The Megyn Kelly Show - Biden's Outrageous Title IX Changes Hurting Women and Men, with Alex Clark, Mary Morgan, May Mailman, Inez Stepman, and KC Johnson | Ep. 771

Episode Date: April 19, 2024

Megyn Kelly opens the show by revealing for the first time she voted for Donald Trump in 2020, the reasons why that relate to her concerns about her daughter and sons, Biden’s outrageous changes to Title IX that help "trans" women but hurt biological women and men, the way it endangers girls and harms the due process rights of boys and men, and more. Then May Mailman and Inez Stepman of the Independent Women's Forum join to discuss why Biden’s new Title IX rules will hurt biological men and women, the infringement on parents' rights with these changes, why misgendering can now be punished as sex discrimination, how Biden's changes to stop discrimination actually leads to more discrimination, and more. Then KC Johnson, author of "The Campus Rape Frenzy," joins to discuss how Biden’s new Title IX rules will ruin men and boy’s due process on campuses, examples of when male students were wrongfully accused of sexual assault in cases on campuses, and more. And Alex Clark, host of "The Spillover," and Mary Morgan, host of "Pop Culture Crisis," join to discuss how young girls and women must fight back over radical gender ideology, campus degeneracy that has become the norm, the outrageous viral post from Andrew Tate and his influence with boys and men, whether the birth rate is a problem in America, "red pill" conservatives in our culture, a man setting himself on fire in front of the Trump trial, and more.Mailman- https://iwlc.org/invest/Stepman- https://www.iwf.org/Johnson- https://kc-johnson.com/Clark- https://www.youtube.com/@RealAlexClarkMorgan- https://www.youtube.com/@PopCultureCrisisFollow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Okay. Welcome to the show. I can't believe this. Can I just start with this? Let me just start with this, okay? I had a long, contentious relationship with Donald Trump. You may be aware. And going into 2020, I didn't know whether I could pull the lever for him. I really didn't. The world had shifted under our feet. It had gone crazy with DEI and with the trans ideology nonsense which was being shoved down my own kids' throats at school. And I really wrestled with it.

You guys heard me wrestle with it on this program. There's a breast oncology doctor that I go to for my mammogram once a year. She's a far left liberal and I love her. I love her. Every year when I go in, we talk politics. We usually disagree, but we have a shared humanity and I love that, you know, that we can come in. She's so kind to me. We always hug. She's so good to me. And I love her too. And I went in and I told her after the election who I voted for in 2020. And I've never shared this publicly. I don't talk about who I'd vote for as a journalist. I never have, but I'm going to today. And I told her I voted for Donald Trump.

And I almost cried because this woman and I had been through a lot. I'd had a breast cancer scare. Thank God it wasn't anything. She got me through and she knew what Trump had put me through for that year and how hard it was in my family and so on. I don't want to get back into it. And she said, why? And I told her that it wasn't about me. It was about my concern for this country and my children and what was happening in particular in this cultural lane, but in other lanes as well. And I worried what she might say to me. And she said, you know what that tells me? And I said, what? And she said that you have principles.

And I felt so much better. I, you know, I just, it's not that I needed her approval. I just, she's just, we're not even that close. Not that we've ever had dinner together or anything like that. She's this person who I talked to for all those years while all that crap was happening. And I voted for Donald Trump

to prevent things like this, what happened today. And when I saw the news on what Joe Biden just did to women's rights and Title IX and due process for young men on college campuses and free speech, I was horrified. And my second reaction was, at least I don't have this blood on my hands. I'm ashamed of him. I'm disgusted at you, Miguel Cardona. Shame on you. What's happened today as a result of the change in Title IX is that your daughter or you,

if you are a college-age woman, will now have to go into your college bathroom, your college locker room, and be faced with men posing as women, many of whom are only there because they get off on wearing women's clothing. They literally will have erections because they're wearing a dress into the women's locker room. Your kid's going to have to look at it. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Nothing. No lawmaker has voted on this. No Congress has passed this. Joe Biden did it with his education secretary. It's an agency regulation. And then your son or you, if you are a young college aged man, if you get accused, if he gets accused by a young woman falsely, which happens with all due respect to my fellow women, we've all seen it happen time and time again. are fake accusers, but enough of them are that we need very sturdy due process regulations to protect the accused. Now, he just lost his right to cross-examination. He cannot confront his accuser anymore because of Joe Biden and what he did today.

He's fucked. Sorry, but that's the truth. These are kangaroo courts and his representative will do shuttle diplomacy between the two rooms where he talks to the young man and then he talks to the accuser. And that's the substitute for cross-examination. And we know that the representatives who run these courts and are the judges of these kangaroo courts on college campuses and courts is in air quotes, are victims rights advocates. Your kid gets no protection. That's why Betsy DeVos, when she took over as education secretary after Barack Obama left office with Arne Duncan, tried to restore some semblance of normalcy. Was it because Betsy DeVos hates women? She loves rape. She wanted women to get raped over and over and for their assailants to walk free. Hell no. She wanted just the

semblance of due process. And that's what she did under Trump. They've reversed it. They've undone most of her solutions to the overreach that Obama and Duncan imposed. And guess what else? It applies to K through 12. It's not just colleges. The way you talk about these issues, pronouns. He's waved his magic wand to say we all have to do it the way Joe Biden wants it done. And not even Joe Biden. Who are we kidding? Does anyone think this 89 year old, whatever he is, he's 82, but seems a lot older. Do we think he's really calling the shots? You really think Joe Biden's woke? You really think he cares whether the trans person has access to your naked daughter as she gets ready for swimming? No, that's not what it is.

It's his handlers who are the secret president, whoever the hell they are. I don't know who it is. I don't know if it's Barack Obama. I don't know if it's Karine Jean-Pierre, if it's Kamala Harris, if it's some woke team behind him. But he does what they tell him. He is the Brazilian bank uncle we showed you yesterday. Those of you who didn't see it, it was a deceased man who got wheeled into a bank by his greedy young niece who tried to pretend he was alive so she could get money.

That's him. That's him. He doesn't get a pass, but I also don't believe he cares. He cares about himself. They didn't have the balls to put this before the Congress because they knew what would happen. I'm, I'm, I'm pissed off because let me tell you something. Unlike most people, most news outlets, we here at the Megyn Kelly show have covered the spate of women who have been attacked in their locker rooms, attacked in their bathrooms. I know the left wants to pretend that it is all loving, genuinely confused men who really want to live as women the way, frankly, I came to know the trans people that I know who don't want to hurt anybody. They're out there. I do not want to disparage all trans

people. I know and love some who are not like this, but it would be a disservice to pretend that a large majority of so-called trans women, meaning men posing as women, are not autogynephiles. They are. These are men who get off on dressing as women. They're sexually aroused by it. And those are the ones who parade around places like Planet Fitness, shaving their stubble. An actual trans person wouldn't want you to see his stubble. He would want you to actually believe he's a woman. He's genuinely trying to live his life as one and not making a mockery out of it or a sexual fetish out of it. So now it's going to continue and not just continue. It's going to spread. It's going to spread It's now unlawful discrimination, a violation

of Title IX. The very thing we've been using for decades now to protect girls and young women will now be used against them when they try to speak up against this happening and in favor of their safety. We had an amazing, fun show prepared for you today. We're not going to get to any of it. I don't care. I would vote for RFKJ. I would vote for Trump. But I think Trump is the only answer.

RFKJ is kind of weak on this issue, to be perfectly honest with you. But there is no way in hell I will vote for Joe Biden or anyone who supports this abomination. It must be undone. Do not comply. The rules don't take effect until August. Don't comply. Don't use their language. Protect your daughters. Fight.

Protect your sons. Speak up. And the first step in all of that is understanding exactly what we're dealing with, which is why we're starting the show today with someone who's been following all of this very closely, Mae Mailman, director of the Independent Women's Law Center. She's a former legal advisor to President Donald J. Trump, where she advised on a wide range of policies, including healthcare, immigration, and social issues. She's also a former teacher and earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she served as president of the Federalist Society. May, your reaction to what

they've done today? You're exactly right. This is completely unacceptable. Do not comply because this turns Title IX on its head. Title IX was passed in 1972 to give opportunities for women. That was a time where women were not allowed to have certain majors if they were allowed to enter the college at all. They had curfews. They couldn't participate in sports. If you were going to do field hockey, great. If you want to do anything else, you can't. So Title IX has been monumental for women in academics, in athletics, across the board. And what this regulation does, it says that women don't exist. It says that instead of Title IX being a statute that protects against discrimination on the basis of sex, that it actually protects on the basis of gender identity, meaning that women must allow men into their spaces, allow men to take their scholarships, allow men in every single private area.

