Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #772 Left Protest Over Homeless Man's Death In NYC, DEMAND Marine Be Charged w/SerfsTV

Episode Date: May 5, 2023

Tim, Ian, Seamus, & Serge join Lance of the Serfs to discuss protests erupting in NYC over the death of a homeless man, a heated debate on late term abortions, & Bud Light privately disavowing the sponsorship of Dylan Mulvaney. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So we got some protests in New York City after a homeless man named Jordan Neely died. He was put in a chokehold. The man, three people were trying to subdue him. And then in the effort to subdue him, the guy died. It was ruled a homicide. And now you have protesters calling for charges of this Marine. And things are starting to get a little hectic. Police are calling for help as things kind of heat up.

But we're going to get into the nuances of that discussion. So I'll save a little bit. We do have news out of Russia. They're blaming the U.S. for the assassination attempt, so they claim. And we've got some news. Barstool Sports fired one of their hosts for rapping lyrics that contained an offensive word. I don't necessarily think it's fair to call what he said a slur because he wasn't calling anybody the word. But, you know, he said the word and then Penn Entertainment was like, you're fired, and now Dave Portnoy is like, I don't know, there's nothing I can do, I sold the company. So we'll get into that, plus a whole bunch of other stories, and we'll talk about the

news. Bank's collapsing, we got Paul Stanley, the lead singer, I'm sorry, the front man for Kiss, is kind of walking back his statement on transgender kids, and a lot to talk about. Before we get started, my friends, today's episode is brought to you by Cast Brew Coffee. Take a look at this bag right here. This is Cast Brew Coffee over at castbrew.com, and you can get your bag of Rise with Roberto Jr. and Appalachian Nights today by going to castbrew.com, and with every purchase of

Rise with Roberto Jr., you will get a picture of Roberto Jr. You see he's right there on the back. He's our rooster. He's very cool. And the coffee smells really good. So if you want to support the show and support our work, go to castbrew.com. But also don't forget to head over to timcast.com. Click that Join Us button to become a member.

As a member, you'll get access to the Members Only Uncensored show, which we will have up for you tonight at about 10, 10 p.m., which will be fun because members actually get an opportunity to submit questions and actually call into the show. So if you would like to do that, become a member at at least the $25 level. If you've been a member for at least six months, you will be granted access to submitting these questions, a screening process that we have. So don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.

Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Lance from the serfs thank you so much for having me it's i'm tripping balls being in this room right now it feels like i took evil acid or something because i've been watching this show so much yeah just like everything is here it's wild it's bigger than it looks like right it's bigger than it looks like when you're actually sitting in the room it's actually there's a lot more props than you ever give this place credit for i thought there was just like some samurai swords and like the occasional gun or something but there's a lot more props than you ever give this place credit for. I thought there was just like some samurai swords and like the occasional gun or something. But there's like... That's a real Civil War rifle.

There's a real Civil War musket. That's right. Rifled musket. Absolutely. Union Civil War. It was never used. It's like a museum here. Very cool.

Yeah, very cool stuff. Yeah. So what do you do? Who are you? I am a leftist commentator. I do politics, comedy from a dumpster fire perspective. And I have opinions and sometimes people like to hear those opinions and then

they tune in to listen to them. Oh, sounds good. Alright, well thanks for joining us. I'm sure we have a lot of opinions to go through. We also got the exact inversion of Lance, Seamus Coughlin. That's how they describe me on the streets. My name is Seamus. Anti-Lance? Yeah, exactly. I thought, no, they call him the anti-Seamus I thought. But my name is Seamus

Coughlin. I make cartoons. We call call him the anti-Shamus, I thought. But my name is Shamus Coghlan. I make cartoons. We call them Freedom Tunes. And he's British. Is that? Why you always got to take it to an ethnic place with me, man? Always ripping on me for being Irish. I was born here. But I make cartoons.

I have a YouTube channel called Freedom Tunes. I'm also a podcaster. We uploaded a cartoon today, by the way. Y'all might want to check that one out. And I also have a stream on Rumble called Shamer. If y'all want to take a peek at that as well. Now we have Moon Lord himself. I am the Moon Lord.

He knows. No longer Weed Lord. I have evolved. I have become one with the essence of the vibration and the fabric of reality. So good to see you, Lance. So good to be here. And if you don't know, you don't know. But I am the Moon Lord.

Let's get hot. And I am Serge.com as always, guys. Let's get to it. Let's jump into this first. Wait, actually, I've got to flag this. This is the first time Ian and I have done a show together in almost a year. Since we screamed about,

I was yelling at you about religion or something. Exactly. And alcohol, I think, too. Yeah, that's our first show back. Welcome back our first show yeah that's our first welcome back shayla it's great to be here man yeah i've evolved on my stance on religion we've also talked off air we we've talked off air a good bit but it's uh it's just funny that what it's like i i just realized this is our first episode we're both doing together because i've been seeing you for the past two weeks yeah yeah we went last time we talked we're talking about like i brought up vice i was talking about oh alcohol it's your vice or whatever.

I said, I think that was the real point of contention. And everyone's like, Ian, you're such a dick. I was like, I was just talking to Seamus. We were just talking. Yeah, but bro, he's Irish. You can't say that. That's racist. I don't remember exactly what it was, but I don't really care.

Do you? No, I was just, it was a discussion about alcohol. Because I was saying that alcohol is not inherently sinful. Like Christ turned water into wine. It was his first public miracle.'ve gone through blood was made of wine right well no he if transubstantiation the the uh properties of bread and wine remain but it actually becomes his flesh and blood i've had like serious problems with alcohol personally which is probably why i was projecting issues what were you saying oh i was just asking like

when you actually eat the blood of christ is that christ is inside you yeah and then but like his blood is alcoholic is that why it's wine so the properties of bread and wine remain but what we believe as catholics is that it's his literal flesh and blood okay by his body blood soul and divinity so he's so but he's not made of bread and wine no he's not literally made of bread no but get crunk all right let's read the news here we go we also have serge dupre he already did say what's up. Yes. Man, moon lord. Thanks, Doc.

All right, here's the story. We got this ABC7 New York police issue call for help. Outrage continues to grow over deadly subway chokehold encounter. The death of a subway rider who was put into a chokehold by a former Marine on the train has been ruled a homicide, and now activists are calling for charges to be filed. They have planned several protests and rallies on Thursday, as the NYPD has issued a call for public help in their investigation. Jordan Neely, 30, died from a compression of the neck, the city's medical examiner determined Wednesday.

Neely is recognizable to some New Yorkers as a Michael Jackson impersonator, who regularly danced in the Times Square Transit Hub. On Monday afternoon, he was yelling and pacing back and forth on an F train in Manhattan. Witnesses and police said when he was restrained by at least three people including a U.S. Marine veteran who pulled one arm tightly around his neck. A physical struggle

ensued leading to Neely losing consciousness. He was rushed to Lenox Hill Hospital where he was pronounced dead. On Wednesday a medical examiner determined Neely's death was a homicide. However, that does not mean the case will be prosecuted as a homicide okay that's the stupidest bit of writing i've ever heard as a murder they mean homicide means death caused by person it doesn't mean criminal uh so what they're trying to say is though that the the death was ruled a homicide it does not mean the case case will be prosecuted as a murder that is

up to the uh man's office, which is investigating. But I suppose I'm probably being a little bit too harsh because you can, they're not being clear here. You could make the argument there's reckless homicide, there's negligent homicide. And so what they're saying is it's not clear that he will be criminally charged. They probably just should have said, they're going to say, as a part of our rigorous ongoing investigation, we'll review the medical examiner's report, assess all available video and photo footage, identify and interview as many witnesses as possible, and obtain additional medical records. Read a statement from a spokesperson for the DA. So we've got video coming out of New York.

Protesters, I believe this was yesterday, were seen in the streets and the police made some arrests. And we'll get into it in a little bit, but one of our reporters, Elia, who was physically assaulted by one of the protesters and had his property destroyed while he was in the process of doing journalism. But let's just get down to brass tacks here, because I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of arguments about this one.

This is a story of a guy who was having a mental breakdown. I guess the news that recently came out was that he was a subway performer and his mental health collapsed after his, I think his mom was killed, is what they're reporting. And after that, he kind of just lost it. And then he had been arrested 40 times. He had once punched a six, seven-year-old woman in the face. And so as he was belligerent and on the subway, reportedly threatening people, saying that he was ready to die and he would hurt people.

This is when the three men subdued him. Reportedly, the Marine told everyone to call 911 and get the police down there. And then he ended up dying, which has resulted in the left, like AOC, whether or not people were, I don't know. I don't know if you consider her left, but AOC. Yeah, she's progressive. She said this was a public murder. And now you've got protesters calling for this guy to be arrested they're saying he committed a murder and uh i think this is actually a really good example of what is described as

anarcho-tyranny in that you had 25 people pushed onto subway tracks in the past year you've had uh like a woman get raped on a train in Philadelphia. And we don't hear a single peep from any of these politicians, from any of these activists until someone actually stops the guy. If you go back seven years. Kills him, right? Kills him. He killed him. Sure. Yeah.

So when someone is being violent and then someone else acts in self-defense of others and the person dies in the process, now there's all of a sudden calls for, okay, so this guy should be criminally charged, but there was no call for stopping the 25 people being pushed on the subway tracks. That's an ongoing and acceptable thing, I suppose. I'm never gonna sit here and try and defend people pushing people on the subway tracks. That's a crime, like that's terrible. Attempted murder.

Yeah, exactly, especially if they die. So that's horrible. No one's gonna be on the other side of that argument, but in terms of like the guy who just got killed, isn't, and you can correct me if I'm wrong on this, doesn't in self-defense, like the proportionality of what you're doing has to be in response to the actual aggressive actions

of the person, right? It has to be proportional. Is that correct? So you feel in your mind that it was a proportional response for him to choke him out to death in that situation because he was going to become such a threat to the person who ch him out you you stepped up you said you made a big leap right there which what's the lead the you're you're ascribing intent to the marine to kill oh i'm

not saying he intended to kill him i never said that but he did end up killing him right so that's so that was material so well no but what is what has to be material tim it has to be is he making what he's doing proportionality argument or are you making yes i'm asking well i'm asking you that because is what he did proportional to the threat? So the threat that he was going to do. It is proportional to subdue someone that is threatening other people and saying he'll die in the process. And end up killing them, even if that was. So see, now you're doing it again.

You're ascribing intent. No, I'm not ascribing intent. I'm saying the results. This is what happened. The guy's dead. He's dead, right? Results are immaterial to the proportionality of action so the proportionality of action in your mind was justified to what he was doing his actual action he held the guy on

the ground while he said call 9-1-1 killed him and choked him until he died you're doing it again no you keep saying i'm doing it again i'm saying this is the end results i'm not saying this is what he meant to do maybe he didn't i don't know i don't know what's in his heart neither do you none of us know what he meant to do that day when he woke up absolutely if someone is threatening other people you are allowed to subdue them. And that would be like an involuntary manslaughter. No, no, no. But this is what happened.

It's to the point of death. So you have- It's not a criminal- I'm not saying he intended to kill him. That's the difference, right? But if he ended up dying as a result of that, was that proportional? Yes. He needed to be killed.

No. Or he could have killed someone else. Hold on. Stop that. You keep trying to say needed to be. No. No, no, no. But that's what happened. That's the end result. You're saying the Marine tried to kill him. No. Hold on. Stop that. You keep trying to say needed to be. No, no, no, no. But that's what happened.

That's the end result. You're saying the Marine tried to kill him. No, I didn't say that. Then why would you say? You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that's what ended up happening. Let me respond. Then why would you say needed to be killed?

Because what he did to him, his chokeout ended up with the guy dying. So that was the end result. So his proportional response to what he thought was a threat was that I'm going to choke him out. I'm not trying to kill him, but I'm going to choke him out. Whether or not he dies is going to be something that we're just going to remain to be on the cards right this is chance we'll leave it up the chance so you are making a huge leap right there there's no hey tim yeah what he's doing is that proportional is choking someone with the possibility of death show with the possibility of death yes okay so that okay let me tell you so if if someone tried illegally entering my home,

I will use whatever force necessary to stop them from illegally entering my home, and illegally entering my home, right? I have the legal justification in the state that I live in to use whatever force necessary to stop someone from entering my home illegally. Now, you can't invite someone in, and there's actually some legal barriers here.

Like, if someone actually walks up to your house and the door is open and they walk in, that's actually not an illegal entry. It is to a certain degree, but it's like trespass. It's like your door was open, there was no obstruction, and then you'll make an argument about entering the domicile could be considered fourth degree burglary, depending on which state you're in. If they actually open the door and enter, they've now committed felony burglary. And you are entitled in West Virginia to use whatever force necessary to stop someone from illegally entering your house that doesn't mean you just intend to

actually kill someone so in terms of we're out in the street someone is threatening someone else you are legally entitled to subdue them now even if that sub like even in the act of doing that you could kill them yes absolutely absolutely because Because where you're going with it is like, what act of subduing would be permitted in your mind then? Like holding his hands tightly? One that doesn't have a possibility of death, I would say. Give me one. Give me one in your martial arts expertise.

Zero. Absolutely zero. Okay. And I think I can contend that no one here has any, right? Or sorry, am I in a judo room? I've just watched a lot of movies. No, but... Sharp elbows.

But no, none of us have black belts. We don't know this shit. We're just a bunch of people who talk on the internet, right? But not going black belt. I mean, I have hostile environment training and I have some minimal martial arts training. Minimal, minimal, minimal.

I've done some kung fu, Taekwondo. So once again, there's no experts here to talk about this. So certainly we'll contend I am not an expert. However, if someone is threatening harm against another person and three people find it reasonable to subdue him and the person dies, that person was in the process of committing a crime.

If you lose your life in the process of committing a crime, I'm not going to blame the victims for this right would you blame the victims for this when you're saying victims you mean the people who killed him the people who are being attacked but were they attacked prior or did they try to subdue him so do we have do we have footage before so in new york for example if you go up to someone and threaten them you've committed a crime right you've committed a criminal act of violence against another person by threatening them and going up to their face. Right. And so you're saying at that point you have the ability to proportionally respond with violence.

