The Megyn Kelly Show - Justice For Johnny Depp, and What is a Woman, with Matt Walsh and Mark Geragos | Ep. 334

Episode Date: June 2, 2022

Megyn Kelly delivers a monologue on the massive victory for Johnny Depp over Amber Heard, why it's a triumph for justice. Then she's joined by lawyer Mark Geragos to talk about the lies Heard told, the performance of the lawyers, Heard's blame game and next moves, what happens to each's careers, and more. Then The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh joins to talk about his new documentary, "What is a Woman?" and what happens when we get rid of objective reality and truth, the shift to affirmation in therapy, the "gender-affirming" trend, the way women's sports is affected, how gender "experts" acted when he asked them to define what a woman is, gender dysphoria, rise in trans-racial and transgender identification, Lia Thomas' teammate speaking out, the history of gender ideology, the truth about puberty blockers, parental rights, and more.Follow 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, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We've got a big show for you today. In just a bit, I'm going to be joined by The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh. He is out with a new documentary today that is making major headlines this morning. It just premiered last night and now he's with us to talk about it. And it is so good. It's so well done. So we're going to get into it.

And they were mocking him on the Daily Wire sort of backstage thing as the lumberjack. He does look like a lumberjack and sort of dresses like a lumberjack and his deadpan, unflappable sort of approach to these interviews with people who are activists in sort of the trans, like the transitioning of trans people community is very exposing. I'll put it that way. Okay. So we'll talk to him about it in a, in a minute. But first we begin with a resounding victory for Johnny Depp over Amber Heard in the defamation case seen around the world. The Virginia jury finding that she defamed him, maliciously making up lies about him, abusing her in a 2018 Washington Post op-ed, awarding him $10 million in compensatory damages and another $5 million in punitive damages. That $5 million

later reduced to $350,000 because Virginia has a cap on punitive damage awards. On her counter claims against him, the jury found in Depp's favor on two out of the three counts raised, but found that he, through his attorney, did make up a story about her intentionally trashing their penthouse so that things would look extra bad when police showed up one night. That one untrue statement should cost Mr. Depp $2 million, said the jury. But don't be distracted by her win on that one piece of her counterclaim. This was a total victory for Johnny Depp. Amber Heard has been humiliated, publicly deemed a malicious liar, and this jury says she's been at it for years. They essentially found her

to be a fake victim, rejecting her claims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. The verdict tells us that they watched and listened to Ms. Heard on the stand and in the end did not find her credible. As I outlined in my talking points yesterday, this was a foreseeable and supported result. There is no question Ms. Hurd did lie to this jury over and over and over in my view. And in the end, whether it was this accumulation of obvious lies or just an overall belief that she made up this entire story, they rejected her testimonial, period. In the wake of the verdict, Ms. Hurd blamed the, quote, disproportionate power, influence, and sway of her ex-husband. There's no question Johnny Depp

did have more star power and sway within this courtroom, not to mention with the court of public opinion. But that was not an insurmountable obstacle. It was a factor in the trial, but it wasn't why she lost. Her own duplicity was. She lied over inconsequential things and hugely significant things as well, which I outlined in yesterday's show before we knew we had a verdict. And while she easily could have owned up to it with this jury by saying, for example, okay, I did leak to TMZ. I'm not proud of it, but I did it because I feared he would crush me in what I knew would be the coming PR war. She would have been in so much better of a position, but she couldn't admit to anything that might expose her as

conniving, as a manipulator. That was a truth too scary to let them see, and her attempts to hide it only made it more obvious. She goes on in her post-verdict statement as follows, quote, I'm even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously. That's not true. I don't agree with that. Her allegations of violence were taken extremely seriously. She had two courts spend months at a time on them. She took the witness stand for four days in this trial,

which lasted six weeks, to tell her story in a court of law. Her problem was not that she wasn't taken seriously. It's that her lies made her not believable. That is her failing, not one that will necessarily follow future accusers. But let's entertain for a minute the prospect that she's right, that other women will now have to plow a tougher road because of this case. Who's to blame for that? She is. She showed the world that abuse claims require careful, meticulous scrutiny because women sometimes do lie. She certainly did, in my opinion. Why didn't she just come clean about her op-ed being about Johnny Depp, for example, something she later accidentally confessed on cross-examination, but first denied to the jury? Why didn't she just admit that poop gate was an outrageous prank she

and her friend played at a time she was feeling deeply wounded and angry at her husband, instead of blaming it on a four-pound teacup Yorkie. Why didn't she just tell the jury, I did pledge my divorce money to charitable organizations, but then I started to worry about my career prospects and thought I might need to save it for myself instead. I shouldn't have said I'd already donated it. I'm embarrassed that I never paid. She lied about these things because they either reflect poorly on her or might've undermined her case. But the lies did more damage than owning these things could have ever done. And they were obvious. Unlike the battles over her abuse claims, where there

was evidence that could go either way, these were gimmies. The truth was quite plain to anyone watching and yet she couldn't and wouldn't own it to the extent there is now more skepticism of the next woman's claim miss heard has only herself to blame her lawyer was on the today show this morning blaming cameras in the courtroom and the coliseum-like atmosphere that resulted on social media suggesting the jurors had to be influenced by all of that. Live by the sword, die by the sword, madam. Your client was the one who made this thing public in her request for a restraining order against him in 2016, in her multiple leaks to TMZ, making sure that they would photograph her allegedly bruised face that day in her leaks

of the tape showing Johnny Depp slamming cabinets, etc., which conveniently edit out the part at the end where she laughs at him. And of course, in her Washington Post op-ed, calling him an abuser and painting herself as a survivor. She's the one who started this PR war and has no grounds to complain simply because she lost it. Tarana Burke, the woman who first coined the phrase Me Too, and who now heads an organization by the same name, called this case a, quote, toxic catastrophe and said the country, quote, still has to reckon with why it is so invested in the pain and anguish of violence. How unfair. Amber Heard had her day in court. She had able representation. She was listened to and rejected. That does not reflect some,

quote, investment in the pain and anguish of violence by America. It means the jury didn't think she proved her case. To the extent Me Too was a means of calling out and calling to account abusers who use a power imbalance to sexually harass or abuse women in the workplace, it was a noble mission. And there's no question it's done a lot of good. No one misses Harvey Weinstein, Les Moonves, Larry Nassar, or many others. To the extent it turned into a witch hunt against men who were disliked for other reasons or who were guilty of mild workplace transgressions that could easily be dealt with and moved past but instead suffered a professional death penalty or to a place where accused men suffered a presumption of guilt, it needed a correction.

All a woman deserves is the right to a fair hearing, not the right to be believed. Accused men, the same. Each party got that in the Depp v. Hurd case. The system worked just as it's supposed to. Which leads me to my last point about the courts. While not infallible, the courts are our last best vestige against social justice warriors like the ACLU here, who actually wrote this op-ed for Amber Heard, who care more for blanket assertions of victimhood than they do for hardcore proof. Had Johnny Depp never involved the courts in this matter, he would still be presumed an abuser. Had Chicago never appointed a special prosecutor, Jussie Smollett could still paint himself as a truth teller. Had Kyle Rittenhouse never gone through the court

system and been acquitted by a jury, he would still be operating under a cloud of accusation and suspicion. Our courts have done an admirable job of rejecting the search for social justice and instead prioritizing evidence and the law. It doesn't always happen, and law schools right now are full of wokesters who have a very different mission. But at the moment, the courts remain predominantly a place where the true administration of justice remains the mission. That is not a toxic catastrophe. It's a triumph. Joining me now to discuss it all, Mark Garagos. He's a trial lawyer and managing partner of Garagos and Garagos. He's also the of the Reasonable Doubt podcast with our buddy Adam Carolla. Mark, welcome back. So what did you think of the verdict? I am given kind of the non sequestered jury given the absolute internet drubbing of Amber.

The only thing I think I was surprised that here at the end was that she actually prevailed and got $2 million as basically an offset. I was a little, I wish I could be as positive and I guess spiritual about the court system as you in your monologue, because I was dismayed to some degree at the reporting and the commentary after the verdict. I mean, a lot of people I greatly respect didn't understand that the $5 million of the punitive damages was immediately remitted down to the $350 cap. A lot of people did not understand that she, I mean, part of what the jury instructions were in this case. I mean, when you break down the jury instructions in the verdict form, it's really kind of eye-opening to some degree. He was suing her basically for a headline that

she retweeted and did not write. She was suing him for something that Mr. Waldman, his agent slash lawyer, had said. I mean, there was a reason this case was brought in Virginia. It would not have survived to California. Well, she may not have written the headline to the Washington Post piece, but it was submitted under her name, and the body of it was from her. She didn't write much of this based on the trial. No, the ACLU wrote it, but it was submitted by her. She took ownership of it. I'm only making a distinction between the headline and the body because typically the

way the op-eds work is you write the body of it and then the newspaper gets to slap whatever headline on it they want. So I would even give her a pass on the headline, but there's no question she stood by what was in the body of the piece and she stood by the headline too. She just wanted the jury to think it wasn't about Johnny Depp, which they totally rejected. Yeah. Well, they rejected that. And I thought that was, you know, one of the things I counsel the lawyers in our office and any others that I speak to is don't run away from bad facts. If you have bad facts, deal with them because that's the quickest way to a jury rejecting your client's case is when you try to stand on your head to get around what the bad facts are.

