The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1273 - The 'DINK' Trend: Double Income, No Kids, And A Meaningless Life Of Consumption And Materialism

Episode Date: December 6, 2023

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there has been a major push this week to promote the so-called DINK community. These are the "dual income, no kids" childless by choice folks, who all say that their lifestyle is superior because it makes it so much easier to buy things. Also, the Daily Wire files a major lawsuit in defense of free speech. Donald Trump sends the media into a frenzy after saying that he'll be a dictator on Day 1 of his second term. Of course they're willfully missing the point in what he was saying. Plus, Dylan Mulvaney draws a crowd of literally dozens for his speech at Penn State. And Democrats embarrass themselves during a hearing on the question of whether boys should be allowed to participate in girl's sports.   Ep.1273    - - -    DailyWire+:   Watch the first episode of End of the World: https://bit.ly/485EYqm   Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj   - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   Tax Network USA - Take the first step toward resolving your tax debt! http://www.TaxNetworkUSA.com/Walsh    HigherBond - Sign up for HigherBond before December 31st and get 3 months FREE of premium. https://www.Higherbond.com    Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt Or call 844-RUFF-700   - - -   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

You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. Pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash Spotify.

Terms apply. Today in the Matt Wall Show, there's been a major push this week to promote the so-called Dink community. These are the dual-income, no-kids, childless by choice folks who all say that their lifestyle is superior because it makes it so much easier to buy things. Also, the Daily Wire files a major lawsuit in defense of free speech. Donald Trump sends the media into a frenzy after saying that he'll be a dictator on day one of his second term. Of course, they're willfully missing the point in what he was saying. Plus, Dylan Mulvaney draws a crowd of literally dozens for his speech at Penn State. And Democrats embarrassed themselves during a hearing on the question of whether boys,

should be allowed to participate in girl sports, all of that, and more today on the Matt Walls show. The October 15th tax deadline has come and gone, and I know many of you may be dreading, filing your taxes and all the stress involved. Filing your taxes can be a long, excruciating process. But if you fail to file, you'll start to pile up penalties on top of your tax debt. That's why you need to check out Tax Network USA. The team of Tax Network USA has a track record of success. They've reduced tax debt for numerous clients, totaling over $1 billion.

Whether you're looking at a $10,000 or a $1 million tax debt, They can help you with a settlement. It doesn't matter if you haven't filed in one year, five years, even a whole decade. Tax Network USA is equipped to secure the best settlement for you. The tax attorneys and professionals at Tax Network USA can help resolve all tax cases no matter how they started. Don't let debt control your life any longer. Take the first step towards resolving your tax issues by visiting Tax NetworkUSA.com slash Walsh. That's Tax NetworkUSA.com slash Walsh today.

About a year ago, we first talked about the growing community of people who call themselves Dink's. Now, Dink may sound like some kind of racial slur, but it's not. Well, I mean, it was, technically. Some people used it as a pejorative term for the Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. It's also a term familiar to my fellow bass fisherman used to describe any game fish below 12 inches in length. But in this case, Dink does not refer to either Asians or small fish. Dink is an acronym that stands for dual income no kids. So these are the childless by choice folks. Those who get married and could have kids, but choose instead to have a barren, sterile relationship focused entirely on their own superficial wants and desires. Now, the dinks are getting a lot of attention these days, especially over the past week.

On Monday, Business Insider ran a piece titled, Meet the Typical Dink. They have over $200,000 in the bank and aren't paying for pricey child care. The article tells us, quote, it seems like everyone wants to be a dink these days. Dink households that are double income with no kids are seeing their ranks grow, especially as a high cost of living and the climate crisis weigh particularly on people with children. There are variations on the dink or the sink, single income no kids. You could be a dink wad, which means double income no kids with a dog. Dink wads, who previously spoke to Business Insider, said that the lifestyle gives them financial stability,

the capacity to travel, and the ability to dodge the ever-increasing cost of parenthood. And it's a lifestyle that's paying off as dinks emerge on top of a shaky economy. So who are the dinks of America? Their ranks are set to grow, they're making six figures, and they want to spend. spend their money on their pets and traveling. Yes, dinkwad if you have a dog or I guess dink whack if you have a cat or dinkwop if you own a pony or a pig or a parrot or if you're a big carty bee fan. There are many variations, but they all boil down to the fact that you have decided to not have kids. And as the article details, this is a rapidly growing group.

Quote, around 5% of the country's total population was cohabitating couples who do not live with a child under 18 and around 29% of the total population are married couples who do not live with a child under 18, according to the 2022 American Community Survey data. Among unmarried couples, that figure is slightly up from 2019 when 4.4% of the population was cohabitating couples not living with a child under 18. The U.S. Census Bureau also finds that the aging population is increasingly child free as of 2018. Over one in seven women were childless by the time they were between the ages of 40 and 44. That's higher than the one in 10 women who were in the same boat as of 1976. A Pew survey found that 44% of non-parents' age.

is 18 to 49 said that they were not likely or not at all likely to have kids at all someday up from 37%. Okay. But what is the dink existence really like? Well, this week there has also been, for whatever reason, a sudden surge in TikTok videos promoting this lifestyle. And most of them kind of follow the same annoying format, which looks like this. Watch. We're dinks. We go to Twitter Joe's and workout classes on the weekends. We're dinks. We get into snobby hobbies like skiing and golfing. We're dinks. We can go to Florida on a whim. We're dinks. We're already planning our European vacation next year. Dinks, we get a full eight hours of sleep and sometimes more. We're dinks. We get

desserts and appetizers at restaurants. We're dinks. We can play with other kids and give him back. We're dinks. We still do it three times a week. We're dinks. We spend our discretionary income on eight dollar latte. We're dinks. We max out our 401ks, Roth IRAs, and HSAs. We're dinks. We don't use our kids or dog as an excuse to leave a party. We just leave. Yes, well, I'm a CISC, single-income six kids, and I can do you one better. I make no

excuse to leave a party because I just don't go to parties in the first place. But I guess it has more to do with being ASWIC, antisocial with kids, which isn't much different from being ASWAC, antisocial without kids. But in any case, you may notice that most of the things they're bragging about besides the ability to leave social

gatherings when they want to, which I guess they imagine for some reason is something parents aren't able to do. But most of the things all revolve around their increased ability to buy stuff. And this is a theme that runs through basically all of the dink propaganda. Watch. We're dinks. We're going to get asked daily when we plan on having kids.