Yeah. Actually, there's a there's a video of this. Myth informed has it seven years ago, this man was called a hero for diffusing violence by putting another man in a chokehold. A man in the subway was getting up in people's faces and he was threatening them. And another man got up behind him and put him in a chokehold and he was put on national television and he was celebrated as a hero for doing so so this is what i'm talking about anarcho-tyranny i feel like you're latching on to this completely from a point of uh you don't have knowledge on proper uh technique for subduing an individual none of us do nor the legal expertise but but see see that that's kind of an absurd thing to just outright, well, look, I'm going to say this guy committed a murder and should go to prison, but I'm not an expert and

neither are you, therefore he should be convicted. I never said that. I'm actually asking questions because these are things that I don't fully understand about, is it legal for him to do what he did? Yes. That's why he wasn't charged. It is proportionately legal. Yes. Okay. That's why he wasn't charged, he was released. However, in this day and age, what's likely going to happen is a narco tyranny. People go out in the streets, they protest, and the police say, for political reasons, we're going to go find this guy and we're going to arrest him. But I don't know. It depends.

Unfortunately, we don't have footage of what happened before the chokehold. That's what I'd like to know. But if there's enough people on the train that are witness to what was happening and they're like, yo, he was threatening all of us, then I think the cops are not going to mess with that guy. And that's what was reported. And there were three men trying to subdue him as he fought back. So there's, there's, there's like, there's, there's no debate that this guy was acting

violently and threatening people. And even said he was prepared to die. At that point, you have what could be a terroristic threat. I think, I think if a guy got on a train and screamed, I'm going to cause harm to people and then said he was willing to die. You'd probably want to stop him because there's signs all over the subway saying, if you see something, say something. And I suppose we could go the route of when Luke Rutkowski had that video, there was a guy in a subway with a knife stabbing people, and the cop said, we're not going to get involved at all. And then some guy had to try and intervene himself. It's funny.

That guy's a hero. Yeah, that was, I think, i think oh yeah here it is matt walsh retweeted alexander cortez's tweet from six hours ago and asking specifically what are they supposed to do what are people supposed to do in this situation are they supposed to sit there if someone's screaming they're gonna they're gonna hurt somebody you just sit there and wait until they actually hurts the person and then you respond and i'm just i'm just curious you know honest question uh we have the story from the daily mail from october 25 victims have been shoved in front of subway cars so far this year. Two victims were killed.

Where was the protest? Well, you know, where was the video footage of it? There is video footage of it. Is it public? Yes. Public video footage? And I can't play it on YouTube. But yo, there's video footage of people being pushed in front of trains.

And where's AOC? Where's any of these protesters? Nowhere to be found. Anarcho-tyranny is that when the criminals do it, as explained in, what was it, Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago, when a criminal does this act in the Soviet Union, that's just a criminal. That's what they do. But when you, the citizen, defend yourself, you knew better. But so you're blaming AOC for not bringing attention to this specifically? Blaming? Or are you saying that she's hypocritical? Because she doesn't talk about the people being pushed in front of trains, but she's talking about this now?

Is that what you're saying? I'm not saying hypocritical. No, I'm saying I have a question of why now? Why only when people are victimized and they defend themselves are they are we now upset about what happened victimized we're talking about a poor homeless person who may have been having uh an episode and died in what like ended up being the struggle that that's so why are the people who were subduing him victims what what makes the victims he assaulted them so you have that on camera that he assaulted them first According to all the news reports and the police and the witness statements.

Can we see the footage? I want to see. I haven't seen that yet. I think we can show the choke out. Okay. So according to the news reports, the witnesses and the police, he went and threatened violence against people, which is assault. Right.

But you're saying he specifically threatened violence against the people who subdued him. Do we have evidence of that? It's one thing for him to be in a train, be like, I'm upset. You're not winning an argument here. I'm not trying to win an argument. You're being awfully pedantic. Awfully pedantic? Yes.

How would you use pedantic in this form? As in, I'm trying to get to the root of this problem. No, no, no. It's absurd to imply that if a woman, if a guy walks up to a woman and says he's going to harm her, that another man can't protect her. Right. And so this is why I'm asking,

did he say to the people who subdued him, I'm going to harm you? I'm going to to hurt you that's immaterial to a self-defense claim in proportionality okay if this guy was threatening people right and then someone said i'm going to stop you before you hurt someone that is legal self-defense acting in the defense of others that makes those people who are stopping the guy threatening people the victims of a violent individual who is trying to cause harm. I just find it fascinating that there's an effort to defend the aggressor in this circumstance. Right?

Oh, so you're suggesting that the guys, even if the guys that were choking out weren't the ones being threatened, that they're still considered a victim because they stepped in to defend other people? Well, I'm saying outright that if you're on a train and there's a guy, you're on a train, you can't get off that train. You are trapped, right? Yeah, I used to live in this area, by the way. I used to live in Flatbush. I used to take these trains every single day. I have seen this. I have seen this and worse.

I have seen people in the middle of episodes where I was like, this person could potentially either harm themselves or harm me. It never crossed my mind that I need to choke them out to the point of potential death in order to protect everyone else on the train.

That never even went through my mind. So that's why I'm asking you, do you have specific footage of him threatening the very people who subdued and ended up killing him? But why does that matter? I don't think there is footage. All right, well, then that's all I want to know.

But what does that have to do with what I said? That's why I understand your thought process. Because I would think that the proportionality being that you ended up killing them, even if that was not your intent, I understand that you don't think he intended to do that fine but even if that was it were they like threats to him in the immediate like present where were they on the verge of committing an act of violence towards him that required proportional violence that ended up in death but it's not a

requirement someone threatens you for you to act in defense of others right so your question is kind of in a in a in an unnecessary direction and i'll elaborate if you're on a train and you're trapped in a box and someone is threatening violence then yeah you're a victim because so i've been a victim multiple times then i was i was in these subways absolutely okay it's the craziest thing to me i don't feel like a victim i've never been hurt i never was hurt by people who are going through those kind of other people have been i i'm not saying they haven't i'm not i'm not saying 25 people were pushed in front of trains okay so these 25 people were pushing from trains how is that directly related were these people also going through

episodes were they also people who were homeless where did they have mental illness where like i would say anybody shoving someone in front of a train at random is like going through an episode you know what i mean the correlation is that crime and murder on the subway has been increasing or has at least been apparent in the press but i don't see you caring about it at all until it's the aggressor who gets who gets killed no one i think on the left is going to defend this stat that you're pulling then why put a guy in prison for finally saying stop killing people this is like tim if i approached you today and i was like hey do you know what goes on in rikers island have any of you done a show on what happens in rikers island how they hold people in rikers island do you know what we we

not rikers island specifically but we talk about prison reform all the time okay okay do you know about bail reform and the fact that people die in rikers island waiting waiting to have their day in court because they can't afford it and we've talked about it and you've done entire shows on that and we've talked about how people literally die in prison while they're waiting for that shit. We talked about. That's terrible. Okay. So we actually talked about one guy who got wrongly arrested, lost his job, was kicked out of his apartment, went to Rikers for three months only to be released and then told, sorry, there's nothing you can do about it.

The city owes him nothing because they considered the prosecution not to be malicious. But this is the problem, man. Like, we talk about stuff like this all the time but the example you just gave me was not me talking about the systemic problem of people who are poor being in rikers island before they before they get to trial they die before they get they're not released you just gave me a story of someone who was released i'm giving you an example of a specific show we've actually talked about someone wrongly held and had their life destroyed okay now of course we can we can we can go on further and say yes people have died yes the system is corrupt

and my point is this when we talk about stuff like this like wow in october we talked about 25 people being pushed in front of push in front of train cars you guys just shit all over us and ignore these problems then finally when when three guys ignoring this i told you no one's on the other side of this no no no no one is pro push people on to train where's your protest where's your protest where's my protest yeah where's your where's your rikers protest we headed on the show but you did a protest you did an actual protest you guys stood up and then walked to the streets we don't we don't go on the streets ever i'm not blaming you for not talking about that tim because this is like this is the problem of like you are judging someone based on absence based on your absence of caring about something

why haven't you talked about this, Lance? The fact that you haven't talked about this means that you don't care about that. That's not true though. That's not what I said. But that's the implication of what you're saying right now. My implication is instead of helping us deal with this when we talk about it,

you make up garbage about us and then post nonsense on the internet. What if I brought up garbage about people pushing people to trains? This is the most random example. I'm not talking about you saying, I'm saying you don't talk about it, right right i'm not criticizing you for not talking about i'm saying finally when there are people who are like we've had 25 people pushed in front of trains we've had two of

them killed i'm not gonna let this person hurt somebody it's y'all saying that person should go to prison so how is that solving the problem you guys are making it worse your protests your support for the criminals make this worse so our solution to this if you're asking when you're saying you you mean the left right our solution to a lot of this you're speaking in support of the criminal so i'm saying you okay so i am saying that the solution to a lot of this would be investing very heavily in things like health care like getting and making sure that people have access to it and not cutting the restrictions like allowing people to have access to health, not as a requirement based on how

much money they have based on their income, but allowing them to get the care they need. That would have gone a long way to preventing a problem like this and future problems that are going to happen. I have no idea what's going on with the 25 people have been pushing in front of trains. If it happens to be because people have mental illness, this is a tangible solution that we could work towards. This is something that that i'm are you against that idea about investing heavily into mental health care public health care well then there there you go that's a much better line so here's my issue my issue is when this story came out in october we talked about it and we said why is this happening what are the solutions what are the problems when this story comes out now you completely ignorant of what's been going on

in new york side with the criminal and so people like me are flabbergasted that we've been focused on the the the issue of crime the issue of mental health the entire time going back several years because and this is why i left new york because of because two cops got murdered outside of my apartment and then what do we hear protesters in the street defending the criminals. You keep saying criminal. I have a problem with criminalizing people who are homeless or people who are poor or people who are mentally ill. And then suddenly. I'm not saying he's a criminal for being poor.

I'm saying he's a criminal because he threatened people with harm. Like incitement to violence is a crime, just like AOC says, right? I really want to see the start of this video footage. I want to see the moment where he was threatening the very people who tried to take him down. Look, either you accept that the witnesses, the media and the police say this is what happened or we can agree

no one has any idea so there's no point even talking about it. I think the interesting maybe confluence is that you were mentioning preventative measures are a way to go about it.

What do you think about defensive measures like people should be armed and ready for this kind of thing regardless of the prevention methods? I mean, when it comes to defensive measures and people should be armed, I'm going to probably be on regardless of the prevention methods. I mean, when it comes to defensive measures and people should be armed,

I'm going to probably be on the exact opposite as the rest of you, because you're probably very pro-gun here, right? I'm just making, yeah. We don't have the same problems in Canada that you do in the United States for mass shootings, for mass gun violence, for that kind of stuff. You have 30 million people, don't you?

Is it 30 million? Okay, so by ratio of the population, Tim. So if you compare ratio of the population, Canadians to America, we don't have mass shootings like you do. No one else does. It's a uniquely American problem. The mass shooting thing is a uniquely American thing.

Obesity is pretty heavy here. Well, it's, I don't think it's fair to say uniquely American because there are mass shootings in many other countries. Oh, there is, but it's a uniquely American problem that it's disproportionately happening here. Well, mass killings aren't a uniquely American problem, but mass killings done with the use of firearms is much more uniquely American. I don't think anyone's going to debate that countries that have fewer firearms are going to have fewer people killing each other with firearms.

It then becomes a moral question of whether it's... Australia has more per capita than the United States? Is that right? More per capita? That is not true. No country comes close to the United States. I just looked up a list of countries by... No, no, no.

Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That was a mistake. Sorry, Australia. El Salvador, Venezuela. And when you're correcting... Yeah, so... Yeah, so when you're correcting... Sorry if I just finished my thought. Sure. Yeah, yeah. no no okay i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry uh that was a mistake sorry el salvador venezuela yeah so yeah so sorry if i just finished my thought sure yeah yeah so so my basic point yeah that was way way off uh the united states is not the most it is one two three four five six seven eight ninth

el salvador and so of all the other countries in that list which of them are considered part of the g20 you have to compare countries that have similar economic systems similar economic like uh societal uh you know structures structures. The United States places number one when you compare them to any other G20 country. No, so it's true that as far as developed nations go, the United States does have a much higher rate of gun violence. I don't deny that. My argument is simply that other nations do have higher rates, depending on the nation that you're looking at. There are still a pretty decently high homicide rate in a lot of developed countries, and there are a lot of mass killings in In the United States, those mass killings are generally

carried out with firearms. But according to CDC studies, firearms are used to prevent more violent crimes each year than they're used to commit. So it's a much more complex argument than simply saying the U.S. has more firearm deaths, therefore restricting firearm ownership would prevent those. Let me ask you, too. Do you know what country has the most grenade attacks? I only know the answer because I saw you type in it. I think it's Sweden, right? I actually didn't type that in. I would have no idea.

By the way, decently high murder rate was very clumsy. I don't want to cheat, but I saw you type in it. I didn't type in Sweden. I typed in most grenade attacks by country, and Sweden is the only thing that comes up. And, yeah, Sweden has more grenade attacks than any other country but grenades are illegal there okay i've got a feeling why why are there grenade attacks okay so oh yeah i would love to answer this question so if we're going back to guns and the u.s versus canada when i said that there's g20 uh if we look at all the g20 countries the

united states disproportionately by ratio of the population has way more gun deaths way more gun violence and a lot of that gun violence by by the way, is people killing themselves, just so we're completely clear. Yeah. But if you look at it in the framework of Canada has a very different set of rules for firearms than the United States does, you can still have a firearm in Canada. You just have to take a two day course and you get a license and then you get gun training and then you have the ability to buy guns.

