: October 18, 2022

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm   Today on the Matt Walsh Show, John Oliver goes on the attack to defend so-called “trans rights.” His monologue on the subject is supposed to be a definitive takedown of the conservative position. We’ll go through it piece by piece today to see if it lives up the hype. Also, panel of non-binary and trans people on a college campus discuss my film What Is A Woman, and the conversation is as great as it sounds. Plus, “color blind” casting is apparently back in style again. As long as it excludes white people. In our Daily Cancellation, outrage and controversy erupt over my comments about anime. Will I backtrack, or spitefully double down on an issue that doesn’t really matter to me one way or another? We’ll find out today. - - -  DailyWire+: Become a DailyWire+ member to access movies, shows, documentaries and more: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0     The Daily Wire is hiring for an SVP of Marketing Analytics. For more information and to apply, click here: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0   Shop the Jeremy’s Razors Fall Sale to get 40% OFF you Founder’s Series Shave Kit at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/    - - -  Today’s Sponsors: ExpressVPN - Protect your online privacy with ExpressVPN. Get 3 Months FREE! https://www.ExpressVPN.com/WALSH        Helix Sleep - Get up to $350 OFF + 2 FREE pillows with all mattress orders: https://helixsleep.com/WALSH Lifelock - Save up to 25% OFF your first year with LifeLock: https://lifelock.com/walsh - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF  Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA  Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA  Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Well Show, John Oliver goes on the attack to defend so-called trans rights. His monologue on the subject is supposed to be a sort of definitive takedown of the conservative position. We'll go through it piece by piece today to see if it lives up to the hype. Obviously, a panel of non-binary and trans people on a college campus discuss my film, what is a woman, and the conversation is as great as it sounds. Plus, colorblind casting is apparently back in style again, as long as it excludes white people, of course. In our daily cancellation, outrage and controversy erupt over my condo.

comments about anime. Will I backtrack or spitefully double down on an issue that doesn't really matter to me one way or another? We'll find out today, all of that and more on the Matt Walls show. Well, a few decades ago, private citizens used to be largely that, private. What's changed? Well, the internet. Think about everything you've browsed, searched for, watched or tweeted. Now imagine all of that data being crawled through, collected, and aggregated by third parties into a permanent public record, your record. Having your private life exposed for others to see was one something only celebrities worried about, but in an era where everyone is online, everyone is now a public figure, whether you're like it or not. So to keep my data private, when I go online,

I turn to ExpressVPN. Did you know that there are hundreds of data brokers out there whose sole business is to buy and sell your data? The worst part is that they don't have to tell you who they're selling it to or even get your consent. One of these data points is your IP address. Data harvesters use your IP to uniquely identify you and your location. But with ExpressVPN, My connection gets rerouted through an encrypted server, and my IP address is then masked. Every time I turn ExpressVPN on, I'm given a random IP address shared by other ExpressVPN customers. That makes it more difficult for third parties to identify me and harvest my data. The best part is how easy ExpressVPN is to use, no matter what device you're on, phone, laptop, smart TV.

All you have to do is tap one button to get protected. So if like me, you believe that your data is your business, secure yourself with the number one rated VPN on the market. Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh and get three extra months for free. That's EXP, r-E-S-V-P-N.com.com slash Walsh, go to ExpressVPN.com to learn more. All right. So last week, John Stewart devoted an episode of his little-watched Apple TV show to the subject of so-called transgender rights. It was his attempt to hit back against those transphobic extremists who believe that human biology exists. Now, Stewart, like so many other aging leftists, is a recent convert. to gender ideology. Sometime in the last few years, he decided that women can have penises and men can have

babies. He didn't explain his conversion. We don't know if there was a road to Damascus moment wherein a pregnant man appeared to him and unveiled the secrets of the universe or if he experienced some other sort of vision. But he did apologize for his past acknowledgement of scientific reality. He regrets it deeply, and he's pledged to never make the same mistake again. Stewart's efforts to debunk biology consisted primarily of him smirking at clips of people saying common sense things. Stewart, of course, belongs to that school of political debate, which teaches that a smarmy grin and a laugh track qualify as a counterargument. He's not the only one to employ this strategy. His understudy, John Oliver, who hosts a slightly more popular but still little-watched show on HBO, has also made a career out of this same tactic.

Oliver has earned a reputation on the left for thoroughly demolishing conservative arguments. Reputation that is relatively easy for him to maintain because nobody actually watches his show to find out if it's accurate or not. If they did, they would see that his manner of demolishing an argument is to deliver a series of the most standard and banal left-wing talking points imaginable, couched in lies and half-truths. But these rants apparently still count as an epic smackdown because Oliver is extremely snide. I mean, even more snide than your usual leftist. And he peppers in a few lame punchlines, plenty of vulgarity,

and also has a British accent. Indeed, the tagline of Oliver's show could be, and for all I know, is, last week tonight with John Oliver, the same stuff you hear on MSNBC except British and with the F word. On Sunday, Oliver decided to follow his mentor's lead and bring his brand of snide propagandizing to the trans debate. He spent 30 minutes addressing what he describes as, quote, attacks on transgender rights.

And the left ensures us that the entire segment is a brilliant, breathtaking, bulletproof defense of their position and a devastating takedown of the other side. The same was promised of John Stewart's attempt a week prior only to discover that the devastating takedown was the rhetorical equivalent of an overinflated balloon. It only took the slightest pinprick to burst the whole thing. So does Oliver Faire any better? Yes, they're both named John. They're both wildly overrated. They're both insufferable smug little Muppets who imagine themselves to be about 65 IQ points smarter than they really are. But does that mean that they will fail both of them miserably in their attempts to engage with critics of gender ideology?