We're dinks. Of course we're going to go out to eat every night after work. We're dinks. We don't have to ask our family for financial help or to watch our kid when we want to go out. We're dinks. We're going to go to Costco and buy all the snacks in bulk that we want. We're dinks. We have disposable income to spend all whatever we would like and don't have to spend on a kid.

We're dinks. I'm going to go to every football game and play 18 holes whenever I want. We're dinks. We're going to get asked to every single family event what we're doing with our life. Yes, we're dinks. We can buy things. We can consume. Look at all the consuming we do. We are such dedicated consumers. You dumb parents with your dumb children. You can't possibly devote as much of your life to buying and eating, which is literally the only thing we care about in this world, apparently. And this is the message over and over again. Another example. We're dinks. We're going to be asked constantly by family, friends, and strangers

when we're going to have kids. We're dinks. We're going to go to Costco and buy all the snacks we want. We're dinks. We're going to support our friends who have kids, even if we decide to never have any. We're dinks. We're going to have, we're dinks.

We're going to have lots of, we're dinks. We're going to have lots of disposal income to spend on whatever we like. We're dinks. We're going to get chastised by people on the internet because they're going to assume that we're just obsessive. with material things, even though arguably you need a lot more material things once you have kids. Or dinks. We don't need to find a sitter or rope our family into babysitting when we want to go out for the night. We're dinks. We're going to be told the only way that will ever be fulfilled in life is by having kids.

We're dinks. We're going to book flights whenever we feel like it. We're dinks. We're still going to stick to a strict budget to meet our financial goals no matter how much wiggle room we have in our finances. We're dinks. We're not going to make a life-altering choice just because everybody else is doing it. Period. Now, as you're probably noticing, these people apparently have a weird preoccupation with Costco. They're making videos providing unsolicited lists of the things that make their lives fulfilling, and somehow Costco makes the cut. Here's another one. Watch.

We're kid-free, so we love to treat our furry babies, just like children. We're kid-free. We always get a full-end-old. night's sleep and sometimes a nap. We're kid free. So obviously everyone's going to ask us. So, when are you going to have kids? We're kid free. We love our family and friends kids, even if we don't want our own. You're high. I wish. We're kid free. Cairns are constantly going to tell us, aren't we afraid of missing out? What if you never feel fully fulfilled or unconditional love without them? Well, Karen, don't you think that's a lot of pressure to put on your kids of your needs?

I think we'll be okay. We're kid-free. With only two mouse to feed, we can prioritize better Costco snakes. Okay, this Costco thing is really getting out of control, but let's just, just one more video. Why is nobody talking about being dinks? Well, I'm freshly married, and I'm going to talk about it. Here's our life as dinks in our early 30s. No shocker here, folks.

Today we went to Costco. Okay, enough with Costco. I mean, I like to buy cereal wholesale, too, but I'm not going to make it my whole identity. So let's get a grip. So what's really going on here? Let's take a step back. And first of all, a few points. Number one, are you really trying to take ownership of Costco as childless people? That's like saying that a benefit of being childless is that you get to go to the rainforest cafe. I mean, those places exist for us, for parents. That is our domain. And for the record, I buy whatever snacks I want for myself whenever I want them,

whether from Costco or anywhere else. My children do not prevent me from. I'm indulging in that way. The only difference is that if anybody asked me to provide a list of the things that I love most about my life, I wouldn't cite the fact that I can buy snacks for myself, okay? If somebody were to come to me and say, what's the greatest thing about being you, Matt? What do you love the most? Well, I can buy snacks. I wouldn't say that, not because I can't buy snacks, but because that's a rather banal detail that I would think is probably not worth mentioning. And yet, for dinks, snacks and Costco play apparently a central role in their lives. On their deathbeds, while they're lying there alone with no one to mourn them or care that they're dying or remember them when they're gone,

if the hospice nurse, who's the only person who's going to be in the room with them, ask them to pass along a final piece of wisdom, they will look up and with their final dying breath, they will whisper, get a Costco membership. They have great deals on cheese-its. See, a person's life has to revolve around something, has to be dedicated to something. And even by their own testimony, it's clear that when people choose to be childless, their lives inevitably revolve around pure, self-centered, unadulterated, unencumbered consumption. That's not my accusation. That's listen to them.

Any one of these videos where these childish people talk about the benefits of being childish, that's them saying it. Is that think of all the consumption we can do. Now, of course, it's true that the same thing. Same is the case for many parents in the modern world. I mean, there are many parents who their lives also revolve around consumption. But at least if you ask the average parent, however they may actually live their lives, they will at least say that the thing that gives them purpose and joy is their relationship

with their children and their spouses. They will talk about their families as the foundation of their lives. That shows at the very least that they are aspiring to something higher and greater than themselves, whether or not they actually live up to their own aspirations is a different story, but the dinks don't even aspire to the transcendent. For them, there is no meaning in life except in their ability to sleep and eat and buy stuff. It is a deeply nihilistic way to live, and this is what makes the rise of the dinks so catastrophic.

That is, aside from the more immediate and obvious fact, that this is a community which, if it reaches critical mass, would actually bring about the end of mankind, which, by the way, a pretty good indication that you're making a bad lifestyle choice. Okay, if your lifestyle is one that if adopted by a majority of humans would spell the end of the human species, then that is a very powerful sign that there is something seriously wrong with your lifestyle. But aside from that, if it's possible to put that detail aside, the rise of the childless by choice demographic is the rise of a group that has, in principle, given up on finding

any meaning in life beyond the multiplication and satisfaction of desire, to use Dostoevsky's phrase. They're so dedicated to this calling, so intent on consumption, that they are willing to end their own bloodlines to pursue it. They are willing to commit a sort of ancestral suicide just so they have more time to buy stuff. Now, just consider specifically that overweight male dink in the video who's especially excited about Costco. Well, one of them anyway, because they all were. But take one of those guys and just put them in your mind. His ancestors fought and struggled and persevered and pioneered and

bled and suffered all so that he could exist. And he stands now at the end of a procession that stretches back into the ancient past. We all do, right? Every single one of us. A line of people who made his very existence possible, who migrated thousands of miles and fought wars and tamed wildernesses and built homes and civilizations all for him. And he turns back to those people, to his ancestors, to his blood. And he says, yeah, sorry, guys, we're done. We're done here.

You know, I'm going to end the bloodline right here. I'd rather have some extra spending cash to buy Doritos, I've decided. The sheer hubris is astounding. Though, of course, I realize that this man would be totally mystified by the notion that he has any responsibility at all to his family, his ancestry, his bloodline, much less to the God who created him. He hasn't thought about any of this. He's thought only about his own immediate happiness. But in pursuing happiness above all, happiness through luxury, happiness through consumption, he will miss it. Because happiness comes from fulfillment, and fulfillment comes from doing that which you are made to do.