And that way everyone has a license. They know how to use firearms properly. They're not just going to be running around the streets, point to them and then all that gun training and then you have the ability to buy guns and that way everyone has a license they know how to use firearms properly they're not just going to be running around the streets point to them and then all that kind of shit and you can also control for that but that's not that's not what's happening in the united states like people just running around randomly like no i'm not saying that it is but i'm saying that that is in my in my opinion that is a better system i'm not i'm not i'm not trying to take your guns away hell no uh i think guns are fun we all love shooting guns i like having a second penis i'm just saying that at the end of the day, if you look at how it works with Canada, this could be applied to the United States federally. You could have a program, a federal

program, where you have to have a two-day gun training program. You tax the gun producers and the weapons manufacturers, and then you get them to pay for it so poor people could afford this program. But you can't do that because gun ownership is a constitutional right. Or I should say gun ownership is a human right. Or I should say, gun ownership is a human right, guaranteed, protected against government infringement. I'm all about training in schools. I think the public schools should have gun training for kids. Like they used to. They used to, yeah.

Gun clubs. I would highly advocate for more training. But you're just suggesting that you can't force it on people? The Constitution, clearly, and according to the writings of the Founding Fathers and to, I think, Heller versus D.C., gun ownership is a human right. And the Constitution protects against government infringement of that right. That being said, we got the NFA. We got the updates to the NFA in the 80s. So certainly gun rights have been infringed to an absurd degree. Not to mention, back in the days when they codified the Constitution,

people owned warships privately. And Halliburton, Northrop Grumman, well, I shouldn't say Halliburton, they're a construction thing, but Northrop Grumman, Boeing, et cetera,

these companies are private companies that build nuclear weapons. So basically where we're at right now is that private corporations with no accountability can have the most powerful weapons

of mass destruction in the world, but them and the government. And like the con like i just it doesn't follow either either the people have the power or they don't have the power right we've abdicated it to corrupt organizations and corporations are not people right let's be clear uh these this regarding this dude that choked the guy out i think what's going to come up is was it was it adequate force or was it too much and i feel like if he had punched the guy in directly in the face that would have been worse because although like if they got no fist fight because he could have fallen backward and hit his head at least this he was in control of the guy's body it's it's really

sad that the guy died but i feel like this was like a very low level amount of force to apply to someone that was threatening to kill people or hurt people why why why did three people find it necessary he was probably flailing and kicking and screaming you know who knows so it is hard because you mentioned there's no footage prior but something happened that resulted in three new york people who are likely not conservatives to decide this man must be subdued yeah three people so so when it comes to the idea of proportionality i'm like if three new yorkers of all people were like this guy's got to be stopped that's kind of crazy to me because look i'm i'm i'm a gun nut right you my my view is people have a right to defend

themselves with a lot more force than people in new york do but if people in new york felt they had to stop him these people you know i doubt these guys are conservative there's like no conservatives live in new york it's like 20% Republican. And if they are Republican, they're probably moderate, right? Something must have happened, but that, but I don't even need to sit here and say what could have, or what must have, what we know, what we choose to believe based on what the police, the media, and the witnesses have said is that this guy was threatening people with violence and said he was prepared to lose his life over it three three men then said this man must be subdued and they subdued him and then the guy died which sucks it's unfortunate they did get a cause of death it was a compression of the neck yeah homicide so

you've got a massive platform here a lot of people watch you all the time and so what you say obviously navigate for is going to affect a lot of people's lives if this is a problem that genuinely concerns you why isn't it something that you would frame and want to advocate for more resources for mental health access and bring that up on a regular basis? And I'm not saying, and I'm sure I know. Okay. Hold on, Tim. I'm sure you've done it before.

I'm sure you've had specials before. I'm what? We do it a lot. Okay. Why isn't that the focus? Why isn't, why isn't today? Hey, by the way, everybody, this horrifying tragedy happened on the New York subway. We got to talk about this.

Here's, here's our angle. Our angle is we need to invest in mental health. We need to invest in giving access to public health care for Americans. First of all, when it comes to the issue of violence in this country, conservatives have been screaming about mental health for decades. Reagan is one of the ones that gutted the institutions in America. Yeah, Reagan's one of the worst presidents this country's ever had. No fault divorce. How about that? Yeah, that yeah no gun control yeah who i don't know

why republicans like that guy there were there were the reason that they like him is because of the way that he stood up to communism but i totally agree that he had a lot of really bad policies and i'm not a stan but but conservatives have taken the stance of gun violence and mass shootings as an issue of mental health and then the left takes the the opposing but do they invest in that do they vote for it because of course not the republican party's garbage when i look up the votes of the republican party they're not voting for amendments that are actually going to like give people more access to mental health but but look man you're but that's that's where you have but that's where you have an opportunity but you don't want to come on to

a show where we say the democratic and republican party should be dismantled and obliterated and then make an argument that one side is bad i'll sit here and be like bro if you want to have a a make a list of every single member of congress who should be removed from office i will put all of them but like four one problem is that when people advocate for mental health a lot of that advocation is more drugs that this new drug will fix your brain but i'm of the belief that less drugs allow you to fix your like sometimes for for very short periods time, you might need something to help, but then you don't want people long-term. I don't want them on psycho, you know, crazy pharmaceuticals that make them go, you know. Right, right, right. And, and, and we have to bring up, uh, often this medication actually

increases suicidal ideation and aggressive thoughts and things like that. But I do want to answer your question. You said, why isn't that the subject of like the show today? Or the premise or the framing of it. Because when we do talk about this stuff on like a normal day, when news breaks of like 25 people push in front of trains, or a woman was raped on a train in Philadelphia, and we're sitting here saying like,

what is going on in these cities? What are the failed policies that are resulting in this? We talk about it all the time. Today, we're talking about the fact that protesters went out in New York and physically assaulted one of our friends and reporter because he simply filmed them. And they are demanding criminal charges of the guy who tried to stop the violent offense. See, that is a narco tyranny that when you have ongoing crime, when you have victimization,

people being killed and a woman being raped on a train, we talk for a year, two years, three years. When the riots happened in 2020, we had Michael Tracy's reporting showing all the riots across the country and the mom and pop shops are putting up signs saying, please don't hurt us. We talk about it nonstop. And then one day, someone on a train, three guys say, we must stop this man. Maybe because they were like, we've seen too many people die on a train three guys say we must stop this man maybe because they were like we've seen too many people die on on these train tracks before and now we've got leftist protesters saying that guy should go to prison for it and aoc calling it a public murder i'm like yo aoc i didn't see you call out the public murder in the subway trains and again maybe it's ignorance but the problem i see is this is why i refer to the left

as npcs or a cult there is complete ignorance to the problem ongoing and then a hyper polarization in a single moment in the wrong direction which makes the problem worse you know what's so wild is the other side feels the exact same way except we're not conservatives except we're not conservatives you see that's the problem is it all right if i jump in with something right because i i've been a conservative he's a moon lord and i'm a slay mess i i've also i've been reluctant to interject because i don't want to just dog pile and so i didn't want to get in on it oh no i'm here for the dog pile i signed you're not i promise i promise you're not this is where you sat no i'm here for the dog so i think when you talk about mental health in trying to solve the problem of mental health in this country, that is a deceptively simple way of putting it right.

Every single person in this room would have a very different idea of how that problem should be solved. And I agree with you that right now, Republicans aren't doing a whole lot to talk about mental health issues, at least with respect to whatever New York mental health issue that this specific person is dealing with. But New York is not a Republican place. No, no, no. I totally agree with that, too. But I'm saying he was saying, well, I don't Republicans do more to advocate for mental health treatment. My point, however, is that I think the kind of advocacy you'd see from conservatives on how to solve the problem of bad mental health in the United States would be a much different set of policy prescriptions than you would want so so one example of this actually what ian said so what ian said so and there's a number of different directions you could take this in my fundamental belief is

that we live in a culture that encourages man to live in ways that man is not meant to live and you just see negative health outcomes from that both mental and physical however when you look at traditional psychological definitions of mental illness and how we used to treat it, back in the 1950s, you had about 500,000 people in the United States in insane asylums. By the 1980s, it's about 100,000. Okay, so without even adjusting for the increase in population size, there's a significantly lower number of people who are committed. And part of that is because the requirement to get somebody committed involuntarily to a mental health facility at that time was they can't take care of themselves. Today, they have to demonstrate that they are a danger to themselves and others first

before they can be committed. Now, is someone not being able to take care of themselves necessarily the perfect indicator of whether they need to be committed to one of these institutions? I have no idea. However, what I do know is once we push the goalpost all the way in the other direction and say they have to demonstrate that they are a significant danger to themselves or others, oftentimes they don't get committed until after they've already hurt somebody. So it's a much more complicated situation than saying we just have to throw more money at this system when we don't even have a solid definition of what good mental health is and also at which

point someone should be committed. So I think the the the the important point going back to what i i agree uh this is not a conservative show but if you are in a cult you wouldn't know that you you would you would only hear what the cult says so so here's here's what i have to respond to that if if an objective person say an alien just showed up and looked at your channel tim and went through all the videos and you were to ask them poll them is this person and his views where would you place them most likely they would say conservative that's that's gonna be that's actually yes but more because the guests that come on not just the guests but the way they're framed the thumbnails the the words that you put in red and the you know whether or not you're supporting or going against one either the democrats or republicans but hey you you tell me that you guys don't like the democrats and you

don't like the republicans This is not a Republican stream. You don't want to even endorse the Republicans in any way, shape, or form or vote for them. Big no. I don't vote for Republicans, we do like. Okay, sure, but there's a lot of right-wingers who watch you, right? That's what I mean when I say you do have a voice and you do have an audience of right-wingers

who are going to vote at one point or another. 30% of your audience is right-wing. Most of the people who watch this, the largest faction is libertarian okay the next largest is would be considered traditional liberal oh no no i think uh but along party lines who are the libertarians going to vote for not the libertarian party most likely they're going to vote for whoever on this show and say abolish the police one of the two republican yeah most likely yes one of the two so that's why i say tim for the people who watch you who are Republican-leaning, why not frame it that way for them

so that they can actually start pushing more money into that? That's why I'm here. Ah. Basically, true, I think, in a lot of ways. That's what Moonloin does. So here's what I think. I think you're in a cult, right?

Okay. I think the cult is derived from algorithms on social media. Okay. So you only surround yourself with this loud noise. We saw a really good example of this with that uh sisson guy is that his name harry harry sisson yeah those two guys went on

the tim dillon podcast and he said please no no don't clip this i will lose followers i can rag on trump all the time and like people still watch the show uh shamus and i can have an argument over me being pro-choice and him being pro-life, and people still watch the show. And if I pull up all sides with 3,770 ratings, Tim Pool is a centrist. But you think I'm conservative because you live in a bubble, right? Because I'm too far lefty over to those too far away is what you're saying? So like when I go hang out in Washington, D.C., and I do, I go to National Harbor or I go to Baltimore, Maryland, and then Baltimore. I don't know why you do that in Washington, D.C. The people who come up to me and are like, hey, man, I'm a big fan are not conservatives.

They hate Donald Trump. In fact, I was at a poker table last week and a guy said, I just hate Donald Trump. Man, I can't stand him. I wish somebody else would run, but I can't vote for Joe Biden. You I think you're surrounded. We talk about this quite a bit. Sure. If if all sides has 000 uh people rating me and the end result is centrist if i'm actively pro universal health care not to the same degree as like bernie sanders i believe in private health insurance and i'm pro-choice i am absolutely not a conservative in this country i've listened to your debates on pro-choice though you're pro-choice from a tim pool's perspective i would say choice from a traditional liberal perspective as it's as

not from what people who would define themselves as pro-choice though you're pro-choice from a tim pool's perspective i would say choice from a traditional liberal perspective as it's as traditional not from what people who would define themselves as pro-choice would say right like you concentrate very heavily on on the ninth month abortions and baby guillotines and stuff like that like what yeah yeah you i remember watching you debate guillotine yeah okay so baby guillotines is my own personal interpretation and joke of it but you were talking about how women uh how how like disgusted you are that women may have an abortion in the ninth month right or or even a viable baby of a viable baby that could and i i wanted to scream at that time being like women who have abortions in the ninth month they're not doing that because they got bored or all of a sudden they're like oh i don't care anymore they do that because it's a fucking

tragedy like statistically women who are getting abortions in the ninth month it's because there's a medical complication that could kill them that's why they have to do it what do you mean false that's the real world i already said viable i'd try again what are you talking about tim i already said abortion of viable fetuses at nine months this is ridiculous do you know do you know viable means yes yes it means the baby can survive on its own without medical complications absolutely and why legalize abortion of viable fetuses at nine months when the baby could just women are not getting abortions at the ninth month for pleasure or because they want to suddenly do it for kicks no that doesn't happen it's a tragedy it's a tragedy because because there are medical operations that could kill the mother and they need to get an abortion why legalize i

just told you that's the reason why so all right i'll try and break it down for you if can the baby survive okay let's let's talk about a baby. The baby can survive on its own, yes? Sure. Okay. Abortion is defined by Planned Parenthood and the law as terminating the life of the baby. Correct. Why terminate the life of the baby if it can survive on its own?

Because it could kill both of them. That's why it is done at that stage. It could kill one or the other, and they have to make the tough done at that stage so how do you kill one or the other and they have to make the tough decision at that point so how do you remove the fully formed nine month baby at that point oh i i don't know the science of it i i've never before that operation so shouldn't the law then be if the baby must be removed and it is alive and capable of survival all actions must be taken to preserve the life of the child and the mother i would say they'd probably choose the mother first right why and and this is such a strange scenario how often do you think

that this happens and all of a sudden they're like the baby could have lived you could have done it why did you choose the other option it's like this is a tragedy of the highest order because they want to have the kid at nine months pregnant a woman is on her way to give birth so it's like it's the worst possible fucking i'm sorry that's not always again i said i didn't want to dog pile but that's the i mean that's it's statistically not true there have been surveys done on women who had later abortions and for a pretty large sum of them it's because they were not sure whether the father of the child was willing to commit and then when they found out he wasn't willing to commit they would have the abortion uh and so there are different stats you're going to find for different points in pregnancy when it comes all the way along to nine months.