Well, the answer, of course, is yes, but don't take my word for it. I will go through now John Oliver's segment, piece by piece, so that you can see for yourself. Oliver begins by calling out the, I don't know, one or two Democrats in the country who are not yet fully committed members of the gender ideology cult, and we'll start there as well. There are many on the left who seem at best reluctant to engage on this issue, and at worst, outright hostile to it, either complaining about pronoun police or arguing that this issue will cost Democrats' elections. If you go to the middle of the country, people would say, if your conversation during a presidential election is about some guy wearing a dress and whether he, she, or it can go to

and go to the locker room with their daughter, that's not a winning formula for most people. Wow. It! Michael Bloomberg can f*** all the way off with that. But also, while this fun-sized billionaire is clearly good at a lot of things, like making money and end of list, Maybe don't take advice on a winning formula for elections from a man who spent over a billion dollars of his own money to lose a presidential bid in just 14 weeks. Now, first of all, it is the grammatically correct gender neutral pronoun.

A human being who is neither male nor female, if such a creature existed, which it doesn't, would indeed be an it. It is a singular pronoun, whereas they in most cases is a pronoun that indicates multiple individuals. Now, is it dehumanizing? Yes, obviously it is, but a person who rejects their male or female identity has already dehumanized themselves or itself. To be human is to be male or female. There are no other options. If you reject that, then you reject your humanity. You have dehumanized yourself. Also, as far as Michael Bloomberg goes, yes, his presidential campaign was an abysmal and often hilarious failure. We can agree on that. But the list of things that he's good at actually extends beyond simply making money, as Oliver claims. Here's one other highlight on Michael Bloomberg's

resume. When he was mayor of New York, the city was actually livable. And ever since far left, or farther left Democrats anyway took over, it has been a dystopian crime-ridden hellscape. And I think that's worth noting. It's also worth noting that John Oliver is so thoroughly wrong about everything all the time, that he just forced me to defend Michael Bloomberg. I already feel like I need to take a shower. We've only made it about a minute through this thing. Let's keep going. Let's also remember that it's not actually the left talking about trans rights nonstop.

It's Republicans who see an advantage in demagoguing this issue. And to ignore them doing that is to allow them to have real calamitous impact on people's lives. A few years ago, vice profiled a girl named Kai Shapley. And just watch how happy she is talking about her. her hopes for a future until she remembers something that changes her mood. Mama says I might grow up to be the president. Yeah? Mm-hmm.

What would you change about the world if you were a president? Um, that chance people be free and go to the bathroom they want to go to. Are you able to use the girls' bathroom at school? No. And now they just put security guards up for the bathroom security or whatever. Oh shit. That is brutal. It is so dark, it's genuinely hard to watch.

Agreed, John. I mean, it is brutal and hard to watch. That is a very young boy who has been convinced by his parents that he is a girl. Not only that, but he is being paraded around on camera and used as a political prop. He has been made not only trans, but into a trans mascot. Very dark indeed. Now, how do I know that the boy is not a girl? Well, because a girl is a human female child, and that boy is a human child, but is not female, he is male. He is a boy. If you have some other

alternative definition for the world girl, I'd love to hear it. In fact, nothing you say on this subject, John, no argument you present, no talking point you put forward has any meaning or any value or any significance at all if you cannot or will not define the words you're using. Now here's something else I know about that boy, aside from the fact that he is one. The other thing I know, John, is that being a child and being confused and being raised in an environment which intentionally fosters confusion means that he has no real concept of what a girl is. That means that when he says, I am a girl, the statement doesn't mean anything. At best, he is trying to express his affinity for or interest in some of the things that he

associates with girls, the color pink, long hair, dolls, whatever. None of that actually makes him a girl, John, and that's something that he needs an adult to explain to him. Unfortunately, all the adults in his life are just as confused as he is, or at least are pretending to be, just like you. Jumping ahead a bit, Oliver goes after Abigail Shrier, who's the author of the great book, Irreversible Damage, about the trans epidemic claiming the minds in law. of countless adolescent girls.

But Oliver sees no issue with millions of girls suddenly all at once in unison deciding that they're really boys. This is perfectly normal, John Oliver insists. Shrya sometimes dresses her argument up by using the term rapid onset gender dysphoria, which is total horsesh. It comes from a study published by a researcher in 2018 hypothesizing that some kids identify as trans

due to peer pressure. But it's worth you knowing, that study was based on a survey of parents, not actual trans kids, and targeted parents from organizations dedicated to opposing trans ideology, which is instantly disqualifying. It's like citing a study claiming

that all postal workers are terrifying hell demons sent to attack your family, but then learning that the researchers only surveyed a collection of anxious dogs. That's some heavy sampling bias that clearly skewed your results. And to be very clear, there is ample evidence of gender variance

throughout human history. and as far back as historians have found evidence of trans people, they found trans children. As for the rapid rise in kids identifying as trans, as the writer Julia Serrano has pointed out, when you look at a chart of left-handedness among Americans over the 20th century, you see a massive spike when we stopped forcing kids

to write with their right hand and then a plateau. That doesn't mean everyone became left-handed, although there was a rapid-onset Southpore dysphoria. It means people were free to be who they were free. were free to be who they were. Okay. All of that is, should go without saying nonsense. First of all, we don't need a study to tell us that rapid onset gender dysphoria

exists any more than I need to read a study drawing a link between the proliferation of fast food and obesity. Such studies do exist, but people with functioning brains can draw obvious common sense conclusions without needing permission from a research paper to do it. Transidentification has risen 20-fold. in the youngest generation. Even that example he gives of left-handedness, which is a red herring if I've ever seen one, that shows, what, a 6% rise over the course of decades?

