The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 969 - Journalist Tries To Debunk ‘What Is A Woman,’ Fails Miserably

Episode Date: June 10, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, it finally happened. One brave left wing journalist watched and reviewed What Is A Woman. They didn’t like it, shockingly. Also, the January 6th hearings were held last night and nobody cares. I certainly don’t. More shocking and damning revelations about the law enforcement response, or lack thereof, in Uvalde. A former NBA star opens up about his “trans” child. Parents sue Instagram for the damage it did to their daughter. And in our Daily Cancellation, Old Navy tries to virtue signal to the body positivity crowd and it backfires in a major way.  Watch my new Daily Wire original documentary “What Is A Woman?” at whatisawoman.com.  I am a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/uevUc. Join Matt and the Daily Wire crew for Backstage Live At The Ryman on June 29th. Get your tickets now: https://utm.io/uezFr  — Today’s Sponsors:  Download the FREE Upside app with promo code 'WALSH' and earn 25¢ or more CASH BACK on your first tank. Shop auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers. Visit www.RockAuto.com and enter "WALSH" in the 'How Did You Hear About Us' Box. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Walsh show, it finally happened. One brave left-wing journalist watched and reviewed what is a woman, and they didn't like it, shockingly. Also, the January 6th hearings were held last night, and nobody cares. I certainly don't. More shocking and damning revelations about the law enforcement response or lack thereof in Yuvaldi, Texas. Plus, a former NBA star opens up about his quote-unquote trans child. Parents sue Instagram for the damage that it did to their daughter. And our daily cancellation, Old Navy, tries to virtue signal to the body positivity crowd.

And it backfires in a major and hilarious way. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh show. Well, we all know that gas prices are insanely high right now, but there is some good news. It's an incredible app. Everybody who buys gas needs to know about. It's called Upside. My listeners are earning cashback for every gallon of gas every time they fill up. Just download the free Upside app in the App Store of Google Play right now.

Use promo code Walsh for $0.25 per gallon or more on your first fill up cash back. Don't pay full price of the pump anymore. Get cash back using Upside. Just download the app for $0. and use promo code Walsh for 25 cents per gallon or more on your first tank. And it's not just for gas. You can earn cashback at grocery stores, restaurants, with your takeout also, anything. You can get cash back on all that.

You can cash out any time to your bank account, or you can even get an e-gift card for select retailers and brands. Just download the free upside app and use promo code Walsh to get 25 cents per gallon or more cashback on your first tank. Look, we're all looking for ways to save money at the gas pump. And it seems like it's all downside, but there is some upside. It's called the upside app. Just make sure when you go there, use my promo code Walsh.

Again, that's the upside app and use Code Walsh. Well, as you know, the left has tried its best to ignore my film, what is a woman? Even as it has dominated the conversation, become the most popular streaming movie in the country this month, according to Rotten Tomatoes. That's not to say they haven't criticized the documentary. They have. It's just that they've criticized it from a safe distance and without actually watching it first. But it's come to my attention that one person on the left and one left-wing publication, did actually watch the movie, and just this one, as far as I know, or they claim to have watched

it anyway. And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge this brave soul and honor her for her efforts, but I can only give full credit if she watches the film and then engages with it and criticizes it honestly. And it's on this last step that the writer Aaron Rook of the publication LGBTQ Nation kind of tends to falter. Still, I think it could be worthwhile to go through this critique because it shows, once again, I think, just how totally flimsy and bereft of logic the other side of this discussion truly is. While trying to debunk the film, she only manages to prove most of the major points in the film, as we'll see. So Rook delivers her commentary in a review titled, quote, the dangerous deception of Matt Walsh's documentary, What is a Woman?

We watched Matt Walsh's anti-trans propaganda, so you don't have to. Spoiler alert, it's full of transphobic lies. That sounds pretty bad. Full of transphobic lies. Now, before delving into what she claims are the myths propagated by the film, Rook writes, quote, the film is slickly produced, and includes interviews with some reputable sources.

But Walsh seems more interested in exposing these efforts, these experts, than actually learning from them. He also allows his anti-transgender sources to spout off dangerous disinformation, unchecked. Now that's incorrect. I was not interested in exposing them, and I did not expose them. They exposed themselves, figuratively anyway. I mean, one guy in San Francisco literally exposed himself, but as for the so-called experts, they exposed the vacuousness of their own worldview. I didn't do anything except provide them a forum for this self-destruction, and that's all we did.

That was the whole point. We just asked questions. She then proceeds to list the film's most malignant myths. Now let's go through these. These are the myths propagated in my film. It says, myth. Trans people who medically transition are at increased risk of suicide. And she explains, in an effort to portray gender transition as dangerous, the film includes the assertion that transition makes people suicidal. This claim is likely rooted in a misinterpretation of the research promoted by anti-transgender

psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh in a 2014-war. Wall Street Journal Abed. But the 2011 Swedish study he references was not designed to evaluate the efficacy of gender affirmation surgeries and its authors caution against such an interpretation. Transjournalist Kristen Williams interviewed lead author Dr. Cecilia DeJing, who expressed her frustration at the ways in which her research had been misrepresented. Quote, I've even seen professors use my work to support ridiculous claims. I've often had to respond myself by commenting on articles, speaking with journalists, and talking about this problem at conferences. People who misuse the study always omit the fact that the study clearly states that it's not

an evaluation of gender dysphoria treatment. If we look at the literature, we find that several recent studies conclude that W-Path standards of care compliant treatment decreased gender dysphoria and improve mental health. Okay, now, the fact that the authors of the study, the Swedish study, were not trying to prove that gender affirmation surgery, quote, unquote, quote, big scare quotes around that, increases suicidality. And yet they proved it anyway, only makes the results more compelling, not less. That study, no matter what the authors of the study would prefer or how they'd like us to read the data, clearly shows that trans people are the most suicidal a decade after the surgery. Again, according to the author of the study, as this