I don't have the statistical data on that. However, I do know for later term abortions, there are reasons other than what is traditionally considered to be a medically necessary reason. For example, some people will say that a negative mental health outcome is a reason to abort a child later in pregnancy. So if the woman is depressed, they will list that as a reason for why the child had to be terminated to save the life of the mother which is certainly not the case very obviously and to the point of what tim is saying when we say there's no such thing as a medically necessary abortion the principle behind that is if there is

an operation which is necessary to save the life of the mother and then she miscarries the child as a result of that operation which was necessary to save her life that's not an abortion because nobody's intent was to go in there and end the life of the unborn child and so if a woman's having complications where she has to deliver early you deliver the child early of course and if you're at a point in pregnancy where the child isn't viable that's a horrible tragedy you still do what you can to save the child but you can't always save the child and we understand that but to go in and rip the child apart to end their life is never something which is medically required even though an early delivery maybe but are there situations where if the baby is in this is so harsh uh in its complete form that even trying to induce early pregnancy could kill the mother so they

have to break the baby's body apart so that they can get it out without killing the mother i've never heard of such a thing so and there are there are letters by the way son signed by literally thousands of doctors who have let me ask let me let me just say one thing so 88 of abortions are in the first 12 weeks 88 88 of abortions less abortions. Less than 1.3% of abortions take place near the 8th or 9th month. How many abortions is that? Is that a good marker? How many is that?

I don't know the actual numbers. This is the percentages. 13,000. Okay, but we're talking about less than 1.3% of them. Hold on, 13,000, that's the number of people who die from gun violence in the US

each year that aren't suicides. Gentlemen, I am not here to justify abortion when it happens as in it's a good thing. I don't celebrate it. Brother, you're saying it doesn't happen. No, no, no. I don't celebrate it. You're saying it doesn't happen. No, no, no.

You're saying it doesn't happen. It happens 13,000 times. I said it's extremely. There is 338 million Americans. I'm sorry. The numbers are going to be a little daunting. Yes, the numbers will be high. I'm not here to celebrate that.

I don't understand your argument then. My argument is that there's a lot of human beings. If 13,000 people die from guns, we have a problem, right? If 13,000 people die from guns, we have a problem. Yes, of course. If 13,000 late-term abortions happen is that a problem these are completely different things how so okay so if someone dies by a gun are they being shot were they killed did they kill themselves was it a suicide was it a gang violence thing who knows that's a good question

but in the case of late-term abortions more often than not when statistics say and they when polled, they say the reason that they are giving it is because it's a medical complication that could result in a death of the mother or the child. So let's, I should, can we make the argument then that the use of guns on people are allowed? The use of guns on people are allowed? To end their lives is allowed. So that's murder. you're describing murder so if colorado for instance passes a law saying there is no medical requirement for an abortion is it is it wrong to take to kill the baby you're talking about you're trying to compare murdering someone with a gun to a woman having to make a medical decision that could basically preserve her life

no no i said not not a medical reason that's what preserve her life? No, no, no. I said not a medical reason. That's what I'm saying. Should she have the ability to have an abortion for any reason? Yes. At nine months? At nine months. I would say at nine months because it only happens according to the stats based on complete medical necessity. She has a right to do it. No, no, no. She should have a right to do it.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. Colorado legalized abortion in up to nine months with no medical reason required. Do you agree with that? I agree with that decision that decision so so the baby could survive on its own and the mother is legally now allowed to just end its life she has the right if she wanted to you're saying so in colorado and i'm it's not a trick question you're i know i know but i'm asking but i'm asking you because you're the one who brought this up i don't know what colorado specific law says so if you were saying that in colorado women have the ability at nine months to get to have an abortion for any reason they could just decide the elective yeah okay i think they should have the right to do that but the

stats show that they're not doing that but they should have a legal right to do that yes it's their body it's their choice of course so this is what i do i disagree and i i think if the baby needs to be removed from the woman there's no reason to kill it you know what i mean like you could just C-section and then put up for adoption. But I'm telling you that doesn't happen. But it does. But hold on, hold on, hold on.

You might be able to bring up anecdotes, but the stats don't say that. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Like why allow it to happen? I just don't understand. Are you arguing? Hold on, hold on. Are you arguing you oppose it

and you think it's morally wrong, but you think it should be legal i i think that women should have the right to decide what they do and have bodily autonomy over their own bodies we're not talking about her body we're talking it is her body of course it is at nine months even if it's still inside her still her body even if it's a viable removal of the baby yes the forceful removal of the baby or forceful so she chooses to have that she says the baby must be removed from my body why kill the baby if they're removing it i don't think they should do that i would i would if they asked me if they asked me lenz should i do this i would say no but she should have a right yes of course it's her

body still that doesn't stop so like the woman is pregnant the baby is viable and capable of surviving on its own sure and she says before it hits before it breaches oxygen kill it you think that should be allowed? This is, again, the baby guillotines. This is why I brought that up. But a weird scenario. This doesn't happen. This is not the real world.

But it does. And if the argument is that doesn't happen enough for you to care, that's fine. You're allowed to believe that. What I don't understand is it seems like your position is a rather shock position where you recognize there is something inherently wrong with taking the life of a baby that could survive on its own, but you also, but you're also taking the tribal position of women should be allowed to do it anyway. No, no, no. If you were to ask me, Tim, Hey Lance, do you think it's a good idea of this woman who's nine months pregnant? Suddenly

she got bored with the pregnancy. She doesn't want to have it anymore, but the baby's viable. Do you think that's a good thing to do? I would be like, no, of course not. Then why should it be allowed? Because it's still her right. It's still her body. But bodily autonomy doesn't stop at my morality. Tim, it's not my choice. It's not my, yes, but that's not my choice. Why kill it? Why kill it?

That's her choice, not mine. Why kill the baby? Ask her. Ask her. Okay. So my point is simply this. You don't need to be shocked by it. You're allowed to have that moral position.

I think most people in America would prescribe that to be uh would ascribe evil to that sure the idea you can describe evil to whatever you want that's up to you that's your choice the idea that you would say doesn't mean that she's the woman wants the baby removed and then in the process instead of letting the baby live remove it but kill it right there's no reason to do that there's no you can give the baby up for adoption you can drop the baby off on the doorstep of a post office i agree with you i'm not i'm not so why legalize even if it's one one why legalize you see this is the craziest thing her autonomy should not be cut off based on your morality because you don't think that idea is good you don't like it but the baby that's not where we should determine it well that's that's if it was removed from her body and it was still viable right and that's where the baby

guillotine is coming because i don't think this happens i don't think women on the ninth month get abortions with viable living children and then be like i don't want to kill it i don't think that happens i mean you don't have to think it happens but statistically it does because your entire argument is this only happens for reasons of the health of the mother or the health of the child i said so you i said this is just to show that at the ninth month if a woman is going to have an abortion it's typically because it's a medical complication that could either endanger her or the child's life and what i'm saying is there are doctors who will justify that by saying the medical complication is she is depressed that is literally one of the reasons given in surveys of what and another reason that is given is that i don't know who I was going to be with. Okay, okay, but

Seamus, I gotta stop you because this is a nebulous argument that doesn't get anywhere. And I can respect the point that if you go to a left, if you try and look this up, you're gonna find left-wing sources and right-wing sources that will contradict each other. So my question

is strictly on the legality of terminating the life of a child. I can sit here and pull up, hey here's one women uh abort down syndrome babies late term rather frequently i think that's wrong i don't think that someone's life is forfeit because they have down syndrome but your argument is that they do i know it's not that that's a strong no no no your argument is that women have a right to terminate a baby for any reason at any point yes they should have the bodily autonomy to make that decision so what i'm saying is in the circumstance of down syndrome i think it is wrong to terminate a baby's life at nine months simply for having down syndrome but you would agree she is legally allowed to do so

i i think she should be legally allowed to do so whether or not i think that's a good idea is irrelevant there's the clarification i think it should be illegal okay i don't i think so there are limits to how much bodily autonomy women should have so yes right uh so okay so that's your sound the pro choice argument because you're pro-abortion right pro-choice traditionally in this country put limits at around like 15 to 16 weeks meaning if the baby is dependent upon the body of the mother then it is the body of the mother and she has final say. If the baby is viable, it can be removed in a process that ends the pregnancy, but doesn't end the life of the baby. That's kind of like the compromise where the baby gets to live and the woman no longer has to be pregnant. There seems to be this amoral argument where, well, but it just killed the

baby anyway, which doesn't make any logical sense. That's the pro-abortion side. So if you go back to the nineties, if you go back to safe, legal, rare, et cetera, if you even look at Tulsi Gabbard in 2020, that's where I'm at. Conservatives are pro life outright. Seamus would, would argue abortion in any capacity should be banned entirely. I'm in the traditional Democrat position, but you see there is a tribal, amoral, a logical position of just let them kill the baby regardless i don't i don't see any logic there i don't see how that makes sense morally or ethically or or just mathematically right so you said i'm pro-abortion what i'm against is forced birth and i don't think the state should be forcing women to give birth against their will which

is what your position and your position is so so i'm against that i think that's i think that's government shit i don't think they should be forcing them and turning them into these viable wombs. I completely agree. I'm against forced birth, just like you. Except my difference is that if the baby's at eight months and can survive, they can take the baby out as if they would have an abortion,

but not kill it in the process. If it's a viable at eight months, is it viable? Yes, it is. Yes, it is viable at eight months. Dude, there have been babies after 20 weeks. Bro, your whole position is that women have a right to kill the baby even if they end the pregnancy.

And there's no logic there. The logic is that I don't think you agree with forced birth at a point. How? At eight months. At eight months, Tim Pool thinks forced birth is fucking cool and poggy. Stop making up stupid bullshit, dude. Hold on. No, no, no.

Hold on. That's what this is. No, no, no. Bro, bro, bro, bro. This is 100%. 100% forced birth. Nonsense statement because I already said I agree with you. No, no. A woman should be able to end her pregnancy whenever she wants. no no no hold on that's what this is this is 100% nonsense statement because I already said

I agree with you a woman should be able to end her pregnancy whenever she wants a woman could end her pregnancy whenever she wants say it

Tim Pool said a woman can end her pregnancy whenever she wants stop because you make up something fake

Tim Pool agrees with forced birth is a false statement you're lying I have already said, I believe that women have a right to terminate their pregnancy to a certain amount of time. At eight months is where you draw the line.

No, I didn't. Yes, you just said that. If the baby is viable, that she shouldn't have the right to be able to terminate it. To kill the baby. Yes. I said she can end the pregnancy whenever she wants. And ending the pregnancy can be giving birth or aborting the baby.

Or a C-section that keeps the baby alive. She has to be forced to give birth against her will in a C c-section but the baby is viable and they give it so how do you how do they remove either way the baby comes out of her you're saying so you literally so you literally want forced birth you literally want to force women to give birth against her will so can i just interject here you're saying she should they should use the the tools to rip apart the body and pull that out whereas i'm saying they should just take the baby out. No, I'm saying she should have the right to decide what happens to her body. That's it.

Okay, but so if, all right, either way, the child is coming out. You're making this argument about forced birth. Either way, what is in her body is going to be outside of it. The question is, is it okay to shove forceps into the skull of the small person who's inside of her and then tear them apart limb by limb to get them out? Or should we say, no, that's not an acceptable way of delivering a baby you shouldn't kill that unborn child how is that for either way it comes out of her body either way the child comes out of her body it's not as if there's one scenario and the pregnancy magically disappears and let me add

forced birth as a nonsense but yeah but in your scenario she's being forced to give birth against her will she's already pregnant dude i know but her will. She can't decide. She's already pregnant, dude. I know, but... We're not talking about forcing her to do anything. She's pregnant. But then endorse that position. I did. Stick by it. I know, I reject the...

There's no such thing as forced birth. They're saying you can't kill that baby. Let me tell you how fascinating this is. Because she has the baby in her head. The left is so fervent about legalizing the killing of a baby at nine months that I can sit here and say, I think women should be able to terminate their pregnancy whenever they want. But if the baby is viable, there's no reason to reason she has she has to be forced to give it then she has to be forced to give birth and then give the baby up is what

you're saying give birth define yes okay so so that is forced birth right so so so she can't decide to terminate it at eight or nine months define give birth you just said at eight months if the baby is viable i'd say eight months define give birth i'm trying to understand what you're saying by forced birth what is what does birth mean you just said when she is at eight or nine months okay so she's at eight or nine i said viable okay so it's viable the baby's viable she should have to give birth to it in some capacity c-section whatever define birth and i can answer your question birth the the the removal of a child into the world from a mother's womb if the baby so how do they do that?

The woman pushes the baby out. So then what would you call an abortion at eight months? An abortion. Is the woman pushing the baby out? No, it's most likely a medical procedure done by a doctor. And what is that medical procedure? An abortion. But what is that?

What is an abortion? Yes. How is it done? I'm not entirely sure how it's done in eight months. I know earlier on it's usually done with a series of tools. I don't know how it's done in eight months. Okay, so your moral argument is forced birth. I'm trying to understand what your position is.

If you don't know how an abortion is done, then are you in favor of forced birth? Am I in favor of forced? No, I'm against forced birth. But you think that women should have to expel the baby, right? It's completely fine for me not to know the medical procedure of how abortion is done to stand up for the rights

of a woman's body. I don't need to know how people perform abortions directly. I'm not going to lie here. I'm not going to pretend. Removing a baby from a woman's body is birth. Oh, so you're saying

it doesn't count. It's birth of a different nature. I don't think you have a definition. And I'm trying to understand what you mean by forced birth but if you can't define the removal of the baby in a different way i don't know what you're saying birth birth tim like the birth of a child so it's a c-section of birth uh sure yes it is a form of of extracting the living child uh that is viable to live in the real world that's how you define birth extracting the living child to live in the real world no i would define birth as someone giving birth they are pushing the baby out of their body so

so right so i don't think women should be forced to do that right you don't think women should be forced to push babies out of the body but the baby is in their body so it's got to come out somehow so you're going to take it out with the c-section no i don't know but i'm trying to figure out what you mean by this so that would be forced birth so he's forced to give and make a child a viable child live in the real world so when you're pregnant the She's forced to give and make a child, a viable child, live in the real world. When you're pregnant, the baby's going to come out of you at some point. That's the point. No matter what happens, the baby is coming out of the woman, right?