And in this case, part of what you were talking about in the monologue was exactly that. Why run away from stuff that are much, that are, I think, much more easily explained and much more plausible when you just tell the truth. Right. So this is, I've been dying to talk to you about this because you and I looked at her direct testimony, which was given, it ended on a Friday right before they took a week off.

And we both found it compelling. And, you know, I've dealt with a lot of domestic violence survivors, so have you in your practice. And she, to me, sounded like somebody who had been through at least some of the things that she was ticking off. The problem for her and my assessment of her case came on cross-examination. As we both said, she hasn't been crossed yet. We'll see what happens. And I understood all the points that Camille Vasquez was making on the actual abuse claims. Like, here's a picture of you looking gorgeous and perfect the night you

claim he punched you in the face. Like all that was very good. You normally don't have that when you're cross-examining somebody claiming this, um, and tried to go after the photos that she had submitted as having been doctored and so on. Okay.

That could have gone either way. Like I wasn't necessarily convinced by that piece of the cross that it didn't happen. It was all her. Okay. Yeah. It was all her other lies that made me say, this is not a truth teller. I was going to say, and they were all self-inflicted wounds. I don't

want to demean Camille's cross, but that, you know, the cross was a workman like cross and they were all self-inflicted wounds by Amber. I just didn't understand it. I don't know if she was not mocked Cross, but mocked Cross is something we often do where you take your client, you have somebody that you know or yourself. I used to do it myself, but it really does do great damage to the attorney-client relationship. So now I'll roll somebody in who can be the bad guy. But there you quickly find out people hang on to the weirdest things when they're on cross that make no moment or have no moment or any great moment at the end of the day. And they just they wet themselves to it

inexplicably. I think if she just owned, for example, the things I ticked off in my opening talking points, it would have won favor with the jury. Contrary to her probable belief that it would have cost her with them, I think it would have gained her standing with the jury because it makes her look bad, makes her look small, makes her look insecure and somewhat petty. And I think they actually would have said, poor girl, like she was in a bad place. Like this was not a person at her best self. By the way, you know what the proof that you're right is? They answered questions in the special verdict that basically said, we believe her up to a point.

I mean, she had, she got $2 million awarded by a jury when she was caught flat footed repeatedly. If she had just owned it, she may have washed this out. Yeah. So she, the reason she couldn't, and all this, all the lies that I was taking off in the talking points are, I don't know how to describe, maybe process lies. It wasn't necessarily, she never got caught dead to rights in a lie about the alleged abuse. It's not like they have a videotape of the moment of alleged assault that shows something else. It was all stuff around the allegations that, as I said, the talking points were gimmies.

She didn't have to lie. And the legal term for that, obviously, would be materiality. Nothing of that she was lying about was going to affect the material nature of the questions that were going to be asked of the jury. Remember, you could talk about the Internet. You could talk about the audience, you know, the outside audience, if you will, the public audience. But all that matters at the end of the day is who won the verdict of the jury. And they knew what their questions are going to be. They knew what the jury was going to be asked. And none of those things would have mattered on the questions that were asked of the jury, except that when they get the instructions about somebody who's willfully false, that's what you get.

You get, we're not, we don't believe her. We don't- You blew it. Yeah. We'll take her this far, but not all the way. It's like talking to your partner who you suspect of cheating on you. And he's like, I didn't cheat on you. I didn't cheat on you. But then he's like, but this is where I was. And none of it checks out. And you're like, okay, I don't have videotape of you cheating, but you were not at that restaurant. You were not with that buddy and you did not take the Uber you said you did.

It's like that's how we draw conclusions. OK, so let me talk about her lawyer who goes on The Today Show to complain about the Coliseum like nature of these proceedings. She did not want cameras in the courtroom. They weren't in the UK courtroom. That case was decided by a judge, not a jury. And she's blaming that. And in addition, she's saying that she's going to appeal and she likes her chances because she says this judge wrongly excluded certain evidence that

she thought should have been in. Here's a little snippet. How was Amber? We had an enormous amount of evidence that was suppressed in this case that was in the UK case. They were able to suppress the medical records, which were very, very significant because they showed a pattern back going all the way back to 2012 of Amber reporting this to her therapist, for example. We had significant amount of texts, including from Mr. Depp's assistants, saying, when I told him he kicked you, he cried. He is so sorry. So what's going on there? Let me tell you something. I don't know, you know, and we're talking, you and I are talking as the breaking news is that Harvey Weinstein's conviction was affirmed here in New York. And by the way, I watched the oral argument in that case.

And if I was a betting man, I would have bet that it was reversed. So it's always difficult to predict what a court of appeal will do. I'm not so sure that this is her strongest argument on appeal. I think to some degree, the strongest argument on appeal here is going to be things such as litigation privilege, things such as the First Amendment, things such as the forum shopping and things of that nature. Remember, this case was brought in Virginia very specifically because they were trying to do an end run around what's called the anti-SLAPP statute in California, where they both reside. Most courts do not want to become, unless you're in Texas and doing IP litigation, most courts don't want to be a hub

for people from all over the country forum shopping. And you might find that that is probably one of the more compelling reasons to reverse this case so that people don't start bringing all kinds of domestic violence accusations and litigations to Virginia. I mean, even if they win that, it's over. He's gotten the total victory that he wanted legally and PR wise. He comes out with a statement that reads in part, false, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me via the media, which triggered an endless barrage of hateful content. Although no charges were ever brought against me, it had already traveled around the world twice within a nanosecond, and it had a seismic impact on my life and my career.

And six years later, the jury gave me my life back. I mean, she talks about, you know, what she's been subjected to. Amber heard the quote abuse during the course of this trial. And I have no, I have no doubt that's true, but he's been subjected to a lot too in the however many years it's been four years prior to the day, this jury handed him this verdict. Well, our friend, Adamolla, I think, said it best when he said only somebody like Johnny Depp, who's got F me money, could actually go through this not once but twice in order to try to redeem himself. And certainly that's not the calculation that most people have at their disposal because this is, you know, has been a sojourn for him and a journey for him. And I've been quite frank, if you if I were advising him, I would have said this just isn't worth it. He thought it was and he he gets the last laugh. Well, what do you make of

that now? Because you and I have been debating the PR war and whether this is worth it for him from the start. I have felt that it would be worth it for him, even if he lost the jury verdict. But he won it all, in my view. And I think he emerges very employable versus where he was a year ago. And people are now rooting for him. You know, they want to come back. They see him as a wronged guy. And I think for her, it's exactly the opposite. I think for the short term, she's been ruined professionally. Amber Heard's defense and for Johnny's defense on the counterclaim. I suspect that one of the things that has been a real problem for Johnny Depp is for studios to be able to get insurance on his productions. And now when you're going up on appeal, insurance companies are going to,

if they're in the mix and there's potential liability without getting into the weeds on reservation of rights, there is going to be some calculations done by insurance companies as to whether to settle or whether to try to move forward on an appeal. And you're going to have underwriters who are going to say, before we employ him, can we get insurance and studios making that calculation for either her or for him? I think he's going to get a big deal because I think the American public now are rooting for a comeback for him. And I don't think I do not expect to see her in Aquaman three or anything else over the

short haul because she's been exposed. I mean, this jury said that she maliciously lied about him for years. She played the victim when she wasn't. That's essentially what they said. And the ACLU rushed to print it in the Washington Post and hope the position will now return to innocent until proven guilty, both within the courts and in the media. The media will never, never do that. But is this a moment for, like I was saying in my talking points, for men and due process and just sort of a, not a backlash, but sort of a resettling of a movement that got too far over its own skis? Well, I think you would agree that part of that pendulum swing, which has been very quick for most movements, started with Kavanaugh and the reaction to the hearings. And then you have something like this,

which shows also kind of a pendulum swing. And there was, I think, a breathtaking kind of shifting of roles when you take a look at the internet reaction along the way here. Things that even two years ago I said were incomprehensible based on where we were have now become there was almost like permission to go back towards the center, so to speak. So, you know, the last place, and obviously this was a civil trial, but I've always argued that the last place for a movement is in the criminal justice system. And I suppose we could expand that into the justice system itself. The justice system is so hard to press to get it right to begin with that when you inject a movement into it, that it just irretrievably breaks it. I feel, look, in a way, I was part of the Me Too movement, right?