Okay, it comes from finding your place in that ancient ancestral struggle, from taking part in it, from building the next generation so that the fight can go on. Happiness comes from fulfilling your purpose in life. It comes from pursuing the transcendent, not the transactional. So the dinks will grow in number, but they will also grow in misery. They will live superficial lives, and they will die anonymous deaths. And if they have their way, they'll take down all of civilization with them. But at least they'll get to spend more time at Costco.

Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, if you're single or if you know someone is single, you've probably seen or heard about all the insane dating apps out there. But what if I told you there was a dating app that actually cared about your morals and your biblical values? Well, now there is with a new dating app called Higher Bond. Higher Bond is a new Christian dating app built to be safer, less stressful, and more Christ-centered. Higher Bond is completely different than anything else out there. There's no addictive swiping. The focus is truly on quality over quantity and is designed to form lasting marriages.

Higher Bond is a Christian company that's veteran owned by a husband and wife looking to change the way Christian singles meet online. You know, it's no secret that left-wing media and big tech are against companies like Higher Bond. In fact, a big tech company rejected Higher Bond from running ads because their website had the word Christian. Our society and our country need what Higher Bond is doing. And if you're single, you've got to check out Higherbond.com. Sign up before December 31st. You get three months of Higher Bond premium. Absolutely free.

That's Higherbond.com today. All right, big news to start with from The Daily Wire and also, um, you know, related to the Daily Wire, it says the article on the homepage right out. The Daily Wire, the Federalist, and the state of Texas joined on Tuesday in a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department alleging that the government agency funded censorship technology designed to bankrupt domestic media outlets with disfavored political opinions. The State Department is tasked with foreign relations and has no authority over domestic affairs, yet it took a government office designed for countering foreign terrorist propaganda,

which is called the Global Engagement Center, and unleashed it against the Americans-enged and what it claimed was disinformation, according to the lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas by the new Civil Liberties Alliance. It was, quote, one of the most audacious, manipulative, secretive, secretive, and gravest abuses of power and infringements of First Amendment rights by the federal government in American history, said the suit,

which also names a secretary of state Anthony Blinken and five other officials as defendants. The lawsuit asks the judge to declare the State Department's attempt to interfere with domestic speech illegal and to permanently bar it from developing, promoting, or encouraging others to use technology to de-amplify shadow ban or restrict the lawful speech of the American press and Americans. GEC was founded in 2011 as the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications and tasked with countering propaganda of foreign terrorists like al-Qaeda. In 2016, it was renamed but kept the same counterterrorism mission. Congress has made it clear that none of the funds authorized for the entities shall be used for purposes other than countering foreign propaganda.

Nevertheless, GEC turned its focus on Americans. The complaint alleges using taxpayer funds to finance the development and promotion of censorship organizations such as NewsGuard, which we've talked about on the show, and the Global Disinformation Index, which regularly targets conservative media outlets such as the Daily Wire and the Federalist, with the stated goal of limiting ad revenue. Now, there's a lot more to this. I'm not going to read the entire thing. It's a long article from Luke Roziak, but you should go to the Daily Wire and read it

because it's a very important, very significant free speech case. I don't think that this lawsuit from The Daily Wire and Federalists and others is going to get a ton of press, certainly not from the corporate press, for obvious reasons. But even by other conservatives, I don't think it's going to get a lot of attention because it's not sexy, right? It's not flashy or showy. Instead, it is a smart and necessary and effective and substantive way. to fight back against the censorship regime. And we know that very oftentimes

the smart, necessary, substantive, effective things are the things that don't get a lot of attention. They aren't appreciated as much. Be that as it may, this is extremely important because this is how censorship works in the modern age. So for the most part, you know, the government is not coming in and saying, you're not allowed to say this.

All right, we haven't had the government show up at the DeliWire offices and say, here are things you're not allowed to say anymore. They haven't set federal agents into the office to raid, you know, our offices and cart me and Ben and Michael and Candice away and handcuffs. Like, they haven't done that yet. It may come to that point. It may well come to that point, but it hasn't happened yet. If Joe Biden wins a second term, I would not be surprised. In fact, I would, if Joe Biden wins the second term and the country is run by his handlers for a second term, I would be surprised if we didn't get to the point where they were actually doing federal raids of, you know, prominent conservative media outlets and putting people like me in jail.

But that's not where we are yet. where we are now is it's a more underhanded approach. And the approach instead is to conspire to label us misinformation and to use that as a pretense to make our content less accessible through algorithms, or in this case to deprive us of ad revenue, which in the long term is supposed to have the effect of shutting down our businesses. And, you know, that's what makes the whole thing less sort of dramatic, less attention grabbing in certain ways, because, you know, it's one thing

if we came to you and we said, the government is telling us we're not allowed to say this thing. Everyone knows that's a big deal. But it's different when we say, the government is trying to label our content misinformation and make it less accessible through social media algorithms and deprive us of ad revenue indirectly. Like when you say that, people's eyes start to gloss over a little bit. But they shouldn't because it is effectively the same thing. They know they can't come in directly and point guns at us and say, stop saying that. Again, maybe eventually it'll come to that. Right now they can't get away with it.

And so they're not doing that. And they found other ways to do it. And they're using counterterrorism agencies and they're using all these different, you know, agencies and programs that were set up for other allegedly. for other purposes, and they're doing it all under the guise of quote-unquote misinformation, and who decides what counts as misinformation? Well, of course, they do. The ruling regime does.

The people who believe that men can have babies and women have penises. These are the ones who are deciding what is misinformation. Which, by the way, even if we could trust their judgment on what qualifies as misinformation, which we can't. Even if we could, I would still say this is all totally wrong. Because it's just not the government's job to counter misinformation. It's not the government's job to declare what sort of information you should have access to as an allegedly free citizen of an allegedly free country. But it's made all the worst by the fact that, as we know, when they say misinformation, they simply mean information that they would prefer you not

see. Whatever their reasons may be for that. And 99 times of 100, the reason they don't want you to see it is not because it's wrong, but because, in fact, it's right. All right, the corporate media is in a bit of a tizzy today. They're always in a tizzy, but they're especially tizzyed today after, according to their headlines, Trump confessed to being a dictator during a town hall with Sean Hannity last night. And in the town hall, the media says, Trump announced that he would be a dictator on day one in office. And as it turns out, that is actually what he said. Let's watch the clip.