Yes. So there's no being in favor of that or not. It happens, period. Yes. Okay, so what's your point? What's my point? Am I in favor of a natural process by which a woman has to have a baby removed from her no matter what anyone says or does?

Your point is that at eight or nine months, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, Tim. You are wrong. Yes, I'll stop you right there. Because when you keep saying eight or nine months, that's not what I said over and over and over again. Viability is after six months. Viability is after six months. That means that there's more than a 50% chance of survival. But you're also wrong.

It's not six months. It's not six months so as soon as the baby is not six months so as soon as the baby is viable tim as soon as the baby is viable then it's okay for the woman even if she doesn't want to have it anymore for whatever reason she should have to be forced to have it extracted from her and and then live is that correct is that your position well it's not forcing the woman to have a baby live if the baby's already alive you see what i'm saying like you right so semantics i gotta compromise for you i gotta compromise for you we'll tell the mother we killed it but we'll sneak it off and give it to someone else does that work for you no because i still think she should have autonomy she should have the right to do it if she wants to of course

she should kill the baby after she's already born i don't want her to kill a baby i want her to saying it because i want her to have the ability to choose that That's different. And that is a fundamental part of this. The baby's out of her body, right? Forcibly. No, no, no, no, no. Of course. Let's say 24 weeks. The woman goes to the doctor and says, I want this baby out of me.

What if she says, I don't want to have this baby? I don't want to have this baby. Okay. Okay. And the doctor says, I will remove it. Okay. Uh-oh, the baby's alive. What do we do?

So you forced her to give birth? No, no, no, no. She said, doctor, I'd like an abortion. He says, you got it. Step right up. And so he's lying up he's lying to her no no no he does the abortion and it fails an abortion is terminating a pregnancy so there's no there's no such thing as a trick abortion you can't know they're called failed abortions failed abortions where doctors like trick women into no no no no so when they perform the abortion as seamus explained they stick metal tools into the brain scramble it up and rip its body parts apart okay and then pull it out chunk by chunk okay when the

babies are smaller sometimes they pull them out but the babies don't die they survive right so my question is in the instance of a failed abortion what should be done a failed abortion being that the the child is living it's outside of the mother yeah at that point you cannot kill that child that would be murder oh okay agreed on that point right yeah so then where does the mother's choice come in before before that procedure takes place so she she has a choice to choose what she wants to have done with her body if if she goes to a doctor and the doctor is like i'm going to perform an abortion which the assumption would be that i'm about to terminate the child but then he just secretly sneaks the child out of there that's not performing an abortion you're just being deceptive yeah and

the doctor would should go to prison if they did something like that in my opinion i think you go to prison if you should go to prison if he performed an abortion snap yeah i heard that opposite perspective so there's also something that none of us know because i don't think any of us are medical doctors the the difference on the physiology of the female body uh giving a nine-month abortion having that happen or the actual birthing process whether by c-section or natural birth uh it might have vastly different consequences on the female body so that's something to take into account so so wait wait wait remember the born alive act yes that was a republican position wasn't it what was that yeah so there have been a So that's something to take into account. So wait, wait, wait. Remember the Born Alive Act? Yes. That was a Republican position, wasn't it?

What was that? Yeah. So there have been a couple of different Born Alive Acts in different years. But what they basically say is that if the abortion fails, it is not legal to kill the child. Wasn't that Republicans were trying to pass the law? Republicans were trying to pass that. That was one of the only things Obama voted on in the Senate. he voted against it obama voted against it against but you would be in favor of that in favor of what the born alive act i'm not completely familiar with it so if an infant is born alive after an attempted abortion it has the

same protection of law and degree as a newborn um yeah i would be okay with that because at that point it's a it's a it's a human if you're killing a person that is alive outside of a womb then that's murder right yeah i agree can i ask you this is not a god that's great i want to ask in good faith so yeah of course you believe that the moment after the child is outside of the birth canal sure that they are now endowed with human rights yes however when they are inside of the mother literally anything you do to them is acceptable because they're inside of the mother oh no i don't think anything is acceptable but i think the mother should still have the choice ultimate uh authority over what

happens to her body but there's a child inside of her not what about meth uh like should she be allowed to do meth yeah uh i think if someone is doing meth while they're pregnant that it is completely acceptable for something like uh i don't know what the name of the service is in the United States. Child services? I guess ECFS would be. It's her body, though. Yeah, it's her body. If she wants to do meth, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that she's intentionally trying to kill a child. Hold on there a minute. Yeah, I see where we're going. I don't understand what you're saying. It's her body. It's her body. If her body wants to do meth what's the problem well first off doing meth is illegal period doesn't matter if you're doing it with a child or without a child not an organ methyl and dixy mdma it's maybe it's alcohol wait sorry what not crystal crystal meth there's legally no not crystal hold on a second mdma is a kind of meth methyl and dixy methamphetamine is uh ecstasy that's a kind of meth methadone axi methamphetamine is uh

ecstasy that's a kind of meth there's also crystal meth which is not legal mdma is legal in some places for therapy sessions i don't know if it's legal yes very pregnant women okay it is is it for Oregon decriminalized possession wow you're right but i don't know if i'm just okay okay dude so like sorry decriminalizing possession is different than legalizing crystal meth you know you know those two things are completely different, right? Uh, hold on. Yeah. What?

So you, so will you decriminalize a small amount of drugs? That means if you're caught with that drugs by a cop, that means if you're arrested, you cannot be charged for one gram, two grams, whatever that is. Legalizing is. No, this is decriminalization, not legalization. We never said legalization. Legalization is a semantic term. It doesn't mean anything.

Yes, it means that there's no longer a prohibition on that product. Okay, so if a woman does meth, she's legally allowed to have it, right? Is she legally allowed to do it or possess it? I mean, what's the difference? Well, two very different things. You can be legally allowed to possess drugs and not be legally allowed to take drugs, for example. Alcohol. So she does alcohol. Can a woman chug a fifth of vodka while pregnant uh yeah she can legally

but do you think she has a right to do so i think she has a right to do yes she has a right to do it i don't agree with it okay yeah and and and heroin uh it's illegal i actually i don't think heroin's like i think heroin actually is was legalized i think it's controlled but i think that one specifically was oxyconin and other drugs so she she has a right to do it whether or not i agree with her doing it that's completely different i don't agree with a woman who would have uh an elective abortion at nine months i think that that is like why the fuck but it's a lot that but i think she has the right to do it right but do you think it's ethical that she like oh i don't think it's ethical no of course not because some some things are made legal that are unethical, in my opinion. And should those be made illegal?

I mean, that's a very broad question, right? No, no, no. I'm sorry. Personal use of methamphetamine is allowed. It's a it's a civil citation, like a traffic ticket, not a criminal citation. So allowed maybe is hyperbolic. It is a civil citation to be caught using methamphetamine in Oregon. You get a ticket for it, but no crime.

So I just looked up the Born Alive Act, by the way. It says this bill is deliberately misleading and offensive to pregnant people and doctors and nurses who provide their care. It is another attempt by anti-abortion politicians to spread misinformation as a means to get a warped political end, to ban safe and legal abortion. It's an entry point to try and make abortion illegal. Where did you

read this i don't i don't care i mean who cares about the born alive act my the question was if if an abortion happens but the baby survives can you kill it and he lance already said no so i i we're done with so he would yeah yeah yeah for sure so any other political arguments anyone left right or otherwise trying to change that no no it's irrelevant once the baby's born it's it's a baby so yeah so it has the same rights as every other human at that point right this is an american this is an interesting i i think this this falls in line with the idea of anarcho-tyranny that we were talking about the my view of the modern left is that their positions are nothing but chaos there there's there's no logical pathway towards preserving life uh improving people's lives it seems to be only it's like it's like

it's like yin yang, right? There's one side that's talking about long term planning, logical thinking and improving the world. And one side that takes the inverse position no matter what. For instance, 25 people push in front of a subway. Nobody bats an eye. One guy, three guys try to subdue a man and now they want prison. That's like a weird inversion of what the law is supposed to do. The law should stop the people who are pushing people on the trains and protect the people on the train who are being victimized but the left's position is the inverse of it right are you asking me for like a i mean an affirmation of that because if you ask no no i'm just saying like that's my view so when you say the the left's idea are all chaos i mean if you really wanted to

boil down what the left is fighting for, especially myself, it's expanding freedom. I believe in freedom. I love freedom. I'm sure everyone here likes freedom, too, right? You're all about freedom. How do you define freedom exactly? So for me, I believe in a democratic process where we don't have tyrants. We don't have dictators.

We don't have kings or queens. We have the ability as a democracy to be able to vote for who we work for or sorry, who our leaders are right like we want to be able to vote for our president our prime minister i i believe in that fundamentally but my other thing is i want to expand that freedom into the workplace because we spend about eight hours a day every single day in our works our jobs i want to expand freedom there so people who work at their jobs for eight hours a day have the ability to vote for things in their lives better health care better working, whether or not their boss is corrupt and stealing from all of them. I want to expand that.

I want to expand freedom into other parts of life. That's a fundamental belief for me. So what do you mean by stealing from them? Stealing wages, for example. Like actually shorting someone's check. So the largest form of theft in America right now is wage theft. I had it happen to me.

I sued. I went to the National Labor Board and we won. How does it happen? As you should. So there's a ton of ways. paying overtime not paying overtime uh bosses uh simply just garnishing checks or garnishing wages stealing tips or thinking that tips are justification to pay them lower salaries and stuff like that yeah all of it bullshit and when you look at theft every single like you look at the stats right cars being stolen jewelry all that wage theft blows everything like they're not even comparable i got It's one down here and then it's like

the other one's fucking all the way up there. I got a story for you. So I worked at a company. I get a paycheck. I'm good at math and stuff. And so I look at it and I'm like, hey, there's a problem with my paycheck. And they go, no, it's good. And I'm like, no, it isn't. There's a problem with my paycheck. Fix it. And I very quickly was like $67 missing. I want it fixed. I want it fixed now.

And they went, oh, give us a few minutes. Came back 15 minutes later, handed me a check. I looked at it and said, are you joking? And they were like, huh? And I was like, this is wrong. I'm not an idiot. Fix my paycheck. Went to a couple other employees. They said, I said, let me see your paychecks. I looked and I went, come with me. Walked right to the National Labor Board in Chicago and said, this is what they did. They took our statements. We went to the company and we told them we were going to form a union because of what they had done.

They fired us on the spot for doing it. We sued them. And then I'll give you air quotes in saying we won. What actually happened was after six months of being out of work, they said you can get retro pay, which will be $7,000 each,

or we can go to fight and then I'll give you your job back. And I'm like, if they give us our job back, they're going to retaliate against us. No, no, that's illegal. And I was like, oh, come on. So we won the fight, but it really means they were able to fire us to stop us from forming a union.

So what would be a good example of expanding? Sorry, Seamus. Oh, no, no. I just want to make the point. I'm not, I haven't seen the stats on wage theft causing more in losses than all other forms of theft combined. I'll just have to take your word for that. And I'm willing to grant that for the sake of this discussion. certainly don't agree in involuntarily democratizing all workplaces that's probably a much longer interesting economic discussion happy to engage in it with you guys too and i suspect we would all have different views on it i don't know if you want other issues or if you would like to talk about that budweiser you're gonna move to bud i do want to talk about lgbtq

plus you gotta do it so here and budweiser opens that door ladies and gentlemen the anheuser-busch ceo has finally disavowed the dylan mulv ad in private to investors, though he's not made a public statement. Sales are down 26 percent. They're going to be giving out free cases of beer to distributors and they vowed to spend millions of dollars in marketing. But the boycott is particularly effective, I would say. And there's videos now coming out of people at sporting events where the Bud Light is just behind the counter, totally full, and everyone's buying other brands.

So did Ian and Seamus both just leave at the same time? Yeah, I don't know where they went, but they did just both leave. So yeah, let's jump into this. What are your thoughts on the Budweiser thing? My thoughts are keep going. You're doing awesome. All of you.

I mean this. To every single person protesting Bud Light, fuck yes. I am so here for this.'s fucking amazing right on yeah yeah but budweiser sucks anheuser-busch sucks it's a massive multinational corporation they're super anti-lgbtq plus so it's been beautiful to see i love it oh they donate so much to right-wing republicans who push anti-lgbtq laws so anheuser-busch getting taken down oh man i'm so here for it keep me too absolutely yeah uh they think that they can pay off republicans they can hire gop aides and that is going to be satisfactory for their customers who are upset with them as a brand so clearly what we can see where i think we agree is that anheuser-busch is a faceless corporation with

no real values that is willing to willing to spit in the faces of the little guy if it earns them a profit they're a trash company and nobody should buy their products the left and the right both agree here here unity for once i hope they fail same thing with disney keep going after disney absolutely take disney down i'm all for the right wing taking on disney all for the right wing taking on anheuser-busch yes of course these are terrible fucking corporations i'm all here for it um by the way the daily mail is like the number one source on the show, right? Like every single time you pulled it up, because that same site that you showed me, All Sides Media Bias, it has the Daily Mail on right wing. And I know that you yourself, when you pulled it up. Yeah, they're actually fantastic, the Daily Mail.