You sure were. Whole movie about it. And I can tell you, having been in this position in a way, I would have had no problem having a court take a look at my story and my evidence. You know, when I went through what I went through at Fox with Roger Ailes as a very young correspondent, but a not so recently retired lawyer, I documented everything, Mark. I had volumes of journals with entries. I made a record with a lawyer. My office mate at the time, Major Garrett, who's now the White House correspondent at

CBS News, was there for many of his inappropriate phone calls. And when I got back to the office from inappropriate office visits and saw it all, I mean, I had a long list of things that supported my story that were unassailable. You know, there was no photographs, nor would I have put them through some sort of an evidence or some sort of a manipulator like Amber Heard did. But, you know, the lawyers came to look at it. They didn't just take my journal entries. They said, we want to see all of your journals. We want to make sure that you've really been keeping these journals and you can just come up with this for this case.

Because women might do that. Some accuser might do that. My point is simply, if you're a truth teller, you should welcome the judicial process. You should welcome due process because you know your claim can withstand it. Yeah, I've had the case where I've defended to, I guess, to make sure that I'm talking about the specific situation, it's usually a family law case, a divorce case that then bleeds over to child custody. And that's the most horrible thing you'd ever go through. You have kind of more of defined what is traditionally the workplace style case. And that's a tough case

in a lot of ways to bring in a justice setting, because most people don't have the resources, let alone the kind of intuitive instincts to deal with it appropriately. So it's interesting. Well, I just think that Amber Heard's claim that this is necessarily going to be a lot more difficult for the next woman does not work for me. She didn't lose because of that. She lost because she lied to the jury over and over. And it was very clear, even to people like you and me, who were open-minded to her abuse claims. She's the one who poisoned that well, and not Johnny Depp's fame. If we could stick a fork in one axiom that kind of grew out of this, it would be, believe all anything, because that is not the presumption. So that is turning the presumption on its head. And we live in a country that is based on due process, the presumption of innocence. And

that was scary how quick we came to abandoning that. Well, trust but verify, or maybe just verify, just verify. Mark Garagos, always a pleasure. Thank you so much. All right, coming up, Matt Walsh, really looking forward to bringing him to you and this discussion about his new documentary. We've got a lot of great clips. It's called What is a Woman? See if you can answer that for yourself during this quick break. We are so happy to welcome back to the program, Matt Walsh. For the past year, he's been hard at work on a new documentary called What is a Woman? It was just released last night and almost immediately, The Daily Wire says its website

came under an attack in an attempt to disrupt the premiere. Subsequently, some users were not able to watch it. And there is a reason they don't want you to see this film and that you must. The Daily Wire reporting that this was still the biggest live streaming event in company history. Now, Matt Walsh is known for his witty sense of humor. And at times the documentary is very funny. He's just deadpan. He's like unbreakable. I listened to another podcast from The Daily Wire with everybody sort of backstage and the director was saying, don't play poker with Matt. And it's 100% true.

But at its core, this film has a very serious message and one you really are going to want to hear. He interviews some of the top gender affirming, gender affirming doctors in America. That's a thing. He investigates why children are being pushed toward hormone therapy and even life altering surgeries, young children. And he looks into how the transgender movement also affects women's rights. Matt, so good to have you back. How are you doing? Doing great. Thanks for having me. Good to be here. Congrats. Congrats on the release of the film. I'm glad you have your lumberjack outfit on. As always. I heard them mocking you for that on the backstage bit. So I didn't realize that you were doing this

when you came on over the past year, and it was a very worthwhile effort. So when you were doing this film, What is a Woman?, it was before Katonji Brown Jackson was asked that question at her confirmation hearing. And what a perfect bookend to your project, right? Like, you never could have known that when your film was probably being edited, the next Supreme Court justice would refuse to answer that very question on the grounds that she's not a biologist. Yeah, it really worked out tremendously well. There are so many things throughout filming this

documentary where it felt almost like divine intervention at certain points where things fell into place. And at the same time, on the other end of the spectrum, we're confronting pure evil as well. So yeah, we obviously couldn't have planned that. But I also think that that's not entirely a coincidence because sort of as over the last year, and it hasn't just been me asking this question, but myself and others have been asking this question of what is a woman as we've noticed that it's a very simple question that all by itself sort of brings the gender ideology house of cards come tumbling down. So I think it was kind of working its way into public consciousness. And then with that Supreme Court moment sort of exploded onto the scene. And then we announced our film as we were

already planning to do right on the heels of that. And and so it really, really worked out, I guess. It was a lot tougher for even the average Joe to answer than I would have expected. You know, if you sit down from a gender affirming person, I guess I kind of expected some slipperiness. I didn't expect it from regular old folks out there on the street, whether it was Middle America or Times Square. Here's just a bit of what Matt found when he came to New York City to ask people this question. This is soundbite 14. What is a woman? I don't want to assume, but you guys are all women. So how would you define it? Like in the simplest terms? That is hard.

Yeah, it is. It is a stumper. A woman is someone that likes to be pretty and think of themselves as a delicate creature. I'm pretty and delicate. Okay. I could be a woman too. Yes, you could. Defining womanhood is just a project of someone who identifies as a woman. Yeah, but what do they identify as?

They identify as a woman, but what is that? I honestly don't know. It's amazing how hard people found that question. Yeah, it really was. That was one thing that was kind of a revelation to me in a way uh as we and as you said talking to the so-called gender affirming experts we expected a lot of this and evasiveness and we got plenty of that um i didn't realize before we embarked on this journey just how just how totally pervasive the confusion is and this is is all, of course, by design. I mean, the most powerful

institutions in the country are dead set on making people confused about this. And so we encountered a lot of confusion. And by the way, another thing that was interesting is that it was impossible for me to predict before we talked to somebody whether or not we would get an answer. You'd like to think that, well, if we talk to an older person, for example, that's somebody who didn't grow up with all this gender ideology stuff, and so maybe we'll get a straight answer from them. You sort of expect more of the confusion from the younger set, but what we found is it stretches across all age demographics,

all demographics, period. A lot of confusion, but also a lot of fear, too. There were a lot of people we talked to who aren't in the film because once they realized where the questions were going, said i i can't talk about this i don't want to be on camera and of course i would say well you don't want we're just talking about what a woman is you you can't answer that with a camera no they can't because they're terrified um because they think that uh you know there's going to be some terrible consequence if they talk about this at all um dr deborah So is in the film Love Her.

We've had her on the program. She's written a great book. And she defines, she's somebody who actually is a scientist. And she says, a woman is, and I've tweeted this out before after Katonji Brown Jackson, whether you're a woman is determined by your gametes. Your gametes either are sperms or they are ovaries. They're eggs, I should say. And that determines whether you're a woman. Biologically, that's what determines a man or a woman. If you've got sperm, you're a guy. If you've got eggs, you're a girl.

I'm just going to answer it, unlike the people in your film. So the experts that you went to were not surprised that they waffled and they wiggled, but they were actually like offended at you just kind of following up. And you had your same affect in your same manner that you have here. You're very matter of fact. I was thinking, I like this guy. I like the way you do your interviewing. I'm definitely more emotional. I'm more passionate, you know, half Italian, half Irish. It's that kind of combo. I know you've got some Irish in there, but I like how you just didn't show your

cards, but still they were getting so angry. They were getting so annoyed at you um especially the blonde guy at the university of tennessee patrick zanka right zanka okay he did not like you matt i think you would you would concede that and um is this the one soundbite 19 where they kind of oh no no no no actually first let's just show him well let's show him trying to answer what is a woman and what he does to you. This is Soundbite 16. You just really don't want to answer the questions, do you? I came today very willing and enthusiastic about answering questions about women's and gender sexuality studies, which is what I do. So you wanted to answer questions about women's studies. And so the first answer you should be able to provide is what exactly is a woman?

Well, for me, it's actually a really simple answer. And that's a person who identifies as a woman. But what are they identifying as? As a woman. But what is that? As a woman. So circular and frustrating. Yeah, around and around we go with these circular answers.

