The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 125 - On The Left, "Trans Rights" Trump Women's Rights

Episode Date: October 17, 2018

A male cyclist competed in a women’s cycling event and won. The left says this is a great victory for trans rights. But yet again, victories for trans rights must come at the expense of women’s rights. And speaking of rights, a great victory for religious liberty happened this week. We’ll discuss that important case as well. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

So a man named Rachel McKinnon just won the Women's World Cycling Championship. McKinnon is a college professor in South Carolina. He's also, naturally, of course. He's also from Canada originally, naturally, of course, no offense to Canadians. And he, and he's a man, too, I should mention that, he beat a bunch of women at the Masters Track Cycling World Championship. I know I don't have to tell you who won the Masters Track Cycling World Championship. I mean, we've all been following it very closely.

But he won it, and he, of course, called it. himself transgender, which is how he got away with racing a bunch of girls. Now, the gentleman was not very gracious in victory. He was, even, I would frankly say, not very ladylike. He bragged about the victory on Twitter. He said, first transgender woman world champion ever, which is, which is, which is a bit like bragging that you're the first adult to hit 40 home runs in T-ball. You know, it's not exactly, not exactly something that I would brag about. Let me give you a little bit of the LifeSight News articles, the article on this. It says McKinn's participation in the bracket was made possible last year

when another Canadian trans cyclist, Kristen Worley, won a human rights settlement that secured a commitment from cycling Canada that would allow him to compete against women. But while pro-LGB groups are celebrating the news as a milestone for equality, critics argue that letting men who merely declare womanhood compete with actual women is unfair because it provides an unfair advantage to the man. But McKinnon spent part of his Sunday disputing the point on Twitter, arguing that, quote, there's no relationship in any gender between testosterone and performance.

That is his scientific view. He's saying that testosterone doesn't give you any advantage in terms of strength or endurance or anything like that. No, no, not at all. It's a myth. interesting though, as LifeSight News points out, McKinnon earlier in the year in January took a very different approach. And back then, he didn't say that, well, I don't have an advantage.

He said that the advantage is irrelevant because this is about rights. This is about my human rights. This is what he said. He said, by catering to cisgender people's views, that only furthers transgender people's oppression. When it comes to extending rights to a minority population, why would we ask the majority? translation, who cares what the women think? This is all about me. I bet a lot of white people were pissed off when we desegregated sports racially and allowed black people in, but they had to deal with it. And there again, you have this propensity by those in the LGBT camp to constantly

compare their complaints to the historic plight of black Americans, which I think is not only very stupid. and not only very arrogant, and not only extraordinarily historically illiterate, but it's also racist. I think it's pretty racist when you've got this privileged white man who's at everything in life handed to him. He gets whatever he wants. We'll even bend and break and change the rules for his sake. Whatever you want, Mr. McKinnon, you could have anything. That's what he gets.

And yet he's comparing his supposed trials and tribulations to black Americans who we should recall were slaves in this country. And then were for a century after that were not legally considered or allowed to be full participants in society. And he's comparing himself as a white guy. I would consider that racist because it so trivializes the historic plight of black Americans and it uses that plight in such a cynical and emotionally manipulative and dishonest way that I don't know what else to call it but racist. All right. So a few other things to point out here.

First of all, I want to refer back again to the leftist victim hierarchy or the victim pyramid, if you will. and I've, you know, go back in your notes because it's important, you got to go back and look at this thing. And I'm all, you know, I talk about this a lot because this helps us to kind of sort through what's going on on the left. Because we see that, yeah, the left makes victims out of various different demographic groups, but they're not all equal victims. And they can't be because what happens when the groups, when all, when certain victim groups bump heads. What happens then? What happens when one victim group is claiming that it's being victimized by another?

Well, then what do you do? It's easy enough when any of the victim groups says that they're being victimized by white males, I should say by white heterosexual cisgender males. Well, then it's easy enough to say, well, the white heterosexual male is always wrong. But what happens when you have this intervictum conflict? well, that's where you have the, that's where the hierarchy comes into play. You have the, you know, the most important victims at the top, and then it kind of goes down in importance from there.