article points out, this one author, that's not what she was trying to prove. That's not what she set out to do, and yet she proved it. So these are results that cut against the biases, apparently, of the people who conducted the study, which just makes the results all the more convincing. This is what the data shows, plain as day. And that's why in this attempt to debunk the quote, myth, the writer never actually says outright that the claim about suicidality is wrong. She she cautions against misinterpretation, but does not attempt to refute it because she can't. And that's because the data is clear. In fact, every study that's ever been done by anyone, anywhere, shows that trans people, pre-op, post-op, no-op, affirmed, unaffirmed, no matter what,

have suicide rates significantly higher than the general population. This clearly indicates that there is something deeper going on inside the mind, that it's a problem in the mind which is why surgeries can't fix it. And as this study shows, don't fix it. You notice what else our friend Aaron doesn't do? She doesn't provide any contrary evidence at all. This is a theme that will continue throughout the article. And it continues with any attempt to debunk my movie or to debunk any of the arguments that we make on the anti-gender ideology side. They never prevent, they never present any evidence to prove their assertion. She debunks the claims in my film without really refuting them and without providing any evidence to support her position. So kind of a

rough start, but let's see if things maybe get a little bit better. Continuing, um, says quote, myth, gender affirming surgeries are experimental and dangerous. She explains, some of the worst fearmongering comes from transgender man Scott Nugent, who is on a crusoe, who is on a crusade against medical transition for youth. In the film, Nugent says that gender affirming surgery comes with a 67% complication risk and shows the scar from his phalloplasti-related skin graft for dramatic effect. Phalloplasti, a complex procedure, is not without risk of complications. However, rates are much lower than the 67% Nugent claims and vary depending on the approach taken by the surgeon. A 2017 study found that rates of urethral complications were between

31.5% and 32.8% depending on the approach. It's also not the most commonly sought transition-related surgery. Transmasculine individuals are much more likely to seek a double mastectomy, aka top surgery, which has a complication rate of about 12%. And many trans people don't seek any surgical interventions, which casts doubt on his claim that for every child convinced to transition, big pharma rakes in 1.3 million. Okay. Now, actually, the 67% figure may be vastly underscely underst, it, depending on what study you look at, and also depending on how you define complication. But let's just go with her figure. For the sake of argument, she's trying to debunk the myth, quote unquote, that gender affirming surgeries are experimental and dangerous, and she does so

by favorably citing a study that says rates of complication are over 30%. That's extraordinarily High 30% complication rate? She's taking the very low end of the complication rate, okay? The most generous study she could find, and she still must admit it's a rate at a minimum, at best, of over 30%. And this proves that it's not dangerous? How so? And how in the world could this prove that it's not experimental? She takes refuge in the fact that double mastectomies have only, only a 12% complication rate, still very high. But she ignores the fact that the primary complication with cutting off a woman's healthy breasts is that you've cut off a woman's healthy breasts.

The complication is that you've removed a piece of her body, a piece of her, and you've done it on the theory that it will help her to be a man, even though she can never be a man, and chopping off her breasts will bring her no closer to manhood than she was when she still had them. The fact that there are allegedly only, quote-unquote, additional complications and 12% of cases does not rescue you from this fact. It's the surgery itself that's the problem. Even if everything goes perfectly well when you're cutting the breasts off of a woman, you're still cutting her breasts off. And that's the issue. You are removing

healthy body parts. And often you're doing this to young girls who would not even be allowed to legally get tattoos because they've been judged too young for it. Finally, it's insisted that many trans people don't get surgeries, which she says cast doubt on the claim that every child who transitions rates in $1.3 million for Big Pharma. Now, with this rebuttal, the writer is simply pretending, I guess, that hormone pills and puberty blockers don't exist. Because obviously when we're talking about the money that Big Pharma makes off of all of this, we're primarily talking about the pills and the injections. But, okay, none of that exists, apparently. Okay. Incredible. Now, that concludes basically the closest thing to an attempt at a real rebuttal that you'll find in the article. Though she does continue listing myths while the debunking efforts get lazier and lazier as she goes along.

She addresses the myth in the film that, quote, real transgender people are rare. And she does this by pointing to a UCLA study that claims 0.6% of the population is trans. Now, that would still qualify as rare by any definition of the word rare that I've ever heard, 0.6%. But she then notes that a recent Pew study found that 5% of young people identify as trans. But that doesn't refute anything we say in the film. In fact, we claim in the film that trans identification is skyrocketing among young people. She's agreeing with us, not refuting us. That's our point.

Okay, so again, using the numbers presented, 0.6% general population. Fine. That's still insanely high, but fine, what, 0.6%. 5% for people under 30. How in the world do you explain that? Well, our point is that this astronomical rise is due to social contagions and indoctrination. She makes no attempt to address that. Next, she tries to debunk my claim that children can't choose their own gender,

and she does that by ensuring us that, in fact, it's, quote, widely accepted by pediatric professionals that children can choose their genders. That's it. It's widely accepted. So move on. Now it's true. It is widely accepted. And one of the main points of our film is to reveal that this wide acceptance is not rooted in any coherent underlying logic. I totally agree that it's widely accepted.

That's one of the reasons we made the movie. But what we're trying to discover is why is it so widely accepted? And what we discovered is that it's not widely accepted based on any kind of rational, logical basis, unless you want to talk about profit. motive as a rational, logical basis. Finally, she seeks to debunk the myth, quote unquote, that transgender identities are a modern Western invention. And she claims that on this topic, quote, Walsh hasn't done his homework. Well, I literally went to Africa.

I mean, it's harder to do more homework than that on something like this. The writer, on the other hand, did much more extensive research by Googling it for five seconds. and from her Googling, she learned about Native American two-spirit identities and the Hedra in India. And she says that these are examples of non-Western trans identities. The problem is that the two-spirit designation was invented by LGBT activists in America in the 90s. So it is itself a modern Western invention. Okay. The Comanche on the Great Plains weren't going around calling themselves two-spirit and transgender.

