The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 379 - Why AOC Is Wrong About Gender, Patriarchy, And Everything Else

Episode Date: July 10, 2019

AOC accuses Kellyanne Conway of being sexist toward her because “the patriarchy has no gender.” Then, soccer star Megan Rapinoe agrees with conservatives on equal pay, and a judge rules that Trump can’t block people on Twitter. Date: 07-10-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez accuses fellow woman, Kelly Ann Conway, of being sexist toward her because, quote, the patriarchy has no gender. We will examine why AOC is wrong about gender, patriarchy, and everything else. Then soccer star Megan Rapino agrees with her conservative critics about equal pay and a judge rules that President Trump can't block people on Twitter. All that and more. I'm Michael Nop. Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles show. Okay, before we get to the sex that I want to talk about, which is the sexism and the gender and the patriarchy, we have to talk about the sex that I don't want to talk about, which

is this sordid saga of Jeffrey Epstein because I, you know how much I hate to point out that I told you so. Yesterday on the show, I mentioned that the left would be framing this as an anti-Trump issue, that this is all about Donald Trump. I just want to point out that the major Washington Post coverage on this today, this is the headline. Quote, Jeffrey Epstein was a terrific guy, Trump once said. Now he's not a fan. No headline about Bill Clinton.

No headline about the really shady, bizarre past of Jeffrey Epstein. No headline about that. No, no, it's just all about Trump, which is the only reason they're bringing this up now. And I just want to, on this one point where they keep going back. to this 2002 New York Magazine article where Donald Trump called Epstein a terrific guy. I just want to remind everybody that Donald Trump regularly calls awful people terrific guys. This is just, I guess, his way of speaking. He'll, you know, if it's convenient, he'll say, oh, yeah, him, he's terrific. Oh, I really like that guy. Even if he's the worst guy on earth. He actually has done it about

the worst guy on earth. Back when he started opening negotiations with North Korea, he used the exact same word to refer to Kim Jong-un. Here's President Trump. We're making tremendous progress. Chairman Kim has been really very open and terrific, frankly. So we know this is just the way that President Trump talks, especially when he's flattering people. I mean, Trump historically has been a flatterer. He'll flatter people and then the minute they turn on him, he'll call them the worst names you can possibly imagine. This has been true of Rosie O'Donnell. This has been true of everybody else that he's encountered. I also want to point out there is a lot of weird stuff with this Epstein story. It seems like every hour we're getting new information that complicates the picture.

And there are some pretty wild theories swirling around. I'm not going to call them conspiracy theories because I guess they could be true, but I'm not going to say that they're obvious facts, because we just really have no idea what's going on here. But the big question that keeps popping up is, how did Jeffrey Epstein make all his money? Because Jeffrey Epstein isn't just rich. Jeffrey Epstein is really, really, really rich. Jeffrey Epstein in 1992 had the largest private residence in Manhattan.

Manhattan is the center of the world. Manhattan is the most primo real estate. on Earth, basically. And Epstein had the single largest private residence on the whole island. There's rich, and then there's really rich, and then there is unfathomably infinite resources rich. And Epstein falls into that last category, and the question you have to ask is, how? The guy's a college dropout, I guess he was at the Cooper Union, which is an art school, art and engineering. He dropped out of it. He then, this is a kind of a weird coincidence, he was hired to teach at a private school, a very prestigious private school in New York, actually not far from

where I grew up. He was hired there by Attorney General William Barr's father, Donald Barr, and he taught there for a little bit, and then he left. Then he worked at Bear Stearns, the financial firm, which went under. This became a big part of the financial crisis in two. 2007, 2008. Then he left under pretty shady circumstances. We don't know why he left. We don't know how he did there. And he started his own hedge fund. And then he ostensibly became this incredibly wealthy guy. I know people who have worked for hedge funds and who have their own hedge funds. And a lot of them have made an insane amount of money. But it's also worth remembering, most hedge funds fail. It's not like, I mean, hedge fund, even that term is so vague. And