If if on the basis of gender identity, that man says that he is entitled to be there with him, with a magic wand, not by statute. No one's had to vote on this, Mae. Exactly. So, you know, Title IX was a heavy lift for women. Actually, this was a time where people were debating whether you wanted an equal rights amendment to be in the Constitution. And as a society, we came together and we said, you know what we actually should do is we should create this specific protection for women in all programs that accept federal money

and are related to education. So don't think that Title IX is some college bill. It's not about public schools. Any school, any education program, including prison education programs, including 4-H, daycare, anything that accepts federal money now has to not discriminate on the basis of sex. But Title IX doesn't just say that. It then carves out and says,

you can have sex-specific programming. You can have sex-specific dorms. You can have girls' state. You can have YMCA. So it allows you to recognize sex, to recognize that sex exists. And it clearly says that there are two sexes. It always says one sex and then the other sex. But in creating two sexes and in recognizing two sexes, you just have to make sure that there's equal opportunities for both. Well, now there will not be equal opportunities for women because women will be forced to be with male aggressors. That's the thing about letting men into locker rooms, letting men into sports. It's not the same for men. Women are not stronger than them.

They're not more powerful than them. They don't threaten them in the way that letting men into women's areas does. It's not the same for men. Women are not stronger than them. They're not more powerful than them. They don't threaten them in the way that letting men into women's areas does. So the entire point of Title IX, protecting women, is now flipped on its head. And the Biden administration wants you to believe that this has nothing to do with athletics, that women can continue on their own in athletics, and the rule has nothing to do with athletics, that women can continue on their own in athletics and the rule has nothing to say about that. This is their promise trying to, you know, win some votes, I guess. But they're lying.

And we know they're lying for a few reasons. One, they say that locker rooms must incorporate gender identity. So if it doesn't affect sports, how does it affect locker rooms? Well, locker rooms are part of the problem here. And the other thing is that they say that actually you don't need a regulation when it comes to sports, that the law, Title IX itself, no regulation, just on its own, the Title IX law says that sports must be on the basis of gender identity. They've said

this in courts. I agree with them. I agree with them. I look at their new regulation. They they're right. They don't have to get specific on the sports. They've already covered it by saying it's discriminated because now just to be to reiterate, sex discrimination against women now includes trans women, which is fake, fake women. That means men. So sex discrimination against women now includes men posing as women in the K through college realm. And so they're right in saying you cannot ban someone's participation in any activity based on sex. And so they're right. If this stands, it's true. You're not going to be able

to keep these fake women out of any spaces, including sports. And this is how the universities, how K through 12 already feels that the Biden administration was going to implement it because the Biden administration has said so out loud. But this puts teeth behind it. And those, the teeth are very threatening. It is all federal money. So if you would like to have a school lunch program, if you would like to have funding for your special needs kids, if you are a public school and you'd like to have funding at all, then you have to go along with this. And so what that means is now sexual harassment is forbidden by Title IX. Okay, sexual harassment, that should be forbidden by Title IX. Well, what does sexual harassment now mean? Well,

sex now means gender identity. So anything that you say, so you use the wrong pronouns, that is now sexual harassment. So all of these schools, every school that accepts federal money will now have to have pronoun police and basically infuse gender ideology throughout their programming so as not to violate sexual harassment and therefore lose their school lunch money. how drastic of a change this will be for every educational program down to the youngest kids. And that really does infringe on parental rights because a lot of this stuff is meant to be taught in the home, is meant to be discussed in the home. It has nothing to do with school. It's not scholastic. And yet those decisions are being taken away by parents because they're being forced to be put in schools. Don't comply. Don't comply. Don't let your child play the pronoun game. Don't you play it. This is going to be taken up. They're not going to get away with this, May. There's more to discuss, but before we get to remedies, but I do want to say you guys are filing a lawsuit almost

immediately at the Independent Women's Forum. Yes. Absolutely. This is something that we've been expecting. They announced that they wanted to do this in June 2022. So we've had two years to think about it. And this is a lawsuit that is going to succeed. The it's an unconstitutional suppression of speech and it compels speech, which the government may not do. They may not look at your child and say, you will say she when you see someone with a penis coming at you in the locker room or you lose your right to your education. That's how messed up what they did today is. I am not overstating what's about to happen. That is the law now via agency regulation. Exactly. Misgendering, which I hate that term because it is using the correct pronouns, is now going to be sexual harassment.

And the weird thing about saying that any of this has to do with sex is that the pronoun game has gotten to be completely unrelated to sex, right? So there are students who want to be furries. There are Z pronouns, Zen. I don't even know. I'm not a pronoun expert. But they have nothing to do with sex. And so to say that Title IX, a sex protection statute,

mandates that people use whatever pronouns you want, otherwise that's sexual harassment, is completely not based on the statute. And one other thing that they did with this rule. So the Supreme Court has said that in order for sexual harassment to come under Title IX, it has to be pretty extreme. It has to be both severe and pervasive, meaning multiple times. So that if you, you know, say, hey, cutie, one time, that's not severe and that's not pervasive and it's not going to be sexual harassment. But if you keep doing the same thing or if the thing that you say isn't, hey, cutie, it's really bad, then you reach severe, you know, and maybe pervasive. What the Biden administration

did is it said, you don't need both anymore. You don't need it to be severe and pervasive. You need it to be severe or pervasive, which is of course not what the Supreme Court has said that it means. And so one instance, if they think it's severe enough, could be a basis for an individual's punishment. And a school, of course, is going to try and punish any instance of quote unquote misgendering because they don't want to lose their federal funding. So this is the pronoun police. And of course, there have been court cases about misgendering and whether the First Amendment protects your right to speak on matters of your own opinion. And a lot of courts have gotten this correct. But I think that it's still going to be a heavy lift and a monumental challenge to say

that when I use correct pronouns, I'm not trying to harass somebody. I am speaking the truth and I'm speaking about what I believe. And the First Amendment protects my right to speak on personal and political matters in a certain way. Is there any way Chevron deference has any impact on this? There's a big Supreme Court case that's pending right now. We expect a decision this summer, you know, June, July early on what is the power of agencies within the executive branch? How much can they do? These are not elected representatives. They're agency bureaucrats who got appointed by, in this case, Joe Biden or his lackeys. How are they ruling over us? Yeah, so Chevron deference, I think, really originally was meant

for really wonky areas of like energy policy where you want the agency to set a certain rate that makes sense and you don't want judges coming in and trying to figure out, oh, that rate was right or wrong. It's meant for experts. There is no expertise required to figure out what sex means. Sex is a binary biological concept. There is no reason why the Department of Education,

and if there was expertise on what sex means, it would not be with the Department of Education, which is illegal. It shouldn't exist. But to the extent it is legal, it's because it doesn't really exist. It's a pass-through organization where they just take federal dollars and give it to schools with hooks on it. They have no expertise on what sex means. The people who have expertise on interpreting words are judges. And so I would say that Chevron deference should not, A, I don't know whether it's going to apply. Probably won't. It'll probably change based on the pending Supreme Court ruling.

But whatever remains, it is not the expertise of the Department of Education. It is the expertise of judges. And I think that they're not going to defer the Department of Education's bizarre ruling that sex means whatever you think. Yeah. So there's a big case before the Supreme Court now looking at just how much deference do we give to these agencies? How much do we have to follow what they say, given that they're unelected, just to sort of short form it. And basically what May is saying is don't expect that even if they say a lot of deference, a lot of authority, don't expect that to affect this because they're not going to be they're not going to be following this, what they've just done with Title IX. I mean, I cannot help but think right

now about Katonji Brown Jackson, who was not able to define, though she's a judge, what a woman is, who said she wasn't a biologist and therefore couldn't speak to that at her confirmation hearing. And there's no question that when your lawsuit, and I'm sure many will join you, gets up to the Supreme Court, she's going to be against you. And so will Kagan, and so will Sotomayor. Here it is. Let's play it for those of you who may have missed it when she was in her confirmation hearings. Can you provide a definition for the word woman? Can I provide a definition? Yeah. I can't. You can't? Not in this context. I'm not a biologist. Oh my God. So, but I, you know, there will at least be, I think five on our side. And

the question is not Roberts in this case, It's Gorsuch. Gorsuch who sided against women in Bostock, which is what made it gave trans people the right to not be discriminated against in the employment context. And that's why people like my friend's friend who's employing a woman he thought was a woman and showed up saying she's a tiger. That's why he has to keep employing her, because thanks to Gorsuch and the libs, he now needs to worry that that might amount to employment discrimination. And so anyway, this is the this is the battle that you're about to face. Go ahead. Yeah. So this Bostock case, 2020 case is what the Biden administration is saying gives them the authority to do something so crazy as to turn a women protection statute into a gender identity statute. And so Title VII

is that 2020 case. Title VII says you can't discriminate because of sex in employment. And so what Justice Gorsuch did is he said that when you fire a woman for being married to a woman or for dressing as a man, but you would not have fired a man for dressing as a man, then you are discriminating because of sex. And so he sort of incorporated gender identity, sexual orientation into Title VII, which only protects against sex discrimination. Title IX is different. Title IX is completely different.