Didn't exist. As for the alleged variation in India, the groups you refers to are not traditionally seen as trans in the way that we use the term. This is a spiritual concept, often referring to Unix who undergo castration rituals. This is not the same as the belief that men can actually be women. Okay, so this is a really important point. to prove that transgenderism is not uniquely modern and Western, you would have to find non-Western cultures where they believe men can actually literally be women

and women can literally be men, not spiritually or figuratively or performatively, but literally. You'd have to find somewhere that believes a pregnant person can be a man, an actual man. And you'd have to prove that this culture had this idea, came up with it on its own, and that it wasn't introduced to them by Westerners.

Now, you won't find that because it doesn't exist. I'll just make it easy for you. Not going to find it. It doesn't exist. Just as you won't find any actual rebuttals in this rebuttal or in any other rebuttal of what is a woman. But she did watch the movie, at least. Next time she should probably watch it with her eyes open and the earplugs out.

She might actually learn something. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, the value of the minivan pickup sedan or whatever you drive probably appreciated significantly last year. Take care of your automotive investment and keep more of your money by buying the auto parts you need to maintain and repair your vehicle at rock auto.com. Rockotto.com only sells auto parts and related tools, and they've been doing it for over 20 years so they know what they're doing. Their unique intuitive catalog includes photos, specs, and installation tips that make it easy to choose the correct parts for your specific vehicle. they not only have the auto parts you need, but they'll give you a selection of trusted name brands to choose from.

You can pick brakes that match how you use your vehicle, whether that's for towing, racing, or just commuting to work. You can get suspension, exhaust, air conditioning, other kits that provide all the parts you need for a successful repair. Rock Auto.com has lots of parts that you might expect would only be available at car dealerships if they're available at all. Parts like the fan inside your seat that cools your tush. Rock Auto.com prices are always reliably low.

their prices make it affordable for customers to keep their daily driver and classics safely on the road. So go to rockado.com for your auto parts and write Walsh in their how did you hear about us box so they know that I sent you again. That's rock auto.com. Let's see here. So the January 6th commission was last night. And I just don't care at all. I mean, I'm so bored by this story. I had a whole thing here. I have articles. I was going to I really don't care. I'm not even going to talk about it. This story is, it's an affront to me, I think, as a news commentator. As someone who has to, I have to make my living talking about the news and current events and the way they keep cycling back to January 6th, and I'm supposed to keep finding things

to say about it, I got nothing else to say about it. I have nothing else to say. It happened. I wish it shouldn't have happened. It was a bad thing. You know, it was stupid. It was very stupid thing to go rushing into the Capitol, taking selfies at Nancy Pelosi's desk.

Very, very stupid. That's it. That's really all there is to say about it. And I certainly am not interested in hearing these lawmakers reliving their trauma, talking about how traumatized they are. It's just, it's so. I'm bored of death by it.

I really am. And I think everybody else is, too. There's just, there's no interest in this. I mean, they put this thing on prime time intentionally, you know, because they've done the hearings before. How many hearings have they done on this stupid thing already? They've done many hearings, and a lot of times they're doing them, you know, during the day, and nobody's watching, no one cares, no one's talking about it.

And so then they thought, you know what, let's wait until everyone's home from work, and we'll put it on prime time, prime time. time viewing and then people will care. And still, no one cares, especially me. So moving on. Here's something I do care about. Police officers, this is from Daily Wire, police officers waited outside Rob Elementary School for more than an hour, despite being armed with knowledge that there were still children trapped inside with the gunmen, still alive and possibly wounded. According to an article published yesterday, detailing an investigation undertaken by the New York Times, into the widely paned police response to the tragic shooting in Uvaldi, Texas,

body camera footage and documentation suggests that the initial claims made by law enforcement were false. Yuvali School District, top cop Pedro Arandondo, who was in charge at the scene of the shooting, reported that he was unaware students were dialing 911 from inside the classroom, one even taking a phone from her deceased teacher in order to do so, but the Times report suggests otherwise. Quote, heavily armed officers delayed confronting a gunman in Uvaldi, Texas, for more than an hour, despite supervisors at the scene being told that some trapped with him in two

elementary classrooms were in need of medical treatment. And this is according to new video footage. So they straight up lied. They were told that there are, that there are still people alive in this classroom, people who need medical treatment, desperately, and they still waited an hour. Instead, the documents show they waited for protective equipment to lower the risk to law enforcement officers. So it might seem, a lot of this is, it might seem like the things that we already knew, but these are, now we have actual evidence. I mean, it seemed almost immediately that something, that the story we were told by law enforcement was not true. And then we started getting, we started seeing videos of parents outside the school, desperately wanting to go in. We see the

cops kind of standing around and the information is trickling in. and then it trickles in in a way that allows them to try to massage the story in a certain way to mitigate their own fault here. But now with the body camera footage, 9111 records, it's 100% clear that this lunatic was in the classroom with children. Children were still alive in that classroom. He continued shooting during the course of that hour. executing these kids, others were laying there needing medical attention. How many died because they weren't getting medical attention in the first hour? We don't know that yet. Maybe eventually we'll find that out. And now we know that they were standing outside largely because they were

waiting for protective equipment so that they didn't get hurt going in there. This is the this is the biggest law enforcement scandal of all time, I think. I can't think of anything bigger than this. And this is just for the sake of, obviously for the sake of justice, but also for the sake of civilized society, you know, so we can stave off the chaos and anarchy that we're already seeing in so many cities. If we want to, if we don't want that to get a lot worse, then the people response.

for this need to not just be fired but put in prison. I mean, you need to start arresting people. The officers that were there on the scene waiting outside, they should all be under arrest. And the police, the law enforcement official who was in charge there lying about it, should all be under arrest. I mean, this is necessary because if you don't do that, then it's just going to be impossible for people to have any trust in law enforcement. I mean, in order to, In order to maintain or restore any sort of trust in our institutions, including law enforcement, you need to hold people accountable in a situation like this. All right.