But if you use them as a primary source, you understand why I'd say that. We don't use them as a primary source. What happens is when we pull up stories, I'll go to like CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, ABC, and they'll each have like 300 words. And then you go to the Daily Mail after doing a search on key elements of the story, and the Daily Mail will have like seven different versions of all breaking down different components. Like if you scroll down the Daily Mail, they often do these special sections where they have entirely different stories within the story, providing more context. Like for instance, this story from the Daily Mail not only talks about the current story with the CEO,

but it even goes all the way into all of the context going back to the commercial that was released, the sale drop at 6% in the first week, to the video, it like covers literally everything, even as a photo of the VP and her husband, how in depth this story is. So it's like, if I'm going to pull up a single article, I can pull up five ABC, CBS, New York times,

or I can just pull up this one that has seemingly everything and including Kid Rock, including John Rich, including Bud Light being poured into a dumpster. So it's a massive aggregator. Yeah. But honestly, I have no problem with y'all going after fucking Bud Light being poured into a dumpster. So it's a massive aggregator. But honestly, I have no problem with y'all going after fucking Bud Light. Have a time, go nuts. I have a really big problem with what I feel on this show

is a lot of anti-trans hysteria and fear-mongering that takes place. You wanna open that book? I have that book at home. We can talk about that in a second. And I'm totally comfortable talking about that book. I've read it. Should it be in schools? I wanna talk to you about the trans issue though

because right and that's what that's why i asked about the book we can get to the books in the schools the curriculums and everything that the florida is taking away but you are you profess to be kind of like fact-based science-based right yeah like like you pull up i've noticed you want to pull up stats and figures and stuff like that of course why is it that you push propaganda when it comes to trans people like what that is so far beyond the pale like what okay let's start with gender affirming care gender affirming care you're very very against i've heard you call it what to utilize it the mutilized like i don't call it i don't call it mutilation i've never said that that's what you say on your show i do i don't know if he does i call it i don't children i call it

child sex change when you were talking about duane wade moving his family someone in the crowd said why are you mutilating your son that was a quote from someone else i didn't say that i call it but then you made and i've explicitly said i don't take the right agitator approach of calling it mutilation because that's not effective in having a conversation i will plainly call it a child sex change as what it is i'm not going to call it gender affirming or mutilation because I don't think those things accurately explain what it is. Okay.

So when it comes to gender affirming care, zero to about 10. Are you talking about child sex change? No, I'm talking about gender affirming care. Zero to about 10 years old. You got to define it. The answer is yes. You got to define it. Okay.

Because if you're talking about something different, tell us what you're talking about. All right. So if someone is trans and they are young and until they are about 10 years old before they go through puberty gender affirming care would be in the form of you using different pronouns preferred pronouns and allowing them to dress differently yeah i don't care about that do you have a problem with that does that go here yes i do i don't i don't okay so both of you don't right okay so do you accept that there is no surgery being performed on children at that age from zero to about 10 there's nothing there's no hormone blockers there's no puberty there is hormone blockers

i don't think surgery is happening on kids under under 12 so hormone blockers aren't given to children until they go through puberty that's not true we actually pulled this up with destiny he actually he actually called me out i was wrong about a stat okay what we found was 47 000 um cross-sex hormones i think it was something like 17 000 puberty blockers and like 2 000 double mastectomies for girls after the age of uh of 13 or whatever but uh so that doesn't apply to anything i just said puberty blockers were pre-teen uh puberty blockers yes puberty blockers they have to they have because they have to give them the puberty blocker before puberty starts yes of course right so so you okay so you're just reaffirming what i just said from zero to ten

till about you're about to go through puberty gender affirming care only comes in the form of using different pronouns using different names allowing them to dress differently and that's it and you don't have a problem with that we're a loop run too okay so we'll get to loop run but up to that point you don't have a problem with any of this yet right i'm saying and you agree that there is no surgery being performed on children at that age zero zero to ten i'll just let me just start from the beginning so i can make sure i'm getting what you're saying right yeah i don't care if parents call their kids names or whatever i i care about medical or surgical intervention okay so that doesn't happen until about the age of about 16 that's the the average age for... But you're wrong.

Okay. And look, we had Destiny on the show. We went into great detail about it. There are girls who are 13 who are getting this done. And there was a study. Actually, it was Canadian, I believe, 12 to 17. They had several hundred surgeries performed. Okay.

So again, I said the average age, but if you want to say that there are people who get this at 12, that could be the case. Who would have it? Let's start with puberty blockers, Tim. Lupron. You both have a big problem with Lupron? I don't know a lot about it,

but I consider it a medical treatment. Yeah, yeah, we shouldn't be giving Lupron to kids. So you don't think you should give Lupron to kids? Why don't you want Lupron being given to trans kids? Because it's a puberty blocker that inhibits the natural function and development of their body. And more importantly, I think my view is built upon what we've seen out of Europe already, right?

So earlier on, maybe a few years ago, I was more agnostic on the issue until Sweden, Denmark, Finland abandoned this and the Tavistock Center got shut down. And the data they released said this actually caused more harm than good. And then I was like, well, okay, hey, how about that? And for some reason, the United States, they're still hell bent on moving forward with what we can already see from, you know, better countries with better healthcare systems saying no to this, right? Okay, so I can address those individually, because I have the explanation as to why that happened. When it comes to Lupron, zero to 10 is about the age where gender affirming care only comes in the form of different names, pronouns, stuff like that. We, we can all agree. That's completely fine. We can't.

I mean, you three can agree, but I don't. Fine. Okay, fine. But it's their show. So I just want to concentrate on it.

My position is more just like, oh man, like social therapy stuff. Uh, they say that, uh, after puberty, desistance rates are between 60,

65 and like 92%. Okay. So that's completely false i i i'll get to that we have to we have to do this come on bro we have to do this piece by piece first okay oh let's let's let's get let's get through loop hey i just i just proved you wrong uh studies show uh 10 10 follow-up studies found assistance of 61 to 98 percent yeah can you can you click on the wikipedia article detransition topics. Oh, you're missing the mic. Can't hear you. Oh, sorry. What are the studies?

What are we talking about? I would like to know if you are taking these studies specific. Well, because I have each one of them written down here, and I'm quite curious. Is the Drummond study one of them? Is the Wallin study? Is Stensma, the Swedish study, a part of this? The 2011 study? Probably. I don't know. Well, we should know. This is incredibly important

for what we're talking about. No, it's not. this is 2018 this is uh gender dysphoria and adolescence current perspectives in the national library of medicine okay scroll down to the conclusion of this one just want to get the mic again oh so you can carry it around yeah yeah move it i gotta get gotta get used to this yeah no i know scroll down to the conclusion of this study well yeah i mean i want to at least skim some of the, what the numbers and reference are to like the reference. While you're skimming, when I think of a little kid being like, outcomes, psychiatric disorders.

I'm a girl. The parent, I would hope that the parent would be like, you can be, you can pretend to be whatever you want. You can be an actor. You can play a girl. But I get afraid when a mom's like, he said he's a girl. That means he's trans. Right.

So for this, it's not a process. It doesn't exist in which someone can say, hey, I'm a boy, I'm a girl. And then they go into a doctor's office and like, well, take some Lupron. It's you do years and years of consultation between a doctor and between like a therapist and between the patient itself. I'm just going to read this. Sure, of course. Adolescence is a crucial time for identity and psychosexual development in young people with

gender identity concerns. The outcomes of GDC have been discussed in terms of its persistence and desistance. For most children with GDC, whether GD will persist or desist will probably be determined between the ages of 10 and 13 years, although some may need more time. Evidence from the 10 available prospective follow-up

studies from childhood to adolescence, reviewed in the study by Ristori and Steensma, indicate that for around 80% of children who meet the criteria for GDC, but you said 2011. Oh, so there's multiple Steensma studies. They've actually built upon each other. And the problem with the Steensma study, unfortunately, is that they actually characterized people who were not trans in that study they didn't compare people who were trans to people who were trans and then detransitioned they compared people in the general population what's your source for that the actual author of the study

has come out since and said that what can i said that the study what can i pull up to confirm that okay like because look i pulled up a study that said a thing you've made a counterclaim i'll love i will pull it up no No, no, absolutely. Yeah. Okay, so, go to... Because I don't know who Steensma is. Okay, so, well, Steensma, and the problem, I'll say one more thing because I had this written down, 45.3% of the people did not reapply for treatment, they counted that as people who were detransitioning,

when they weren't in fact doing that. Wait, so, can you, can you, wait, can I ask you something? Yes, yes, go on. Okay, so, he asked for the source. Let's do things in order. I'm going to respond to what you just said. Trans advocate. I need to respond to what you just said right now. That last point is kind of important to respond to.

We're literally talking about desistance. Right. If they're including people who desisted, you'd have to get the number of those who desisted. They included people who did not reapply for treatment. They counted that as someone who was desisting. That's just someone who didn't show up again. That's literal desistance. I don't see an issue with that. That's literal desistance. No, it's not.

I don't see an issue with that. That's literal desistance. Not whatsoever, Tim. That is someone who has decided that they just don't want to go talk to that doctor or experience things with that doctor. They could have gone off

to a different doctor. They could have done something else. But that is not someone who has verifiably said, I was trans. I'm no longer trans. That's just people who did not show up.

Let me pull up your thing. Okay. So go to transadvocate.com slash... I'm not going to... I need a study or something. Not an advocacy website. Okay. I pulled up a scientific study for to... I need a study or something, not an advocacy website. Okay, this... I pulled up a scientific study for you.

I'm not pulling up a non-profit advocacy group. So this is an interview with the person who did the study in this article. I have pulled up a scientific study for you. And the person who did... And I'm challenging you with the person who did the fucking study. But you're telling me to pull up an advocacy website,

which is not on par with the scientific study. But it's featuring the person who did the scientific study. Is there a counter study saying this is not correct? Okay. Yes. An overwhelming amount. Oh, okay. Sure.

Let me pull that up. Okay. Look, if I pull up the NIH and then you say go to transadvocate.com, you understand why I'm not going to do that? Let's do this. Cool. Cornell University. I'm not going to Breitbart for my source on desistance, okay? Sounds good.

Cornell University did a meta study going to Breitbart for my source on desistance, okay? Sounds good. Cornell University did a meta-study. What is it? Okay, Cornell University did a meta-study on 55 different studies. Just start looking up Cornell University meta-study on detransition. Cornell University did a meta-study on 55 different studies on detransitioning. Of those 55, they found 52 of the studies showed that people detransitioned at a rate of less than 4%. And of those people who did it, the reason they detransitioned was social stigma. That's 52 of the 55.

The other three of those 55, they didn't show a net negative effect. There was not a single study of the 55 that Cornell University looked at that showed detransitioning or gender affirming care being a bad thing for trans people if anything it was a net positive this is a meta study of a whole bunch of studies i have another medicine hold on i'm trying to pull up a scientific study to confirm what you're saying yeah i also just want to ask a question about this too so you're mentioning that this is a a meta-analysis of studies on people who have detransitioned but by definition right this is taking into account people who went through what puberty blockers hormone replacement therapy physical surgeries sure for each study it was different things in some of the studies it was people who were going

through uh puberty blockers some had hormone therapy but a lot of them in one form or another had received gender affirming care they were trans when the study first uh tried to identify these people and then it looked at them years later and how is this sample collected because almost every single issue because almost every single issue or almost every single study i've seen from trans advocates on this issue use a convenient sample rather than doing some kind of controlled randomized test for the treatment so this is a meta study of a whole bunch of other studies so you would have to go between each study because at the end of the day i don't want to fall in this trap that me and tim were about to do where each

of us starts saying like well i have a study well you have a study well i a study. Well, I have a study. We can do this all day. So we should look at metadata, right? We should look at compromising data that looks over a whole bunch of studies. A second made it on a study that I want you to look at. Regret after gender affirming surgery, a systematic review

and meta-analysis of prevalence. This went to Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, UK, Italy, USA, Brazil, Sweden, Singapore, Germany, Norway, Ireland, Serbia, and an interview between 27 studies, 7,928 trans patients. It showed a less than 1% regret.

Wait. Can I also mention something? Real quick. I have another meta study. Okay. I got to address this right now. There is a problem we are facing in that you are saying a lot of things and I can't pull up any sources.

At the very least, all I did was Google searched it. I pulled up the two studies that were associated with it and said, here's what it says. I have not given you my personal perspective on it. You have now given me your personal view on it. No, I've given you the studies. These are two meta-studies. What are the studies? Let me please pull them up. I can't find what you're talking about. The first one is

Cornell University. They did a meta-study. What's the name of it? It's Cornell University's meta-study of 72 studies on gender-affirming care. Of that, 55 of the studies were directly related to detransitioning. What meta-study on...

I just want to flag that desistance and detransitioning are two different things. Right, right, right. Look up... Cornell University... Cornell University,

what does scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on gender trans well-being? Oh, here we go. I found it. Nice. And the third one, the third meta-study that I want to bring up is a U.S. study.

It's a 2015 U.S. transgender study. But this isn't a scientific research paper that's peer-reviewed. No, this is a meta-analysis of scientifically researched papers that are peer-reviewed. That's from whatweknow.inequality.com. But hold on. Do we have a standard on why we should accept it? If you want to know their methodology,

there's a click here to view the methodology thing. You can find that out for yourself right there. But this is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. This is a meta-analysis, Tim. I have peer-reviewed scientific papers. I reject it. Okay, so if you want to reject that, I would write... Bro, next thing you're going to do,

you're going to tell me ivermectin is some cure because of a meta-analysis? This has nothing to do with it. No, no, no, bro. This has nothing to do with ivermectin. You can't come to me when everyone tries screaming about ivermectin because of a meta analysis that i reject and say i don't think it works and then have someone from the left come to me and now claim meta analysis is effective no the point is this i said give me a study and you cannot do it i am on my way to give you a third meta study a combination of

studies these are studies no if we go study to study back and forth tim this is going to take I am on my way to give you a third meta study. A combination of studies. Those aren't studies. No. If we go study to study back and forth, Tim, this is going to take fucking forever. So let's look at- Give me one. One study. One study. One study. One. I'm giving you two.