That was really the answer from all of the so-called experts when it came down to it was always woman is anybody who identifies as a woman well what is that what are they identifying as i mean it really it's actually a sincere question too because when when a for example a man says i identify as a woman the point of asking what is a woman is it's a way of asking well what do you mean what are you trying to say about yourself exactly when you make that statement can you just explain it a little bit i want to know i want to understand and they do get offended by it and that's i talked about the fear from the um just average joes on the street some of them and but the so-called experts there

was definitely fear also there because they didn't want to answer questions. But from them, I got a lot of anger because they, from their perspective, this is not how a conversation is supposed to go, especially of slack-jawed and just listening and nodding my head and saying, okay, okay. The moment you ask any question whatsoever, it's actually offensive because it's like, well, how dare you question me? How dare you express skepticism in anything I'm saying? That's another thing that was a little bit of a revelation is that before we embarked on making this film, I knew that the what is a woman question would be a real stumper for some of these people even though it shouldn't be but um what i didn't quite realize is that actually any question at all is a stumper for them because they don't want to answer any sincere questions if you're asking a sincere question about their world view a sincere question as in there's some skepticism you're asking the question because you're you're questioning what they're Any question along those lines, doesn't matter what it is,

they don't want to answer and they'll get very angry that you are asking. Well, case in point, we didn't cut this one, but I watched it last night with my husband and this was his favorite. His favorite was when you interviewed Congressman Mark Takano, Democrat of California, first openly gay person of Asian descent in Congress. He ended the interview when you started asking about bathrooms and you could tell he was upset. And he was saying, like, I can't believe you're taking this to the bathroom place instead of focusing on the basic rights of this life. So, like, for you to even bring up what about women who don't want to see a penis, a naked penis in the bathroom or in the locker room? For you to even go there was judged inappropriate. That's not even the proper question.

It's about the trans person's need to live a, quote, normal life. Yeah, and I agree with your husband, too, by the way. That was actually my favorite interview to do just because it was so maybe it's my sadistic side of me, but he was just so uncomfortable. And plus he's a politician. I'm not a big fan of politicians. So, and you could tell him he was, we sat there and talked for a while and he wanted to get up and leave the moment he realized that I was going to ask real questions. And he still sat there for a while before he finally did storm out. But the question that I was asking him when he, when he did finally leave was that obviously totally legitimate. And it was a policy question, right? Because we were talking, he's an advocate of the equality act which would be a federal law that um just basically encodes gender ideology imposes it um on a federal level across all states and and uh and localities and that would mean among other things that now according to the federal law

uh biological males must they have they have they now have a human right to access female spaces that's what the equality act would would uh would decide would declare so my question was what about you know i i understand what you're saying is that there are males who would feel uncomfortable if they're not given access to those spaces? What about the women who are uncomfortable sharing those spaces with males? How do you factor that in? How do you weigh that? Totally fair question.

And he didn't want to answer that at all. And then they started babbling about, well, really, this is a matter of the right to life. No one is questioning that. No one is saying that trans is a matter of the right to life. No one is questioning that. No one is saying that trans people don't have a right to live. What we're talking about is do women have a right to privacy in these kinds of spaces? That's actually the question. Part of the fun of the film is seeing the light bulb go off over these people's heads once they realize that they're talking to somebody who might not share their agenda, who might not be there to totally celebrate, you know, the stuff that they push. And you're very fair to them. It's in no way like a hit job on them or an ambush. Your questions are very benign. But it's kind of fun to see them

realize, oh, wait, I might be in trouble. This guy might actually ask me these hard questions. And some didn't answer them. Some kept like that guy in Tennessee with the blonde hair, kept like putting it back on you. But what do you think? What do you think? Which is always a stall tactic. And one exchange in particular I appreciated because I mentioned this recently on the show years ago when Chaz Bono danced on Dancing with the Stars. Remember, this is I can't remember Chaz's name as a girl. Charity Chastity. But this is a she was born female. Chastity. She was born female. And then she decided to transition to male and went by Chaz. And she got a position on Dancing with the Stars. and Keith Abloh came on my show, Matt, and he said, I don't think we should be affirming this kind of thing. And I gave him a hard time. I didn't think that was particularly kind or supportive. And he did say something that I've, it's always stuck with me. He said, there's a disease in

psychiatry where, because you'll see where I'm going. Somebody really feels like they need to have their arm chopped off. And they will go from psychiatrist to psychiatrist and doctor to doctor saying, I need you to chop off my arm. My arm doesn't belong. I need to be missing this limb. And he said, we would, he said, if somebody came into my office and said that, I would say the same thing to somebody seeking a sex change, which is basically no brother, you're not, I won't. Like, I'm not doing it. And lo and behold, you asked one of the people in your piece. Now, the name is Dr. Marcy Bowers. This person will look female and she says she's a woman.

But this is somebody who was born male and has transitioned to female. She doesn't like that. She wants you to say she is a woman. This is annoying. She's not a woman. There's a difference between a woman and a trans woman. Happy to call you a trans woman. It's not the same thing.

She doesn't allow for that. And listen to this exchange in Soundbite 8. I don't know if you've ever heard of people in the trans-abled community. These are people who are physically able-bodied but feel like they should be disabled or identify as such. For example, a man who has two arms but feels like he should have one. If a man in this kind of marginalized community went to the doctor and said, I want to have my arm cut off, do you think that... That doesn't have anything to do with gender identity.

Well, it's someone's self-identity. That's someone who has a, and I'll accept it as a mental diagnosis, a psychiatric condition. I don't even pretend to know what abdomenophilia is all about. But somehow it's the idea that you and him, you know, you're fascinated or charmed by having a limb or part of a limb missing. Okay. I would say that's, pardon my non-medical language, kooky. You don't see any? You think this is totally irrelevant?

Yep. Fascinating. Fascinating clip. any you think this is totally irrelevant yeah fascinating fascinating clip yeah i and and of course the answer that dr bowers gives there about the transabled uh the transabled people is is correct in a way i mean it's kooky it's it's weird it's not there's something wrong in someone's head and so obviously there's something wrong psychologically where you're having trouble accepting your body, who you actually are, then what you need is psychological help. It's just that I was pretty floored by that. Just have that written off as, well, that's weird. And so that's why we don't do that. Well, okay, if a man comes in and says that he wants to have his genitals mutilated in pursuit of looking more like a woman, what would we say about that? then either we can help your mind conform to physical reality, which I think we really should do through counseling, or we could try to change physical reality to conform it to your

misperceptions. And in any other circumstance, we would say that, no, you try to help the mind not change the body, except when it comes to this. Well, that's the thing. So it's like left untouched, virtually all of children going through a stint of gender dysphoria will grow out of it. I mean, I've heard Abigail Schreier said it was over 70%. I heard in your film over 80% from one of the doctors. The numbers are very, very high. If you leave this kid alone who says, I think I'm actually a member of the opposite sex, they'll grow out of it. It's a phase they'll grow out of. So it's extremely dangerous and fraught to start chopping off body parts and putting them on puberty suppressors and cross-gender hormones and so on. And yet not only are parents doing this, the entire medical

community has surrendered to this and supports it. Yeah, this is why we're talking about the institutions in this country that are conspiring, and that starts with the medical community. That's another thing that comes through in the film, not just the film, maybe mention the work Abigail Schreier has done as well in her important book on this subject. And the really terrifying thing, especially if you're a parent and especially of kids who are still living at home with you, you start to realize that you really can't, there are these institutions you should be able to trust and you really can't. You can't trust the medical institutions. You can't trust counselors, therapists, and that doesn't mean that they're all bad, but what it does mean is that you can't just assume now that they're in this position. And so therefore you can at least

have some minimal level of trust. That's just, that's, that's gone. That's obliterated, which just speaks to the need for more vigilance among parents. And especially if you're sending your kid to public school and they're having conversations with our guidance counselors and everything else, you have to be very vigilant and aware of what's being said. Well, that reminds me of what Jordan Peterson told you in an interview in the film. And I'll let that be the tease to what's coming up next. Jordan Peterson on affirming, on gender affirming care. Much, much more with Matt Walsh right after this quick break. I'm joined today by The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh, and we are talking about his brand new documentary,

What Is a Woman? Matt, we should tell people where they can find it. Yeah, that's probably a good idea. Whatisawoman.com is, we go to Daily Wire, but whatisawoman.com will direct you there. But the film is on a daily wire and it's available to watch right now. And is it, you know, has the coordinated attack to make it on downloadable by whoever did that to you guys last night over like you can get on. Yeah, we've, we've, uh, our, our tech team was working overnight to get it under control. And, uh, and I think they've fixed the problem so um and it was it was something that look we had even in spite of that with this with this ddos attack and i don't pretend to know exactly what that is they were trying to explain it to me late last night and it wasn't quite sinking in but um it was definitely a malicious attack from somebody who doesn't want anyone to

see the film and even in spite of that we still had as you mentioned uh record numbers here at the company and now it's you, the film is out there. And, you know, these things with the left. Right. It's like the Daily Wire is a news platform. You have every day to put this thing on the air. Like, what did they think they were going to accomplish other than just drawing more attention to the film? Exactly.