So we told you about moving on to this. We told you about Redskins coach Jack Del Rio, who tweeted something yesterday a couple days ago, saying that the BLM riots were worse than January 6th, which they were. And then he doubled down in a press conference. But then he folded it. as I learned live on the air yesterday, very disappointed to learn. I was trying to give him credit as one of the very few guys in a situation like this says something, people are upset, then he does a press conference, he doubles down in the press conference. Very rarely happens.

And the thing is, I don't even care what the situation is, what you said. In this case, it happens that he said something that was true, and I agree with. But even if he hadn't, I don't even care what it is. You say something people are upset, and then you double down a press. I have respect for that. But then shortly after doubling down, he decides to fold and apologize. Apologize to all the people that were hurt by his tweet. You know, because there are a lot of people out there who were deeply hurt because Jack Del Rio, almost nobody, unless you're an avid football fan, you have no idea who Jack Del Rio is.

And if you are an avid football fan, you've hurt, you know who he is, but you certainly don't, there's no opinion he could offer that's going to cause any emotional or physical pain to you. But he apologized to the people that he hurt. And the question is, will that apology save him? And we already know the answer to that. So here's Yahoo Sports. Derek Johnson, the president of the NAACP, called for the resignation or dismissal of Washington commander's defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio for his Wednesday comments about January

6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. He says, it's time for Jack Del Rio to resign or be terminated. His comments could not have been more offensive and ignorant. The January 6th insurrection in attempted coup. was far more than a dust-up. Each day we learn more and more on just how close our democracy came to autocracy. Downplaying the insurrection by comparing it to nationwide protest, which are in response to a public lynching, is twisted. You can't coach a majority black team while turning your back on the black community. It's time for you to pack up and step off the field.

So the apology was, it's not that, okay, he had an opinion. He expressed it. And then a day later, he reinforces that opinion. doubles down on it. And then a couple hours later, he's apologizing. Did he realize this opinion that he's held this entire time? In a couple hours after that press conference, did he realize he was wrong in the opinion? He was incorrect? No.

So he knows that he's right about what he said, but he apologized anyway, to avoid exactly this. But it doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter if you apologize. It actually makes no difference whatsoever. It is not going to have any effect on the backlash. The people who want to fire you for your opinion, are still going to want you fired, whether you apologize or not. You could drop to your knees in tears and beg them, beg them tearfully to accept your

apology and to let you keep your job. It will not make a difference. I wanted to play this clip also. ESPN, of course, they're very offended about this and they're talking a lot about it. This gives them a chance, you know, to do what they love to do, which is to talk about anything but sports. So see if you can make heads or tails of this. Here's Ryan Clark, a former NFL player and now NFL analyst.

And here he is giving his take on this controversy. For me, the insensitivity in which he approached it. When you're talking about these protests, if you're speaking after Jacob Blake, there are people that lost their lives. Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people during that protest. There were officers out there with AR-15s or officers out there with assault rifles policing the people who were protesting. And so now when you look at a person in Jack Del Rio that has to sit in the room in Washington that is 85% African American. And you have to know as a player he is either not aware or doesn't care enough about the people he works with or the people or communities they come from to be smart enough not to say this. My problem and issue is when you're talking about what Jack Del Rio is saying, he's saying this, that one wrong is better because of the people involved.

Now, you can think that's because those people think like him or feel like him or support the same things that he supports. Or you can think that's because those people look like him. Many of the people in the rooms Jack DeRio coaches in don't look like him. I just, most of that's basically incoherent. And these people, like sports analysts, not all of them, many of them are so stupid. And I watched this whole clip of him and he just rambles. What are you even trying to say? What I did pick up on, though, is the insensitivity of the harmful language.

This is a formal football. This guy was on, I think he played defense for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Okay? This guy's playing defense. He's hitting people for a living. Maybe that's part of the reason why he can't string together a coherent sentence anymore. But this is what he does for a living, and now he's on TV. What the hell happened?

I know it's a standard complaint these days, but. Now you have football players. He was being insensitive in his language. His opinion was harmful. My God, man. Have some self-respect. And how does this have anything to do with race? What's racist about it?

Well, of course, there's no way to explain that whatsoever. This has his opinion that he expressed had nothing to do with race, obviously. But somehow, you know, NAACP is chiming in. So if you're against rioting, then that's, racist? I mean, that's your linking. So to oppose rioting as happened in 2020 in cities across the country,

that is an anti-black opinion. If anything, that seems like the rather kind of a racist claim to make. We'll stay in the kind of in the sports world here, or at least former sports stars. This is also from Daily Wire. This is former NBA star Dwayne Wade told CNN that he fears

for his transgender child, Zaya, and disagrees with legislation that would make gender affirming procedures on children illegal. Now, Dwayne Wade is married to Gabriel Union, who is a Hollywood actress, and they have, it was a, because this is a boy who at a very young age they declared is actually a girl. And like so many of these parents, you know, it's bad enough that they're transitioning their child, but also, of course, they have to tell the whole world about it, which, and this is intentional, but also has the effect of cementing that child in that identity, that false identity.

Because once you've taken this little kid, it doesn't know any better, and you're parading him around to the entire world, say, look this. Well, he can't back away from it now. You've made him into an activist. You've made him into a leader of a movement. Anyway, here he is on CNN talking a little bit about this, about his fears, you know, as the parent of a, quote, trans child. He's deeply afraid. Let's find out why. I mean, just overnight, Louisiana enacted an anti-trans sports ban. It's not the first state to do so. The governor there called it discriminatory distressing.