And so a lot of people at the time were wondering how, where did Epstein get his money from? Is he just the greatest investor in the world? I mean, who are his clients? He kept his clients to be a tightly held secret. We just don't really know anything about that guy. And it gets even weirder because now today, from the Daily Beast, there's a report in about why now Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, who was then a U.S. attorney, let Epstein off the hook with this sweetheart deal. Instead of sending him away for life for all of the charges against him, he got 13 months in a private wing of a county jail, and that's it. And he got to leave six days a week for 12 hours a day. How did he get that deal? And this is what the Daily Beast is reporting. Quote,

Is the Epstein case going to be a problem for confirmation hearings? Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day, he'd had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had been told, in quotes, to back off that Epstein was above his pay grade. Quote, I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone, he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this. This is the story. This is the story. The stuff of conspiracy theories. I mean, this, except it's being reported by the Daily Beast, which

occasionally is a sort of mainstream outlet. You know, it's not like this is one of these really fringy sites. As far as left-wing outlets go, Daily Beast is about as mainstream as they get. Now, before we jump to the conclusion that this is all some secret plot by the CIA or intelligence or whatever, it is possible that Acosta was just coming up with an excuse to explain why he bungled the deal with Jeffrey Epstein. I guess that's possible. Before we conclude that this is some crazy CIA plot to, I don't know, to have a sex ring or to entrap very powerful men, it's also possible that they were using, that the intelligence community was using Jeffrey Epstein as an asset for other purposes. Maybe in the financial crisis. I mean, the financial crisis was happening as this deal was struck.

Maybe he was useful to them in the collapse of Bear Stearns. Maybe he was useful to them for other purposes. We just don't know. We don't know. We don't know any. about this guy. And so the theories are swirling around. There is one theory that the person backing Epstein isn't a person at all. It wasn't just this cabal of, you know, zillionaires who all happened to like 13-year-old girls or 14-year-old girls. One theory that Ann Coulter brought up yesterday is that he could have had a state sponsor, that this was a state-sponsored intelligence operation. I'm not saying that's what it was. I have absolutely no idea Nobody else does either.

But the question of how Jeffrey Epstein made his money, who was funding him in the first place, is going to be central to the rest of this case. And so obviously we'll be following this as it builds. Now to get to the sex that I want to talk about. The sex that I want to talk about is AOC accusing Kellyanne Conway of being sexist toward her. Now you might have heard that name,

Kelly Ann, that's a woman's name. So AOC, also a woman, is saying that Kellyanne, a woman, is sexist toward a woman. The reason why is that Kellyanne Conway on Fox News referred to the recent Tiff between Nancy Pelosi and AOC as a cat fight. Here's Kellyan. Those four female Democrats that Nancy Pelosi is brushing back, I think they're all freshman members, a major meow moment brushing back in a huge, huge cat fight, really ridiculing them, and they voted against the Democratic aid package. Meow, indeed. Ooh, it was a catfight. That's not a sexist term. That's an accurate description. This was a particularly snarky battle that was going on between, especially Nancy Pelosi and to AOC.

Here's how AOC described it. Quote, catfight is a sexist term Republicans use when two adult women happen to disagree with each other. The reason they find it so novel and exciting is because the GOP haven't elected enough women themselves to see that, in fact, it can be a normal occurrence in a functioning democracy. Meanwhile, the GOP nominated a woman for vice president in 2008. One of our leading future presidential candidates

is Nikki Haley, former UN ambassador, governor of South Carolina. I mean, you could go down the list. The GOP has a ton of women. And of course, Kelly Ann Conway, the campaign manager for Donald Trump, first successful campaign, a female campaign manager in American history, and a senior advisor to the president. So I don't think that hit makes a whole lot of sense. But catfight isn't just a term used by Republicans.

It's a term that everybody uses to describe when two women are getting angry with each other. I mean, you could say a fight between two men as a bunch of knuckle-draggers or a couple of Neanderthals. You hear those kind of terms as well. But then AOC gets to her main point, and this exposes the lie of the entire gender ideology movement. We'll get to that in a second, but first, because I know what time it is. I know we've got to thank our sponsors over at Movement. You know how much I love Movement watches.