And you will notice that the top victims, the alpha victims, the victims who victimization trumps all others, the victims victim, they are the people in the LGBT camp. And at the top of that subgroup, at the top of the top of the top, the most important of the most important the Uber victims are transgender their victimization claims trump everybody else

every time they are the trendiest and most important victims right now and that these things change that could change over time and here's how this works when a victim who is lower on the pyramid is victimized by a victim higher

on the pyramid That is a less important victim, victimized by a more important victim. Then if the less important victim complains about being victimized, then all of a sudden, she is the bully. And she has victimized the person who's victimizing her. I know this is confusing. I know it's hard to keep up. But this is, look, this is the convoluted way that things work on the left.

Don't blame me. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you the way that works for them. all you have to remember is that on the victim hierarchy, you can never be victimized by someone who is higher than you, who is more important than you. So transgender are at the top, which means that they are victimized by everyone.

In fact, maybe we should think of this as an upside down pyramid. Okay, so it's an upside down pyramid, and you have the most important victims at the bottom, and that would be that would be transgender. They're down here at the tip of the... And so all of the victimization trickles down. And so they're victims of everybody all the time.

Even when they're stealing championships, even when they're cheating, even when they're being absolutely selfish bullies and narcissists, they are still the victims of everybody. And then from there, you know, so you've got most important victims are transgender and then you've got all the rest of the... Then you've got the other...

Then you've got the LG and B in the acronym and the Q and the Z and all the rest. So then they're the second most important. Then you have racial minorities, third most important. And then you have women. So on the left, women are kind of far down on the totem pole, really. And that's why if a transgender wants to steal a championship from a woman, the woman just has to shut up and go along with it. And if a transgender, even in this day and age of Me Too and rape culture and consent and everything,

we've got this emphasis on consent, even now, if a man who calls himself transgender wants to go into a locker room where a woman is exposed and getting changed and vulnerable, and the woman is not comfortable, she has to just shut up and take it. She's not allowed to complain. And I bring that up because that just shows you how completely, and totally the victimization claim of the transgender will trump the woman every time. Now, by the way, there is also a predator or victimizer hierarchy, a hierarchy of villains for the leftists, and of course at the very top are straight white males, and then right below them are conservative women, and then conservative minorities are there as well. But the crazy thing is, and this is

gets really complicated. But so the number one, the worst bullies and predators for the left, they are white males, right? Straight white males. But, so they're at the top of the victimizer hierarchy. But you could actually jump from the top of that pyramid to the top of the other. A man can actually make that leap. A white man could actually go from being the worst villain in the world to being the martyr, the most precious victim, if he simply puts on a wig and calls himself transgender. So that's an interesting point here. Second thing I want to point out is that it's often been claimed

that Christianity stifles science or is afraid of science. And this claim is largely unfounded. In fact, through the centuries, Christians have not only supported science, but many of the greatest scientific minds have been Christian. But it is interesting now that, so that's just a false claim, that Christianity stifles science, it doesn't. But it's interesting now that on the left, you see them doing exactly what they have always accused Christians of doing.

You see them utterly rejecting science, militating against science, rejecting it, cursing it, saying, you know, science be gone, get out, get away, evil science. And they're doing all of that in the name of their faith. Because transgenderism is a matter of faith. To say that a penis bearing, why chromosomeed man can be a woman if he feels like one, is a doctrinal statement. It's a statement of dogma.

It has no relation to science whatsoever. That is not a scientific statement whatsoever. It is a statement. of faith. Now, there are some Christians who believe that the world was really created in seven days. They're wrong, and there's no reason at all to draw that conclusion from the Bible. After all, the Bible talks about days, uses the word day, before the earth even exists. In fact, it says day before, or I should say, it is, it says, it talks. It talks. It talks about, it talks about days, certainly before the sun even exists, the sun doesn't come into existence

in the creation story until the fourth day. And even on so-called the first day, the earth is shapeless. It's not a, it's, it's, it is a, it is a shapeless mess in the creation story, which means that there cannot be a day in the earthly sense yet, because in order to have an earth day, you need to have a sun. You need to have a, a spherical earth rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun. That is what an Earth day is by definition. And you cannot have that in the creation story until the fourth day. So that tells us that we're not talking about that kind of day. But anyway, I don't want to get, I'm going to get sidetracked on that. But the point is, a Christian who says,

that the whole universe was created in seven days, or six days, really. That is his opinion based on faith. You know, based on faith, and I think based on bad exegesis, so it's not, again, as Christians, that is not a position that we must hold. It is possible actually to interpret the Genesis story in a way, that comports with what we know about, you know, what we know scientifically about the world. But it's a statement of faith. Science very much repudiates and contradicts that interpretation.