Give me one. This is embarrassing. I've got like- Embarrassing you can't give me one study? Okay. I'm giving you two. And I didn't even make an assertment. I googled it and pulled up what I found.

You want individual studies instead of meta analysis, which is ridiculous. But sure. Here's individual studies. The mental health outcomes in transgender non-binary non-binary youth receiving gender affirming care from february 25th 2022 this shows let me type it and pull it up yeah but i can explain to them while you're doing your own research kids who receive puberty blockers and mental health outcomes in transgender and non-binary youth receiving gender affirming care february 25th 2022 peer-reviewed study the findings kids who receive puberty blockers and hormone therapy had

60 percent lower odds of moderate or severe depression and 73 percent lower odds of suicidality here's another individual study for you hold on hold on that that nothing to do with desistance do you do you want to go back to desistance studies? That's what I was asking you about. I Google search desistance. Wikipedia has two studies that say it's 61 to 98%. You said that's wrong. I said, what's your source? You didn't give me one. I did on the spot.

You gave me a meta-analysis that is not peer-reviewed. It's not a peer-reviewed source. If you want to go back and forth, Tim, on single studies, like I said, this can take forever. Do you not have a single study? I've named you tons of studies. No, no, no. you've given me a meta-analysis not a single study a meta-analysis combines other studies do you understand how that works yes of that so what your argument is no of the 52 studies i've done a conclusion and then someone looked at them and

made it different you're saying that out of 72 studies that found a conclusion 55 it's 72 55 talked about it was it was a hypothetical number 51 you're looking at a bunch of studies that have come to conclusions of course that are peer-reviewed and you're saying but someone analyzed those cornell university who from cornell click on click here to view methodology and you learn about the methodology you just rejected it outright when you saw it you were like it's not a study it's not a meta analysis of studies these are different things i'm explaining that the problem is these studies have their own conclusions you're ignoring they combine their conclusions to reach their let me let me let me let me explain for those that want to understand what i'm trying to say

during covid there were a whole bunch of studies done, individual studies, peer review that found ivermectin did not work. The right kept bringing up meta-analyses that said, actually, it does. I said, and I said this to Joe Rogan, I reject that. Show me the actual study. I do not believe this is correct. I will not afford you some benefit to come in and make the same argument to me if you do not have a study that is peer-reviewed and cited then i'm not going to entertain your opinions so when i bring up the cornell university study that's not a study it's a meta-analysis yeah of 55 peer-reviewed studies whose conclusion of 52 came to the fact that there is a less than four percent detransition rate if you go to r slash science tim you can find out no no no no

no no this is on i asked you for you're pulling up reddit when i'm no no i'm pulling up i'm pulling up reddit because cecilia uh bernie verla's name is pronounced jen de jen explains and and downplays why you're wrong about that 80 to 85 because she's the one who actually did that study she's the one who did the study you cited so so she explains why it's being misused. It is not true. I can say this. There are arguments about what is true all day, every day. There's arguments that M-theory is wrong and that science is unwilling to give up

because too many scientists have dedicated their lives to it. So they argue that M-theory is the theory while others are coming up with like E8 lie group theory or whatever. I totally understand that people will decide what they think is true or not. Hence, I have a bottom line standard. If the right comes at me and says, Ivermectin meta-analyses prove it works, I say, don't know, don't care. We have rejected the concept of someone analyzing a collection of studies and making determination. What our standard is, or at the very least where I'm at is, if we're going to have any basic agreement on what is or isn't, there has to be a unified standard there, which

is a peer-reviewed study, which is not absolute. If I have two peer-reviewed studies and the establishment narrative, when I search for it, says 61 to 98 percent, I will not accept your meta-analysis opinion the same as I wouldn't for someone who believes ivermectin works, because your argument is founded upon the same basis as theirs. Okay, so first off, the meta-analysis of ivermectin actually showed that it wasn't effective at preventing or treating COVID-19. That was the actual meta-analysis on ivermectin, so it actually would back up your own claims. Secondly, you and me can look at individual studies, and it can take a very long time, but we should look at regret after gender

affirming surgery, a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, which looks at again, 27 studies and interviews 7,928 trans people across the world. And again, in places like Italy, USA, Brazil, you name it, that meta-analysis also found a less than 1% regret rate. You have to be able to combine multiple studies because this is something that has been so thoroughly investigated globally for so long that to ignore the science and data on this is too flagrantly. There's not been a single large-scale randomized clinical trial for puberty blockers that treat gender dysphoria. There's not been one. Y'all are very against Lupron, right? Well, I don't know much about it.

I know. Saying very against is pretty strong. I'm typically like we shouldn't give. I'm saying there know. I just. Saying very against is pretty strong. Okay. I'm typically like we shouldn't give. I'm saying there hasn't been one large scale randomized clinical trial for these treatments. Like Lupron for when children go through like the early onset puberty. Yeah. And it's like an actual medical issue.

Yes, of course. That's why saying very against something is like, well, what we're talking about is are we going to a kid who, are we dealing with an actual case of say endocrine disruption caused by phthalates and pcbs or are we dealing with a kid who's just playing with dolls and the parents are incorrect right and in that case you would have a long process where they would have to do interviews with again professionals who would determine whether or not it's appropriate and people who go on puberty blockers i want to add this it's for a limited amount of time they want to do it only to be able to hold that off. No, it isn't.

If you speak to the actual doctors on this, you only take it. No, no, Tim, let me finish the sentence. Come on. You brought me on your show. Let me finish this. You only go on puberty blockers for a short amount of time before you can be put onto HRT. They do not want to keep them on puberty blockers. And that way you avoid a lot of the potential negative side effects.

We had Helena Kirshner on the show who walked into a Planned P parenthood and within minutes was given the maximum dose of testosterone anecdote absolutely lived experience so when i say lived experience happens you say it doesn't happen i'm saying it did happen no i'm saying it can't happen i'm saying you have to look at broader data you have to look at broader the issue i take right yeah and it wouldn't make sense if i brought up a single horror story to you and said this is fact it can happen i said we don't want that to happen of course no one wants that to happen but then if we want to if we want to understand how this is actually taking place around the world from an actual perspective of science we have to look at the data we have to look at meta studies we have to look at the and analyze global uh understanding of this when it comes to lupron by example

yes it's true that lupron is not fda approved for the use of on cisgender children there is a product that is fda approved for use with children that is a puberty blocker and it has been used for a long time for generations and decades it's lupron it was just being done no but that's for an entirely different reason that's for an entirely different reason so to say we want to prevent this to say we want to prevent a child from undergoing early onset puberty so that they can develop at a normal healthy rate is entirely different. It is entirely different from saying we're going to administer puberty blockers because this child feels they're a member of the opposite sex. That's an entirely different reason.

But whether or not it's used is dangerous is going to be the problem, right? You want to know whether or not it's used is going to be dangerous on children. And the reason for administering a certain treatment can render it dangerous. Fashion hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's pocket pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus, your super light and ultra-durable pocket hose Copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what, an exciting exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time,

you can get a free Pocket Pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size Copperhead hose. Just text WATER to 64000. That's WATER to 64000 for your two free gifts with purchase. W-A-T-E-R to 64000. By texting 64000,

you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Hose. Message and data rates may apply. No purchase required. Terms apply. Available at pockethost.com slash terms. So for example, if we have been amputating people's limbs for hundreds of years, if I go into a doctor and say, please cut my arm off because I don't want it anymore, and he

cuts my arm off, that's medical malpractice. For you to jump in and go, we've been cutting people's arms off for hundreds of years. This is medically approved. People are allowed to do this. Can I answer this? Yes, absolutely. We've been cutting people's arms off for hundreds of years. This is medically approved. People are allowed to do this. Can I answer this? Yes, absolutely. So what you're describing is called B.I.I.D., body identity disorder.

I forget how it's spelled. It is a real phenomenon. Dysmorphic. Yes, it's extremely rare, but we know enough about it at this point to know that people will seek out to get operations on the black market if they have B.I.I.D. And what we found when people do that and go into the black market to have a limb removed is that it only provides a temporary amount of relief for their condition

and then it returns and they have further complications from the fact that they now have a disability and or medical complications that come from all that. My point is not about any kind of body dysmorphia

about losing a limb. My point is about drawing a false conclusion by a medical treatment being allowed under circumstance A but not being allowed under circumstance B. You're saying we allow it for kids who have hit precocious puberty but then we don't allow it for kids who don't want to go for puberty through puberty because

they want to be a member it's still not fda approved that's different but you understand my point i just claim those things are the same i just google search there real quick stat in 2017 100 out of 100 with newsguard drug used to halt puberty may cause lasting health problems more than 10 000 adverse event reports were filed with the fda reflecting the experience of women who've taken lupron describing everything from brittle bones to faulty joints you know regarding meta meta analyses i i'm worried about you know giving kids things on an experimental basis yeah this is a huge long conversation and it would be so awesome to go through each study i would love to it would probably take like seven

hours six hours but we could do it but like not tonight unfortunately so let me ask you though but i want to keep down this path because i think yeah we're making good progress let me ask you a question right like like jazz jennings is sterile right i don't know much about jazz jennings she's a reality tv show right jazz jennings yeah i'm i'm concerned that jazz isn't trans uh that's not for us to say uh i didn't say i said i'm concerned that jazz is not trans right and the reason is jazz is dating women now right so then jazz what does it have to do with being trans well jazz would then be a biological male dating women at the age of 23 what does it have to do with being trans so it has to do with whether or not jazz made the decision for themselves or the parent made it when they were three years old so the question is we want to

avoid a john money type situation right where you had these two kids and the doctor told one of the young boys he was actually a girl and then forced him to live as a girl ultimately resulting in his suicide and then the death of the brother as well. We don't want that to happen. And so that did happen already. And we know that happened. So we have to be careful about taking a three year old and then raising them and telling them they're female, because then if they start exhibiting traditional, you know, gender

behaviors, there may be some concern. For instance, jazz stopped dilating. And that was the big controversy over the past few weeks. The mother going on TV saying she would force jazz to do it. If jazz is saying, I'm not gonna, and the mother saying, do it or I'll wring your neck, which is a quote, and then jazz is not dating women, we're starting to see a pattern that may be concerning because it follows the John Money situation. Whether or not jazz is trans or not, my concern is, uh-oh, what if? And that means there may be children who are going to be pushed down a path that ultimately leads to their suicide

because their parents can't make the decision for them, but they did. So the data overwhelmingly shows that if you give children gender-affirming care, especially if you have loving and accepting parents who accept children's actual gender identity, it reduces the rates of suicide dramatically. In the case of a parent who affirms their child's gender,

it can reduce suicide rates of up to 93% in some studies. It's not a case of, parent who affirms their child's gender, it can reduce suicide rates of up to 93% in some studies. It's not a case of, more often than not, these are children who are approaching their parents saying they think this is something happening to them. And parents pushing back and being like, no, this is wrong. You're just a tomboy. Oh, this is, you know, this is not you. This is blah, blah, blah. And you don't go into a doctor and all of a sudden they're like, here's Lupron. They do.

No, but they don't, Tim. The average amount of time. The average amount of time. You can't say they don't when we've had the anecdotes they do call it an anecdote i'm telling you it does happen of course but that's an anecdote we have to look at so don't say it doesn't happen well it happens but that doesn't mean it's a broad trend not happened right but that's okay this this is asking we have to talk about what actually occurs via the numbers, right? That's what matters. Like, I have here the largest U.S. transgender survey ever done.

It's in 2015 to 21,598 participants. And this covers people in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. And it has all the results you're looking for. So let me ask you a question. Why do you think we're seeing a rapid increase in the past few years of young people identifying as trans of young people identifying as trans okay can i answer that can you read this yeah yeah of course so it shows the 2015 u.s transgender survey of 21,598 participants that with hormone therapy psychological distress for children reduces by 222 percent late adolescence 153 percent adulthood 81% suicidal ideation for children goes down 135% for adolescents 62% and for adults 21% is that that is dramatic is this a stanford medical school

survey analysis done by jack turban uh i don't know the person who did it okay um but in terms of the the increase tim of people because there's a because there was a study done by stanford medical school that very closely fits the description of what you've just read out there which is very ascientific and what that is yeah so just just please find the source of that because i want i want to pull that apart but i want to be sure that i know you're talking about that study. I'm curious as to why you think it's increasing so much. What's that signify?

The history of left-handedness. This is the history of left-handedness in the United States. Do you see what happens here? It levels out. It goes up and levels out. We used to treat people who were left-handed as satanic, as the devil, all that kind of shit. You remember that, right?

And that's why there was a lot of people who didn't record themselves as being left-handed and then boom when we stopped doing that after the 1880s and in the 1900s it spiked now this spike isn't because there was a whole bunch of indoctrination or alex jones was like oh left-handed ideology everyone has become left this has nothing to do with that this is naturally how many left-handed people there were and then it plateaued we are in a situation right now where it is safer than ever for people to come out and if they're queer bisexual whatever it is and because of that they feel safer expressing that that's why gen z of all i was concerned there was a trans genocide yeah so here's this is this is the actual statistics on people increasing you can see the red one that that is gen z that is the amount of people who in Gen Z, it's skyrocketing.

It looks like they're identifying more than ever because their generation feels more comfortable talking about this kind of stuff. So you don't think that there's like a trans genocide or anything like that? I don't think that there's a trans indoctrination that is coming through media. Genocide, I said. Yes, and I'm saying that I don't think there's a trans indoctrination coming through media that is programming kids to become trans. I think that's ridiculous. And if you want to change topics to talk about trans genocide, we can move on to that.

But you asked me specifically, why is there a spike? That is why. Okay, so my follow-up is, you think trans people feel safer than ever? No. Right now there's over 400 different bills being pushed in the United States

that is directly targeting trans people. So they don't feel safe? Of course they don't. So then why are they coming out if they don't feel safe? They have more access, because that generation, Generation Z, has a lot more acceptance towards trans people than older people who pass laws,

draconian people who pass laws. The boomers are the ones running the show right now. They're still the ones in government. They're still the ones passing laws. There's very few Generation Z in government or parliament. You want to know what I think? I think there is a trans genocide. Okay.