And I wonder what your reaction is in your message to lawmakers in states where these bands are happening. you guys are going through this in your own family. And I wonder what you think. Yeah, to me it's a joke. I mean, this is our life. We live this. And so when you're out there making rules and if you're not experiencing this,

if you're not living this and you're just out there signing away and making laws, that's not right. That's a joke. Like, come and live a day in my world with my daughter. Come and see how it is to walk through this world as her. Right? Like, I just think, like, we losing,

we're losing our humane. Like we're losing the human side of us. And as sad as it is, as blessed as my daughter is to have parents who can support her, I'm still afraid every moment she leaves our house. And not just because of gun violence, but because of the way that people perceive her in this world, right?

Yeah, well, Dwayne, you know, we can't really walk in the shoes of your daughter or understand what it's like to be your daughter because your daughter doesn't exist. That's not your daughter. That's your son. Okay, that's a boy. And he has, you know something else?

And this is something that Scott Nugent said in our film, what is a woman, that I thought was like everything else in that interview, it was very well put and very powerful. She said that you don't have the right to do this. You do not have the right to do this to your child. You do not have the right to transition your child. You don't have that right.

You don't have that right. You don't have the right to make that decision for your child. And don't sit here and tell me that your child made that decision because your child did not. Children can't make decisions like that. They can't consent to that. They literally cannot. They don't have the ability to do it. Which is why I'm pretty sure that if your son wanted to,

you mentioned gun violence. Should he be allowed to go buy a gun at this age? Should it be legal for him to go buy a gun? Oh no. Why not? Okay. Why shouldn't 12-year-olds be allowed to buy guns? Explain to me.

Explain to me why a 12-year-old can't buy a gun. See, you can't explain it. You cannot explain it without saying something about their lack of psychological and neurological development. Okay, whatever explanation you give for why 12-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, it's going to have something to do with the fact that they're not fully developed in their brains. They can't be trusted. They're immature.

They're reckless. They don't think far enough into the future. That's your answer, right? That's your reason. Yeah, well, that's also why they can't choose their own genders, of course. Let's see. Okay, so this one, I just saw this now before we went on the air. So this is from the website Bounding Into Comics.

and they mentioned something about what is a woman here. They say, so letterbox is a social platform that allegedly allows users to post and share their opinions about movies, whether new or old. However, social media users noticed that something was radically different about the review list for what is a woman. Namely, there are no reviews. Letterbox has hidden, okay, listen to this. Letterbox, now this is, again, this is a site, I guess kind of like Rod Tomatoes, except in this site. It's a special emphasis on users rating the film. So, Letterbox has hidden all reviews and ratings of the movie from public view.

If you're not registered with Letterbox, all reviews of the movie are completely hidden from site, and the rating bar that's displayed to showcase the average score of a film has been removed. Unregistered viewers are unable to see any reviews for the film, both negative and positive. If you're registered with Letterbox, the site only allows you to view the reviews of people in your friends. list who've already reviewed the movie. If you go to the review screen as a register user, it shows no reviews for the film, despite the fact that over 1,700 registered users have watched the movie as of this writing. On the reviews of page for What is Women, you're only allowed to view the star ratings people

have given the film, but you're not allowed to read the reviews of the movie unless you go directly to the user's page and read the review. Every other movie on the site has the listed ratings page, recent reviews, and popular reviews shown without restriction. This is just, I mean, it's remarkable, isn't it? They are so terrified of this movie. They really are. I don't think, I know I'm kind of biased and I'm promoting the movie, but has any movie in recent history made them this afraid?

Like, have they ever, has this ever happened to any other movie? They're going this far out of their way to make sure that you can't talk about it. censoring the user reviews of the movie. That's how afraid they are of this film. It is really incredible. And if you haven't watched the movie yet and subscribe to DailyWire or go to What Is Woman.com and subscribe to watch the movie, this is all the more reason why you ought to do that.

Okay, one of the story I really wanted to mention here, this is from the post-millennial in an article written by Ashley St. Clair. It says a family in California is suing meta. That's the now the parent company for Facebook. For their daughter's eating disorder and self-harm following her addiction to META's platforms. The family of Alexis Spence is looking to hold the social media giant accountable for severe mental health struggles they claim are a result of META's deliberate efforts to get preteens addicted to their products. One group out of Seattle, the social media victim's law center has taken on Alexis Spence's case to sue META on behalf of the young girl for allowing her and countless other children to access products which META. knows are addictive, harmful, and dangerous.

The family says that their once confident and happy daughter, Alexis, began developing signs of depression and anxiety shortly after secretly opening an Instagram account at just 11 years old. Through Instagram, she was exposed to a plethora of dangerous content, including sexually explicit messages and photos from adults as well as solicitation of sexual acts. At 12 years old, Spence was drawing pictures of herself next to her phone with a thought bubble above her head saying things like, Kill Yourself and Stupid Fat Worthless. Spence continued to have a severe decline in her mental health

resulting in a life-threatening eating disorder and suicidal ideations, all of which her family attributes to social media addiction and the content Instagram exposed her too. Now, a couple of things here. I am fully on board for holding these social media platforms accountable, especially for the damage they're doing to kids. Fully on board for that.

and they are knowingly, willingly, intentionally damaging kids in this way. And they're trying to get kids addicted to the stuff. They know how bad it is for them. And so anything that could be done to hold them accountable, I think is great. Sue them, whatever you can do. Fully on board for that, absolutely.

But then there's the other part of this, there's the other piece of the puzzle, the other part of the story, which is that this is an 11-year-old girl who has access to Instagram, Now it does say it's not clear in the article how she accessed Instagram. It says that she opened, okay, she opened the account secretly. Your parents didn't know about it.

So it's not as though this isn't as bad as parents who even know that they're very young kids are on social media and are okay with it. But then you have to ask, well, how did she get on Instagram? And I think we can assume, based on context here, that she got on Instagram because she was given a phone. Now, it's possible she could have been. open an Instagram account some other way. Maybe she used a friend's phone. She used a computer at school, something like that. If there's some kind of family desktop in the house, maybe she went there. So we don't know exactly, but it seems like, especially given the fact that she's drawing pictures, you know, she's drawing pictures of her sitting next to her phone, which tells me that she has a phone.