So for one, the language is different. Title VII says because of sex. Title IX says on the basis of sex. And I would say that on the basis of sex really doesn't just include any but for casual relationship with sex, but actually sex has to be the motivating factor there. And the other huge difference is that Title IX does allow you to recognize difference and separate the sexes where Title VII does not. There's no need in the employment context to have some of these separations versus in Title IX, there absolutely is, which is why you have sex-specific dorms, you have sex-specific programming, you have including sororities

and fraternities, you have sex-specific athletics, just the whole range of things that are sex specific that Title VII doesn't have. And so to say that because employment requires something, therefore anything that accepts federal education money now requires that is completely off. And so I hope that Justice Gorsuch, so Bostick was wrongly decided, and I hope that Gorsuch agrees with that. But if he doesn't, hopefully he at least sees the difference between Title seven and Title nine.

In the meantime, it's going to be a year. Probably right of kids having to deal with this and schools having to deal with this. And, you know, many of us tried to stop it when the comment period was open on the proposed changes to Title IX and that we didn't stop it. So we've lost this battle. We've lost this round of the battle. But that doesn't mean the war is over, because just as easily as a Democratic president can come in and undo 50 years of protections for women with the stroke of his pen. So, too, can a Republican president come in and restore the protections for women with the stroke of his pen, so too can a Republican president come in and restore the protections for women. And this hasn't even we haven't even touched on the due process rights of men who get accused on college campuses, which was one of, I think, Trump's best accomplishments. I am not pro sexual assault of women. I would say the record reflects clearly

I've done a lot to stop the sexual assault and harassment of women. But I'm very pro due process. That's the fabric of the United States of America. It's what makes us different from everybody else. And there what happened under Obama is they stripped it. They stripped it of young men. They took these kangaroo courts on college campuses, subjected these young men to them and ruined their lives. You'd get accused. You'd get dragged in there. You wouldn't have the right to cross-examine or to see all of her evidence. You wouldn't have the right to counsel in the examination room. You could only talk to somebody on the back bench. And your representative was always a victim's rights advocate, even when you were the defendant being accused. So you'd go through this whole kangaroo court. You'd get

found guilty. Inevitably, you would get expelled and the rights to appeal are extremely limited. You get labeled a sex offender. And now Joe Biden has undone the due process restorations that Betsy DeVos puts put in place. Exactly. So a couple of things. So one on the due due process it is it's it's hard to explain what exactly you are going to be faced with if you are accused by anybody of sexual harassment because there's there's no there's just no protections you can't even see the evidence that you can get an explanation of what the evidence is so let's just say you're accused of being a transphobe. So you're told you, you are, have committed sexual misconduct. You're a transphobe. And you'd say, I'd like to see what that evidence is. I'd like to just see what the

complaint was. Well, there is no written complaint. They don't have to show it to you even if there is. It is just a he said, she said charade. And to the other point of who the kangaroo court is that's hearing your case, this is a school that will lose federal money if they don't put the bad guy away, kick him out of school, punish him, punish him hard enough. And they're going to be totally fine if they over punish, right? So if somebody didn't do anything wrong, but they over punish, they kick them out anyway, it doesn't matter to them. So they're always going to lean on the side of over punishment, unless you're required to follow certain due process procedures

and you don't get your federal money if you don't do that. So the federal government has to come in and say, you really do need to give these protections because if you don't tell the schools to do it, they won't. They will always lean on the side of less protections and over punishment. And one other political point here, which is that it doesn't just matter who the president is. It matters all the way down the ballot because

Congress does have the power to rescind any rule it doesn't like. It is called the Congressional Review Act. And if people continue to vote Democrat at their local level, then you will continue to have national policies that are problematic. So it is something to think about, even in more close to home elections, that your local congressman, your senator has the power to rescind things like this. And are they using that power correctly? May, let me know how I can help. I will do anything. I will do anything to help you. I will promote it. I will donate to you guys. I will do whatever it takes. And I really hope my audience does too. It's the Independent Women's

Forum. What's the website, just so they know? We are at iwf.org. And our legal fights specifically are iwlc, for the legal center,.org. And thanks, Megan. You are the best on these issues. You've been following them the whole time. You're amazing. God bless you. I'm with you, May. Thank you. Up next, Inez Dettman, who's been following this very closely as well. She has got some other thoughts, and we're going to go deep on a couple of the problems that we're about to face. Joining me now for more analysis is Inez Stepman. Inez is a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women's Forum. She's been on the program before. This morning, she called attention to the power the Biden administration is wielding with changes to Title IX, saying it is, quote, more powerful than

real legislation and how each of these changes individually, individually is a five alarm fire. Inez, welcome back. You're just let me just hear your reaction starting off to what they've done today on Title IX. Absolutely. And thank you again for calling so much attention to this. It's sometimes hard to get attention on regulations because we still have this old idea, the bill on Capitol Hill idea, right? But as we know, that's not how our government functions anymore, regrettably. As I said, each one of these changes is a massive legal change, often one that affects a core constitutional right. So you just discussed with my colleague May, all of the problems attendant in incorporating gender identity into the definition of sex in civil rights law. This is I mean, this is going to affect women's sports. It's going to affect, as May said, it's not just college level.

Right. All K-12 schools that take a dime of federal money are potentially affected by this. They won't be able to keep their bathrooms separate by sex. They won't be able to keep their locker rooms separate by sex when this goes into effect in August. So this is a massive change by itself, and it's gotten a lot of attention, this redefinition of sex. But as you mentioned, there are changes to due process that reinstate kangaroo courts for young men on college campuses if they're accused on mere accusation of

sexual impropriety. And there are massive First Amendment incursions as well. The definition of harassment here, as May said, is being stretched to encompass speech that ought to be protected, the Supreme Court says is protected, but in these regulations is subjected to this this kind of Orwellian, you know, is it is it offensive? Is it subjective? Is it objectively offensive? How pervasive is it? The Supreme Court has laid out really clear standards about where protected speech begins. And these regulations blow right through it. So there's also parental rights implications. I mean, this is a massive, massive fifteen hundred and seventy seven page document that essentially is an assault on women's rights, on men's rights and on all of our constitutional rights. So it's on religious rights, on religious rights. I mean, I'm Catholic. The pope just came

out in the most strong language yet condemning this whole trans ideology and the notion that one is born in the wrong body and the medicalization of this. And for sure, the Catholic Church is not behind pronouns. So what now my children who are about to be confirmed in the Catholic faith have to choose between their faith and what Joe Biden mandates through their teachers that comes out of their mouth. This guy who can't even put two sentences together now effectively tells my children and yours and all of ours exactly what to say around this issue. It's an outrage, but it is an affront to religious rights as well. Yeah, I mean, it is an affront to religious rights as well. Yeah, I mean, it is an affront to an

entire list of rights. And as I say, we always have all of the hysteria about authoritarianism, democracy dies in darkness, right? Here we have a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who are contradicting the Supreme Court on what Americans' constitutional rights are on a whole host of bases. And as you say, telling Americans what they can and cannot say in schools and universities about things that are obviously true, like the differences between the sexes. And this is done by unelected bureaucrats. This is not, you know, Joe Biden is the figurehead of this administration. He doesn't have that power to unilaterally change civil rights law to contradict the Supreme Court.

But this is what this administration has gone ahead and done. And it's kind of up to us, whether through the courts or through the democratic process, to correct the administration and to make sure that this doesn't become American law. It's making our children go along with a lie. That's any sort of compelled speech would be wrong. The government's not allowed to do that to us in America. It's not allowed to do that to us in America. But they're making these children now and college age to have to say a man is a woman, is a she, and refer to him accordingly and respond to them in the locker room and the bathrooms accordingly. They will be confronted

with naked penises that only the autogynephiles will flaunt. Because as I say, true trans people don't want to flaunt a penis. Most of them don't even want the penis anymore. If you see a flaunter in the locker room, odds are it's an autogonophile, meaning it's a guy who gets off undressing in women's clothes. You want that next to your kid? You want that next to your daughter while she's changing her clothes at age 14? You're going to get a whole lot more of it now. And now the government can make her look at him and say she belongs here. It's stomach turning. It can't stand like there's so that we can get Congress to vote against it.