I wear it all the time. I get compliments on it all the time. I've never gotten more compliments on a watch than I have on this one. And I think this is the coolest watch they have, although they have many cool watches. This is the Revolver Collection, the Atlas version of it. I just love this thing because these guys, these two college dropouts who started this watch company, just get modern style. I mean, their watches, they're not just totally futuristic. They've drawn so much of the past on those great watch eras in 1950s, 1960s, but then they update them.

So it's not just rehashing something old. They're new, they're sleek, they're just fabulous. Now they have mechanical watches. They have an automatic watch. design, which I love. I don't have it yet, but I really want it, if anyone's listening out there. They're just a terrific product. And the best part of it is, as far as I'm concerned, if you went into a department store, they'd be $300. If you order it online, because movement cuts out the middleman, you can save so much money. You can save, you know, you're getting

direct prices. And especially for summer, you love their watches. Their sunglasses are fabulous. They make a very fun statement like the 90s skinny frames. They've got everything. They've got them all. Movement sunglasses have the same advantage. They start at just 60 bucks. No pair prices over $95. So you're guaranteed to find a style that you love with quality that doesn't break the bank.

They've sold over 2.5 million products in more than 160 countries. The collections are always expanding. You've trusted them on their watches. You've got to trust them on their sunglasses. They just get style. Get 15% off today with free shipping and free returns by going to MVM. mt.com slash knolls. See why movement keeps growing. Check out their expanding collection. MvMt.com slash knolls. KNOW. LAS. Join the movement. So then AOC follows this up and she gets to

the actual point here that dissolves, I think, the transgender ideology. And she says, patriarchy has no gender. This is how she explains how a woman can be sexist against another woman. She says, patriarchy has no gender. Now, just as a simple point of definitions, I went to the Oxford English Dictionary, I thought maybe I'm wrong about the definition of patriarchy. No, it turns out AOC is wrong. Patriarchy, as defined by the OED, is, quote, a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and dissent is reckoned through the

male line. Father, male. Okay. That's patriarchy. It does have a gender. So on the surface, AOC's comment doesn't make any sense. On the surface, the gender ideology, transgender ideology movement doesn't make any sense. But there actually is sort of, almost an internal logic to it.

And conservatives totally mistake how to deal with gender ideology and transgenderism. We make the mistake of trying to argue this point on scientific grounds. This is what you always hear. Let's just talk about the science. Forget religion, forget morals, forget philosophy. We just want to talk about the science or the chromosomes or the biology or whatever. I know that's tempting because scientifically our points are correct. But gender is not a scientific concept.

The way that the left is talking about gender, the way that AOC is talking about gender and patriarchy, is not scientific. Gender is not a scientific term. gender was a term that was never applied to human beings in popular culture until about the 1960s. Gender was a term that was applied to language. You have gendered language, really not so much in English, but in other languages. So, for instance, Latino has a masculine gender. Latina has a feminine gender. Pizza, the Italian word pizza, it ends in an A and it's got a female gender. But, I don't know. Pranzo, which is the Italian word for lunch, it ends in an O, and it's got a

male gender. The gender is a language term. The entire purpose of the left making gender into a description of people is to undermine science. It's to separate sex from gender. You hear this all the time. I talk to conservatives all the time on campuses around the country, and I think even many conservatives believe this. They believe that there is a difference between sex and gender. I mean, in their defense, this is what they're taught in classrooms. This is what kids are now taught from kindergarten all the way through college or graduate school. The thing is, there is no difference between sex and gender. You can lock that away with the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy. Sex and gender have no difference. We just have sex. And I can prove it to you. I can give you the argument that you can, you can

use to show this to any leftist. I can do that in a second. But first, we have got to thank another sponsor, Ring. You know how Ring makes neighborhoods safer. I've told you about their smart video doorbells and their cameras that protect millions of people everywhere. Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world. So if there's a package delivery, or if there's a surprise visitor, either a burglar or your mother-in-law, whichever one is worse, you will get an alert you will be able to see here and speak to them all from your phone. And that's thanks to the HD video and two-way audio features on ring devices. Our senior producer, Jay Hay, was in his house. This was a few months ago at this point lying there with this lovely wife, three o'clock in the

morning, and he gets an alert on his phone. He sees someone's at the door. It's these two drug-addled weirdos who, Jay-Hay lives in a kind of remote part of town. They didn't just happen to be walking down the street. They were casing the joint. They wanted to break in. They wanted to see if anybody was home. He picks up, he says, what are you doing at my house? They come up with some weird, lame excuse. They're stammering.