I want to go back to this one issue, though, because the media has been focused on this and attacking you under no circumstances. You are promising America tonight. You would never abuse power as retribution against anybody. Except for day one. Except for one? He's going crazy. Except for day one.

Meaning? I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill, that's not a, that's not, that's not retribution. I got it. I'm going to be, I'm going to be, you know, he keeps, we love this guy. He says, you're not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no, other than day one, we're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling, drilling.

After that, I'm not a dictator, okay? That sounds to me like you're going back to the policies when you're a president. I love that clip. I mean, that's, to me, that is vintage Trump. And I don't think we've seen a lot of vintage Trump this cycle, unfortunately. But to me, that's like that. If I didn't know any better, you told me that was from 2016, I would have believed you. Because that's like 2016 era vintage Trump.

And so you see that glimmer of that. And it's great. And I love the clip for a bunch of reasons. First of all, because Sean is like doing his thing, acting as campaign manager rather than interviewer. trying to lead Trump into saying certain things. Like this is not, you know, even if you're a Trump supporter and maybe you're happy that he gets a softball interview, it's like this is not even what Sean Hannity does. It's not even an interview.

This is like walking him through the things that he, it's, it's, so Mr. Trump, Mr. President, here's what you are saying right now. Here's, here's what you're saying. And Trump's like, no, I'm not saying that. So, Mr. President, what you're saying is that you're this stuff about you being a dictator, that's, you're not a dictator. No, I am, at least on day one. That's great.

And then Sean starts panicking. And the whole thing is fantastic. Of course, now, what Trump is actually promising to do here is not illegal. It's not retribution. It isn't actually dictatorial. He's not saying he's going to suspend the Constitution and throw his enemies in. prison. That's what Biden is doing right now. So if he did say he was going to do that, then all he would be doing is continuing the Biden administration's current policies.

But he's not even saying he's going to do that. He's just saying that he's going to ruthlessly and effectively wield power to move his agenda forward and to do the things that he has the power to do and that the American people will have voted for him to do. And that's what he's saying. And he's saying it in a funny way, and it's giving Sean Hannity a condiction fit, and it's giving the media condition for it. And so it's a lot of fun. But, you know, my problem with what you just heard there, my problem with Trump's dictator comment is that he's only promising to do it on day one.

Because if by dictator, we mean again just ruthlessly and effectively wielding legal power to move forward your agenda and crush your enemies? Well, he needs to be a dictator in that sense every day of his term. I don't want day, you know, it's day one. What about day two and three and four and five? This has always been my critique of Trump's presidency. A lot of people, even to this point, after these many years, like they still don't understand what my criticism is.

Okay, I know a lot of people with criticism of Trump, and the left, it's one thing, and you got the never Trump, whatever crowd, the Bill crystals of the world who've become leftist, or always were, but have fully come out as leftist in response to Trump. Like, there's that. That's not, my own critique is quite different. It's like the opposite of those people. They say that he was a dictator. What I say is that he didn't wield his power nearly enough. Like he was far too eager and far too willing to kowtow to the left and to the media and too desirous of their approval. You know, they paint him as this ruthless, like, you know, pragmatist who's just out there getting stuff done. I want more ruthlessness.

To me, he was not nearly ruthless enough in the first term. And so I liked his response there, but what I would like to hear in the future is this is what we're doing day one. Here's what we're doing day two, day three, day four, day five. It's not a day one thing. Because also, by the way, those are not things you can do in one day anyway, obviously. I know he wasn't speaking in literal terms here, but building the wall, all these kinds of things. You can't do that in one day. But what I would love to hear from you, and you kind of hear it there, is this is like the attitude that you want, which is that like, I don't care if you call me a dictator or not. Sure, sure, whatever, I'm a dictator. That's kind of what Trump is doing here. He's doing the same thing that I always say, you know, you should do when someone calls you transphobic or whatever, because you're saying that men aren't women, rather than responding as most Republicans in conservatives do, but I say, I'm not transphobic. You say, fine, okay, I am. I don't care. If that's how you define transphobia is that I believe in.

biological reality, then sure, I am. I don't care. This is how you define dictator as someone who actually wields his legal power to move forward an agenda that you oppose. If that to you is what a dictator is, then yeah, I'm a dictator. Fine. Go ahead. Call me that. It doesn't matter. Perfectly fine. Cool. Yep, that's what I'll be. And so I think that's kind of what Trump is doing there. And I'd love to see more of it. All right. Staying with politics for a moment. And a clip of Nikki Haley has gone viral. This is actually from an interview back in the summer, and it's just now getting attention. I want to play the viral clip for you.

And then we're going to play the full context that Haley's defenders claim exonerates her, but doesn't really. But first, here's the viral clip that's gone viral over the last few days. Let's watch that. Madam Ambassador, another question is what care should be on the table when a 12-year-old child in this country assigned female at birth says actually I feel more comfortable living as a boy, what should the law allow the response to be? I think the law should stay out of it and I think parents should handle it. Okay, so she says that the law should not forbid doctors from sterilizing and castrated 12-year-olds. Admittedly, the clip does cut off abruptly. And Haley's fans, all seven of them,

have said that the full context of her answer is not as bad as that clip makes it sound. Now, you might think to yourself, like, what could she possibly say after that to make the first part of it okay? And, well, let's, I went and found the full clip. And here's the full answer that she gives. And you tell me if you think it gets her off the hook. Let's see. Madam Ambassador, another question is what care should be on the table when a 12-year-old child in this country assigned female at birth says, actually I feel more comfortable living as a boy. What should the law allow the response to be?

I think the law should stay out of it and I think parents should handle it. This is a job for the parents to handle. And then when that child becomes 18, if they want to make more of a permanent change, they can do that. But I think up until then, we see with our teenage kids, they go through a lot during puberty. They go through a lot of confusion. They go through a lot of anxiety. They go through a lot of pressures. We should support them the whole way through. But we don't need to go and enforce something in schools. We don't need schools sitting there hiding from the parents what gender pronoun they're using. We don't need to have those conversations in schools. Those are conversations that should be had at home.