It always backfires because now you're just you're you're making another story around the film. And it's more excuse for us to talk about it. So it never works in the end. Yeah. And it's not like the Daily Wire has the platform for tonight and only tonight. It's like, you guys are there every day. It's always downloadable. You know, like anyway, it's silly. Somebody didn't think through their attack. All right. So back on the subject of gender affirming care, this is definitely something that Abigail Schreier calls attention to in her wonderful book, Irreversible Damage. Talked to her many times on the show about how these poor

parents who get a kid who is not gender dysphoric at all, coming home one day saying, oh, now I think I might be the opposite sex. And nine times out of 10, this is somebody who was dealing with maybe some social awkwardness, maybe just the normal kind that comes from puberty that we all went through, maybe something worse. A lot of these kids wind up being on the spectrum and lean into this as a way of being cool. All of this has been documented. And this parent says, I'm going to go get him some help or her some help. And they go to a psychiatrist. They're trying to do what's right. And they don't know that they're basically feeding their kids like lambs to the slaughter into a system that has a total agenda. And it's not about truth or help. It's about, quote, affirming whatever the kid tells them. You're a girl who thinks you're a boy. You're a boy. You're a boy. You're a boy. You're a boy. And you asked Jordan Peterson, the sage of Canada, about this. And here's a

little bit of what he had to say. Soundbite 21. There's no such thing as a gender affirming therapist. That's a contradiction in terms. Why? Because you don't affirm if you're a therapist. It's not your business to affirm. You come to see me because there's something wrong. Maybe you come to see me because a destructive element of you is wreaking havoc in your life. I'm on the side of the part of you that wants to aim up, man. That's what I'm on the side of. Okay, now I don't know what that means in your case, but we're going to talk about it. Am I going to affirm what you think? No, it's not up to me to affirm it. You don't get a casual pat on the back from a therapist for your pre-existing axiomatic conclusions. That's not therapy. That's a rubber stamp.

He's so articulate. He is. I mean, that whole conversation, that's one of many in the film. I mean, obviously, we've got a whole film we've got to put together, so only small parts of these conversations can make it into the film. But that's one where the entire conversation was just fascinating. And it was also, he was towards the end of all of this, and it was just really

a breath of fresh air to hear some sanity, especially from someone who's been in this world and is an expert in the same world. I mean, the very first person we talked to in the film and also in the actual timeline of shooting the film was a gender affirming therapist who was ready to affirm me as a woman because I said that I like scented candles. And that's kind of like funny

and you laugh about it because it's so absurd. But like so many other things with gender ideology, on the surface, it's funny because of the absurdity. But then you look one layer deeper and you think, well, this is terrifying, that because I'm not actually confused, but there are so many people that are confused and have issues, that's why they're in therapy. And you're ready to affirm somebody, even just based on that. So it's actually not a joke at all.

What Jordan Peterson said is obviously correct. I mean, the whole idea of affirmation, either from psychiatrists or anybody in the therapy world, or even from doctors as well, because we have gender-affirming therapy, and then also now they tell us about gender-affirming surgery. They don't say sex change surgery anymore. They say gender-affirming. Well, the whole idea that you have to have something about you that allegedly already

exists, that you have to go to a you that allegedly already exists, that you have to go to a doctor or a therapist to affirm those things? I mean, if that's true and that's real and it already exists, then why does it need to be affirmed? If you actually are a woman, let's say, then why does that need to be affirmed from anyone? I know that I'm a man in spite of some of the things that I said in the film. I actually do know that. So I don't look to anyone. I don't care if anyone affirms that. And if somebody walked up to me and said well you're a woman it wouldn't cause any crisis in my life i would just laugh at them and say well you're confused that's ridiculous so if some if you feel if if there's something about you that you think needs

to be affirmed then um then i think that that probably means that there's that there's some confusion there then that's what the therapy should be. Well, and most of these gender-affirming therapists or doctors you talk to want to cut biological sex out of it entirely. Like, your entire identity as a woman or a man is 100% just about, quote, gender. And you sort of make the point in the film, like, what is that? That's a trait of, like, characteristics, you know, quote, gender. Really, for, you know, the millennias, we've been defining whether you're a woman or a man by your biological sex.

That's, you know, back to the gametes. And that's where I get, I don't know if I want to say upset, a little upset. But this is where I sort of have to part ways, because I know you don't use the, of a person who says that they're cross-gendered. I do. It's fine. Everybody makes their own choice on that. But I do draw the line at actually having to say that, for example, Leah Thomas is a woman. Leah Thomas is not a woman. Leah Thomas is a biological man who transitioned and is now a trans woman. And I will treat her with respect. I have a severe disagreement with her swimming against biological women.

But she wants me to say she's an actual woman. The woman you interviewed, Dr. Marcy Bowers, she didn't like it when you said she was a transgendered woman. She just wanted you to just call her a woman. And maybe you would do that in polite society. You know, maybe you're not looking to make that distinction in polite society. However, when it comes to women's athletics, they're making us because it crosses over for them. Even there, they want us to make no distinction between trans women and women. And we must, because otherwise the whole system is on its head and it's grossly unfair. And it sort of puts the lie to the whole charade. Exactly.

And it's they they want you to conform while they say that their own self-perception should be respected. Your perceptions don't matter. Your perception has to conform with what they're saying. That's what we hear from trans activists and from gender ideologues in general. You need to conform your perception with whatever they're saying, which before we even get into who's objectively right here, and obviously we know who's objectively right i mean the people who acknowledge biological reality they are objectively right but but let's just say let's let's say let's let's live in the world here for a second where there is no objective truth and that's the world that all the people the experts i talk to so-called experts they all live in that

world every time i brought up truth to any of these people they'd say well who's truth what truth are you talking about everyone has their own truth okay so let's just go along with that for a second everybody has their own truth well well, so let's just go along with that for a second. Everybody has their own truth. Well, hold on a second. Then isn't it good enough for me to say that according to my truth, Leah Thomas is a man. That's my truth. That's the truth that I've created.

So why do I have to change my truth for your truth? So even on their own terms, and I don't like talking about it that way because, again, there's only one truth, but I'm only trying to communicate that even, even if you adopt their premise, it still doesn't make sense. Um, even, even if you try to do that, I want to get to Leah Thomas because you got the first I've seen, um, anonymous, you know, sort of in, in shadow interview with one of her teammates with one of Leah Thomas's teammates. Andah thomas's teammates and i'm going to play that one second but to your point on we're not allowed to have a hold on reality anymore

you know out of respect if i go along with somebody's pronouns or if i don't draw a distinction because there's it's pointless in doing so in most interactions between an actual woman and trans woman um then that gets it gets exploited in the field of athletics right like aha you let me in and now i'm not going to let you draw that distinction at all even though i'm six foot three and i'm crushing the women who are five foot one okay so that we we sort of talked about that but and you touch on this in the film it's crossing over it's no longer just gender you have uh one therapist in the film who was sort of gender affirming but is now like,

I'm not sure I was doing the right thing. And I'm not sure my profession is. I think that's a fair description. Talk about how people now are like, I'm a cat. And then you have an interview with somebody who thinks she's a wolf. And you ask her, like, would you be willing to like, talk for us in the way that you talk to the fellow wolves? And they said, I'm not comfortable doing that here. But can I tell you this dovetails with a story I just heard? Somebody was just telling me about a company in the Northeast that hired somebody out of college for well over $150,000 a year.

This person came in, a woman, totally crushed the interview, came for the first day on the job, crushed it. Second day on the job, showed up dressed as a tiger. A tiger had the ears, had the tail. And there's a real question about now whether this person's fireable, whether everybody at the company has to go along with the delusion. That's in the in the end, the way the company went. The company is basically telling all the employees they have to treat this person like she's a tiger. Like, what do they have, like a litter box in the ladies room? Like, how does that work?

How do you treat somebody like they're a tiger? And so it's crossing over, Matt, to places that right now we may find totally absurd. But we would have said this about where we are in gender five years ago. Yeah, it's a lot. This is the logical conclusion, if you can use the word logical. But it is it's listen, if you get rid of objective reality, which is which is the objective here is to get rid of objective reality and your own self-perception is valid because it is your perception. You know, if that's, if that's the standard, then, then sure. Of course, all these, uh, trans species, everything else gets entered into the equation.