And, you know, there's no getting around it. So a Christian who sticks to that, knows that he is, you know, that he's, that's an opinion that he's holding. Totally apart from science. And it's the same sort of thing for leftists. And I'm not comparing these two views. They're different kinds of views. But it's the same sort of dynamic for leftists. And I bring this up because leftists like to pretend that they don't have any religious views, that they don't have any faith or anything like that.

But they do because that's what this is. A leftist who talks about men who become women and women who become men and how they can make this transition based entirely on their feelings. that is that is all that's pure religion that is their religion i even saw i saw a story a few days ago about a woman who became a man and then became a dog okay that's not a joke it was a there's a story i saw it online a few days ago it was a woman who identifies as a man who identifies as a male dog so that's and now now now here's here's the fascinating thing if she would then identify as a male dog who identifies as a female dog who identifies as a female person, then that would actually close the loop. And I think it may, it may in fact create a black hole that would

obliterate the solar system, I'm pretty sure, which would not necessarily be in, you know, an unfortunate turn of events. The point is, this is pure faith, pure religion, pure dogma, it's not science. There is no science in this. There is no science. There is no science. in a woman who says, I'm a man and I'm also a dog. That's not science. That's pure faith. Science says that men have X, Y, chromosomes and penises. That's what science says. Science knows nothing of women trapped in man bodies.

It knows nothing of that. That is a very weird kind of spiritual dualism that just is not scientific. So there is certainly religion and faith on the left. And in fact, to hold to their religious views and their faith-based views requires, I think, quite a bit more faith than it does to believe, for instance, the Bible. Third point. Notice the incredible arrogance here. I already touched on this.

But that's the other thing that jumps out at you with a lot of this identity stuff on the left. It's very self-absorbed. It's very me, me, me, me, focused. This man has no concern for anyone else at all. It's only about what he wants, what makes him comfortable. Now, I do think that at the root of transgenderism, there is obviously mental disorder. You know, there's obviously mental disorder going on.

But I don't think it's only mental disorder. As we've seen, this idea of gender identity, it's kind of expanded so that more and more people are discovering different and exotic and strange fancy new forms of identity. It's become kind of a trend. And so I don't think you can explain it all just by saying, well, it's all mental disorder. There's something else going on. I think there are plenty of people now who are basically mentally stable, yet they've seen this gender identity stuff. they see the left's ideology about identity

and they choose consciously that, okay, I'm going to buy it into this because there's something about it that appeals to them. There's something about it that they like. And I think the thing that appeals to them about it is that it is so self-focused. You know, it is so focused on the ego and on the self. And it kind of, it presents the human person as this sort of disembodied ego and everything about the world, everything about reality, everything about yourself,

you get to determine to the point where you can even determine your biology. Everything is up to you. So it turns the self into this godlike figure. And I think there's something else too. And this is a very interesting aspect of the so-called transgender phenomenon. I think what also find is that... Thanks, yours too! What does RAV stand for anyway? To me, it's the remarkably advanced vehicle. Really? To me, it's the runway approved vehicle for its amazing style.

What about remarkably adaptable vehicle because of its versatile cargo space? Or really admired vehicle? Oh, or really awesome vehicle. It really is the recreational activity vehicle. The stylish 2026 Toyota RAP4 Limited. What's your Rav for? Everybody has a deep yearning to find identity in something transcendent, in something deeper and more profound than simply their material, right? It's hard for anyone to really be a materialist.

You know, very few people want to say, well, I'm just skin and bones. That's all I am. That's all there is to me. And that's it. So everybody wants a transcendent identity. Now for Christians, we find our transcendent identity in Christ. That's where we find primarily first and foremost our transcendent identity. We say we're not just skin and bones and flesh.

We are children of God. That's our identity. And then we would also say, kind of growing from that root, I would say, well, another aspect of my identity is that I'm a husband and I'm a father. So I find my identity in all of that. But on the left, well, they've rejected God. They reject the family as a patriarchal institution. They reject parenthood much of the time because parenthood infringes on their autonomy

and on their ability to have a convenient and pleasurable life. So they reject all that. They reject all of the sources where they could find a transcendent identity and they're left only with themselves. But that's not good enough. That's very depressing. And so now they have found a different sort of transcendent identity in this kind of spiritual, superstitious, faith-based idea of transgenderism and gender identity and all that. And the reason why they prefer it to finding their identity in God or even in family is,

is that over here on the left, this transcendent identity, again, is all self-focused. And it requires no sacrifice on your part. It's all about you. Whereas if you're going to find your identity in God, well, then you have to serve God. If you're going to find your identity in your family, then you have to serve your family. They don't want to do all that. So instead, I'll just serve myself, and this is where I find my identity. All right.