Okay, so yeah, it's just as bad. She doesn't see, the full context of the clip does not do anything to exonerate her in this case. She says that the law should stay out of it, and then she talks about parents' judgment and all the rest of it, and then she gets into, you know, when they're 18 and all this. You know, I'm at a point where even if she said the right thing about the law and said, yeah, the law should forbid obviously doctors from castorating and sterilizing children. And she didn't say that. But I'm at a point where even if she had said that, if she then immediately followed it with,

what, at 18, yeah, go ahead and sterilize away. You know, yeah, then go ahead. Then, of course, if doctors want to prey upon confused people, and permanently damage their bodies and take them out of the gene pool by sterilizing them and all that. Then, yeah, perfectly fine. I'm at a point where, like, even that answer is just, well, I've long been at, I've always been at this point where even that answer is just unacceptable to me. Like, that is way to, to be okay with it at 18 is not as crazy as being okay with it for kids, but it's still really crazy.

But she couldn't even go that far. She was not able to bring herself to say, obviously, the law should prohibit medical institutions from sterilizing and castrating minors. And let me tell you something. If you cannot say that, if you are not even able to say that, if you lack the moral courage and fortitude to take a strong, clear stance against the castration, of children, then you are not fit to run for office. You're not fit to be in office. You are not substantively different from Democrats at all.

Which is why if we end up in some bizarreo universe where Nikki Haley actually wins the nomination, which I think the chances of that are like 0.0001%. But hey, there's always a chance. If that were to happen, then I think I just wouldn't vote. I don't think that I would vote. for Nikki Haley. I mean, I would never vote for a Democrat. I'd rather be dead than vote for a Democrat. But that's also why I wouldn't, I don't think I'd vote for Nikki Haley because I don't see, I just don't see how she's any different from a Democrat. Like she, she has caved on every single important social and cultural issue. And then on top of that, she's actually probably more likely to get us into World War III than a Democrat would be. So she's like not quite as bad as

them on the cultural issues. She's still bad. But when it comes to the possibility of us getting involved in a needless war overseas, you know, she's probably even worse on that end. So that's how bad she is. I just think there's just nothing. What's the positive here with Nikki Haley? Could someone explain to me? It's just that she's a woman. Like, that's the only reason she has any kind of political career right now is just that she's a woman. If she was a, it's the only reason that some Republicans even have, even some, even some, Some conservatives still say, I look, Nikki. Nikki Halley's great.

I love Nikki Haley. You don't hear a lot of people saying that, but you do hear it sometimes. And the only reason is that she's a woman. It's the only reason. If she was a man, then everyone would see her as like, she's just like Mitt Romney, but more socially liberal. All right. One last thing.

And here's my favorite story of the week, the best story of the week. Dylan Mulvaney spoke at Penn State last night, and he's on a college tour where reportedly he's getting paid 40 grand a pop to speak on campuses across the country. And at Penn State they secured a 1,000 seat venue expecting a huge crowd.

And the event was last night and here's what it looked like. Let's put that up. There it is. I mean, it is, it looks like a, it looks, I was going to say it looks like a Jeb Bush rally in 2015, but

it's even worse than that. I'm told there were 90 people in a 1,000-person room. Just an absolute nightmare for Dylan Mulvaney. You know, it's like as a public speaker, it's the only thing you really, if you've been doing it a while, people always ask me,

like you get up and talk, speak in front of a lot of people, do you get nervous? And the answer is no, the only thing that you really get nervous about is like having a situation like that happen. Okay, having way more empty chairs than people in a room.

That's the nightmare. And that's what happened to him. And by the way, just a little bit of behind the scenes here, I can tell you that we actually briefly considered the idea that maybe I should go to Penn State to counter-programmed Dylan Mulvaney. And his talk, we thought it could be kind of funny if I showed up and held an event at the exact same time as him. And, you know, ideally, like, what we really want to do is have me show up at his event and ask a question in the Q&A. and then we all know what the question would be, just the one question. But then we found out that, of course, Dylan Mulvaney, the questions are submitted like days ahead of time.

Because he's not going to, you know, unlike conservatives, we go to college campuses and we stand there. And of course, we'll never get any credit. We'll never get credit for this from the left, obviously, not that we need credit from the... But we'll go to college campus and we will stand there live on camera and we will give a microphone to a whole crowd, like a line of people. and we don't know any of them. And not only that, but if you disagree with this, we invite you to the front of the line and we hand you a microphone,

cameras rolling, and we say, go ahead, take your best shot. On the left, they would never do that, ever. Dillam Mervaney would never, ever even consider doing that. So we thought about that, then we realized we did that. We thought, well, maybe a counter-programmed be kind of funny. And we ultimately decided not to do it at all because we heard kind of behind the scenes info from the campus that there was no buzz surrounding Mulvaney's talk at all.

Like nobody was interested. And we concluded that if I show up, it would actually give more buzz to him. And so it's better to let him go and just fizzle out than to show up and create buzz and excitement where there wasn't any to begin with. And so looking at this turnout, I think we made the right call because this is embarrassing. like this is the kind of crowd that I would poll five years ago before I even had a podcast, like back when the only room I could feel would be at a home schooling conference. And this is a situation for Dillan Mulvaney now in spite of the relentless media hype. I mean, he was just on the cover of Forbes, okay?

And this is the turnout. And it goes to show you, there's a reason of bringing this up, and it isn't just to gloat about it. Well, it is to gloat. I mean, that's mainly what it is. I'm just laughing. Ha ha, you're a loser. Like, that's mainly what I'm doing here because it's a lot of fun. But if you remember back to the Bud Light days and before that, when Mulvaney was first coming on the scene,

and I was a pretty relentless critic of his, as you recall, and at the time, people on the right accused me of helping Mulvaney by making him famous. And that was the accusation. But, of course, it was, and as I tried to explain at the time, it was never about making him famous. Okay, the corporate media and Hollywood had already selected him to be famous. Nothing I can do about it. Nothing you can do about it. That decision has been made.

So the system, they will select certain people, and they'll come along and they'll say, you're our person. Like, you're our mascot for whatever it is that you're supposed to represent. And when they decide that, like, they can make you famous. They can make anyone famous if they just decide. All they can do is give you a lot of coverage and talk about you and you're famous. Like, whether people like it or not, they know about you now. You know, look what they did with Stacey Abrams, for example.

She is essentially a household name, and yet she's never won anything. She's never done anything. She has no charisma. She has no talent to speak of. But the corporate media in Hollywood, the system, they engineered her fame. and they decided to do the same thing with Mulvaney. They wanted to make him a mascot of transgenderism to help promote it to the public, and especially to kids.

And that's what made it dangerous. Like when you see what they're doing and why they're doing it, that's when you realize, okay, this person is dangerous because of how the system wants to use him. And so what I wanted to do and what some of us on the right wanted to do, was counteracted that move by making sure that Mulvaney's brand was viewed as it is, which is toxic, ridiculous, embarrassing, and creepy. That's what we decided.