Then they run away. Now, Jay Hay was home in his bed. That's where he answered that from. He could have been at the office. He could have been on a beach somewhere. It doesn't matter. You have access to your home from anywhere. It's an amazing product,

not only because it makes you safer, not only because it's like neighborhood watch for the 21st century, but because you will feel like the Jetsons. I mean, that's what I love about it. That's why I feel safe with it. the ring is I feel like I'm just living in the future, you know, and I, whenever my friends get a new house, whenever they move into a new place, my housewarming gift is always ring. Part of the reason for

that too is it's an amazing value. It's a great deal. I don't need to spend a zillion dollars on getting them a housewarming gift. I can give them a ring. I know they're going to feel cool and they're going to feel safe. As a listener, you have a special offer on a ring starter kit available right now. With a video doorbell and motion activated floodlight camera, the starter kit has everything you need to start building a ring of security around your home. Get it today. Here's how you do it. Ring.com slash Knowles. K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Ring.com slash Noles. So even conservatives fall into this trap. We buy the leftist premise that there's a difference between gender and sex. Or if we don't, maybe we don't want to grant that premise, but we try to argue about it scientifically.

There's no scientific argument for it. Here is how, I've talked to so many left-wingeres about this, they can never answer the ultimate questions. Here's how the argument goes. This is what the left says. They say, sex is biological, but gender is not biological. It's a social construct. It's psychological. It's not physical. It's not the same as sex. But if gender is just a social construct, if it's just sort of a choice, then people should choose to make their gender conform to their biological sex, right? if you can just kind of choose your gender and it's just a matter of your personal will, then if you're biologically a man, but you identify as a female,

and that's just a choice, then you should just choose to identify as a male. That's much easier than going through all this awful surgery, mutilating yourself, changing every single bathroom in the country, right? Of course. But then what the gender ideologues will say is, it's not quite like that. sex is in the body, in the chromosomes or the genitals or whatever, but gender is in the brain. Okay, and you can't change your brain. Well, okay, except then that means that gender is biological. Then it's not a difference of biological and not biological because the brain is the part of the body. The brain is probably the most important part of the body. So then you have to conclude sex and gender are both biological.

So how can your biology be both male and female? How can your biology be both you are a man and a woman? Except in the exceedingly rare case where there's some confusion in chromosomes or in genitals, which is not what transgender ideologues are talking about. How can it be both one thing and not that thing? So this is what they're coming around to now. This is the new stage of gender ideology. And it's where you hear phrases like biologically female penises. I had a gender activist. tell me once at the University of Michigan, she said, yes, of course there can be biologically female penises, and of course there can be biologically male uteruses. Biological. See, because they want the language of science. But if that is the case, then the words male and female, the words man and woman, have no meaning because they can, because the word male in that case can refer to either male or female. The word man can refer to either man or woman and vice versa. It's not that you're even changing the definition of the word so much as you're just getting rid of the words altogether. Now, they get very confused on this and they always run away

and they can't answer these questions. But I actually see what they're trying to talk about. What the gender theory people are trying to describe is not a scientific characteristic of people. They're trying to describe the soul. They're trying to describe the difference between my physical body and my metaphysical soul. So what the transgender ideologues say is on the physical level, I look like a man. You know, I got broad shoulders, I got a beard, I've got everything below the waist that makes me look like a man. But at a more essential level, deep, deep down, somewhere that you can't see, I'm not really what my body says that I am. I'm something else. There's a difference,

they say, between me and my body. And this is not a totally new question. I mean, we think of transgenderism as this bizarre new idea. It's just a bizarre new version of a very old idea. This is the central question of the gender theory. This is the central problem. Is a question as old as time? what is the relationship between me and my body and my soul? And this question took on special modern significance with Renee Descartes, with the father of modern philosophy, who laid the foundation for the Enlightenment and who consequently gave us a lot of our modern problems. What Descartes said is that the body is not essential to a person's identity.