We're talking about 20-fold in the course of a few years. We went from almost nobody being confused about their gender to huge swaths of young people being confused about their gender. That is rapid. It is gender dysphoria. It seems that calling it rapid onset gender dysphoria, makes a lot of sense. Oliver takes issue with the study that coins this phrase, questioning its credibility on the grounds that the researchers only surveyed the parents instead of the, quote,

trans kids. Yes, because you're not lucky to get a clear or accurate answer if you ask a child whether they're doing something because of peer pressure. See, the children also aren't fully cognizant of their own motivations. If you go up to a child and say, are you only doing that because of pure pressure, you're not likely to get a clear answer because it's a child. As a parent, you should be better equipped to explain your child's behavior than your child is himself. This is the insight that comes with age and maturity. For some of us anyway, obviously not for you, John. Oliver also says that the study is unreliable because the people who conducted it were allegedly biased. Now, that may or may not be true. I don't know anything

about the study. It doesn't matter to me. I don't need the study to observe. what I can clearly see all around me. But then John goes on through the whole rest of his diatribe to quote studies and experts who not only have clear left-wing biases, I mean all of them, every single person that he cites as an authority, every single one has a clear left-wing bias. In that very same clip, at the end, he cites a left-wing activist about the left-handed thing. But not only that, not only do most of his authority figures have left-wing biases, they also have a financial stake in promoting and defending gender ideology. So he shows no concern for conflicts of interest in those cases.

In fact, just like John Stewart, his entire defense of the mutilation and castration of children is that the people making money off of these procedures think it's a good idea. That is the entirety of his argument. He has no other argument. As for the, quote, ample evidence of gender, variance throughout human history. Well, I went and read the article that he cites because, you know, he puts the quotes up there on the screen and what you're supposed to do is just see the quote and then say to yourself, well, he had a quote on the screen. It must be true. But I actually went

and looked at that National Geographic article. And what I've found, as always, is that it points to examples from history of spiritual and religious practices where a man acts out the part of a woman. Okay, that is not the same as a man claiming to actually be a woman. It's not even close to the same. It's not even the same sort of thing, unless, John, you're admitting that transgenderism today is a religious and spiritual conviction because those are all of the historical comparisons that you are making. For the thousandth time, there has never been ever in history, not once, not once,

not anywhere, a culture that believed that men could literally physically be women and vice versa. Ours is the only civilization that has ever believed in pregnant men. There is no precedent for that in history anywhere. One other point. John later in the show cites the high rates of suicide among trans kids. He says that suicidal ideation is as high as 57, I believe he says 57%, almost 60% for quote unquote trans kids. Now, he blames this on a lack of affirmation. He says, indeed, the consequence of not affirming trans kids is that many will kill themselves. He also says that the reason there were not millions of trans kids historically is that they were not free to be who they effing were.

Well, according to him then, as I've pointed out many times, there should be historically evidence of millions and millions and millions of kids all over the world every year for thousands of years killing themselves. That's how you connect those dots. High rates of suicide if you don't affirm. There were millions and millions of trans people through history that were not affirmed. And yet no such evidence exists. it didn't happen. Kids only started killing themselves in significant numbers now in modern times, in correlation with the rise in trans identifications. So what does that tell you, John? Can you turn the laugh track down for a moment and think clearly about this? It's not very hard to

connect the dots. We'll play one more clip. Oliver eventually gets around to offering a defense of so-called gender-affirming care. And let's hear what that sounds like. At the onset of puberty, an adolescent and their family might consider puberty blockers, hormones that delay puberty. And importantly, if that treatment is suspended, then puberty will resume, meaning that this is reversible. Think of it like a pause button, the thing you can't do easily on the HBO Max app. Now, the next potential medical intervention is usually hormone therapy,

which boosts levels of testosterone or estrogen. Opponents of gender-affirming care make a lot of alarmist claims about hormone therapy, from saying that it's experimental, which it is not, to arguing that it sterilises people. And look, for some, in specific situations, there can be risks to fertility, but for others, the effect is anticipated to be reversible if the medication is discontinued.

But there is definitely an informed decision to be made there. You will notice that none of what I've mentioned so far is surgery. But when it does come to that, some teens may be eligible, for instance, for top surgery or chest masculinization. But you should know, not only is that, pretty rare, it, like all of this, would only happen after a team of medical professionals discussed all of its risks and benefits with their patient and their patient's parent or

guardian, all of whom would have to sign off. It is a long, involved process even before you get to the fact that is also incredibly expensive, which is why working class families, families of colour, and people with less resources are way less able to access it. Basically, no kid is casually dropping into an operating room because they just decided to get their uterus removed with impulsive record. normally associated with getting bangs, because that is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Yes, it is a ridiculous thing to say, John, which is why nobody is saying it. You have very impressively torched a straw man, but let's skip back to the reality.

First, John claims that puberty blockers are totally reversible and merely put a pause on puberty. This is simply a lie. I'm not going to speculate about whether John Oliver is smart enough to know that it's a lie. everything he says can be explained either by his idiocy or his utter lack of integrity, but it's impossible to know which aspect of his personality is flaring up at any given moment. What we can say is that the NHS used to claim that puberty blockers are reversible. They had it on their website. If you go to the website now, it's not there.

They removed that claim from their website, and they now admit that, in fact, they don't really know anything about the long-term effects of these drugs on kids. Why don't they know? Well, because we've never put millions of physically healthy kids. on this kind of drug regime before. So we don't know. There's no way to know for certain what the long-term effects are. Anyone who claims they know is lying.