So there's that story. Here's another story. I wanted to switching gears here. I wanted to call your attention to one other thing very quickly. It's a better story. We'll end on a more positive note. Kelvin Cochran was the former fire chief of Atlanta, very accomplished guy, started as one of the first black fire fighters in Atlanta. Then he rose through the ranks to become the fire chief, and then he was hired by Obama to run a division of FEMA.

And then he was recruited back to Atlanta because the fire department was struggling in his absence. So this was a very sought-after guy, very respected, very good at his job. And then a few years ago, Mr. Cochran wrote a short devotional book about his Christian faith in which he mentioned that the fact that marriage, according to the Bible, is between a man and a woman. And I believe that this was something that he mentioned only on like one page of the book. I'm pretty sure. He shared the book with a few people. Next thing you know, because he wrote this book expressing his Christian faith,

expressing a faith by the way that is shared by millions of people in the country. Next thing you know, he's suspended without pay from his job. He's forced to attend sensitivity training, and finally he's fired. Well, he went back and sued the city for violating his First Amendment rights, and earlier this week, in a huge victory for the First Amendment, he was awarded $1.2 million, which is great. And this was an easy one, okay? Should have been an easy one anyway.

This is an easy case to figure out. He was fired from his job with the government because of his personal religious views. That is straightforward, you know, that is one of the more straightforward and clear-cut cases of First Amendment infringement that you're ever going to find. Now, they did an investigation while he was suspended, before they fired him. They did an investigation, and they found no evidence that he had ever discriminated against anyone, even though he had outed himself as a Christian and as someone who believes in biblical marriage, they found no evidence that he had ever discriminated against anyone, including

homosexuals. In fact, he was well known before that point for being very inclusive, very progressive in that sense, you know, being inclusive and tolerant. He's a black man himself who experienced discrimination himself very early in his career. So it makes sense that he would be a tolerant and inclusive kind of guy, and you're not going to get hired by Obama to run a federal agency or you're not going to get hired to a federal post by Obama unless you were progressive and tolerant in that way, or tolerant towards different sexual orientations anyway. But he was fired anyway. They investigated him because he declared his Christian faith.

They found no evidence of discrimination, said, we're going to fire you anyway because they didn't like his religion, fired him purely for his religious views, purely because the city council didn't agree with his religion, and he sued, and finally he's getting $1.2 million. Now, I think what you, when you look at this case, then you look at the masterpiece cake shop, which was a victory for Jack Phillips, it was not the full-on, complete total victory that it could have been and should have been, but it was still a victory. and it was yet again a government agency being repudiated, being reprimanded for targeting someone based on their faith. And so I think what we see here is that, you know, it turns out the First Amendment is pretty straightforward.

The First Amendment is pretty explicit, pretty clear. It says that you have free exercise of religion and it cannot be abridged. It cannot be infringed. That's what the First Amendment says. it's not written in coded language, it's not written in invisible ink, you don't need a secret decoder to read it, it, it's right there. You have freedom of religion in this country. And I think what that means is that the left eventually, they're going to realize that, you know, there really is no getting around that. Obviously, they want to get rid of religious liberty, but as long as the First Amendment exists, there's just no way they can do it. So I think for the left, for progress, their only option in the end is going to, well, their only option really is to revoke the First Amendment, is to get rid of it, repeal it. We're certainly not at a place yet where they're going to start openly advocating for that. But I would predict that in 10, 15 years, that's going to be a mainstream view on the left.

That at the very, maybe not repeal the entire First Amendment, but to take religion out of the First Amendment. because their argument is that religion is not a legitimate thing in the first place. Religion is superstition. Even though, as I established earlier, they have their own religion and their own faith-based views. But that's their point of view.

Religion is just not, it's an oppressive institution. It's not legitimate. It shouldn't be in there. So I would expect that eventually, 10 to 15 years, maybe earlier, you're going to find, it's going to be a mainstream view on the left, that freedom of religion

must be taken out of the First Amendment. Because that's the only way for them to ultimately achieve their goals here. But in the meantime, let's celebrate Kelvin Cochran and his great, great victory. Well deserved. Thanks for watching, everybody. Thanks for listening. Godspeed.