So my body, you know, I've got sort of swarthy skin, I've got a little bit of a Roman nose, I've got some poofy hair, that is not essential to my identity. That's just sort of accidental. What I really am is immaterial. My body exists as a machine, and then my soul, which is who I really am, exists as a ghost in that machine. Now, I don't really believe that. That's what a lot of modern people think. That's what Descartes thought, and that's what these gender ideologues believe. But this isn't the traditional understanding, the traditional understanding of the body, the Christian understanding. Aristotle's understanding, Thomas Aquinas' understanding, is that the body is essential to a person's identity.

Now, there are a lot of weird theories that have popped up throughout history to say that the physical world is evil. The physical body is evil. Matter is evil. And therefore, we should divorce ourselves from the material world. This has cropped up as a number of bizarre movements and heresies and things like that. Those ideas have always been defeated because civilization would collect. lapse if we really believed that. If we really believe that everything physical is just evil and terrible and awful and has to be utterly rejected, you can't have a civilization, you can't have a

society, you can't even move around in your own body. But that's what the gender theory people believe. They're searching for a soul. But they can't bring themselves to admit that because they also tend to believe that there's no such thing as a soul. So they're stuck in this awful place where they're arguing the extremes of two ideologies, both of which are completely wrong. I think I know how we can deal with this. I think I know how we can talk to people about the gender ideology that isn't just look at the chromosomes, look at the science, because I think ultimately that doesn't really go anywhere. We'll get to how to deal with them in a second. We will also get to Megan Rapino. I guess it must be a chilly day in hell because I'm actually agreeing with the soccer star

on one question. Then we'll also get to why President Trump can't block people on Twitter. But first, you've got to go to dailywire.com. It is $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership. You get me. You get the Andrew Claven show. You get the Ben Shapiro show. You get to ask questions in the mailbag. You get the Matt Walls show.

You get another kingdom. You get all of these wonderful things. By the way, get your mailbag questions in for tomorrow. But you get the Leftist Tears Tumblr. And you are going to need that Leftist Tears Tumblr. Because as the Jeffrey Epstein case starts unveiling, exposing all of these powerful democratic men, perhaps including a former Democratic president, that the tumbler, you're going to drown. You're going to be flooded out and drown if you don't

have the tumbler. So go to dailywire.com. We'll be right back with a lot more. So the gender theory people are trying to describe the soul, except they don't believe in the soul because they tend to be materialists. They tend to think that only the physical world exists. And all of the things that aren't physical, like love and joy and the soul and that it's all basically just an illusion, that we're just matter, we're just kind of flesh, and that's all that we are. So they distinguish between the physical body, sex, and the metaphysical mind or gender, but then they go right back and they deny the difference between the mind, which is not physical, and the brain, which is physical, and so you get to this contradiction. Any way you slice it,

gender ideology doesn't make sense. But we are very foolish if we think that we're going to convince them of that based on science. It's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical and religious question. And at times throughout history, when people have been philosophically and religiously shallow and stupid, these kind of theories crop up. The foundation for gender theory was laid by two things. The decay of education and the decay of religion. And we are now seeing the fruits of that. because people just don't, they have these really shallow ideas. I mean, Dr. Johnson famously said all shallows are clear. Little shallow bodies of water, very clear.

Profound things are murky. You can't see to the bottom of profound things. And we have a very shallow religious and educational culture right now, which is why these gender people are so convinced that they're correct, even though they couldn't possibly be more confused. You're not going to be able to just convince people that gender ideology is wrong with a simple argument. You're going to have to slowly build on that.

You're going to have to raise serious religious questions, raise serious philosophical questions. You're going to have to rebuild the educational system. You're going to start going back to church or synagogue or wherever you go. You're going to have to start taking these things seriously. Because if conservatives just keep up this, look at the science argument, you're not going to convince anybody. It's not about science.

It's about something much deeper. and something that we've lost. And we know as conservatives, you can't just shout from the rooftop all day. You actually have to do the thing. You can't just talk about how great religion is. You actually have to practice it. You can't just talk about how great certain education systems are. You have to do them.