We can get a new president to undo Title nine just the same way Biden undid it when he took office. I mean, that's how this happened. He undid all the changes Trump put in place. That's right. And, you know, this is the sort of power that the administrative state now has in our and you mentioned Chevron, which is an important curtailment of that power. And I hope will be curtailed not just in this instance, but across the board. But fundamentally, are we have a good balance in the United States where women and men have the same constitutional rights. Right. We do not have, you know, different First Amendment rights or different due process rights based on sex. We have federal law and all 50 states banning sex discrimination.

But in each of those instances until now, our law has allowed for distinguishing between men and women when those sex differences are relevant, right? That's why we had prisons that were separated by male and female, why we had locker rooms in public schools that were separated by male and female, why we had sports teams separated by male and female, because of the common sense reality that physical sex differences matter in certain cases. Maybe it doesn't matter when it comes to who's going to be a chemist, right, in the employment context. But it sure as heck matters

when, actually on this show, I can say sure as hell matters, right? It sure as hell matters when you're talking about sports or you're talking about little girls in a locker room, right? And you're talking about biologically male people with penises walking around in there. These are the things that our law until now could recognize that, yes, this is not an invidious discrimination. This is not trying to curtail the opportunities of sex is necessary to protect the opportunities and the safety and the privacy of women. And these regulations blow all of that out of the water. It makes the law unable to distinguish between men and women, between boys and girls in those obvious common sense contexts that we know are necessary, again, to protect even basic safety, let alone opportunity for women and girls. Can we round back to the sports question? Because the Biden administration had considered including sports as part of this. And some in the

LGBTQ community who are praising this, that tells you what you need to know. They're very pleased with this new revision are saying, well, the one thing he didn't give us was the sports. And even the people who are supposed to be advocating for us, for women, like the National Women's Law Center, are raising this point against us in favor of the men. Listen to what these traitors said today. While we celebrate the significance of this moment, we are still, and I was waiting for them to say, like, we're still concerned about the safety of women, given that it's the National Women's Law Center. No, we are still urging a release of a final rule that explicitly clarifies what Title IX has always stood for and guarantees that transgender, non-binary and intersex athletes have a right to play sports alongside their peers. No. So they're on, they're traitors. And I understand, and I, we, May and I talked about how this law, this, this is not a law. It's, it's, it's an agency regulation, but it has the effect of law

will be the way it's written. It will be exploited. There's a, the way it's written will be used to allow men into women's sports for sure. Nothing needs to change in order for that to happen. But the Biden administration is saying that it doesn't. And the people who want men in women's sports are saying, gee, I'm sad it doesn't. So how do you see that playing out? Yeah, I mean, this is a political fig leaf for the Biden administration. I think they know that people look at the sports context. They watch the 200 meter butterfly. They watch a man outstrip women in a very obvious and physical way. And they know that that's not a good issue for them because everyone with two eyes can see that men and women are different in that context and that it's totally unfair to the women involved who are competing against them.

So what this is is sort of a political fig leaf. They're saying, well, we're carving out sports. But as May said, everything they say in these 1577 pages applies to sports, right? You can't just grant these rights on the basis of, quote unquote, gender identity, right? And then say, well, but we don't mean it in this context, right? On the plain reading of these regulations, it does apply to sports. But even so, right, these regulations explicitly apply to locker rooms. They explicitly apply to a thousand other contexts in which it's totally inappropriate to have men coming in and invading women's spaces. So regardless, these regulations impact that on

top of all of the due process issues, on top of the First Amendment issues, right? This really is a regulation that affects everybody who has anything to do with any educational institution that gets a dime of federal money. It's bad for men. It's bad for women. And it's bad for boys. And it's bad for girls. It's bad for everybody. But I think this is just a political ploy, basically, by the Biden administration. And we know that they have a compliant media outside of this show and others that will just go along with that and say, no, no, no, this doesn't apply to sports, even though schools pretty clearly will take this as applying to sports. The I want to tell the audience, Casey Johnson is able to join us, which is great because he's been my guru on the what's happening to young men on college campuses for years now. He's a lawyer. He's been following it very closely. So he's going to add some more context on exactly what this means for young men on college campuses in a minute. But this from

Ilya Shapiro, Inez, he writes, there's a reason this new rule was delayed again and again. The Biden administration knew that it was stretching the law beyond its breaking point. At a time when American higher education is in crisis with a drastic loss in popular confidence, this new rule adds fuel to that fire. The administration expands Title IX to cover an undefined gender identity, despite the law's clear understanding of sex as biological and binary, regardless of whether you care most about statutory text or purpose or even legislative history. Name checking the Supreme Court's Bostock decision and leaving unresolved for now the

issue of biological males playing in women's sports doesn't save the rule. As bad as the redefinition of sex is, what's arguably even worse about the new rule is its subversion of due process and free speech. The Kafkaesque inquisitions that were the hallmark of Obama era governance will now return with a vengeance and bloated educational bureaucracies will waste no time in investigating and disciplining students and faculty for politically incorrect speech that now runs afoul of expansive, nebulous, and shape-shifting definitions of sex-based harassment. All of this is the continuation of the subversion of the core mission of schools and universities to seek truth

and develop human knowledge and of classical liberal values like free speech. I mean, I don't know if you can say it better than that. It's part of such a huge problem. We've lost universities just as we were, you know, mounting a fight for reason and the restoration of classic liberal education, not liberal in the political term, but classic liberal education. This guts it. This is back to the left's favorite tool, which is word policing, so that they can get us to accept their fake reality, their views on the most divisive and important social issues of the day. That's that's exactly right. I can't say it better than you did and that the way that Ilya did that this is a regulation that takes

the power of the federal government and tells Americans in schools from K-12 all the way up into universities what they can and can't think, what they can and can't say, truths that are not speakable, like a man is a man and a woman is a woman. It guts due process. And I'm really glad you're going to have Casey on to discuss this in more detail. So I won't go into all the ways in which this guts due process. But this was a kangaroo court disaster under Obama. It's a disaster that was smacked down again by federal courts. More than 200 men have found vindication that the universities under that guidance violated their constitutional rights. And yet universities now are being encouraged by the federal government to violate what the Supreme Court has said are the due process rights of Americans.

And it's going to be the same way with freedom of speech. This puts the burden on us. It puts the burden on oftentimes, you know, 20 year old college students to defend their rights in federal court. You know, I don't have to tell you that only a small percentage of people are able to muster the money, you know, the long term will to fight something like this out in court for sometimes the year upon years that is necessary to do so, to vindicate your rights. This is an incredible incursion into Americans' rights. It's done by unelected bureaucrats. They're redefining sex, taking away due process rights, taking away our free speech rights. I mean, this is an unbelievable regulation and it deserves to be pushed back in court. It deserves pushback in Congress and it deserves pushback at the top with the American people electing a new president. I never want to hear anybody talk about the Democrats as the party of women's rights again. Never. If they don't stand up against this, they're complicit and they already are cheering it like the Women's Law Center. The irony of these changes on college campuses and the due process

rules there is guess who would be convicted like that if you were subjected to these due process rules? You, Joe Biden, you. Let's do it. Let's kick it off. Let's bring Tara Reid, who had to flee to Russia because she was so afraid of what you and your administration were going to do to her after you let the press and your lackeys ruin her life. Let's put her allegations to the same test you're going to subject these young men to on college campuses. You first, sir. Inez, thank you. To be continued. Thanks so much, Megan. Casey Johnson is up next with more on the college campus debacle that's coming our way. Joining me now, Casey Johnson.

Casey has been fighting the good fight against Title IX insanity for years, helping to get justice for some of the young men whose lives have been torn apart by these ridiculous, absurd, unfair trials held on college campuses, not by a real jury or overseen by a real judge. Casey and I first began talking about this issue back in 2015. It was maybe 14 or 15, nearly a decade ago. No one knows what this means more for young men or anyone accused than Casey. He's an American history professor at Brooklyn College and City University of New York Graduate Center. He is the author of the book, The Campus Rape Frenzy, The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities. Casey, welcome back. Great to have you.