The only, the only thing that we've, uh, that we've kind of leapfrogged over, uh, I think rather conspicuously is transracial. I mean, there are also people out there, uh, I'm blanking on the name of the one, the one famous. Rachel Dolezal on the name of the one. Rachel Dolezal. Yeah, Dolezal. And there are others too that people say, well, yeah, I'm white,

but I kind of identify more as black. And the interesting thing about that is that that doesn't really make sense, but that's a lot more valid. That has a better claim of validity, I would say, than transgenderism because at least with race, we know that race, like there are mixed races and that sort of thing. And skin color can change. I mean,

it can go darker and go later. And race is also not a totally binary structure. It's one race and another race. That's not how it works. Whereas with sex, it does. So that one is a little bit less crazy, actually, but we've leapfrogged over that because that interferes with a lot of the sort of racial agenda of the left. But trans species, all the rest of it, I think that gets that enters into the equation. And this is part of this part of the pattern, by the way, of we've seen this play out so many times over the decades of where conservatives say, hey, look, we're doing this now. Slippery slope. It's going to lead to this.

And then the left says, that's absurd. That's ridiculous. And then fast forward five years and look where we are. delusion. Bye. And maybe I get fired. I don't know, because the Supreme Court ruling on you can't discriminate against somebody or somebody based on gender ideology in the workplace. That doesn't cover a fucking tiger. That doesn't that's not a gender confusion. I don't even know what that is other than like a massive attempt to set up a basis for a lawsuit. I mean, but it it does cover tigers because what does the word gender even mean? I mean, that's another thing I try to get to in the film. What are you even talking about when you say gender? Jordan Peterson has always had the most lucid answer to that. He said

he doesn't even need the word gender, but if you're going to use it, what you're really talking about is just temperament and personality. That's usually what people are trying to get at when they talk about it, which is why let's just use the word personality and not even talk about gender. But because it's this, uh, it's this vague, ambiguous catch-all term and anything could be a gender. Now. I mean, there are people, uh, you know, libs of, of TikTok on Twitter is always digging up these videos on, uh, from TikTok of people that say, oh, I'm, uh, you know, I identify as the gender of a cloud or my gender is a is a number or a color, all kinds of things. They had a cake. Somebody said she was a cake gender the other day. Right. Yeah. Cake gender. Yeah. So, I mean, really, this is going to come up in the courts

because what do you do? First of all, for any employer out there, check the references, because if this if this gal really has been living as a tiger, somebody in her history will know. So check the references. If her if her if her reference been living as a tiger, somebody in her history will know. So check the references. If her reference is like a zookeeper, then... She should go get a job in like a pet store. You're like, don't work at a big corporate firm. I mean, what if it's a law firm?

Like, next thing you know, like you think you're hiring a trial lawyer and you got to send her in there in the brunt of a jury to be a cat lawyer? I don't know. I don't know where it's going, but it's no good all right let's talk about leah thomas because i was fascinated that you got one of her teammates um this is first again i've i've seen one of the teammates actually on cam but incognito and it's absurd that they have to do it but i understand why and she's worried about being called transphobic and so on uh and here's what she had to say about swimming with Leah Thomas at the UPenn swim team. Soundbite, five.

If you even bring up the fact that Leah's swimming might not be fair, you are immediately shut down as being called a hateful person or transphobic. But there's never any conversation. The coaches don't sit everyone down and acknowledge what everyone's

really upset about. So Penn actually brought in people high up in the athletic department Talked to us. They brought in someone from like the LGBTQ Center. They brought in someone from the psychological services So you you're upset about what's happening? And so you need psychological help? Yeah, and they told us in this meeting They said look we understand as an array of emotions, but Leah's swimming is a non-negotiable However, we can help you make that okay. That's what we're here for. So you're anonymous for this interview. Why did you decide that you can't have your face out there saying these things? They've made it pretty clear that if you speak up about it and you say anything negative, that your life will be over in some way. You'll be lost all over the internet as a transphobe if you come out,

and then you'll never be able to get a job. Sick, Matt. Sick. I mean... Yeah, and the left, they love to use the term gaslighting. It's one of the many massively overused terms in public discourse today. But that right there is gaslighting. What those girls were subjected to. Those women were subjected to as gaslighting where they're being told that, you know, you're, you are the one with the problem. You're the one who needs counseling. If you don't want to be in the locker room with somebody with a penis, like we're going to now, now, now it's you, now you're the issue. And first we're going to bring in LGBT activists

to, uh, harangue and scold you. And if you still have a problem, then you can go to counseling. That's one version of this kind of thing. There have also been recent reports, even in a more severe way, of what women in women's prisons are being subjected to, where they're allowing men into these women's prisons like taking taking violent criminal men and locking them into jail cells with women many of these women have histories of sexual abuse and um the few women who have had the opportunity to speak out about it because the thing is if you're in a prison you're not going to have very many opportunities but the few that have had the opportunity have said it's the same kind of thing but worse where okay if you have, if you have a problem with it, then you can have counseling and we'll put

you in protective custody, which means solitary confinement, cruel and unusual punishment. It's a constitutional violation, and this is what's happening at the behest of the gender ideologues. The irony of refusing to look at someone like Leah Thomas and say, you might need some therapy. You're going through something. You might need to work this out with a professional. They won't do that. But they will look at the biological women, the so-called cis women, and say, you're going to need therapy to get over these feelings you're having, which are not appropriate feelings. You need to not be upset about this. And therefore, here's a doctor. Only the women having actual upset reactions to

swimming against a biological man get the therapy they allegedly so badly deserve. Okay. So here's Leah Thomas, by the way. We didn't get to play this earlier. She responded not exactly to this because this wasn't out yet, but the teammates have spoken out anonymously in print and so on before. And Leah Thomas gave an interview to ABC this week and she was asked about the upset teammates. And here's her response. Women who signed the letter anonymously said that they absolutely supported your right to transition, but they simply think it's unfair for you to compete against cisgendered women. You can't go halfway and be like, I support trans women and trans people, but only to a certain point,

where if you support trans women as women, and they've met all the NCAA requirements, and then I don't know if you can really say something like that. Trans women are not a threat to women's sports. Okay, then I won't go halfway. Then I'll stay on zero, and I won't meet you halfway at all, because I'm not going to 10. The nerve of that, Matt, for her. How does she know? She's not a woman. She doesn't get to say after 20 years living as a man that now she's a woman and that anybody objecting isn't really supportive of trans. Like, did you swim in the pool like all of your teammates did when they were going through

puberty and they started getting their periods? And it's a terrifying event for a young girl to get into a damn pool because you don't know what's going to happen. You haven't managed things yet. Did you swim with breasts growing off of you and trying to figure out how to move your arms and still win? No, you didn't. You went overnight from male to female and your accomplishments on the women's leaderboard are not that of a woman. They're not. But she says we're not allowed to meet her halfway just to be polite or to be kind or to try to be loving and respectful.

It's zero or 10. Yeah. And as far as that goes, I actually, that part I agree with for the reason that you just said, yeah, don't go halfway. So I'm not going to go halfway in affirming and coddling. I'm going to go 0% of the way at all. I'm just not, I'm not going to play the game at all. And that's why I also think, I mean, the women who signed this letter, and I don't blame them for me, they're put in this situation and not a situation that they should be in, but they were put in the situation handling it the best they could. But, you know, if I'm signing a letter like that, I'm not going to say anything about, hey, we support you and your identity. I'm not going to do any of that whatsoever, because that's not your job. You know, and I also think, by the way, look i i have i have a lot of

sympathy for especially the kinds of situations that abigail schreier writes about of adolescent girls who get swept up into this and become indoctrinated and everything else and they've got institutions that are that are dedicated to making them confused i got a lot of i have a lot of sympathy for them i have to tell you that Leah Thomas, I really have no sympathy at all. What I see here is just raging narcissism where nobody else matters but him. He was also asked in that same interview

about, well, do you have a biological advantage? And the answer was dancing around it, evading. And then finally well this this makes me happy i'm happy yes that's exactly right it's not so so that's it that's all that matters as long as you're happy it doesn't make it no one else no one else rates no one else counts it's all about your happiness um i just don't i'm not going to excuse that because someone is allegedly gender confused. That is just narcissism. It's totally unacceptable.