Okay, so if that's correct, then these parents gave their daughter a phone at 11 years old with open access to the internet. open enough that she could open an Instagram account. Like they didn't even block the social media platforms, which at a minimum, if you're going to give your kid a phone with internet access, you can go in and block certain websites, block any website you want. So it seems they didn't even do that. But a better option, instead of giving your kid a phone and then blocking websites,

better option is just don't give her the phone. and if you really feel like your child needs a phone for safety, because this is one of the excuses parents always give, so I need a way to get in touch with my kid. Now, of course, for most of human history, parents did not have a way to immediately get in touch with their kid every second of the day by calling them on some device that carry around in their pockets,

and most kids survive just fine without it. But if you feel like you need that, then you can give your kid a phone that has no internet capability whatsoever. They do make phones like that. So you really got to go out of your way and invest the money in one of these devices

that's going to do such incredible damage to your child. So I'm a little bit split on this. I'm of two minds. On one hand, yes, hold the social media platforms accountable. On the other hand, the parents here are potentially looking to rake in millions of dollars in a lawsuit, yet they're the ones who gave a phone to their kid.

Okay, the blame starts with the parents. And then you go to the social media platforms. And this is not like 50% blame. It's not we're dividing up blame. It's 100% blame goes to everybody. The social media platforms, big tech companies, they're 100% to blame for the things that they do. But you as a parent are 100% to blame for the decisions that you make, including giving your kid a phone. It's just inexcusable. There is no good reason for it. And I say this somewhat rhetorically, because I can't understand, but in a certain sense, I can't understand why parents continue to do this, knowing the damage that it does. Here's what we know. You give your 11-year-old a smartphone with internet access. There's no positive result. Okay, nothing good's going to come with that.

It's not going to enhance their lives in any way. It's not going to make them more fulfilled, more happy. It's not going to make them better people. There's zero chance that that happens. It will do damage. It's just a matter of how much damage will it do. And so you give them the phone with internet access, hoping that it's not as much damage as it could be. So now you're just playing damage control at best. A lot of parents don't even do damage control.

They just give the phone, internet access, and then say, oh, go ahead, go up to your room. Kids sitting up in their room hours a day. It's nighttime. Your kid went to bed. They've got a phone with them. You have no idea what they're doing. You know this world of,

insanity and filth that's opened up to them, and they've got their phone in their beds with them at nights. And you just go to sleep? I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. If I knew that my child had access to this kind of stuff, and I have no idea what he's doing. I wouldn't be able to, I wouldn't be able to sleep. I would say to these parents, literally, how do you sleep at night? I don't know how you do it. I wouldn't be able to. If you spend any time on the internet, you know what's out there, you know how easy it is to access. Oh, but if we don't give our kid a phone with internet access, then they'll be weird. You know, it'll be weird because all their friends have it.

So? You're the parent. Yeah, it will seem weird. And their friends will think they're weird. So what? Why does that matter to you? You're the parent. Yeah, it's okay for a kid to be so invested in that and conforming.

And the thing that they fear most of all is that they'll be seen as weird by their peers. So I understand that your kid, as a child who's immersed, in this world and can't see pass the nose on her face, that for her, that's the worst thing in the world to be judged by her peers. But you're the adult. You're supposed to know better. You know that she's going to grow up and she's going to leave school behind. And none of this is going to matter anymore. It's unbelievable to me. Stop giving your phones to your kids. Please. I beg you all, parents. Let's get now to our daily cancellation. Death from above says, Matt, you misgendered Natalie Wynn.

You referred to Natalie as her when, in fact, Natalie is a hymn, which would add more context to his position on drag queens and kids. I was just going based on the name. Always a risky move these days. I had no idea. But thanks for the correction. Mel says, I thought you were unfair to Professor Dave. He was a lot more objective than you make him seem.

He even says in his video that males have an advantage over biological females and sports. Yeah, he does say that in the video. Now, in my response to so-called Professor Dave, and I'm starting very much to suspect that he's not a real professor, though, who knows. I mean, there are plenty of real professors, as we discovered, who are idiots. But I was responding to his criticisms of the right, and then he does have a little portion at the end where he criticizes the left on the gender issue, mostly criticizes them essentially for not being liberal enough. But he does mention, he does say this, yeah, that he admits that biological. males have advantages over biological females in sports. Now, am I supposed to give my, what am I, give him a pat on the back, give him a cookie because he said that? You have no choice but to admit that.

There's no way around it. You have to admit it. But where does he go from there? He says in the video that biological males have advantages over females, but he does not say that they should therefore be excluded from female sports. And his cop-out is that, well, I don't care about sports. So it's not up to me what team they play on. What an absolute So you know that it's unfair, but you're still unwilling to say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. That doesn't make it more objective. It just makes them more of an intellectual coward.

I did it a favor by not mentioning that. All right. Jake says, Matt, I'm curious about your vision for what is a woman. What do you ultimately hope it achieves? You know what I hope for the film? I hope that it makes itself irrelevant. That's my ultimate hope. My ultimate hope is that what is a woman will be totally irrelevant at some point in the future.