Your first take on what they did today with these Title IX revisions. It was as expected. The prime goal was to eviscerate the rights of accused students, essentially from the beginning of the process to the end of the process, to make it much more difficult for a wrongly accused student to be able to defend himself. And to, you know, with the apparent goal of encouraging more reports by creating a more one-sided process. And I think what's to me most remarkable about these regulations is that when we think of civil rights laws in the United States, we think of a process of ever-expanding rights, always making progress with regards to civil rights. This is one of the core elements of the American identity. This was a case where the Biden administration has chosen to take away rights from accused students that they already had, a right to a hearing, a right to cross-examination, a right to access the full evidence that the university compiled against them, rights that seem like common sense rights but don't fit the

particular agenda of the administration on this issue. It is amazing that you can actually convict a student, that's effectively what these kangaroo courts do, of sexual assault, rape, take away his college career, his scholarship, if any, his future prospects in corporate America, without the right to cross-examine, with no right to cross-examine, or even potentially to cross-examine or even potentially to see all the evidence and in front of a body that is nowhere near qualified to hear such evidence and, as you've pointed out repeatedly, is always stacked in favor of the accuser. I mean, the biggest change in these regulations, the current regulations require all of the things that you just mentioned,

a hearing, cross-examination, all access to the evidence. The current regulations allow, these new regulations will allow for a school's Title IX coordinator herself, she doesn't even have to hire anyone to do this, to conduct all of the investigation. There'll be no hearing at all. Instead, there'll be individual interviews with the witnesses. The accused student will not see or hear in real time the questions that are being asked of his accuser, won't be able to hear that testimony in real time. And then the single investigator without any hearing at all will be able to pass judgment. And as you pointed out, this is not a criminal court, right? But the life-altering effects of a guilty finding in a Title IX process are, you know, they're just that. They ensure that the student is likely to be expelled. The chances of getting into graduate school are zero. It will

be on their resume for the rest of their lives. And so any chance of a good job is going to come up there as well. Certainly, if a student commits sexual assault, he should be punished for this. But the purpose of the process should be to determine the truth of the allegation. It seems like with these regulations, instead, the purpose of the process is to encourage reports by telling complainants, look, you won't get asked tough questions. It will be one sided. Don't don't worry about it. You'll never even have to be face to face with him. And anybody who's ever been in a courtroom setting understands it's very important for the accused to sit there and be able to hear the allegations against him because he's he can sit there and lean over to

his lawyer and say, that's not true. She's misstating that that one key detail was changed and it matters. Here's why. If he's not present to listen to her accusations against him, how is he supposed to meaningfully fight? And by the way, you and I've been doing this long enough that I know the cases you've worked on, some of them. And just for the audience members out there who might be thinking, it's very rare for a woman to make up these stories. All right, get out of your head the Duke LaCrosse fake victim. She's the most extreme case. She was a nutcase. She was a, you know, prostitute. She was being pimped out by the boyfriend, and she decided to make up this

terrible lie. These three guys had not touched her, and she almost sent them to prison. That's the most extreme. But there are many cases of what we might have called a one day Sunday morning regrets. Women who have all sorts of reasons to regret sleeping with a man consensually, who then either get pressured by their friends or their boyfriend who they were cheating on or someone in their dorm into turning it into a sexual assault accusation. Well, I mean, the classic case in this area, I think it was the first time that we talked around a decade ago, was this case at Amherst where a female accuser seduced her roommate's boyfriend, who was heavily intoxicated at the time. Word got out what she had done. She lost all of her friends,

which is kind of unsurprising. And then as part of a campus climate that encouraged students to think of uncomfortable sexual encounters as sexual assault, she filed a Title IX complaint against the student. Through what was an obviously kangaroo court, she was able to get the guilty finding. He was expelled. And only when he filed a lawsuit did it come out that during that evening, she had been texting two different people, one of whom she admitted in the text that she needed to come up with a good lie. And so the evidence there was unusually strong. And in that case, the Amherst investigator, who under the current regulations will now be entitled to pass judgment herself, the Amherst investigator said that the fact that the accuser was texting at the time saying it was consensual, saying that she needed to come up with a lie to explain for seducing her roommate's boyfriend, that that evidence didn't matter, that the only evidence that matters in cases like this is once the accuser decides that it was sexual assault, then what she says matters. But before that,

she could say anything that he want. That's a crazy standard. And that's a standard that's obviously unfair in a courtroom that would never be allowed. But in these closed Title IX proceedings, which, again, no longer even have to be hearings, they can just be an investigator passing his or her judgment. It's an inherently unfair process. It was the Amherst case was one of the most disturbing. There was also the Oberlin case that you and I talked about one time. Can you go through some of the facts of that one? Because that was another one in which the guy was appointed, you know, an accuser's representative who was a believe all women guy. So this Oberlin case was just an amazing one where you had a one night stand.

The student, both students were intoxicated, but neither were incapacitated. And under Oberlin's regulations, it said that there could only be sexual assault if a student were incapacitated, not just merely drunk. But the student was nonetheless found guilty. And he was found guilty, first of all, because the Title IX coordinator was on record saying that in cases that are kind of gray cases, where we might have a doubt between a woman and a man, we need to give the benefit of the doubt to the woman. And then secondly, this Title IX coordinator had appointed as the advocate for the accused student, someone who not only left the room during the middle of Oberlin's hearing, but then tweeted out, as you mentioned, a couple of weeks later, that it was his cardinal principle to believe all survivors. And this would be as if in a criminal process, the district attorney prosecuted the case and

then got to appoint his deputy as the person who would be the defense counsel for the accused. It's Orwellian. But in the Title IX process, where the Title IX coordinator is under heavy, heavy pressure from the federal government, from various campus constituencies, from victims' rights groups as a whole to come down with guilty findings, these kinds of events are all too common. It might have been the Oberlin case, because I know that involved a man using a condom and then for a short period not using a condom. But I think it was a different case where a young man was having sex with a woman and they there was some short, very short period where he wasn't using a condom and that her friend after the fact came to her and said,

well, that was rape. Those five seconds you were raped because you didn't consent to that. There have been multiple cases with that fact pattern. University of Maryland, there have been cases elsewhere. Instances, and I think it's such an important point. We live in a more advanced society than we did 50 years ago, where it was like, blame the victim because she's wearing a short skirt or tight pants or anything like that. We live in a society that understands the horrors of sexual assault, and appropriately so. And so when you're an outsider, when you hear, all right, college student A has raped college student B, that he's been found guilty in this Title IX process, you assume it's the

sort of thing that would fit a criminal definition of rape or a societal definition of rape. But that, you know, in many – and again, some of these cases are cases where the student should be found guilty and should be expelled. But in many cases, they're at best ambiguous. At worst, like the Amherst or Oberlin cases, outright, you know, wrongful claims. And the college nonetheless returns the guilty finding because the college has a stake in these proceedings. And one of the key college stakes is, you know, if you find someone guilty, you're not going to face campus protest. Anytime you come up with a not guilty finding, you're running the risk of a campus protest that will storm the Title IX office, that will storm the president's office. These people want to keep their jobs. And the easiest

way to keep their jobs is to function to function as a as a campus version of a hanging jury. I mean, we've had I mentioned Duke, but we've had so many public incidents of this now with a Columbia mattress girl who everybody believed and saw as a victim for all this time turned out no UVA case, which demolished Rolling Stone's reputation. It's never recovered. And we can go through just maybe we can just remind the audience some of these facts. And then recently out at Yale, the one woman who worked, I think, at Yale was saying she had been raped twice. Suddenly she'd been raped on campus twice and they were out there with a rape. It happens on Yale. Yale allows rapists. She made the whole thing up. It happens over and over. And the only way we ultimately get to, oh, it was a lie, is through the evidentiary process, which must be meaningful and must protect the rights of the accused, not just the accuser. One of the things that when I talk about this issue and I remind people about the Duke Lacrosse case, this was a case where these three wholly innocent students are accused.

They are vindicated because they have lawyers. They have to get all of the evidence that the prosecution had discovered. That, by the way, is no longer required under the current regulations. The accused student only gets evidence that the Title IX coordinator deems relevant, a huge shift back. And in Duke Lacrosse, one of the things they found out was that the DNA evidence exonerated the three students. But if these students had been tried in a campus court, they almost certainly would have been found guilty. UVA is another great example here. We all know the core elements of the Rolling Stone UVA story. This woman fantasized a sexual assault, convinced this former Rolling Stone reporter, Sabrina Rubin-Eardley, that she

actually had been assaulted. It was provably wrong in multiple respects. And ultimately, as you mentioned, Rolling Stone's reputation was shot. But what wasn't shot was the University of Virginia's reputation. UVA immediately suspended the fraternity at which the sexual assault didn't occur. The student government passed condemnatory resolutions condemning this sexual assault, which again, didn't occur. University of Virginia faculty publicly criticized the fraternity, again, at which the assault didn't occur. And none of these people apologized.