You have to read the books, and you have to make it a big part of your life. So, bizarrely, I can't believe I'm saying this, I actually sort of agree with AOC that the patriarchy has no gender, because nobody has a gender because people don't have genders. We have sex. It's all about sex, baby. And in other bizarre world news,

I'm also finding myself agreeing with the U.S. women's soccer star, Megan Rapino, also on a question of sex. Megan Rapino was on my MSNBC show last night and she was there to discuss her calls for equal pay for the men's and women's soccer teams. And she accidentally, I think, but nevertheless, she again.

agreed with the arguments of her conservative critics. Here's Megan Rapino. In the moments immediately following the final whistle, you get that USA, USA chant, but equal pay, equal pay along that same cadence. I think fans want to know what they can do to support that fight. Fans can come to games. Obviously, the national team games will be a hot ticket. But we have nine teams in NWSL.

You can go to your league games. You can support that way. You can buy players jerseys. You can lend your support in that way. You can tell your friends about it. You can become season ticket holders. I think in terms of that, that's the easiest way for fans to get involved. She's totally right about this.

The issue of equal pay for the men's and women's soccer teams is not a question of some regulation or some law or some secret hidden institutional patriarchy. It's a question of revenue. Matt Walsh had a great point on this yesterday. it's not just that women's soccer players are underpaid or they're paid less than men. They are paid less than men as a matter of just numbers. But as a matter, you know, hard cash, as a matter of the percentage of their business that they're paid,

women's soccer players are actually overpaid. And the reason for that is, just to cite a few statistics here, the men's World Cup generated $6 billion in revenue. That was the last World Cup, six billion. million with a B. The women's World Cup generated, can you guess, 131 million dollars of revenue. Way, way, way less, not multiples, you know, an order of magnitude less. Well over that. So men, if you look at the total revenue of the World Cup, were paid 7%. That's what the players got. If you look at the total revenue of the women's World Cup, they were paid 20%. So they got almost three times,

much as a percentage of their total revenue that the men got. Now women apparently want 400% of their revenue. Where is that money going to come from? Magic, I guess. Or maybe they'll take it from the men's team or something like that. So she's right. The way, if you want to build up women's soccer, which I don't recommend you do, but if that's something you want to do, the way you do it is you buy season tickets. You go to the games. You buy popcorn and cracker jacket the games. Or there they probably have like assayee bowls and kombucha or something. I don't know, whatever they sell at the stadium. You buy the jerseys. I don't know if they have playing cards, but you buy the cards, you just give your money to the sport and it becomes very big.

That's how baseball went from being, you know, a relatively cheap endeavor in the 1940s and 1950s. Now I go to a baseball game at Yankee Stadium. I have to take out a mortgage on my car. It's a big business. That's because people like it. It's because people really care about it. Now, I don't want to give the wrong impression here that I like Megan Rapino or that I think she's like a good figure in American culture. she is awful.

And she exhibited in a video that has now gone viral with her holding her trophy, why people really don't like her and why people really don't like the whole ethos around this women's soccer team. Here is what Megan Rapino thinks about her win. Is it she's so humble, she's so thankful to God, she's so thankful to all the fans? No, she says three words, I deserve this. What do you have to say? What do you deserve? I deserve all of it.

Everything. You deserve this. Oh, it's like everything that's wrong with feminism. It's everything that's wrong with this soccer team. It's everything that's wrong with leftism. I deserve this. I'm entitled to this. I'm so great.

I'm so proud. I have nothing to be ashamed of. I'm the best thing ever. This is pride. I mean, we've been talking. I'm talking about pride, obviously for the whole month of Pride Month, pretty soon it's going to be Pride year. This is pride and people hate pride. Pride is a vice. Pride is a sin. It's ugly. Nobody likes it. We like humility. It's amazing to me that the left gets on Donald Trump because Trump brags all the time.