Okay, you selected this guy. He's going to be your mascot to push transgenderism. You want to make him a mainstream, you know, figure, a quote-unquote, unproblematic mainstream figure. And some of us said, no, we're not going to let you do that. You know, you selected him for this. And so now we're going to go and we're going to go on the attack. And it's just the way that it's going to be.

And I think our effort was obviously successful because now he is radioactive to corporate brands. And he can't draw a crowd on campus. So total victory. And it's the kind of victory. that does matter. And if you're on the right, you still can't see that, well, then you're basically useless at this point. So, great stuff. Let's get to what's Walsh wrong. Well, if you haven't heard, my wife surprised me with yet another dog in my house, and I'm really excited about it. Excited to have a new dog. And I'm also excited to give this dog rough greens as well.

They'll start posting videos of the dog's racing. The winner gets to stay in our family and the loser has to go. That's actually a good idea. We can do that. Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America. Before I started feeding my dog, Rough Green's, I had no idea that dog food is dead food. It contains very little nutritional value.

Think about it. Nutrition isn't brown. It's green. Let Rough Greens bring your dog's food back to life. Rough grains is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs. You don't have to go out to buy new dog food, just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day. Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.

It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more. We are what we eat, and that goes for dogs, too. Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health. He's offering my listeners a free jumpstart trial bag so your dog can try it. Get a free jumpstart trial bag delivered straight to your door in just a few business days. Go to roughgreens.com slash mat or call 844-Ruff 700. That's RUFF Greens.com slash Matt or call 844-Ruff 700 today. Okay, a few comments on this dink situation.

One says, I don't understand the judgment towards those that choose either path. It's for each individual to decide for themselves what's best for them. Neither those with children or the childless should hate on their opposites. We're all just living the life that's right for ourselves. Another comment says, people can't fathom the possibility of somebody wanting to choose childless freedom and financial stability instead of having a child. Not everything revolves around consumerism. People feed the consumerism machine significantly more as a parent than as a non-parent, and it's not even close.

Another comment says it's great. We're self-sufficient, and we don't put our offspring in public schools increasing your taxes. We contribute to society and take little away. Y'all need us. You're just jealous because you pursued the meat flesh dance and now have to be responsible for it until it graduates. It's. Okay. By the way, if you're a childless by choice person and you refer to kids as it, you're not doing yourself any favors. Like, you literally sound like a cartoon villain. It. That thing.

Oh, you mean a human child? Like, what the hell is, are you really that evil? That that's how you, is that really how you see children? Again, you're not doing yourself any favors. You just come off like an absolute, you come off like absolute scum when you say things. things like that. Whether you are absolute scum or not, I don't know, but you certainly have made it seem that way. A few things. First of all, I pass judgment on the childless by choice people when they take the time to announce their choice to the world and they promote its alleged benefits. And this is the way that it works if you are a sentient, self-aware creature. That once someone puts a fact in front of you, once they introduce something to you, you are going to form a perspective on it. Because we all have a

perspective on everything. Even if it's something totally innocuous. Like if you came up to me and said, I had a grilled cheese sandwich yesterday for lunch. Doesn't matter, but like you have told me this. And so now I'm going to have, I will hear it and I'll receive that information. and being that I have a subjective point of view on the world, I'll have a point of view about that. And it might be like, oh, grilled cheese, you know, what kind of lunches at for a grown-up? Like, I might have a thought like that. If you don't want me to have any thoughts like that, don't tell me that. You didn't need to tell me that, but you did.

So when you say, I've decided not to have kids for these reasons, well, I literally cannot help but have a certain view on this thing you've told. me about. I am a human being, not a rock, not an inanimate object. If you don't want me to have a point of view about your lifestyle choices, don't tell me about your lifestyle choices. And the second thing is, we see in these comments again, as always, the false choice, right? People choose financial stability instead of having kids. That is a false choice. Okay? I have both. I am more financially stable than everyone in those videos. that we just played. And I have six kids on a single income.

So you can have both. You just can. You can be financially stable with kids, and you can be financially unstable without them. And of course, anytime someone says that, and then I say, well, that's not my experience. Then I'm always, well, but your experience,

your experience is different. It's totally different. No, it's not. I'm not special. My experience would be different if I was born a billionaire or something. But I wasn't. Just a normal person.

Found my own way in life. just like anyone else can. But I never viewed it as a choice. Even when we first started having kids and we were broke, we never said to ourselves, well, you know, we decided that we're going to let's have kids rather than be financially stable. You know, we never sat down and looked at a, you know,

and charted this out and said, well, we can go this path of financial stability, or we can have kids. You know, we did? We said, how can we do both? We want to do both. We want to have a family, and we also want to be financially stable. How can we achieve that? And we did. Now, I think what you want to say, or what you should be saying, is that financial instability becomes a more burdensome thing, a more significant problem if you have kids. There's more on the line, and that's true. But that's always the way it goes.

If you live a high-impact life, failure will hurt more. If you do significant things, you also take significant risks. Like if you fall off a mountain when you're only two feet off the ground, it's not going to hurt very much. If you're 200 feet off the ground, it's going to hurt a lot more. So is that an argument for never climbing the mountain? Is that how you want to live? like never going above sea level?

Not me. And third to the guy who said that, you know, dinks contribute to society and that we need you? No. I mean, by definition, we don't need you. You have made yourself disposable from a civilizational standpoint. The future of civilization rests entirely on the shoulders of those of us who have chosen to have families. Without us, civilization ends. Without you, it hums along perfectly fine.

You have chosen to live a life of almost no long-term consequence at all. That's just the fact of the matter. Unless you go and cure cancer or do something really significant like that, most likely you've chosen to live in a way where you'll leave no legacy behind, and your impact and memory will fizzle out and be totally erased within like, days of you dying. And I don't say that as an insult or to make you feel bad, I'm just like, that's it. That's the reality.

People should be honest with you about what that means. And that's it. So does society need... What kind of a ridiculously stupid thing is that to say? That society needs adults who don't have kids? No, we don't. We actually don't. Now, you as an individual, you know, we're all special snowflakes in our own individual way, right?

So not, well, that's not really true. But we all certainly have worth as human beings individually. But I mean from a civilizational standpoint, yeah, we don't really need you. Like, the whole future of the human race, you understand, rests completely on the shoulders. of those of us who are doing the work of building families and continuing that ancestral ancient struggle that we talked about at the opening. And you can choose to be a part of that or you can choose to bow out. But if you bow out, then you have made yourself from a historical perspective basically irrelevant.