After the case collapsed, they just went on with their lives. And so one of the things that differentiates the campus environment, the Title IX environment from a broader public is that when they're wrong, and there have been more than 250 court cases where the decision has been unfavorable to the university in this area. When they're wrong, in almost every case, the perpetrators of that wrong simply go on about their lives at the university and with the accuser themselves. It's an environment in which there's almost – the incentives against filing dubious or outright false allegations are minimal or non-existent. And, you know, the Duke case involved another factor, which, let's face it, everybody knows how this would go, which was race. The accuser, Crystal Mangum, was Black.

She was accusing three white boys who were portrayed by the media as very rich. They weren't. One of them had family money and I think the other two did not. And she was from the wrong side of the tracks in Durham. And we had a D.A. who was running for reelection in a majority minority community where he was trying to win the black vote. And it was unfathomable to the press that they would go down there. And this is before George Floyd, before DEI was everywhere to say the black woman might be making up a terrible lie against against these three white boys. And yet there was Dave Evans, the captain of the Duke lacrosse team who came out in the only public statement after they were arraigned and said, you have all

been told some fantastic lies. And it took Reed Seligman's dad going and getting the ATM receipt that Reed had from that night to show he couldn't have been there assaulting Crystal Mangum. All this, she wound up having the DNA of five men inside of her that night, not one of whom was one of the Duke lacrosse players. Duke canceled the entire lacrosse season, knee jerk right away. All these boys suffered. The program suffered. These guys who devoted their lives to this wonderful sport and got a scholarship to Duke and lives ruined like that based on an allegation. And how did we learn she was a liar? Through evidence, through the boy's ability to hire a lawyer. And look at that. I mean, at least one of the boys did have some family dough in Duke. But you tell me, Casey, what's going to happen to the young men who get

into college campuses, speaking of race, who may happen to be, let's say, brown or black or, let's say, of any race, but from a poor community or a poor family who can't afford a lawyer? How are they going to understand the new Title IX and their rights? It's a great question. I mean, one of the striking things about this is that we've had this obsessive focus on race on campuses in the last four years since George Floyd, except on this issue. There are multiple cases involving white female accusers and either black or brown male accused, where the process has been wildly tilted against the accused student. And a lot of these advocates of DEI on campus simply don't care. And even for those people who have lots of money in this system, it's not going to vindicate them. I mean, again, try to imagine how the Duke Lacrosse case might have worked in this current system.

That was a case where the first key element was that the students' lawyers got access to all of the evidence. These new regulations expressly allow colleges to exclude evidence that they deem not relevant. Title IX coordinator does the decision. Second key thing was that the accused student's lawyer, this guy named Brad Bannon, who was a great cross-examiner, cross-examined a key witness for the prosecution and showed that there was concealment of DNA evidence. These new regulations ensure that schools, unless they are legally obligated to, can set up a system in which there's no cross-examination or even no hearing at all. And then finally, if that due case had ever gone to trial, one of the key things

in that case would have been expert testimony that would have allowed the jury to understand this DNA evidence, understand how the medical process should have worked. These new regulations expressly allow colleges to forbid accused students from calling any expert witnesses in a Title IX process. So it's a from start to finish approach that seeks to gut the ability to articulate a meaningful defense. The assumption here is that the allegation must be true and the purpose of the process is to kind of move everyone through, ensure that the college won't get sued because they can say, all right, we gave some kind of process, but not meaningfully test the allegations in any way. They have changed the due process rights of accused on college campuses back to believe all women. That's the new process. That's the new process. And it was, you know,

Obama is the one who did all this. And then it was undone by Trump, who changed Title IX. And now it's just been redone by Biden. And you tell me, Casey, it can still be undone. What are the options? Yes. So there are two routes, one of which is, I think, unlikely. I mean, I'm sure that there will be litigation. The state of Texas has been very aggressive in litigating in this area in challenges to the current regulations. And so it's my hope that we'll see some litigation there. I would assume that we will see accused students file litigation against the Department of Education on these grounds. Imagine a situation where these regulations go into effect on August 1st. Let's say that the allegation comes against you on August 2nd. Well, a student who was charged two days earlier would have a

right to a hearing, right to evidence, right to cross-examination, and then all of those rights are going to be taken away from you. And so it's possible that we may get suits there. It's hard to sue against regulations. And so there's a chance, but not a great chance. The second approach would be that just as Biden has undone Trump regulations, if Biden is defeated, we may see a future Republican administration try to restore a modicum of procedural fairness. And there's one other path, which is that a handful of states in various ways, Utah, North Carolina, North Dakota, have passed laws that provide at least some due process protections in Title IX tribunals. And so one of the things that

I'm hoping we may see a response here would be a state like Florida, where there's been some aggressive willingness to push back against the Biden administration. It would be nice to see a state that passes a robust package of due process bills. The Campus Civil Liberties Organization, FIRE, has a model due process bill that they've offered. And hopefully, some states will provide state law as a way to protect accused students. There is an interesting element of these regulations. Because of all of the court rulings against universities in this area, the regulations do admit that schools have to have the option to allow a full hearing and cross-examination. They know that no school will voluntarily do that. But if either a court orders

them to do that or if their state adopts a law that requires it, that's a way to work around the regulations, at least on a patchwork basis. So we would get a situation almost where it would depend on what state you choose to go to school in as to whether you'd have a fair proceeding or not, which of course is not how Title IX is supposed to work. And that was the situation under Obama. We talked about that too. I remember one of my producers at the time had a kid who was, you know, edging up to college age. And we were talking about how you better do a Google search and figure out where he has a right to due process and where he doesn't before you send him off to college. I just want to say this is such an election issue for me. And I think about all the young women out there who

are worried and young men, frankly, about abortion rights. Let's face it. You think about that more when you're a younger person and you're more childbearing age. OK, I get it. I want to make a plea to all the young moms and dads out there, the ones who have children already, whose families are set and urge you to consider protecting your existing children with your vote. Don't be so focused on the right to abort a future child that you forget to protect the ones who are already here. Do you want your son getting expelled and having his life ruined because one woman has Sunday morning regrets? Do you want your daughter to have to be exposed to perverts with their penises out in her locker room and to lose her college education and reputation because she says something about it?

Fight for your children who are here. Have some perspective and priorities. Casey, thank you. You're great. Love talking to you. Thank you so much for all the great work you've done on this. Thanks for everything. I hope you guys are starting everything. Wow. I hope you guys are starting to get it. I hope you understand why we scrapped our show today. I hope you see some sort of fair coverage about this in the press. I have very little expectation that you will. I think only right-wing media will talk about this. And I've got to be honest, I think even most right-wing media will not understand the import of what was done today. Choose your

news carefully. We're trying to stay exactly fact-based for you and give you honest reactions to what they've done as we always do here. This is not hyperbole. This is actually what's happening. And we're gonna feel the effects potentially for years to come. Joining us next, our original panel,

who we were gonna bring to you, Alex Clark and Mary Morgan, two women who are gonna have thoughts on this and we'll get some other topics in as well. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of the Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.

You can stream The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free.

That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. Well, we've been talking about the changes to Title IX implemented by the Biden administration today. It's no longer hypothetical. It happened and it takes effect August 1st, how it affects biological women and girls, not to mention young men who get accused on college campuses. Today, we've got two very smart ladies here today joining us for the first time. Alex Clark is the host of The Spillover with Alex Clark, and Mary Morgan is host of Pop Culture Crisis. Alex, Mary, thank you both so much for being here, and thanks for your flexibility on what turned out to be a crazy day of news. I don't know. Yeah, that's all right. Pissed as I am. I'm fucking pissed.