You know, he puts his name on everything, says I'm the best president ever. He actually has been a really good president. He's got a lot to brag about and he rarely misses an opportunity to brag. And the left says, this is all. awful. This is terrible. I hate this. But I love when Megan Rapino kicked a ball only a little bit worse than a 14-year-old boy, and she deserves everything. She deserves the bottle of Vuv-Clico champagne. She's drinking. And she deserves the statue that she's holding in her hand. You don't deserve it. None of us deserves anything, frankly. I mean, this is a major difference between how conservative tend to view the world and how

radicals and leftists and progressives tend to be the world. I don't think I deserve anything. I have an amazing life. Everything that I've ever gotten is an unmerited gift from God. And all the suffering I've endured is nothing compared to this great joy of life that we have. I mean, just to use a particular example, I got a show because I didn't write a book. I didn't write a book. And then I published it. And it was called Reasons to Vote for Democrats, a Comprehensive Guide, and it's completely blank. And then I got a show for for it. If that's not the unmerited grace of God, I don't know what is. If you have an attitude of gratitude, that's sounding a little cliche, but it's real. It's a cliche for a reason.

If you have an attitude of gratitude, you're going to have a better time in life. You're going to be more thankful for the people you have, the friends you have, the love that you feel, the love of God, your creator. Food is going to taste better. Cigars are going to taste better. Drinks are going to taste sweeter. Because you don't deserve this. You didn't invent your life. you were given your life. It is a gift. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. You didn't choose your parents. You were given your parents. And this is true for everyone. This is true for people who have disproportionate amounts of suffering. This is true of people who have relative privilege. I'm kind of agreeing with the left in that I'll check my privilege, but I'm not upset about privilege. I'm

not ashamed of, I'm happy for privilege. And we all have privileges. It's a wonderful thing. But she says, I deserve it. I'm entitled to it. And it's why she always comes off as bitter and awful. And it's why that whole team is bitter and awful. And they hate their country. And she at least hates her country. And she disrespects the American flag. And she has no sense of how unimportant she is. She has no sense of all the wonderful gifts she has been given, the God-given talents and the ability to develop those talents and a country to support her to send her abroad. I mean, it's just terrible. And it's not only a problem of women's soccer.

This is a cultural disease that has spread particularly on the left. And you've got to just cut it off at the knees. She doesn't deserve it. She doesn't deserve anything. And she's terrible. And only when she acknowledges that will she, I think, come to appreciate all the wonderful gifts she's been given. Now, I have got some, I think actually pretty good news. but it's really ironic news.

Out of the courts, President Trump has now been told he can't block people on Twitter. I didn't even know that President Trump was blocking people on Twitter. I don't think you should ever block people on Twitter. I think that's the opposite of what Twitter is. Twitter is all about open exchange.

I've never blocked anybody. I don't intend to block anybody. This court, now this appeals court has come out and said, President Trump can't block his critics on Twitter because he sometimes breaks news on Twitter, and so this cuts off certain Americans from hearing this news, and he sometimes uses it to conduct government business,

so he just can't do it. It's unconstitutional. It's illegal. It's wrong. He can't do it. The irony here is that the left blocks people on Twitter way more than the right does. They unfriend people on Facebook way more than the right does.

I mean, I can't tell you. There are left-wingers that I've never interacted. with ever once in my life. And they will preemptively block me on Twitter because they're afraid that I might say something to them or something. I mean, that guy Carlos Maza, the one who wants to censor all the conservatives, he blocked me in like two seconds. And he's blocked as far as I can tell thousands and thousands of other conservatives. AOC blocks a lot of people on Twitter. I think now she's being sued for it. So what this ruling means is if President Trump can't block people on Twitter. AOC can't block people on Twitter either. You know, the left can give it, but the left can't

take it. And I actually think this is a pretty good ruling. Some conservatives are a little upset that Trump is, you know, being targeted. And it is true. They're going after Trump because he's Trump. But I'm all for it. I want open communication. I don't want to live in a world where we're blocking each other and we're siloing ourselves and we're censoring each other. Speaking of more important court cases, though, just a little heads up. We'll talk about this more at a later date when it finally makes its way up to the Supreme Court. But getting back to the main topic of today's show, talking about sex baby and gender, there is a hugely important court case that's coming down the pike and it's headed for the Supreme Court. And it's called the Harris