These kids are being experimented on. We don't yet have the full results of the experiment. It is ongoing right now. Yet common sense would tell us that all drugs have side effects, especially those that intentionally interfere with the natural physical development during childhood. You cannot pause the human body like you pause. television, John, which, by the way, it's not that hard to figure out how to pause on HBO

Max. I'm not even sure what you're talking about. This is not science fiction. Okay, human beings, human bodies can't just hang out in a state of suspended animation without consequence. That's not how it works. Oliver then acknowledges that hormone therapy for children does sterilize them, but he just kind of handwaves it away and assures us that for some, sure, there are kids that are being sterilized, but for some, the effects of the drugs are anticipated to be reversible if the medication is discontinued in time. That is a lot of qualifiers. A lot of qualifiers attached to that sentence. In other words, yes, it permanently damages a child's body permanently sterilizes them, but that's okay because sometimes potentially maybe it won't harm them as much if they stop it

before the worst side effects set in. In other words, Oliver knows that the drugs harm kids, but he doesn't care. He takes the same approach to mutilation surgeries on minors, assuring us that there are no genital surgeries happening to kids under the age of 18, which is just a lie. And then he also says that chest masculinization, otherwise known as double mastectomy, only happens if all the people who will make money on the procedure say that it should happen. this is the best defense that Oliver can offer. It's not only dishonest and deceptive and strikingly stupid, but also morally horrifying. And notice the two questions that Oliver avoids.

He never grapples with the issue of consent. Can a child, under the age of 18, actually consent to any of this? Can a 14-year-old consent to taking a drug that will likely sterilize him? Can a 15-year-old girl consent to having her breast removed? Oliver spends 30 minutes dancing around the subject but never once offers his own theory of consent. Of course he doesn't because he doesn't want to be on the record arguing that a 14-year-old can consent because he knows how horrifying and creepy and disturbing that would sound. But he also doesn't want to be on the record acknowledging that these things are happening to kids without their consent.

The question of consent presents an impossible problem for his side of the argument. argument, and he knows it, so he ignores it, which makes literally everything he says on the subject of, quote, gender affirming care for minors irrelevant, as he is slithering around and avoiding one of our primary and most fundamental objections to it. But there's an even more fundamental objection, which he also avoids. And that is this. It is not true that a boy can be a girl or a girl can be a boy. It is not true that gender is fluid. Gender ideology is false. It does not reflect the actual reality that we find ourselves situated in. John Oliver, like every other propagandist on that side, simply leaps over this point, but you can't leap over it.

We're not challenging your views simply on the basis that it causes harm to people, though that is one of our most important objections. We are challenging its factional. It's validity. We are saying that it is not true. And so if you have any hope of even coming close to debunking any of our arguments, you must begin by defending the fundamental proposition that a male can be a woman and a female can be a man. If you skip that question, then you skip the whole debate, John, just as people skip your show on HBO Max. Because unlike you, apparently, they're smart enough to work a remote. The pause button is right there in the middle for future reference.

Now, let's get to our five headlines. You know, one of the great things about Helix is they have several different mattress models to choose from. They have soft, medium, firm mattresses. Mattress is great for cooling you down if you sleep hot. Mattress is great for spinal alignment to prevent morning aches and pains. And even a Helix plus-size mattress for a plus-sized sleepers, which is especially important to me. They also have a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress

because why would you buy a mattress made for someone else? If you're looking for a mattress, take the quiz, order the mattress that you're a match to, and wait for the delivery. Your mattress will come right to your door for free. You don't ever need to go to a mattress store again. Couples fight about a lot of things, I think. Your mattress doesn't need to be one of those things. So sit down with your wife or husband.

Go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh. Take their two-minute sleep quiz and find the perfect mattress for you and your spouse. They have a 10-year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights, risk-free. They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but trust me, you will. So for a limited time, Elix is offering up to $350 off, all mattress orders, and two free pillows for our listeners. This is the best offer yet. So hurry over to helixleep.com slash Walsh. All right, I want to start with this because this just, it makes me happy.

I was very annoyed to start the show, which is why I went on for, if I start the show annoyed, then I'm going to go on for 25 minutes. But this, this I like. So Yaff has this video that they posted yesterday. There was a panel discussion at St. Louis University, slew, as they apparently call it. And you may remember St. Louis University because that's where I gave a speech last spring. And there were huge protests outside and all the rest of it. They really didn't want me there. And they've kind of been, from what I understand, ever since my appearance there,

they've really been grappling with the fact that I was allowed to be there. and the trauma from my visit still has not worn off. I mean, people are still devastated and traumatized by it. So yesterday, at St. Louis University, they had a panel discussion featuring trans and quote-unquote non-binary people. And during this discussion, a line was uttered that is perhaps, in my opinion, the greatest thing ever said during a panel discussion, though I am biased and you'll see why. Let's watch this. It was like, let's talk about these transgender topics. And it made it sound like he was a subject matter expert or that could be even like pro-trans.

But it was like it was a trap. He was going to get you into that room and then he was going to say a bunch of transphobic stuff. You can't stop the Matt Walsh. Like you can't stop them. I think you can only pour in as much new information to other people. That's true. Okay, can we stop. Just pause there for a second.

You can't stop the Matt Walsh. What makes that so good. If he had just said you can't stop Matt Walsh, that would be great, but he said you can't stop the Matt Walsh. And for some reason, the the, the, in that sentence, makes it so much better. You can't stop the match. We need to get that on a T-shirt. That needs to be in the merch store tomorrow.