I'm sorry. What your thoughts? No, I'm so irate. And that was exactly what I was going to say is that women all over the country today should be saying F this. F this with this news about Title IX. It's absolutely terrifying. I actually saw that somebody called this a scheme to finish off the last bare scraps

of masculinity in this country. And that is honestly the best synopsis I've heard, because this affects men and women, right? Young men and young women. And the media, I think they want you to believe that it's the right perpetuating this war on women. But the reality is, we know, is that it's the anti-science, it's the anti-biology left. The past four years, they have tried to set up this narrative that we're all science deniers to hide what their true plans were. They're tearing down the institutions and norms that they see as standing in the way of progress, which of course just means anti-human, anti-women. And the sickest part of all of this,

I think, Megan, is that parents are going to think, well, my kids' school aren't going to go along with this. My kids' school will say no. But then you find out that the Biden admin is telling schools, well, if you don't comply, they won't get government funding for lunch, a.k.a. they are threatening to not feed children in schools if they don't allow boys to change in front of girls. It's asinine. It's I mean, I had a little bit more of a cynical take. Yeah, I have a little bit more of a cynical take than Alex on this, because I know you're saying women should stand up and say F this throughout the entire nation. But we know that that's not actually going to happen. They're still going to show up in droves to vote for Biden. And I guess my advice for those affected by the revisions would have been the same yesterday as it is today, which is to the young men on college campuses, you need to keep your head down, keep it in your pants, don't engage in all of this degeneracy that isn't just allowed, but encouraged

on college campuses, which leads to all of these me too accusations. And then also to the women, especially the women athletes who are being affected by this, you do need to speak up. And unfortunately, women like Riley Gaines, they're few and far between. They're the exception, not the rule. And that's the dilemma that I've run into every time that I think about this issue, is that women are not going to be willing to assert themselves until they feel it is comfortable to do so. But nothing is going to change until that changes. That is so interesting. Yes. I mean, of you're right and like heather mcdonald's

been writing whole books about this by the way she's on the show next week love her about how like this campus degeneracy that's become the norm like yeah you know just bang whoever comes across your doorstep sure you know treat women like shit um have as many sex partners get as drunk as you want as often as you want like that That is no way to go through life or college. But what we've also seen is really good kids who have done nothing other than start a consensual loving relationship with somebody on campus, get accused. Like in the example, I was talking to Casey about where for literally for five seconds or like two seconds, this one guy didn't have a condom on. It's like they had a condom and then something happened. And then what I can't remember if they started without one, but something happened where they were having

consensual sex. She wanted the sex. And for like two seconds, he didn't have a condom on. And the roommate convinced her that was a rape. The kid wound up getting his life ruined over it. So it's, you know, as the mother of two boys and a girl, I see they could go to college campus and act like angels, Alex, and they could still get labeled sex offenders, not even by their chosen lover, but by the lunatic friend who caused all the trouble. I know. I was so curious, Megan, how you were feeling about your own kids, because for me, I don't have kids yet. But when I do, God willing, I'm really hoping that I can convince them that they don't need college, that they can build a career without college. That's what I did. I didn't go to college.

I just feel like there's so much evidence that this is a hellhole now. I mean, everywhere from elementary school all the way up through university age, I just feel like it's useless. And so I'm wondering, like, are you thinking, oh, I want to try to get my kids to maybe consider other options now? Or are you like, no, we're going to fight this? Or how do you feel? I would love if they could go to a college like I went to when I went to Syracuse. They weren't pushing all this stuff on on me. You know, it was like slightly, slightly not woke, but, you know, more progressive in the way they talked about issues. But always slightly ever, ever. But I would love for them to get an education in the classics, you know, to go to a university where they sit and they have a class by Victor Davis Hanson, who really gets into history and great authors and

less, that would be exciting to me. I don't know where that is, you know, Liberty Hillsdale, there needs to be options, right? For people who, who don't want to travel, who don't want to go that far. I'm really concerned about it. I'm not going to lie. I'm very concerned about Alex. I don't know what to do. And I really worry about this issue. I always have since the Obama friend letter. That's what caused all this trouble around Title IX. But I also worry about my daughter, right? Like I used to worry. I don't want her to get sexually assaulted. I do want her to be able to exact justice if it happens, but not in a kangaroo court with no justice, no due process. And I also don't want her to be able to exact justice if it happens, but not in a kangaroo court with no justice, no due process. And I also don't want her to confront penises, Mary, in the locker room or in the bathroom where we created sex segregated spaces to prevent the sexual assault of women.

Yeah, of course. I mean, I think that colleges have essentially turned into holding pens for young adults who basically have no other direction to go. And that's how it felt when I was in that stage of applying for colleges. It was just like the default decision that you make at this point in life. And that's to say nothing of the amount of debt that people are agreeing to take on at 17, 18 years old. It's absolutely insane. It's usurious. It is incredibly corrupt.

And then you have the indoctrination. Then you have the sexual assault and you have binge drinking culture. And by the end of it, I think that you cannot leave college being the same person when you joined it. You know, I worry about like there was this, um, it was a case I forgive me. I don't know the details of it. I just saw it online today. Riley Gaines tweeted it out and I don't have it in front of me, but it was a group of young

women competing in the shot put. And rather than actually throw the shot put against the other team, which had a trans player, meaning a man, these are the girls, their faces have been blurred. Look what they do. They make like they're going to do it. Like they're kind of squatting down, like they're going to hurl these big, heavy shot puts. And then they don't. Watch this. For the listening audience, the girls are sort of coming out on this circle from which they throw the shot put. They're circling a little. They're kind of bending down with a shot put up like they're going to throw it. And then they walk off and they're protesting. Good for them. God bless them. They're protesting these schools, making them play against a biological male.

And I've got real questions now about post these Title nine changes about whether these girls could get accused of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, that these girls could effectively right? Like how on earth is this guy suddenly the moral arbiter of what our young girls should or should not do and say? Well, supposedly the title nine revision stops just short of banning schools from prohibiting trans athletes to join women's sports. I just don't have any faith that in practice, we're going to see that. But I think especially seeing that video from West Virginia, being from West Virginia myself, it was hitting close to home. And yeah, it was like really cool to see those girls finally standing up for themselves and standing up for what's right when adults around them are letting this ridiculousness reign. And I mean, I think that on a deeper level, this stuff really started when we

denied the spiritual differences between men and women, not just the biological ones, although that's really important. That's a really important distinction to make, because how can you protect anyone from discrimination on the basis of sex when you don't even know what sex is? But we rejected the idea that we as men and women have spiritually predetermined roles. And by that point, we were already well on the fast track to this level of insanity that we're seeing today. It's crazy. It's like just last week, there was a story about, you know, they keep trying to change pedophilia into, um, minor attracted adults. They're actually trying to make that a thing, Alex, where like, we no longer use that term because it's too

stigmatizing. They're just my it's incredible the slippery slope we're on right now morally and culturally. Yeah, I mean, basically, the moral of the story here is women's rights are over. They're over. It's done. The feminists, I mean, thanks so much for nothing. And the reason I think people wonder, like, well, how could this be? How could this be? I don't understand. Why would people defend a man's right, a perverted man to have access to women and wanting and this this desire to protect gender identity so hard? Why would anybody fight for this? You have to understand that this is a Marxist tool for the government to come in and say, hey, oh my gosh, don't worry. We're going to make everyone equal under the guise of equity, which of course is a term to destabilize the nation.

And all of this is so that they are instituting this totalitarian government. If you don't know what a man or a woman is, it allows the government to start making laws where if you don't say what they want you to say, like if you're misgendering someone, which they're already doing in Canada, that's jail time. So in America, they're baiting people like us with conservative values to commit these crimes,

get us to protest, get us to say we're not gonna allow a man to enter the restroom at Planet Fitness, get us to say that our daughters are not to change in the same locker room as a boy so that they can come in then and jail us and say, OK, now we're taking your rights away. Now you're not allowed to vote. They need this instituted. This is my belief. So that as conservatives, we are unpersoned and have our rights stripped away from us.