I wanted to get to a point where people see this movie and it's like a snapshot of a bygone era. It's like an anthropological study for them. It's a time capsule where they can look back and see it and say, what the hell was happening back then? That's what I hope. I hope for a time when nothing in the film is remotely relevant to anybody because we don't live in a totally insane society anymore. Rose says, I watched your documentary, Matt, and you interviewed sane psychiatrists and therapists. As a therapist, I need to know, does that give you some hope that some of us are fighting back and not going with the insanity to poison and destroy kids? It definitely, it gives me

some hope that there are some sane, good psychiatrists and therapists out there. But unfortunately, as you know, Rose, there's not enough. And even to the, even from the sane ones that I talked to, like they all told me that the deck is stacked against them. And just by talking about this publicly, they've offered themselves up to be sort of exiled from the industry. Which is good. It takes a lot of courage to speak out. But it just shows you that how deep the rot is within these institutions. So I have some hope in some individual people in these institutions who have a lot of courage and are willing to say the truth. But institutionally, I have like no hope for the institutions. Let's see. Sam says Kelly J. Kean reviewed your film and called herself a femaleist rather than a feminist because she's interested in defending females. What do you think of that? I know you're not a fan of feminism. A femaleist is an interesting, you know, interesting off-st, interesting variation. I just don't think you need an ist. See, I don't have a, I don't feel the need for any isst or ism when it comes to this. When it comes to my defense of biological reality.

I guess I am now a biologist because I'm talking about this, but I don't really think I need an isterism or a label to attach to that. It's just like Don Sucker, the Star Wars shop owner, said in the film, it's just common sense. Common sense isom. How about that? Maybe we'll go with that. And Andrew says, I have another criticism of Professor Dave. If gender can only be understood through complex neurobiology, why are we allowing kids to decide their own gender instead of only allowing postgraduate college students? Yes, exactly. That's one of the many. I mean, here's one of the problems when you're trying to respond to the gender ideologues. And I try to be as thorough as possible, pick it apart piece by piece. But everything they say is just is layered in so much contradiction and incoherence that you're always going to, you're going to miss a few points. And that's one of them. Very good point, though. Well, as you've heard, what is a woman is a huge success. It's something that, I mean, it's certainly exceeded my.

own expectations for what would happen with this film, and it's only a week and a half into it. So, first of all, thank you for that. We couldn't do it without you guys, without, without our subscribers. And also, this weekend is the Pride Parade in D.C. So we've got some things in store. We had Skyriders at the Women's March, and this weekend we're going to have mobile trucks showing clips from what is a woman at the Pride Parade in D.C. I'm very excited about that, because I think there are probably a lot of people at the Pride Parade who haven't had a chance to see the movie yet. And so we want to make sure that they see it. It's just very nice of us. I mean, we're kind of giving this away for free.

And, you know, in the process, we're changing the gender ideology conversation and fighting back in the culture, which has never been more important and more relevant. So celebrate Pride Month and the Pride Parade by watching What Is a Woman. And if you've already seen it, then make sure to tell your friends to watch as well. Share it with them also. Help us strengthen our stand against the radical trans ideology agenda by sharing your support of the film on social media and encouraging others to watch at what is a woman.com. So go to what is a woman.com to become a member and watch the film. today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Today for our daily cancellation, it begins with the age-old wisdom first uttered, I believe, in a Greek epic poem that one who goes woke shall thus soon, as we know, go broke. Old Navy was the latest company to learn this ancient truism

with their failed experiment in plus-sized clothing. Sorry, not plus-sized clothing. This is inclusive sizing is what they call. That's the new PC term of art because clothing must be inclusive. It must include skinny people, normal-sized people, fat people, morbidly obese people, people for whom morbid obesity is a weight loss goal, like everyone must be included. A clothing company cannot really show off its virtue and its commitment to inclusivity unless it sells pants that could double as boat covers. Okay. And even if nobody can actually fit in those pants, and so nobody's going to buy them, you could still show off the pants, fly them like an enormous flag to signal your wokenness to the world. It's a good way to earn a

applause, it's just not a great way to earn money. And as Old Navy discovered, you kind of need to earn money if you want your business to survive. Here's the Wall Street Journal. It says, Old Navy set out to make clothes shopping more inclusive for women of all body types. It ended up with too many extra small and extra large items and too few of the rest, a mismatch that frustrated customers and contributed to falling sales and a management shakeup. That's what pause there for a second. Why just women? So they did the inclusive sizing for women. Old Navy, it's been a while since I've been in an old Navy, but they do sell men's clothing too, don't they?

I know they at least sell cargo shorts for men. So we note once again how the body positivity stuff focuses almost entirely on women. This is why there are no plus-sized male models. Have you noticed that? Nobody is ever using men in their fatness as beautiful campaigns. When's the last time you saw a dude with a huge pot belly on a billboard with the words love yourself or be confident at any size or whatever else? Never. Unless it's a pregnant man, okay, then you might see it.

But otherwise, you don't see it. And that's because it doesn't exist. That's because nobody cares, actually, if men hate themselves. Indeed, men are supposed to hate themselves, unless they're gay or they belong to some other victim group. Left-wing victimology means that nothing they say can ever be applied consistently. That's the point. There are no universal principles in leftist thought, which is why most men are excluded from most of this. But back to the article, it says, Build is one of the biggest launches in the brand's history.

Old Navy in August began offering all women's clothing sizes in size zero to 30 and extra small to 4x, making it one of the first retailers to play such a big bet on inclusive sizing. A big big bet. I don't know if that was a pun. It did away with separate, petite, and plus-sized departments and grouped all sides. sizes of each style together. Manikins and varying body shapes displayed the new wares. All sizes of a style were priced the same, which was a break with an industry practice in which retailers charge more for larger sizes. This is the largest integrated launch in the brand's history and an important

growth driver for the business for years to come, according to the GAAP chief executive Sonia Singal. Now, just a note here, plus size clothing costs more because it requires more material to make. And clothing is separated into different sections because it's easier for customers to find what they're looking for that way. And generally, clothing stores will have much fewer options in the 3x and 4x sizes because there are far fewer people who fit those sizes. Now, I'm no business guru. Okay, nobody's inviting me to be an investor on Shark Tank or anything, but I do at least know that if you create more expensive products, charge less for them, make the customer experience more frustrating intentionally,

make it harder for customers to find what they want, and you intentionally stock more products that fewer of your customers want to buy, you will lose money. And it turns out that Old Navy did. Going back to the article, it says, soon after, however, Old Navy's sales started to nosedive. Last month, Nancy Green, the chain's president and chief executive, stepped down after less than two years running the brand.