You can't stop the Matt Walsh. And, in fact, fact-check, true. Fact-checkers have looked into that claim and have found that it is actually accurate. You can't stop the Matt Walsh. I also want to mention, but right before that, the other person, as I assume, talking about what is a woman, and says, that, well, we laid a trap and got people in the room and started saying a bunch of transphobic stuff. Well, anyone who's watched the film knows that that's nonsense. I didn't, all I said to that,

I asked questions. I didn't present any arguments at all, actually, to any of these people. So saying transphobic stuff apparently equals asking questions. And all of the questions, of course, we ask in the film all really just boiled down to, um, what are you saying? Like, they're saying things, and then all of my questions really come down to, what does that mean? What is it? What you're telling me right now, explain what that means. I'm trying to understand it.

I want to understand it. That's transphobic. I don't know what else is in this clip, but we've already heard the best of it, but let's play a little bit more. We're talking about people who, no matter what it is, they think that they know, or what it is that they're ignorant about, that ignorance or that lack of information or the misinformation is leading them to a place where they're afraid of trans people because they're afraid of what trans people existing might mean for them and then and their world being. Whether the woman, you know, as far as trans-experance goes, what does it mean for, you know,

cisgender women and trans men and the turfs and everything because a lot of the times. Turf really quickly means an acronym for trans exclusive, radical feminism T-E-R-F so feminists who in their plate for feminism will exclude trans folks at best and at worst be like trans folks are impeding on like women's cis women's safety or it would be a situation of you being intimidated by my looks and the fact that I have a nice physique it's just for me a lot of the times I know from my personal experience right okay let's pause that or don't pause it stop it altogether.

Oh, that explains, right? That is how you explain that these people are so good at lying to themselves and telling themselves the most flattering lies they possibly can. So according to this person, all of our objections to gender ideology all boiled down to the fact that we're intimidated by, was that a trans person? His looks? I'm so good looking. That's what, you're just intimidated by that.

No, the fear, see, the fear is not on our end. This is what they love to do. They love to accuse us of we're afraid of trans people. We're just trembling in fear. So, we're the ones afraid? Meanwhile, if I go to a college campus, you are outside screaming with tears streaming down your face? You don't even want me to show up. You're trying to stop me from even being there.

And I'm the one afraid. I am trying to go to a place. And you are saying, you don't even want me in your physical vicinity. I'm afraid? No, you're afraid. You're terrified. You're terrified of me. Maybe it's because I'm good looking.

Maybe that's also part of what's going on, you know, going into this. You want to date me. I don't know. But what I certainly know is that you're afraid of the questions. afraid of the ideas. So all of the, you know, trying to shut down conversation, shut down discussion, all of that happens on the left. When it comes to gender ideology, on the right, we're not doing any of that. Now, we will say that we don't want discussion of this in like a kindergarten classroom. You know why? Because that's not a discussion.

That's indoctrination. The kindergartners that are sitting there, they're not going to be equipped to respond and ask skeptical questions and debate you, which is why you want to relegate these conversations to those kinds of environments, where you're talking to people who are not able to contradict you. So yeah, you want to bring gender ideology up in an environment where you know no one's going to ask any skeptical questions, no one's going to make you explain yourself, there's not going to be any debate whatsoever. As far as an actual discussion, we're the ones trying to engage you in that. All right. So there's another clip that I wanted to play for you. Colin Wright has this on Twitter. He posted this. It says, in Matt Walsh's documentary, he confronted

surgeon Marcy Bowers about the logical parallels between surgery justified on the basis of gender dysphoria versus body integrity disorder or body integrity dysphoria. Bowers dismissed the latter claim as kooky. But W-pass standards of care. now include BID, Body Integrity Disorder. So then he's got this video which contrasts that scene in the film with what a presenter at W-Path now says about this subject. And by the way, Marcy Bowers is the incoming president of W-Path. I think is now officially the president.

So, you know, I was told that comparing these two things is totally off the wall. You can't do that. And yet here's what they said at W-path, and this was just a few weeks ago. Let's watch the clip. If you've ever heard of people in the trans-abled community, these are people who are physically able-bodied, but feel like they should be disabled or identify as such. There are others who have a feeling that their genitals

are not a part of their proper part of their body, body integrity dysphoria. For example, a man who has two arms, but feels like you should have one. If a man in this kind of marginalized community went to the doctor and said, I want to have my arm cut off. Do you think that that? That doesn't have anything to do with gender identity. This is in the SOC8. It's also an ICD 11. It's classification 621, or 6C21.

So it's there in the ICD as well as the standards of care. Well, it's someone's self-identity. That's someone who has a, and I'll accept it as a mental diagnosis, a psychiatric condition. I don't even pretend to know what aptominoffilia is all about, but somehow it's the idea that you and, you know, you're fascinated or charm by having a limb or part of a limb missing. Okay, I would say that's, pardon my non-medical language, kooky. They desire to be not male, to be emasculated, but don't want to be female either. They have a male-to-unic gender dysphoria, now part of the SOC-8. You don't see any?

You think this is totally irrelevant? Yeah. But I am the first trans-feminine person to be elected president of W. Path in its 43 years ago. There you go. went from, we did an interview with Bowers, I don't know, in September. And so, less than a year. You know, that's how quickly we're on this slippery slope here. It took less than a year for that to go from kooky, irrelevant and kooky to, oh yeah, totally legitimate. That's, it's all part of the same, it's all under the same umbrella now, they admit. That if you want to, because of course it

is. Of course it is. If we're supposed to take someone's self-identity seriously, as I try to explain, they're taking someone's self-identity seriously, it's how they self-identify, it's their truth. If that's the precedent we're setting, then on what basis can we tell someone that they're wrong? If someone identifies as disabled, they want to have their leg chopped off, and they say that, you know, they feel like that's how they're supposed to be. They're supposed to only have one leg. It doesn't make any sense. What do you mean? You're supposed to have one leg. Well, it makes as much sense at least as a man saying he's supposed to be a woman. It actually makes more sense.