Funeral Home case. Cases officially R.G. and GR Harris Funeral Homes Incorporated versus Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And this case is all about sex and gender, whether or not there's a difference between sex and gender, how we can even understand or enforce the left's difference between sex and gender. It's all about Title VII, which is sex discrimination from employers. That's what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers. And it involves an interpretation of the protections of Title VII. So basically in this case, you have a funeral home owner, Thomas Ross, and he has a dress code for his employees, obviously. It's a really touchy business to be in. You've grieving families, you know, you're around sadness and grief and sorrow all day long, and you

want to make sure you look professional and you behave in a way that is comforting and consoling to the grieving families. So he says, okay, men have to wear a jacket and a tie, I don't know, whatever it is, and women have to dress in this certain way. Nobody suggests that it's wrong to say men have to dress one way and women have to dress another way. Nobody is arguing that that's wrong in this case. What they're arguing about here is that one of raw, employees at the funeral home, who is a man, one day he went on vacation, he comes back, and he decided he's going to now start dressing as a woman, at least when he feels like it. Maybe he doesn't dress like a woman all the time, but he's going to dress like a woman

when he feels like it. And Ross said, the owner, he said, you can't do that. It's not all about you, Buster. It's about these grieving families. And if they see a giant man with a beard wearing a dress, like the guy in that video, you know, who's screaming at the employee at the bodega, and he says, I am a woman. It's ma'am, call me ma'am,

that that's going to be distracting for grieving families. Obviously, that's the case. Now the employee sues, and this is going to make its way up to the Supreme Court. The question is, does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act say that employers can't discriminate on the basis of sex, which is what we've always interpreted it to mean, or does it say that they can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity?

And what the left is going to argue in this case is that, of course, it always included gender identity. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, no one had any idea what this gender identity thing was. This was not, there was no, no one believed that there was a difference between sex and gender. But just imagine how this, if it were the case that a gender, that it protected gender, identity as well. And so therefore, the funeral home guy has to let the funeral home employee with a big beard dress up in a dress, regardless of what the grieving families want. If that were the case, how is that going to be enforced? What if one day he decides to dress like a man? And he says, well, my identity today is a man. You have no ability to run your business as you would like

to run your business. But beyond that, what the plane is, the plane is that. The plane is that you have to In this case is arguing, the man who wants to dress like a woman, is he says, well, the way you can enforce it is if a guy can pass as a woman, he looks more like a woman, then he can be allowed to dress like a woman. But if he can't pass as a woman, then he can dress as a man. That's a reasonable agreement. That's a compromise. That is insane. And that is talk about the patriarchy. Talk about going back to arcane views of sex. You're now going to leave it up to an employer to decide if a woman looks womanly enough or too manly or a man looks womanly enough? Are you kidding me? This is another irony of it is as feminism has long broken down boundaries and said,

look, if a girl wants to wear jeans and she doesn't want to wear a dress, that's okay. It doesn't make her less of a woman. A little girl can be a tomboy. A little boy can play with dolls. Now we're saying the opposite. We're saying women must look womanly. They must look. They must They must wear dresses. They must, and men, I don't know, they have to be cowboys. They have to wear jeans or something. They want to have it both ways on this issue. But this makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm hopeful that this will win at the Supreme Court. But this is the issue. I mean, you have got this issue coming down the Supreme Court and you could have gender identity firmly implanted in American law all the way down from the Supreme Court. The stakes are very high. We're going to be following that case, as we will, all of these crazy gender questions.

In the meantime, though, we've run out of time. So get your mailback questions. and I'll see you tomorrow. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Noles show. The Michael Noles show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz and directed by Mike Joyner, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens. Edited by Danny Domeco. Audio is mixed by Dylan Case. Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera. And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan. The Michael Noles show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today, the largest teachers union in America has just come out full throttle for abortion, radically pro-abortion. I think it may be time to start homeschooling. I've always thought that, but I especially think it now. Also, there is an effort afoot to stop the teens from vaping, and those efforts have gotten exceedingly corny. And we'll discuss the latest example. And finally, is air conditioning sexist? I can't believe it's necessary to have that conversation, but it is. So we will today on the Matt Wall Show.