Gap warned that sales for the spring quarter would fall short of expectations in part due to the troubles at Old Navy. The extended sizes were the culprit, according to current and former employees. Stores were selling out of the middle sizes and were stuck with piles of very small and very large sizes, the employee said. To clear out the excess goods, Old Navy put a large quantity of women's clothing on sale this spring, which contrasts with other retailers that have held the line on discounting because of strong demand and supply chain challenges. Now, ultimately, Old Navy announced that it would be removing the inclusive sizes from 75 of its stores, and this has enraged body positivity advocates who, as always,

are not going to give you points for trying. Old Navy tried to appease them, lost millions of dollars, and then had to backtrack. But the body positivity folks demand that Old Navy fully drive itself into bankruptcy because that's what would make them feel better about themselves. For example, one fat liberation, quote-unquote advocate on TikTok, actually checked to see how many Old Navy stores no longer sell, plus-sized clothing. And in the process, she uncovered a major scandal. Watch this.

Remember the statement that Old Navy keeps saying that they're only cutting back plus sizes in 75 stores in the U.S.? I may have done something bad. This is what it looks like if the plus size are carried there. See how it says shop plus women's here. And see how this one has nothing. I made an Excel spreadsheet. And I'm going through each state and you can see. see, there's a good number that don't carry plus sizes. So far, I have only gotten through six states, but there's a total of 100 that do not carry plus sizes. More than 75. It's going to take me a while, but should I keep going? Sure, why not? You've got nothing better to do, apparently. Continue making your spreadsheet. Maybe, you know, consider hopping on a treadmill while you're

tabulating the results. I don't say that to be rude. Okay, there's an important point here. This person is going through all of this effort to find stores with plus-sized clothing, spending hours researching every old Navy location in the country, making spreadsheets, filming TikTok videos. She's devoted her life to fat liberation. She's doing all of this when she could simply go on a diet, and none of this would be an issue. See, the real way to achieve fat liberation is to eat a salad. Now, of course, you can't even point this out anymore without sounding like a

bully, that's because we consider it bullying to do or say anything that might cause another person to engage in any sort of honest self-criticism. Well, depending on who the other person is, as noted, no principle is universal in our culture. But if the person's in a favored class, you must not ever cause them to look critically at themselves or at their own behavior. You can be guilty of bullying in this regard, even if you're not trying. So, for example, this is pretty incredible. Listen to this. Sydney Sweeney is an actress, I think, and she showed up to the MTV Awards this past weekend, because apparently the MTV Awards happened this past weekend. And like so many young women at so many MTV Award ceremonies before her, Sweeney was

dressed in clothing that barely qualifies as clothing at all. She was scantily clad, in other words. And now she's being criticized, criticized largely by young leftists on social media, for her immodest attire. They have a problem with her lack of modesty, not because they care about modesty per se, but because her physical appearance makes them feel bad about themselves. So here's the Yahoo article about the controversy. It says, although Sweeney pulls it off beautifully, reluctance from onlookers to praise the outfit has less to do with styling that it does the messaging about beauty and body standards.

Quote, no shade to beautiful Sydney, but I'm sad we're seeing more of this ultra low-rise waist and ultra-flat tummy look again, according to one person on Instagram. Someone else said, so coveted yet unachievable for so many of us with different builds. Someone else said, watch body positivity go down the drain once the low-ride fashion takes over again. And someone else said, low-rise never again. Young generations, learn from the past. Don't ruin your body. Similar sentiments have been expressed by body acceptance advocates who have watched the micro-minis skirts comeback. The trend is among others

from the early 2000s that have seen a resurgence. However, it is seemingly the most exclusive. Quote, this set is created with this very thin body in mind. It's not created for plus, and so that in and of itself is frustrating, according to some co-founder of something called Power of Plus. A lot of it, too, feels very glorifying of a body type that we've been working against actively for many years now. Wait, hold on a second. We've been working against a body type? I thought we're supposed to accept all body types. See, they're criticizing not just the outfit, but the body type, the body itself. They don't have a problem with the way the clothing looks. They certainly don't have a problem with women wearing skimpy outfits. If that was Lizzo dressed like that at the award ceremony, which she probably was, if she was there,

they'd be tripping over themselves to extol her beauty and boldness. I mean, Lizzo could, and I think she's actually done this, just walk down the red carpet completely nude. And they would be saying this is the greatest thing they've ever seen in their lives. No, they have a problem when it comes to this woman with that kind of body, namely an in-shape healthy body because it makes them feel bad about their bodies. And anything that makes them feel bad is bad. Even some other person's actual entire body can be bad if looking at it makes them feel bad. This, by the way, is the reason why left-wing trans activists have such disdain for women. because actual women remind them of what they'll never be,

and that makes them feel bad, and so women are bad, and they're morally entitled to treat them that way. This is the madness that inevitably results from emphasizing self-perception over reality. When we declare that affirmation is necessary for emotional well-being, and that emotional well-being is just as important, if not more important, than physical well-being, this is where we end up. soon they're going to be strapping skinny women onto gurneys and force-feeding them cinnibuns just to make sure that everyone is equally fat and unhealthy.

So that none of us ever have to feel bad about being fat and unhealthy ourselves. This is the mentality that Old Navy tried to cater to. And they paid the expected price. That's why they are today canceled. And that'll do it for us today and for the week. Talk to you on Monday. Godspeed. Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.

and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review. Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. We're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Benchapiro show, Michael Knowles Show, the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.

Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, production manager, Pavel Vodowski. Our associate producer is McKenna Waters. The show is edited by Robbie Dansler. our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina and hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.

Hey everybody, this is Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. You know, some people are depressed because the Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood. But on the Andrew Claven show, that's where the fun just gets started.

So come on over to the Andrew Claven show and laugh your way through the fall of the Republic with me, Andrew Claven.