Yeah. And I think that's the way it should be. It should be confronted. I couldn't agree with that more. I mean, we're listening to Leah Thomas talk about how happy Leah is now and how joyful and amazing it was to win all these races. Leah Thomas was 554 when she was swimming as Will Thomas just the year before she joined the women's team. 554. Now she's number one. I'm sure she's very happy. What about the women who

got who didn't make the team because she took their spot, who didn't get a medal because she took it? I mean, this is like I could go swim against my eight year old Thatcher tomorrow and I'd crush him. It doesn't make me a good swimmer. That's essentially what's happening. Yeah. And by the way, your own happiness and joy. I mean, if you're a normal, decent person, then the fact that what you're doing is making everyone else around you uncomfortable and detracting from their own happiness and causing all those problems, that should actually make you less happy. Like that should affect you in some way if you care about other people. In any social situation, if you are doing something, you see that everyone's uncomfortable. It doesn't always mean that what you're doing is

wrong, but it's a pretty good, it's a hint anyway. It should be something that makes you stop and reflect. Everybody here is uncomfortable with this. I'm the only happy one. Is there something wrong? But I guess if you just don't care about what other people feel at all, if other people don't matter to you, then that calculation isn't made. Yeah. But everybody else better respect you and they better support your happiness. You don't have to care about them, but they better respect your happiness or you'll call them all sorts of names. And it doesn't matter how much work you've done for the LGBTQ community. You don't have to be matt walsh to be called a bigot you can be martina navratirola and if you're not at 10 you're going to get those names um you importantly get into the dark side of

all this you know in the film i mentioned the intro it's it is funny it's genuinely funny because matt's funny in like this great sort of quiet way. But it takes a serious turn because this is a serious matter. It's genuinely no laughing matter when you get to what they're really doing to our kids. And you get into some of the consequences. And this is why I love Dr. Miriam Grossman. She's connected with UCLA. She's the voice of reason, right, of the whole piece. That's the woman who's the voice of reason. And she explains, you guys got to watch the film. It just gets into everything you want to know about this issue in such depth and in a way you can understand with humor where appropriate and with gravity where the trouble came from. And I don't think anybody has any clue how nefarious and evil the two guys whose world philosophy were, whose ideas are now everywhere, whose ideas are now mainstream. They haven't gone back and figured out who's influencing us. So can you talk a little bit about that?

Yeah, that's something that I hope. There's a lot I hope people take away from this film, but I hope that's one big piece. And you could do, and somebody should do, maybe I'll do it or someone else will do it, an entire separate film just about these two guys and the origins of gender ideology and the sexual revolution generally. So talking to Miriam Grossman, she gets into Alfred Kinsey and John Money. And these are both

kind of sexologists, psychologists around the same time, early to mid 20th century. And they're not the only guys responsible, but they're probably the two main, kind of like the godfathers of gender ideology. And Alfred Kinsey, we start with him, and he was a little bit earlier. And his whole deal was to, one of his primary goals was to sexualize children. He said that children were sexual from birth. They were all sexual creatures, cradle to grave. And not only that, he was very invested in this idea that normal, healthy, so-called traditional relationships are... It's all a fake. I mean, really, when you get down to it and you really talk to people, everybody's a deviant and a pervert.

And in order to do that, he would go out and interview. He would do these interviews with what he claimed were just sort of cross sections of America. But then it turns out that actually he's interviewing pedophiles. He's going to prisons and talking to sex offenders. And then from there, he's extrapolating these wild conclusions about sexuality generally. But by far the most sinister thing he did was he would, in his book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, he has an infamous chart in there where he documents what he says are the orgasms of children, including all the way down to five months old. And he says he got this data from pedophiles that he interviewed,

and he would have them raping children and documenting the experience and then they'd sit down and they would talk about it um so you start with that sexualizing children children are sexual from birth and we can see a lot of that i mean what we what we know is comprehensive sex ed that's it all starts with alfred kinsey and the fact that we're doing you know what they're trying to stop in florida of having sex ed for kindergartners well that all starts with kinsey then you go to Then you go to John Money, and he's the guy who coined the term gender ideology, gender identity, sexual orientation. The whole idea that we have a gender distinct from our sex starts with John Money, and that's what he believes. And he tried this theory out on two

young boys called the Reimer twins and took one of them and transitioned them to encourage the parents to transition the boy to a girl and to just raise him as a girl. And the whole thing was a total disaster. Both of the boys, as they grow older, their lives are destroyed. They both end up committing suicide. It's just a dark and terrible story. And that is right there, the beginning of gender ideology. And it started that way, just with death and despair. I did not know any of that. And I definitely have heard of money and that twin experiment. One of the twins had a horrible thing happen during this circumcision and the parents were in a panic and basically lost his genitals and this doctor quote-unquote said well we'll just raise him as a

girl you'll you'll raise him as a girl used him as a human guinea pig and convinced the parents this would be in the child's best interest whereas his identical twin i I guess, I guess they were identical. It doesn't matter. Anyway, yeah, he was. He was raised still as a boy. And you have very gripping pictures in the documentary of these two as they were growing up. And you can only imagine what they were going through. And you include a clip. I've seen this before of the twin who was raised as a girl who was actually a boy on oprah he went on oprah's show in 2000 he had already gone back to being male you know saying i never i never should have been

treated like a girl or raised as a girl uh and this is obviously uh not long not long before he took his own life here's david reimer on Oprah. I never quite fit in. Well, the girls would do their things with their Barbies and things like that, and that wouldn't interest me. And things such as trucks and building forts and getting to the fistfight and climbing trees. That's the kind of stuff that I like, but it was unacceptable. So I'd never... As a girl. As a girl, I had no place to fit in. The damage that guy did is everlasting. Yeah, what we have to realize is that John Money, the reason why he said this would work is that he he said that gender is a social construct it's all about your environment and so if that's true then it should be pretty simple to

uh take a young boy who as you mentioned already suffered a horrible accident um that damaged his uh the child's genitals and then and then perform the sex change surgery and then just raise the child if you if you raise the child in an environment that affirms him as a girl and gender is a social construct, then that should be it. You should just be a girl. But it didn't take hold

because it turns out that there's more to being a boy than what you wear and what people tell you. There's a deep inner truth there that this child recognized even as he grew older. But the damage that was done, and by the way, you know, part of John Money's experiment, this was not a one-time thing. These boys were brought back to John Money throughout their childhood. He performed sexual experiments on them. It's just a horrendous, awful story. And it's also not a coincidence, by the way, that both these guys, Kinsey and Money, the godfather of gender ideology, they were both

child sex abusers. This was a big part of what they did. My God. This is why the film is so important. I really hope people will go and download it, What is a Woman? After this, we're going to get into puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and parental rights. Matt Walsh is staying with us. What is Lupron? And talk a little bit about what they're putting kids on right now that parents need to know about.

Well, Lupron is used as a so-called puberty blocker. And just even that name, it's just like so many other things with gender ideology, you can't even talk about them because the terms you're using are misleading intentionally. So puberty blocker, as if it just blocks puberty and then you can block it and then stop taking it and puberty will pick up again and there's no problem and there's no lasting side effects, which is all just totally bogus. But this is the drug that they're giving to kids to quote unquote block puberty. But it's being used off label. It was originally, I believe, like a cancer drug. And it has also been used, in fact, to chemically castrate sex offenders because that's what the drug does. It chemically castrates. By definition,

the drug performs a chemical castration, which is why they give it to sex offenders. This is what they are giving to kids. I mean, they are, in fact, 100% fact here, they are chemically castrating little kids with this drug Lupron. And we talked before about the medical establishment. Well, the medical establishment, all the different pediatric associations and everything else, they all say, they all endorse

it. They all say that this is affirmative care and that it's healthy and everything else. Well, you decide. Does it sound healthy and affirmative to chemically castrated kids? I don't think so. You know, I have an endocrinologist because I'm getting old. Once you hit 50, your doctor sends you out to all these specialists so you can see what the problems may be. And I asked her about this, you know, like puberty blockers and all that, not for my own kids, but just I was curious, like, how easily do you give out those prescriptions? And she said she wouldn't do it for anybody under 18. And which I think is the right, you know, even 18 is young, of course, but at least

you're an adult. You know, you don't do that. You don't give medicines like this to children. They're already banning it now. Right. In Sweden and Finland, I think banning at least cross gender hormones, maybe puberty blockers too. Maybe, you know, but I want to play the audience a bit on that from the film because fearless as ever, you, you go right there. You're not afraid of asking. I think this clip may start with our, with our good doctor, Miriam Grossman. She's in this at least at some point, along with some others. Watch.

Is Lupron chemical castration? Yes. We're giving it to pedophiles, aren't we? We're giving it to people that are dying, and we're giving it to kids, telling them that they were born in the wrong body and it's completely safe. One of the drugs you used is Lupron, right? Which has actually been used to chemically castrate sex offenders.