You know, there's no question that we are living in a clown world. And the characters in power are straight out of a carnival, basic notions of right and wrong, justice, truth, and even reality itself have been thrown out the window. The world is coming to an end. Join Jonathan Peugeot in the new four-part series, End of the World, as he explains why the world, as we know it, is ending how to survive and how we can plant the seeds for the next world today. Jonathan Peugeotot is an icon carver, public speaker, YouTuber, and good friend of Jordan Peterson. You might remember Peugeot from his profoundly illuminating comments in Jordan's series. on Exodus. Now he's back and will draw upon his deep knowledge of Christian tradition, stories, mythology, and history to explain the contradictions in our society, the wacky phenomena,

and how this pattern will reach its conclusion. In end of the world, you'll receive a thoughtful framework to make sense of these confusing times in a roadmap to lead us out of the clown world and restore order. First episode is available today exclusively on Delaware Plus. If you haven't become a member, is the perfect time. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe, unmask the cardies, see beyond the end. Watch, end of the world today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Richard Nixon signed Title IX into law in 1972. And here's the text of the relevant part of the legislation, which you rarely see mentioned in any of the news reports discussing the law. But here it is. Quote, no person in the United States shall on the basis of sex be excluded

from participation in, be denied of the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Now, when that law was past, there were some organizations and politicians who raised concerns about it. The NCAA was worried that that would lead to cuts in certain men's programs and cost a lot of revenue. That was not an unreasonable concern. A lot of funding had to be redirected to women's sports and it had to come from somewhere. Meanwhile, some legislators felt that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of telling schools how to operate. Title IX, you know, seems simple. It's basically just one line, but implementing it was obviously going to be complicated. And indeed, there have been many decades

of new rules and amendments and court cases that have cropped up as the federal government has sought to clarify the meaning of the law. But what nobody believed in 1972 is that Title IX extended to protections to what are now commonly called transgender athletes. Not a single person on the planet at the time thought that Title IX would allow men to put on a wig and compete in women's sports and circumvent the entire law. But on June 22nd, 2021, the Biden administration's Department of Education decided to unilaterally changed the meaning of Title IX. They didn't propose a new law. They didn't get one passed. Instead,

the Biden administration simply declared that Title IX prohibits more than just sex discrimination. They said that the law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of quote unquote gender identity and sexual orientation. Now, that was inconsistent with multiple previous determinations by the Department of Education. It also flew in the face of the plain meaning of the law as well as common sense. and that's why there are currently various legal challenges to these changes. Texas is leading one of them. It's also why there was a hearing in the House Oversight Committee yesterday about the Biden administration's proposed changes to Title IX.

And these hearings are always interesting because they give trans activists some room to make their argument. Normally, they just call people names and they shot everybody now. Trans activists don't usually articulate their position because when they try to, it never takes very long before they completely discredit themselves. That's what happened this summer, which was the last time Congress held a hearing on transgenderism. That's exactly what happened yesterday. And crucially, it also is an opportunity for the other side, the sane side, to be heard.

And speaking of which, and just as an interesting side note, my team was actually directly involved in behind the scenes and making sure this hearing happened. And I was supposed to be there to testify. At the last minute, I was uninvited because I was told that my presence would be a distraction, which makes sense, I guess. you wouldn't want one of the leading voices in the fight against gender ideology to distract you during a hearing about gender ideology. But putting that aside, the good news is that to the extent that the hearings can have winning and losing teams, the Democrats lost the hearing. And they lost it

just by opening their mouths. So here, for example, is AOC explaining her argument for why, under Title IX, men should be allowed to dominate women's sports. And she begins by saying that right-wingers are obsessed with the trans issue, even though the whole point of the hearing, is that the Biden administration is trying to redefine a federal law for the sake of trans people without going through Congress. Democrats are the ones trying to unilaterally transform the way educational institutions work, all because they think trans rights are so important. So, you know, that's a nonsense argument once you hear, and it's one that you hear all the time. But then AOC launched into a slightly less common argument, and here's what she said.

Ms. Goss Graves, can you tell us a little bit? about what sex testing looks like for youth in states with trans athletic bands? It's terrible. In some states, any individual could challenge whether someone is a girl enough to play. In some states, it requires actual genital verification, which is shocking. And there aren't, it's not as if there have... And let me just stop you right there. You said there are some proposals.

I mean, we've seen this in Ohio. There was a proposed ban on trans athletes that originally allowed for genital examinations on minors in order to, quote, unquote, protect women. Is that correct? Unfortunately, yes. And so we're seeing here in this guise, under the guise of not only trying to further, marginalized trans women and girls, we are talking about opening up all women and girls to genital examinations when they are under age. Okay.

Now, as bizarre as all that is, it's something you hear from Democrats all the time. Every conversation about gender ideology becomes to them a conversation about genitals. In fact, it's very common that if you say something like children should not be indoctrinated into gender ideology, a leftist will quickly retort. Why are you talking about children's genitals, huh? Well, we weren't talking about that, you freak. You're talking about it. And here was AOC at a congressional hearing ranting about genital exams.

Now, there are some major problems with this argument that all boil down to the fact that it's a very stupid and creepy thing to say. But let's break it down. First of all, there are no genital exams actually going on. And, yeah, laws have already been passed banning boys from girls' sports in a number of states. not conducting genital exams. In fact, prior to the country losing its mind about a decade ago, every school in every state only allowed girls to play girls sports. And there were no genital exams involved, okay? Like many people, I played sports when I was in public school.

There was no genital exam at any point. And that was at a time when only boys played boys sports and only girls play girls sports. Now, so that tells you right there that the whole concern, like, they, when we say only girls play girls sports, all we are saying is let's return to the same system that was in place since the beginning of the existence of organized sports up until 15 seconds ago. That's all. And so if you have any kind of like slippery slope, overly dramatic, you know, alleged fear about what that will look like. Well, we don't need to speculate. What will it look like to only allow boys and boys sports and girls and girls sports? It will look like what it looked like for decades.

Just go back and look at the way it worked then. And that's how it will work now. And, you know, in the vast majority of cases, these quote-unquote trans girls and girl sports are boys who played boys sports and then decided somewhere along the process to become girls. So the fact that they're trans is not a mystery. No further inquiry is necessary. Most of the time, these are boys who are boys and they identify as boys. And then one day they say, yeah, actually, I'm a girl. And so we don't need to have any conversation about whether this person's really a boy or a girl. It's incredibly obvious to everyone.