See, that's the thing. That's one of the problems with the slippery slope. And I use the term too, but it's not exactly accurate. Because it makes it sound like there's this kind of logical progression or regression in this case, where we go from one thing to a slightly more extreme thing to slightly more extreme on down the way. But oftentimes what you find is that we go directly to the most extreme thing. and then we kind of circle back and cover all the bases that we skipped. So the legitimizing body integrity disorder,

legitimizing someone's claim that they're supposed to have one leg or they're supposed to be a eunuch, that is crazy. Okay, that is perverse and insane, but it is, it still makes more sense than the claim that a man is supposed to be a woman. Makes more sense. Because it is at least, you know, it's, if you're, if you have two legs as a man, you can become a one-legged man. That is possible. That's, that is a possible thing that can happen. And it happens to many men. Whereas there is nothing if you're a man that could ever make you a woman. It's impossible. It is impossibility. So it's the difference between identifying, it's the difference

between identifying as something that is possible versus identifying as something that is impossible. So we went to the most extreme thing, and now everything else that happens that we consider to be sort of down the slippery slope is actually further up the slippery slope, not further down. All right, we've got to do sort of an abbreviated five headlines because I spent so much time on John Oliver, but we've got another John that's causing a problem today. wanted to mention this. This is from the Daily Mail. It says John Liguizamo. It's not been a great couple of weeks for John's. John Liguizamo has slammed the all-white cast of Super Mario Brothers, the new film that's coming out, and the lack of Latink's leads on, he said this on Saturday.

The actor 62, who played Luigi in the 1993 live action film, critique the casting choices as the film sees Chris Pratt take on the iconic role of the Italian Plummer Mario. Following the release of the first trailer for the upcoming film, John voiced his concerns while praising the groundbreaking colorblind casting of the original. Taking to Twitter, he said, quote, So glad Super Mario Bros is getting a reboot. Obviously, it's iconic. But too bad they went all white.

No latinx in the leads? Groundbreaking colorblind casting in the original. Plus, I'm the only one who knows how to make this movie work script-wise. But Tinks is a term that is intended to be gender neutral. Okay, blah, but we know that. He attached three screenshots of himself as Luigi and Bob Hoskins, who played Mario from the 1993 film. In the photo caption, he wrote, Apologize to this movie right now.

Okay, so his real problem is that just he's not being cast in the film. And he has, he's somehow convinced himself that the original Super Mario Brothers film was some sort of iconic masterpiece, and he made the script work. Now, there's like nothing that can make the script work in that film or in this one, by the way. I mean, it is a film based on a video game about Italian plumbers who are in some sort of hallucinogenic state and have magical powers and are fighting oversized turtles. So, like, there's really nothing that can happen that can make that script make any sense at all. But he seems to imagine that that's what he did. But here's the real point about this.

It's just shows how these, it's just the, it's fruitless and hopeless to point out the hypocrisy, but I still, I can't help but do it. Because John Liguizamo, just a few weeks ago, was taking issue with the casting of James Franco as Fidel Castro. And his issue, then he called for a boycott of the upcoming Fidel Castro biopic, which is, by the way, I'll be boycotting it just, by default, because I have no interest in watching a biopic about Fidel Castro. That's not his problem with it. And he agrees with Fidel Castro politically. But he doesn't want to see Fidel Castro besmirched and degraded by having a white guy

portray him. He said that there should be, there should be, quote, latinx person portraying Fidel Castro. So that was his criticism for the Castro film, is that there shouldn't be a white guy because you need to make the ethnicities accurate, need to reflect, you know, the character that they're portraying. But then on this one, he has the exact opposite criticism. So his problem with the Fidel Castro film is that they did colorblind casting. His problem for Mario is that it's not colorblind casting.

So what is his real issue here? His real issue is just with hiring white people to act in films. That's it. He just doesn't like seeing white people in films because he is a raging, despicable racist. All right. Let's get now to the comment section. Do you know their name? They're the sweet baby game.

October is Cybersecurity Awareness Month, and right now is the perfect time to ensure you're doing everything you can to stay safe online. Be cyber smart by taking these basic steps to help keep you and your family protected from identity theft, scams, and other online dangers. That is, use strong passwords, set up multi-factor authentication on your accounts, and regularly update the software on your devices as well. It's so important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives. Every day we put our information at risk on the internet. In an instant, a cybercriminal could harm what's yours, your finances, your credit, everything. Good thing, there's LifeLock. LifeLock helps detect a wide range of identity threats, like if your Social Security number is for sale on the dark web.

If they detect your information, they will send you an alert. Listen, nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions and all businesses, but you can keep what's yours, yours, with LifeLock, Identity, Thief, Protection. Join now. Now's the time to do it. Save up to 25% off your first year at LifeLock.com.com slash Walsh. That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for 25% off. Granny Holmes referring to these woke cosmetic and beauty companies that we talked about to start the show yesterday says, they're not marketing to women, Matt. They're marketing to men who have to buy a lot of makeup because they have to kick on so much. You're right. It is a minstrel.