You know, you guys saw that Andrew Tate is sort of in the news this week. He sent out this absurd tweet and then Ben Shapiro took it on. And I almost never covered this person. I generally try to stay away from covering cretins like this. I have zero interest to even have his name

come out of my mouth. But it is interesting because my own take on it is people like this result from people like we're talking about on the left. These disgusting overreaches by these leftist fools who are trying to erase sex differences, as you were pointing out, Mary, and so on, that they've led to the backlash, which I don't support in this way, of people like Andrew Tate, who is accused of sex trafficking women and is all over, you know, on tape admitting to treating women like absolute pigs. And I worry about it because that strain is rising. It's rising. It's not to be confused with the Jordan Petersons of the world who are amazing and intellectual and everyone should be listening to. He's got so many fascinating, important things to say. This is a different strain. Anyway, I wanted to get into it because I did find it interesting. Ben's response to get

folks up to speed. Here was the tweet. Forgive me for reading an Andrew Tate tweet. As I say, I almost never do this. He writes the following. Dear white men, you're fucked. You're being replaced because none of you have children. Even those of you bitching about the replacement online, like little girls, don't find the gumption to F. I see white men bragging about having five kids as if it's an achievement. LOL. Five LOL per year, right? Oh, all you white boys lost control of your women. Y-O-U apostrophe R-E. Hello, Andrew. Little schooling would help. And now they won't accept multiple wives anymore. Yes, this is a perfect diagnosis of the problem. Now they tell you they don't want any more kids. One's enough. They don't want to do their God-given job anymore. So they want

Instagram likes instead. So you are genetically potential. I'm really having trouble with his grammar. So your, Y-O-U apostrophe R-E, wrong again, Andrew, genetic potential is stumped by the whims of some singular female, a female who takes nine whole months to grow a single baby. Other races have multiple ovens for bread. All right, you get the picture. He's an idiot. He's a moron, and he's probably a criminal. So Ben decided to respond, and here's just a little bit of that in stop four. The idea is, and this is how you know it's a con, marriage is bad, right? He's actively saying that marriage is bad because if you're a person who has five kids, LOL, Andrew Tate himself claims that he has double digit kids. We've never

met any of those kids. We don't know exactly who the moms are. Maybe it's like a girlfriend in Canada. We don't actually know. But for those of us who do have, say, four kids, I have four kids. I've been married for 15 years. If you have four kids, double the replacement rate, you are in fact doing your societal job. And you should be doing that. But that can only exist functional children, children who are going to propagate good values, require a father in the home. See, here's the thing. If you knock a bunch of ladies and you leave, you have created a generation of young men who are incapable of raising themselves. Because married Andrew Tate is arguing

you should have at least 30 children and not be a father to any of them because it's all about spreading, I guess, your white man seed. I'm not exactly sure of the argument. Look, there is an ugly strain of guys who believe in this crap. And this guy's hugely popular. I mean, he's hugely popular. That's why Ben's responding to him. He's got like nine million followers on Twitter, Instagram, and so on. So what do you make of his influence? It's unbelievable to me. Well, I mean, obviously he's promoting polygamy, but tell me, how is that any different from the

leftists who talk about polyamory and they promote being in a polycule with a bunch of other fat people with colored hair, spreading STDs and writing think pieces about it. How is that really any different on a substantive level? But, you know, I read that post through and it struck a nerve. I mean, I don't know how serious he was trying to be with that post, but clearly it struck a nerve. And as a Catholic, obviously, I disagree with the part about polygamy and all of this degeneracy that he is pushing. But any effective, compelling lie, it has a little seed, no pun intended, of truth in it,

which starts with women in the West are kind of out of control. They're kind of crazy. They're all on birth control. They're all feminists, or at the very least have some strain of feminism that they have been raised in unquestioningly. And yeah, the birth rates are low in the West. That is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. So what you do if you're a grifter, and I'm not necessarily saying Andrew Tate is a grifter. I don't know what's going on. I am a grifter, loser. If you're a grifter, you have to diagnose a problem correctly and then sell the solution. That's what he's doing.

You're right. And Ben was saying that, too. Ben was saying this is how he grifts. He offers one nugget of truth in almost everything he says. And then all the other stuff around it is lies. Yeah. Go ahead, Alex, because there's more I could show you of Andrew Tate. I mean, if you if you Google Andrew Tate and look at any compilation of videos about him, your stomach will turn. You will throw up in your

mouth. It's sad that this person has as much influence as he does. But go ahead. Well, it's also sad that so many people in the conservative movement are completely duped by him and still want to platform him and defend him. I, for the life of me, cannot understand that. This is a prime example of the problems with red pill ideology that is it really is rotting men's brains. Most of this, I think it is staying on Twitter, but you have to understand it is seeping out into the conservative regular dating pool. I am having to explain this, you know, what this actually means and what it is to people in my everyday life so frequently because it's confusing. You're using a term like red pill. Well, a year ago, the term red pill,

that was a good thing. It was like, oh, that means you become conservative. But now it has a double meaning. And it has to do with how jaded you are about women in relationships. And it's this entire ideology surrounding like women in culture that is so sick. It's just like the pendulum swung. And this is the male alternative to feminism, essentially, but for men. And Andrew Tate is encouraging men to impregnate as many random women as you possibly can, because exactly what Mary was saying, what he's saying is true that Western civilization and particularly white people, that is true. We are being replaced. There is truth to this because the birth rate is a terrifying problem.

So you you trick these people that are they just don't understand the nuance of what these weird right wing subcultures are into thinking like, well, this guy, he's saying true things. We aren't having enough kids. OK, well, what do you think will happen to Gen Z and Gen A in their elderly age? You know, if we don't turn this around and have tons of kids themselves, they're screwed. Absolutely no one to take care of them. So yeah, the birth rate is a problem. So that's Andrew's great solution. Screw a bunch of chicks, which sounds fun to a 19 year old kid,

get them all pregnant so we can fix the birth rate problem. Now you have an excuse to sleep with tons of girls. And guess what? It's for a moral good. It's for a moral good. That's what Andrew is telling us. And how does it work out

when we have all these fatherless children running around, right? Okay, go visit the South side of Chicago if you want to know the answer to that. This breaking news just in, ladies, this is unbelievable. Fox News just caught this on camera. A man just set himself on fire outside of the Trump New York City trial.

Again? Yes. Another one. My God. Another one. You know, we saw the guy, the pro-Palestinian protester do this in New York. And now I really hope that this doesn't like become a social contagion. That's insane. Exactly. This is deeply disturbing. We have no idea what the cause was when it happened not long ago outside of the UN, I think it was. It was a pro-Palestinian protester and he was praised. He was praised by many as doing the ultimate act of protest. And again, we do not know whether he had a cause at all or whether he was just one of the many homeless, disturbed people in New York City. Via media, CNN anchors interrupted by shocking moment. Man lit himself on fire. I can smell the burning of flesh. CNN's Laura

Coates interrupted the live report on the trial to announce that someone had lit himself on fire. First responders were rushing to put out the fire. She also reported smelling some sort of an accelerant. The man appears to be still alive. My God, this is horrible, horrible. This is, I mean, I don't know what the problem is here, but it's like any form of protest that involves this level of violence is deeply wrong. And if it is just a homeless person looking for attention, also deeply wrong, right? We've paid almost no attention to that problem in New York. I don't, you're right about the contagion. I hate to see it celebrated because whatever the purpose was, we just saw it. It just doesn't seem like it could be accidental, Mary. Yeah. I mean, that's absolutely insane to hear another cases happened like this. I mean, it was,

I feel like there's this religion of activism now and anything you do for the activist cause is justified, even if it's violence against others or violence against oneself. And I feel like a lot of the people who were valorizing Aaron Bushnell, they were claiming that what he did was okay and even praiseworthy because he didn't hurt anyone else. He only hurt himself. And it was sort of an act of self-sacrifice on behalf of the Palestinian people. They're just so unhinged and detached from reality. I don't even know what to say to that, but they are clearly nihilists. Oh my God. It's awful. We have the video from Daily Caller. You know what? There's no point. If you guys want to see it, you can see it online. I don't want to show it. It's just too dark. It's

Friday afternoon and there's been a lot of darkness today. Let's end it on, it's not a fun note, but it's kind of a fun note. Yesterday we reported on this school district out in Utah, of all places, right? Red State, Utah, where the children had taken to the streets to protest the furries in their school, who they said were biting them and spitting at them and clawing at them and weirdly spraying them with Febreze. I don't, you guys, your guess is as good as mine. The school spokesperson denied that there were furries inside the school, though admitted that somewhere the little like cat ears. But the students said, no, there are. And today, I think this is courtesy of lives of tick tock, which is they do such great work.

They have actual videos of furries in the school district. Is a soundbite? It's a soundbite. Hold on. Oh, here's video. They're chasing on all fours. Look. Oh my God. This isn't happening. This is fine. Nothing is happening. Don't look over there. It's fine. They have completely lost control. Wow. And then they lie about it. Right. Well, here's what I think is the most ironic part, is that this is the kind of stuff that's going on in our public schools. There was another video of somebody walking their friend on a leash at their high school. So we have this going on. And at the same time, the same people that defend that will be blue in the face,

screaming about how they would never dare homeschool their children because they don't want those kids to end up socially awkward. Socially awkward. They think the homeschool kids are like, but this is going on in public schools. Hello. Look at this guy. I don't even know what this is. It's like a hawk. I can't even tell what these are.

The actual this is the proof. These are the receipts. The kids were right. The spokesperson appears to have lied. And you know what you should do if you get attacked by a furry on all fours? Fight. I like your odds. Alex, Mary, come back. We'll do a proper segment the next time. So great to have you both. Thank you. All the best. On Monday, the EJs are here. Lots to go over with them. Have a great weekend, everyone.

Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.