Now, if there is any sort of confusion, then usually a glance at the birth certificate should clear that up. And if this is happening in a state that insanely allows you to retroactively change your birth certificate to claim a biological sex that isn't your own, well, then we'll just have to change the laws that allow that. I wonder, though, barring a point that Dan Bajino made this morning, when someone like Joe Biden promises to nominate a female vice president, which he did promise that, remember, is he saying he's going to conduct a genital exam? In fact, in any of the myriad contexts where government agencies or companies specifically go out looking for females to hire in order to fill some diversity goal,

are genital exams ever a part of it? Does anyone ever worry that they will be? Has AOC ever objected to programs or initiatives that target women on the grounds that they would necessitate genital exams? Of course not. Because this whole talking point is ludicrous nonsense. Now, as the hearing went on, the arguments from Team Trans got even worse, Fatima Graves, who, despite being unable to define the word woman, somehow runs the National Women's Law Center, made her case for why women should be forced to compete with men. And specifically, she said, it's important to teach women how. to, quote, lose gracefully because that's an important life skill, she says. Listen.

Success in school sports depends on a whole range of factors, including how hard you work and coaching and access to really good resources and facilities. And trans students participate in sports for the same reason as their kids, because it is fun, because it creates belonging and community, because it teaches so much about persistence and leadership and discipline unless they learn to lose gracefully, hopefully. And often they learn to win with dignity, hopefully. They learn to do the sort of work that means you have higher grades and stay connected to school. I want every kid to have that chance, to have the chance to play.

So it's a revealing clip, although obviously not. in the way that Fatima Graves intended it to be. Yes, it's good for young people to play sports so that they understand hard work pays off and that cheating is wrong and that improving their physical fitness leads to tangible results. That's one reason among many.

That's a terrible idea to reward boys who don't work as hard and who cheat in the most obvious way possible. Telling girls to lose gracefully to men is like defending steroids in baseball on the basis that those who are not on steroids should learn to lose gracefully to those who are. Only this is way worse because it is significantly crazier to allow men in women's sports

than to allow steroids in baseball. Now, fortunately for people who can see the humor in all this depravity, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green was listening to Fatta McGraths testify, and it didn't take her long to pick apart what she said. Watch. And you mentioned that you're a fan of Serena Williams. Is that right? I am. I'm a Williams sister fan. I'm a tennis fan. I'm actually a fan of most sports. I grew up playing sports and in a family that understood that there is so much value in playing sports, whether you're the best or not the best.

I agree with you. And I'm a fan of Serena Williams, too. I think she's strong. I think she's powerful and I think she's beautiful. In 2013, Serena Williams stated, if I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose six to zero, six to zero in five to six minutes, maybe ten minutes. No, it's true. It's a completely different sport. The men are a lot faster and they serve harder. They hit harder. It's just a different game. So sounds like she didn't think she could beat men either. But let's talk about some of your comments. You said that this is attacking and dehumanizing on trans. Ms. Goss Graves. How do you think Ms. Gaines felt, do you think she felt dehumanized being forced to undress in front of men in her sports or attack? attacked? Here's what I think about...

That's a yes or no question. But if I could... Being forced to address in front of a man, isn't that dehumanizing or attacking? I could answer this question, Madam Chairman, because I actually think this is really, really important. The issue of privacy in locker rooms and in bathrooms, there's a wide range of... So you feel like Ms. Gaines should have had privacy? So she has no answer to the fact that men are better at sports than women. than women. She doesn't want to talk about whether she'd enjoy watching the Williams sister get trounced by men,

but she's very passionate about putting up curtains in locker rooms, which she suggests so that women don't have to look at the penises of their competitors. That's the priority of the National Women's Law Center. They want women to get completely destroyed and humiliated. As part of that process, they want every women's locker room in the country to be redesigned to accommodate men. And somehow, as the hearing went on, the arguments kept getting even worse. At one point, Congressman Jacksonville, Jasmine Crockett went on, our congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett, went on a bizarre rant about states that she called deplorable, including Florida and her own home state of Texas. Watch. In fact, Ms. Perry, I know your organization, the Heritage Foundation loves Texas. Ooh, they love Texas. They always sending us some nonsense bills that somehow set this country on the wrong trajectory. They send them to Texas. They send them to Florida. Every deplorable state that we can think about, they usually coming out of y'all's think tank. This is someone who was elected to Congress and then put on a committee and she can barely speak.

And to be clear, she's calling the entire states deplorable. A state she represents is deplorable. Like, not even pretending. She hates her own state that she has been represented, that she has been, at least that she is one of those elected to represent. Every person who lives in Texas of Lord is deplorable, apparently. Well, we know that at least one person in Texas is deplorable, and she's sitting right there. And this is what it's come to for Democrats. So this whole hearing was, in a word, a debacle.

And again, so far, I've only presented the left's arguments. They're so self-discrediting and so embarrassing that I don't need to play any of the testimony from the witnesses called by the conservatives, witnesses including Riley Gaines, who all, by the way, made eloquent and powerful arguments. They did a tremendous job making the Democrats look like fools. and the Democrats did an even better job making themselves look like fools. This is the way it goes. The trans argument is so absurd that it quickly becomes self-parody. And at one point in the hearing, Congressman Eric Burleson and Riley Gaines made that exact observation.

Watch. I just want to say, you know, to Mrs. Gaines, what happened to you is tragic. I mean, you were robbed of the glory. You were robbed of your opportunity to be clearly the victor. And if it weren't so tragic, it would be comical. I mean, and I understand there's a movie being made, the comedy about this very issue on the Daily Wire, that I can't wait to see.

I encourage everyone to watch it. And truthfully, I think that's what's needed. Because what we're seeing, again, what myself and my teammates and my competitors saw was a mockery, a mockery of women. And I believe it's time we mock the mockery through comedy, because you're right, it's objectively funny. It's inherent to almost look at this and laugh because it feels like satire.

But watching that movie, to which I watched, it didn't feel like satire. It felt like a documentary of what, again, myself and girls around the country continue to go through. That's the main reason Lady Ballers are so successful is that transgenderism is so incoherent that it's comical. You don't have to exaggerate what these people believe.

You don't need to lie about it. Really, all you've got to do is take what they're saying to its logical conclusion, put it on camera and you get a comedy. Put a microphone in front of these lunatics, give them some space, and hilarity naturally ensues as well. That's what we did with ladyballers. And unfortunately, for trans activists and their allies in the Democrat Party,

is exactly what the House Oversight Committee did yesterday. And we all got to see it once again. And it's why the Democrats on that committee and everywhere else in the country are today canceled. I'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Talk to tomorrow. God's been.