You know what? I'm not sure that we should continue with this interview because it seems like it's going in a particular direction. Well, you're a medical professional. I am a medical professional. So you don't want to talk about the drugs that you give to kids or again i'm a physician and i use medication you're choosing exploitive words drugs i give to you i'm choosing a chemical word that was in a dictionary that's not a correct term for puberty blocking i could like look up on my phone but i'm pretty sure if i looked it up. You can look it up on your phone. It says medical definition, the administration of a drug

to bring about a marked reduction in the body's production of androgens and especially testosterone. And I'm saying as a pediatrician who takes care of hundreds of these kids, when you use that terminology, you are being malignant and harmful. I mean, there are some who would say that giving chemical castration drugs to kids is malignant and harmful. I mean, there are some who would say that giving chemical castration drugs to kids is malignant and harmful. It's about the context of caring for a child and seeing the suffering that kids can have that have not been in affirmative home situations. What do you say to the claim that,

well, we have to do this for these kids? Because if we don't, they'll kill themselves. They'll resort to drugs and self-harm. A lot of them were hurting themselves. A lot of them were suicidal before they even discovered gender. That is never part of the discussion. And they say, what would you rather have, a living daughter or a dead son? If this is what the professionals are saying, it's terrible emotional blackmail. Matt, is Lupron something they give to boys and girls or just boys? I mean, it's given especially to boys. If you look at the medical definition, which I provided to Dr. Forcier there, who's the name of the pediatric drugs. It still counts even then as, uh, as chemical castration in terms of the,

of the claim, you know, it comes to this claim of all it's temporary and there are no long-term effects. We talk about that in the film as well. And the reality is that we are, we know quite a bit about how these drugs affect kids. And even based on what we know, it's pretty clear that there are long-term effects. But also, we've never given these drugs to an entire generation of kids before. So we don't have the basis for any kind of study. This is all this is experimental. These kids are, you know, guinea pigs. And there are states in the union now, as I think California is one of them, where you can your kid can sneak off campus during the middle of the day to go get these hormones or these pills. And they don't even have to tell your parents about it.

They'll just do it with the school's consent. The parents know nothing about it, which is very dark. Like that's now you're really abusing my child or allowing abuse to take place during the school day when I think she's studying English without my consent or even a heads up to me. Parental rights in this whole thing. It would be kind to say they've been forgotten. They've been actively buried and destroyed. Well, parents are a threat. I mean, it's yeah, it's it's it's worse than just ignoring parental rights. It's actually because that's one thing that's bad enough. It's bad enough in and of itself to say, well, we're not worried about what the parents say. It's actually worse than that, because what they're saying is that the parents are a toxic, harmful element. And so we have to protect the kids from the parents.

And that's the way that a lot of schools are approaching this. This is what they're saying to the kids. That's why I say gender ideology is a cult, and it functions like a cult in so many ways. And what's one of the first things that a cult does? Like if you're actually going to join a cult, if you're going to become a Scientologist or something, one of the first things that they do is they isolate you from people that are closest to you. They turn you against your own family. They don't want you to have any connections outside of this world. And it's the same thing with gender ideology. The first thing they do with the kids is cut them off from parents, any friends who are not, quote, quote, affirmative and isolate them in this world where there won't be any of these sort of outside influence. is Canada was passing a law that would have made it, that did make it a required thing

for you to use somebody's pronouns of choice. And he spoke out against it saying, that's insane. I shouldn't be facing penalties for not using somebody's gender pronouns. And Canada's gone off the reservation in more ways than one. You scored an interview with the dad. This was big news when it happened,

who lost custody of his child over this. Can you set that story up? Yeah, this is this is in we have to remember that in Canada, I believe that this case started actually before this law was even passed. Yeah, he's still somehow being or they're trying anyway to kind of penalize them according to this law. But now in Canada, it's considered conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is outlawed in Canada, and they've already done this in a lot of states in this country. Now, when you hear conversion therapy, you think that what they want you to think of is like electroshock therapy, all this kind of sinister, evil stuff that they're doing to kids to change their sexuality. That's not what they mean. Conversion therapy now, especially in Canada, is if your daughter

says, I'm a boy, and you do not use male pronouns, then you are guilty of conversion therapy because you're trying to convert your daughter into a girl, which she already is. If you are affirming someone in the identity that they actually are, you are converting them, which is totally backwards and absolutely insane. But that's what they're doing in Canada. And so there was one father that we talked to who's out on bail right now in the middle of this custody dispute and everything else. And he was actually arrested for failing to affirm his daughter as a boy, failing to use the, you know, the preferred pronouns. This is actually happening. It's happening in Canada and it's making its way to the United States, too.

I mean, what a nightmare. Here's a clip. Soundbite 20. My ex-wife brings my child into BC Children's Hospital. I get a call less than an hour into that appointment is that they were going to pump her full of cross-sex hormones within the hour. And I put a halt to that. I said, no, there was no evaluation. They were just going to do it right away. They agreed to stop for the moment. They figured, well, let's get the dad on board too. This is all going

to be better. Let's just get everybody on the same page. I said, it's not going to happen. So I get a letter from BC Children's Hospital in December of 2018. And it says that under the BC Infants Act, they will start injecting my child with cross-sex hormones. And I have two weeks to respond with legal action if I so choose. And he's lost, right? I mean, so far they've gone against him at every turn and he no longer has custody of his child. Yeah's and he's fighting back he's fighting heroically um but imagine imagine that being presented with that choice like you can either lie to your child and abandon them to this delusion which so often leads to despair and suicide by the way so you can do that that or you can never see them again.

Like those are your two choices. And that's, those are the choices that parents are being given in Canada. It's like, it's unthinkable. And I was really surprised and encouraged by, you know, that father talking to him. He had a lot of resilience and not nearly as much bitterness as I would have.

I mean, I would just be, I would be able to barely be able to speak about it because I'd be so angry, but he's fighting back and this is what we need parents to do. One of the things I love about Abigail's book, Irreversible Damages, she offers real solutions for parents who are going through this. And they're not necessarily for somebody who's got like a very young child who seems to have gender dysphoria. Typically, it affects only males. Like historically, it was only a thing that would affect males. But her book is more about the sort of the contagion, the craze that's sweeping teenage girls right now. And she does talk about it as a contagion based on the work of this Brown University researcher, Lisa Lippman, who we've had on the show too.

And Abigail makes the point that virtually all of these young girls in particular, you will find spent hours and hours on YouTube, on Reddit, on TikTok, and there are all sorts of rabbit holes they can go down that show them exactly what they, quote, need to do to be affirmed. Top so-called top surgery. It sounds like a nothing. They mean double mastectomy. Well, you'll have tubes coming out of you. I mean, they're going to chop off your breasts.

And this is something that now girls as young as 10 who are developing breasts want done to them. It's happening with the very young teenage girls in our country. And she just talks about what should you do? And you got to read the book. But basically, she says, you know, like, get your kid off the internet for like a year. I mean, if this happened to my family, we'd be going to Europe without any devices for a year. With our family, we'd be certainly going to church every weekend. And she wouldn't be having any contact with people who are pushing this stuff on her. None. So there are things you can do other than take them to some gender affirming therapist who's not on your team

who's on the team of some weird social agenda that you probably don't agree with um the darkest part we talked about doug's favorite interview mine was with i think scugent, who used to go by Kelly. We saw a clip of him in the beginning of that one last mashup. And Scott lived his life as a woman and then was a woman, is a biological woman, and then transitioned to male. And is deeply regretful about what he's done to his body with all the affirming care he received. And then she, I don't know what his pronouns are now. And very gripping stuff. Here's just a sound bite, a sample from Scott on what happens to children when they go the surgical route.

For the first time in history, a marginalized group has a huge dollar sign on the top of their head. We have five children's hospitals in the United States promoting that. That's a phalloplasty. That's a bottom surgery. We have five children's hospitals in the United States telling girls that they can be boys at $70,000 a pop in a surgery that has a 67% complication rate. That will kill me from infection that I can't sue on butchering a generation of children because nobody's willing to talk about anything. I have three kids. At the age that they're doing this to kids. I'm not transphobic. I love my kids and I love other people's kids and you should too.

This is wrong on so many levels. Oh, Matt, I'll give you the last word on why people need to watch this film. Well, one thing about that interview is the remarkable contrast between the so-called experts that I talked to who are evasive and defensive i didn't want to talk about anything and you talk to somebody like scott nugent who raw and honest and willing to answer any question with nothing to hide whatsoever um and that's uh that's one thing i want you to take i hope people take away from the film is like which which side here is willing to actually talk about this in the first place and i think that kind of tells you everything you need to know and i also want want people to see, as you said, there are a lot of, there are parts that are funny because of the absurdity of this, but there's a real darkness

underneath all of it. And so I want people to realize and have the same realization that I had filming it, which is that this is not just some sideshow. This is not something that is you find only with the weirdos on TikTok. This is all over the place. It's everywhere. It's infested every part of our society and it's doing real harm to people, adults and especially children. And I hope people see that and realize that watching the film. Well done, Matt Walsh. Well done, Daily Wire. Whatisawoman.com to find it. We'll talk more.

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