show. By the way, I have to say, and I wish I could take credit for this, but I saw somebody on Twitter, I don't remember who, but someone on Twitter yesterday said that, you know, these, this woman-faced performance of men dressing up like, like women. I called it a minstrel show, but the better term for it would be menstrual show. And that is brilliant. I so wish that I had thought of it, that I could steal it, but I can't in good conscience because it's so good. But I will be using it from now on. So it is a menstrual show. Now you say that they're marketing to men and not to women. But that's why you're wrong. See, that's the point. That's what makes all of this all the more

outrageous and absurd is that they are still marketing to women. You know, Alta Beauty and, and Revlon and, you know, cover girl and all the rest of them that have bought in to this, to what they called yesterday, the degenderization. They are still, even though they're using male mascots now, and they're having, they're bringing men in to pontificate about the beauty of girlhood, quote unquote, they are still marketing to women. If they didn't have women customers, they would all go under. There are not enough gender-bending males out there to keep any of these makeup companies in business. And there never will be. There never will be. And they know that. So it's not just that their core customer base consists of women, but that's still pretty much

in effect, their only customer base. And yet, they are intentionally alienating and degrading and demeaning their customer base for the sake of scoring woke points. And I don't know if it's so much that they are willing to lose money. I think it's more that they're confident

they won't. It's not going to gain them anything, but they figure, well, we can virtue signal to the woke left and earn some points that way, and we can keep the pitchfork mob from coming after us. But, you know, the customers will just deal with it. Even if they don't like it, they'll still buy from us. And that's where it's up to the customers to prove them wrong. All right. Aaron says, I feel like there's a chance Matt will complain so much about watching the WMBA game. Then when he gets there, he'll have an amazing time and become a lifelong fan. I would not put any money on that bet, Aaron. Now, you know, granted, like almost every other American,

never watched a WNBA game, so I guess I can't say for sure that I won't enjoy it, but I hope you don't put too much money on that. On that, that's a wager. Tom says, I'm a 70-kilogram person, and it makes me so angry that I'd have to pay extra for bags, but a 120-kilogram person is allowed the same weight of bags as I am and is allowed to take over my personal space. I agree with you, but please stop using those fake British measuring units. Okay, they're called pounds. I don't know what this kilogram stuff is. This is America. We speak American here, Tom. Lagoon JL says, Matt, I feel a trend coming on where you tend to agree to terms not wholeheartedly thinking about the consequences.

For example, the interpretive dance fiasco, I still feel cheated, and now the WMBA bet. The old saying rings true. Don't let your mouth write checks that your ass can't cash. Have fun at the game. Still love and honor you SBG for life. That's not a trend that's developing or coming on. That is the story. of my life. I will basically agree to anything if it's more than one week away because if it's more than one week in the future, I'll just agree to it. Somebody could come up to me and say, hey, Matt, in two months, I was wondering if you want me to come and shoot you directly in the head. And I would just absentmindedly look up and say, two months? Yeah, sure, go ahead. But just put it

on my Google calendar and I'll, yeah, that's fine. Yeah, okay. The future isn't real to me. I don't know. It's the curse of the procrastinator. This is how we work. We work in the present. And the future is just, it's an abstraction. It's an idea. That's all. Time is a flat circle. Red Nick Roy says, if Matt tells his wife he's leaving for the night for a WMBA game, she's going to think he's having an affair. In my case, no, because my wife is used to me doing totally bizarre things that involve me leaving the house sometimes for extended periods of time. I mean, keep in mind, I had to have the conversation with my wife last year at some point that I was. want to go to a third world country on a 26-hour plane ride to go talk to primitive tribesmen

about transgenderism. That's a conversation I had to broach with her, and it's a it's a conversation that we had. So that's what she's, those are the kinds of ideas she's used to hearing from me. And finally, Forklift Certified Gentleman says, Bubba Wallace acts like someone who's named Bubba. I totally disagree. And that's actually one of my biggest problems with Bubba Wallis. is that I think he's a disgrace to the name Bubba. When I think of Bubba, I don't think of this whiny attention-starved guy who's also always complaining about being a victim. Like, when you think of a Bubba, you think of someone who sees a garage door pull and collapses onto the ground in a fetal position and starts weeping? That's what you think of

when you hear the name Bubba? I don't know. Not me. That's a, don't try to put that on all Bubba's everywhere. That is not fair. Well, if you know me, you know how much I love Halloween and how excited I am to dress up for the holiday. Now I may have to settle for a run-of-the-mill superhero costume. That's, you know, that's my default every year. Just pull out the Batman costume, but there's still hope for you. This year, I will be going as my favorite anime character, but this Halloween, you could be the star of the year's breakout hit documentary. What is a woman. That's right. You can head over to dailywire.com slash shop and check out my collection to get your very own Matt Walsh Halloween costume. As you know, they did all this without my consent or approval,

and they have put my likeness out there, and my very identity is now being appropriated as a costume. And that's okay, because we're making some money off of it. I have principles after all. So be sure to post on social media and tag me in the Daily Wire to show off your costume. You might even make it on the show. Remember, not all heroes wear capes. This one wears a sandwich. board. Also, the DailyWire is hiring, oh, come on. The DailyWire is hiring a senior vice president of marketing, analytics, data, and operations. Wow, that's a lot of responsibility. I'm told that this is a high-profile executive role with paid relocation to Nashville. This innovator will design, hire, and oversee a world-class marketing data analytics team that has built atop the marketing data

stack from CRM platforms to multi-touch attribution tools to propensity targeting models. This leader will, for example, study which DailyWire shows and films most interest the fans and also which DailyWire host is the most annoying. So if you understand what a full marketing data and analytics stack is, head over to dailywire.com slash careers now to apply. Please, dear God, someone just apply for this damn job. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Yesterday on the show, I briefly mentioned a controversy that had at the time only recently started simmering. It was a controversy surrounding comments made by the humble host of this very podcast. And if you've been paying attention at all, you know that when my comments spark controversy,

it's always because I have broached a very important subject and raised an issue of urgent national importance, such as, of course, the backlash over my advocacy for the rights of translucent mermaids. The topic this time around isn't quite that serious, but almost. So, as I detailed yesterday, during an All Access Live chat this past Friday, I was asked to give my opinion on the subject of anime. And I spent about 35 seconds on the subject in which I stated that from my vantage point, anime is satanic. Now, I acknowledge that I have no argument to support that view. I have no perhaps reason or justification for it. It is, rather, as the kids say, a vibe.

Anime has a satanic vibe. That's all. Have I ever seen anime? Do I even know exactly what anime is? These questions aren't relevant. All that matters is that, as I said in response to a live question, someone asked, anime is the work of the devil. That's my truth that I live in every day.

Now, there are some who might assume that this comment was simply a half-assed, off-the-cuff joke about cartoons, and that's all. Now, there's some who might observe that I've also argued for cyclists to be imprisoned. I've said that people who leave their shopping carts in the parking lot are morally equivalent to serial killers and should be executed on the spot. I've called for legislation outlong small talk and elevators and the use of emojis by males over the age of 18. I even spent three months on this show attacking my own employer over his refusal to give me a giant stuffed walrus. So you might assume that my theories about anime's satanic origins should be taken in the same spirit as all those other sorts of comments.

And you're right, because I'm totally serious about all of it. It's good then that social media took it with the seriousness that it was intended. I was one of the top trending subjects on Twitter nationwide yesterday, again, this time due to my controversial stance on anime. A great many accounts with anime avatars expressed their hurt and anger over my opinion, leading me to believe that maybe I was wrong about anime causing demonic possession. maybe it actually just causes you to become an extremely whiny dork. That's another theory.

Meanwhile, the news media jumped into action. My randomly muttered hot take about anime made it into the headlines of several major news outlets. Yahoo News reports, Daily Wire Troll Matt Walsh denounces anime as satanic, though he doesn't know why. Denounces. I denounced it. Mediaite says, Matt Walsh declares anime satanic, but it. admits he's not sure why. The independent says, Matt Walsh says he thinks all anime is satanic and adults shouldn't be watching cartoons. Newsweek takes a slightly different angle. They say, Daily Wire host who called anime satanic blasted by real Satanists. Oh, well, if real Satanus are angry about it, then

I guess I'm more right than I ever realized. So I can now, with more confidence than ever, say that I stand by my comments, obviously. Anime is satanic, and it leads to demonic possession in upwards of 87% of cases studies show. Recent reports suggest that hat, listen to this, listen to this, half of all Pokemon fans will become mass murderers. The other half will also become mass murderers. If any of my critics had ever studied history,

They would know that Adolf Hitler, Gangus Khan, Caligula, all were anime fans or would have been if it existed. In fact, and this statistic is the most shocking of all. I want you to listen closely to this. Nearly 100% of all violent criminals in the country have seen Dragon Ball Z or have heard of it or know someone who has seen or heard of it.

The numbers speak for themselves. Though in fairness, there is perhaps no reason to single out Japanese animation in this way. Sure, it's especially weird and unsettling, but it's from Japan after all, so what do you expect? Really, though, every cartoon is satanic. That's the only clarification that I'll offer here. Every cartoon is satanic.

Look at Paul Patrol, for example. Talking dogs with dead, lifeless eyes who engage in all manner of sorcery? The whole town of Adventure Bay coweres in fear under the tyrannical regime of these beasts. Even the mayor, who's really a figurehead, obeys their every whim. There are no checks and balances in this system. The Paul Patrol are given free reign to be judged, jury, and potentially executioners. Now, when you consider that scripture

often uses wolves to symbolize the forces of evil, you begin to see in the Paul Patrol a sort of perverse satanic fable. And this is still one of the tamers shows. What about cocoa melon? A bizarre, deranged, plotless, hypnotic spectacle, which places toddlers into an insensible trance-like state where they mutter incantations, summoning dark forces that they don't understand? These are yet more cartoon-related opinions that I am seriously stating, in which I hope will be taken as seriously as I mean them. Of course, hypothetically, as a thought experiment, if you were to pretend for a moment that with my infamous anime commentary, I was actually just making a random spur of the moment, about a subject that I really don't care about at all, and that media matters is creating a

controversy over something that I forgot I even said 45 seconds after I said it, then in this alternate universe, one might make the following observation. It is sad that we live in a culture where you can't speak off the cuff or offer an opinion even ironically or ingest or only half seriously without it being clipped and isolated and turned without your consent into your die-hard mantra or fundamental. belief system. I had people yesterday demanding to know why I've chosen to die on this hill. Why am I ranting about anime? Why do I care so much about what other people choose to watch? Well, am I dying on a hill by making a flippant hyperbolic remark on a subject that someone

else asked me about? Is literally everything you say a hill you're dying on? Are you seriously pretending that you never exaggerate or engage in hyperbole or say something outrageous for comedic effect? Are you pretending that you've never articulated an edgy or weird opinion, maybe seriously, maybe as a joke, maybe as some mixture of the two? Are you pretending that you don't understand these methods of human communication that are utterly commonplace and a feature of nearly every conversation you've ever had in your life? Yes, you are pretending that. You are pretending so that you can score whatever point you think you're scoring here. And the effect over time is that authentic conversation is stifled and people feel as though they have

constantly speak like they're reading from a press release written by a corporate PR firm. The color and flavor of human conversation, the stuff that makes it fun and interesting, just kind of fades away. These are all things that you might say if you believe that I was not being totally serious when I declared all animation made in Japan satanic. But again, I was serious. I am serious about everything. If I was joking, I would laugh.

deadpan humor has never been my thing as you well know and that is why in the end with all that said anime is still canceled and cast back down into the fiery hell flames from whence it came that'll do it for this portion of the show is move over to the members block hope to see you there if not talk to you tomorrow godspeed