And I think it's you. Okay. Because you're sterilizing a lot of these people. I mean, you're literally sterilizing them. The surgery to remove the gonads, hysterectomies, and cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers have a high rate of sterilization. I mean, first of all, removal of the gonads in the uterus is an absolute sterilization.

And then puberty blockers have a very high rate and cross-sex hormones have an extremely high rate of sterilizing the individual so these people can no longer reproduce that's genocide right is this is this the joke you can go for joke you are removing these people's ability to reproduce and if they're a young age and they haven't had the ability like for instance jazz jennings can never have kids jazz jen also, and this is probably part of your studies, can't actually feel any sexual feeling of any kind. Do you have any idea how weird this sounds right now? Like, why are you obsessing

with a stranger's genital pleasure? That's so weird. That's so bizarre. That was very weird yourself. You guys are all weird. So I'm talking about adults who engage in activities which is a large portion of the global economy whether you like it or not sex sells they say and when i say this person will never have this ability to go how weird is that it's weird for you to fixate

on a stranger's genital pleasure that's strange that's so bizarre well she's public about it but see that's you're not making an argument right now is my point i'm not i'm saying it's weird it's not an argument that's an observation so you're trying to make an appeal to emotion and an appeal to shame i'm just i'm just giving you my genuine thought when you say something like that like that it was a really fucking pathetic attempt at trying to make an argument talk about that why should we discuss whether or not she has genital feeling that's not important it's not that it's not in my business so let's focus then on the sterilizing of the individual are you okay with that? Who's sterilizing people? Jazz Jennings is sterile.

Why are we going back to Jazz Jennings? I don't know anything about her. Because Jazz is a famous individual on cable television. So if she is sterile for whatever reason, what does that have to do with me? Why does that concern me? Why should I pass legislation? Do you support the sterilization of teenagers?

This is such a weird way to frame this. You are removing teenagers' ability to have children. I'm not doing anything. I'm not a doctor, Tim. I don't have the way to frame this. You are removing teenagers' ability to have children. I'm not doing anything. I'm not a doctor, Tim. You support it. I don't have the ability to do this. I support people having access to healthcare. Of course.

Why would I want to prevent that? Just because some people have bigotry towards them. Let's try again. You seem scared of this. Do you believe that parents and doctors should have the ability to remove the ability of a child for for future reproduction they should have the ability to give them access to health care of course they should so why do you you're you're implying that every single gender affirming care results in

sterilization that is that is not true at all i said the removal there's also people who are trans that never get bottom you seem very scared of this it's scaring you how how am i afraid to because you keep deflecting when i ask you so jazz jennings is a specific example let's try let's try this let's slow down and go one point at a time you think i'm deflecting because i don't want to keep talking about someone's genital pleasure who's a stranger i'm saying i'm saying it shouldn't concern you it shouldn't concern anyone tim your appeal to emotion is not going to work on me i'm asking you a sign i know i can appeal to your emotion i'm trying a logic-based question about the future of of these people i believe you are genociding them i believe you and you intend on genociding autistic individuals I know I can't appeal to your emotion. I'm trying a logic-based question about the future of these people.

I believe you are genociding them. I believe you intend on genociding autistic individuals. I genuinely believe that. Who's autistic in this? A large portion of trans kids are autistic, namely females. So this is an issue in that young, lesbian, autistic females are a large portion of those who are transgender. Do you have data on this? I mean, come on, bro. Do you have data on what you've you've brought up you couldn't give me one study but i've given you not only studies meta studies i've given you multiple meta studies on this i've given

you a surplus of information on this topic make up six six times more likely to have autism according to npr.org so i think you're trying to genocide autistic people i i literally what's the percentage of that's what i asked you six times sixty percent you're that's not how that works that's not you don't you don't six hundred sorry no that's not how that works you're saying what percent of them what percentage of trans people happen to be autistic lesbians that was your claim that a large portion are i'm saying i don't know any statistics on that i've never heard that before well so uh the first thing I pulled up was that transgender and non-binary people

are up to six times more likely to have autism, right? Right, but that's not answering the question yet. And your question is what portion of... Let me Google it again. Because I thought that was sufficient in, you know... 24%. So that's not the majority, even if that's true. Six times more common, 24%.

That's still not the majority, even if that statistic was true. Yeah, no, the majority is. So 24% of trans people are autistic, according to that data, and 6% of. So what I think is, I there is there are people who hate people with down syndrome and in iceland they've actually publicly avowed or or praised their eradication of people with down syndrome i think that's horrifying like you can you can be you can be okay with it i'm not saying you're not allowed to believe that right you don't have to have the same morals as me i just think it's's wrong to genocide people with Down syndrome.

You know what I mean? You have completely derailed this conversation. You're assuming that I'm pro people having abortions for people who have Down syndrome. I'm not saying you do. I'm saying in Iceland, they've stated- What does this have to do with trans rights? Right. So we see a higher rate of autistic people, autism in trans kids.

You said it makes it the majority it does not even based on the source you pulled up okay 24 okay uh i still believe that this is very much an effort i think i think the left is intent on genociding trans people in what way removing their ability to reproduce how are they removing their ability by cutting off their testicles and removing that is not the only operation that is done there are trans people who maintain their same genitals as before not everyone has to decide to get bottom surgery that's the choice they should make and cross-sex hormones do have a high rate of causing sterilization it can but it doesn't always and you can be trans and not get any operations at all so i think you are so like i'm in favor of making sure these

people can always have families and have kids, right? Your position, whether you support the moral issue or not, results in many of them being stale. For instance, the reason I use Jazz Jennings as an example because this is a person on television with millions of followers who wrote a book and told kids about this journey. The journey that Jazz Jennings went on resulted in a complete inability to have a family and have children. I think that's terrifying because Jazz was not old enough to understand the implications of that jazz will never have a family jazz the the the genetics of jazz jennings is over that is one of the most horrifying things to me as a human being because i think genocide is wrong right why should her ability to be or have reproduction function? Why should that concern you for the same reason the Uyghur Muslims in China concern me a human rights issues?

China for instance, but what if she never wants to have kids? That's something you determine for yourself later in life exactly So why is it our business because it's been removed before jazz could have the ability to get a conclusion That has nothing to do with us. She could decide to never want to have kids and that's fine and valid so my morals would be that a a society protects the children because there are certain things you can't know until you're at least 24 or older when your brain is fully developed which is why we don't allow people to drink and do like do certain drugs whatever drugs are legal until they're 21 so for me i'm like if you can't drink till you're 8 till you're 21 if there's like you can't drink till you're 21, if you can't smoke till you're 18, this society absolutely recognizes, you can't drive till a certain age, that the reason that the driving age is what it is, one of the arguments made, I think it was in Illinois, is that risk-taking is a lot higher in youth than it is in older people. So the argument is, once you're past 16, you go through driver's ed, that helps control for the higher risk taking of, of younger people. So we set an age limit for someone who's 10 years old to be put on Lupron and then cross sex

hormones. They will never develop the ability to reproduce. So in the instance of jazz, again, a famous individual who's very influential with millions of followers, there was never the ability to reproduce developed, which caused complications, Complications aside, that's Jazz's personal business. But the puberty blockers and cross-sectional hormones did sterilize Jazz, 100% sterilization. Jazz was not old enough to understand the implications of that. So I have concerns about having children,

whether they choose to or their parents choose to, I think that's genocide. I can kind of see your argument because if a kid was straight a straight kid just a kid and they were like a 12 year old girl and she was like i don't want to have babies when i'm older and the mom was like okay then we'll sterilize you right now and they went and had the kid had a hysterectomy that's i think that's illegal i don't know but i would imagine society needs to protect uh little little kids from crazy parents that are like

just because a 12 year old says they don't have babies later on so the fact that it is sterilizing as a byproduct i think should be should be taken into account with the whole procedure i think that's still something that comes down to the individual and what they choose to do and if someone is like i want to have gender affirming care knowing the risks then why is that my business it's the same thing with someone who wants to have a surgery that can have other complications that's not my business if someone had an appendix aflamed and they had to have their appendix out there are potential complications that come from that but i'm not going to prevent them from having health care and saying that you can't have a right to get your appendix out because every major medical association in the united states agrees that that is the best way

to treat appendicitis and in this case when we're talking about trans people every single medical association in the united states agrees on gender affirming care then you know every single one you know what they should do they should produce one single randomized controlled trial for puberty blockers and process cross-sex hormones to show that it's safe and effective but they have not so it's not health care it's experimentation you talk about giving kids health care that's not health care health care repairs something which is broken you use the example of somebody's appendix not functioning properly of course okay yes so what you have to do in that instance is intervene so that the body can function at as as it is intended to destroying somebody's ability to procreate is demolishing the organ that you're claiming to

treat right you're destroying the biological function rather than helping to improve it that's not health care i want to pull this up to this from university of utah because i was reading about this recently it's it goes on to mention that hormone replacement therapy can make you sterile uh and that it's important it can it's important to preserve your sperm, it says, if you're trans feminine. Otherwise, the hormone therapy may make it impossible for you to have biological children. If someone is put on puberty blockers and then cross-sex hormones as a child,

they will never have the ability to preserve their reproductive functions. So if you're put on puberty blockers, they are reversible. You can stop being on puberty blockers and you can still maintain a lot of things that you were worried about being taken away when it comes to jazz jennings specifically um she's actually made statements about this because you know i was just looking

this up jazz jennings says i don't regret my transition at all when i was 11 i started male puberty and i was put on hormone blockers those blockers saved my life and continued to save the lives of so many youth out there if i was forced to go through male puberty it would have been devastating even more so taking estrogen through hormone replacement allowed my body to develop how i wanted i blossomed into a young woman eventually got bottom surgery and now living as a proud woman today what does that have to do with me why would i want to take that away from someone else what year was she making that statement she made this on march 31st she made it recently because that video came out where the mom said she was going to force the dialer and matt walsh went hard and jazz was like, hey, Matt. And then

Matt was like, sorry, jazz. There's a lot of questions around the morality of this. The left likes to defer instantly to purity arguments, which I find fascinating considering the left typically has a low purity rating when it comes to moral foundations. For example, when you said it's really weird talking about someone's genitals, it's a purity argument, which the left typically never makes. That's why I said it's a very weird thing for you to do. Approaching this from an academic perspective, we would make a few arguments about whether or not a person can truly understand they've lost the ability to reproduce if they've never had it in the first place, the psychological and the philosophical and philosophical implications of stripping away a person's ability to reproduce before they were old enough to even know what that was. So, for example, if you take an adult human, female or

male, and remove their genitals by force, they will be very, very upset, extremely upset. In fact, it's a form of torture in a lot of countries. It's meant to terrify. If you took away their ability to feel sexual satisfaction, it's a form of torture. In fact, female circumcision is horrifying to the world. And it actually was huge controversies up in Dearborn, Michigan, because what it would do is it would result in women who are as adults could not feel anything when they were effectively used as like objects for their husbands. So in making an academic argument, we would say, Jazz Jennings does not understand. And that's fine if Jazz is happy that's great the the

the argument into into the greater is jazz will never have kids fact statement i think it's wrong to take away that from someone who doesn't understand what it is they don't want kids they will decide that when they're an adult and have assessed the circumstances but jazz can't actually feel any of this jazz jazz can't feel uh this is this was a study there's a doctor who came out did a zoom video on it specifically i think referring to jazz that jazz will never experience any adult satisfaction or desire and so the question then becomes why did jazz get bottom surgery my question why do you think jazz got bottom surgery oh i don't have to ask that she explained why what she said that

she said that she's satisfied with it that should be the extent of it what did she say um i don't regret my transition at all when i was 11 i started male puberty and i was put on hormone blockers those blockers saved my life and continued to save the lives of so many youth out there if i was forced to go through male puberty it would have been devastating even more taking estrogen through hormone replacement allowed my body to develop how i wanted i blossomed into a young woman eventually got bottom surgery and i'm living as a proud woman today yes i do struggle with mental health and always have but it's not because i transitioned and it's unfortunately something many lgbtq plus people face why because that has a lot to do with hate and a lack of acceptance that we receive in society like i was saying before so to all of

you speaking about our mental health for views and calling our families abusers for supporting our transition you are the only abusers so what was the purpose of the bottom surgery it affirmed her gender it affirmed her gender what does that mean affirmed gender so you was the purpose of the bottom surgery it affirmed her gender it affirmed her gender what does that mean affirmed gender so you have and all of us have a gender identity that we want to express in one way or another and with hers she affirmed her gender through the process of getting bottom surgery to look more and feel more like a woman why do you think jazz stopped dilating i don't know probably because it hurt but if if this was an important part of affirmation you'd think jazz would maintain it that's not for me to decide that someone else's own identity so again that's

why it's weird to me to try and impose this upon someone else like to try and say like you're disgusted at the fact that she can't have kids or something like that it's like i don't know if she ever wants kids because i don't know who she is but that's a decision for her to make between her and her doctor has nothing to do with why why would any uh trans child get uh a bottom surgery again to affirm their gender so as part of gender affirming care why and children don't get bottom surgery by the way it's usually over 18 well jazz was 17 right and so there are exceptions yes but the average average age is over 18 um like boston boston's children's hospital has never done that on anyone under the age of 18 the average age for average age is over 18 like boston boston's children's hospital has never done that on anyone under the age of 18 the average age for bottom surgery is over 18 years old so overwhelmingly why why would uh i i just don't understand why the um it's not

penile inversion vaginoplasty i don't know what it's called because jazz didn't have a penis uh what's the purpose of making uh uh the whole the space what's the purpose of of of that what's the operation is because it gives them uh it affirms their gender through the process of having a similar genitalia to a cis woman so what's the purpose of it i just explained that so the purpose of it is just feeling just. So the purpose of it is just feeling, just emotion. No, the purpose of it is part of affirming who they are through a surgery that makes them look and feel more like a version of a woman that they want to be. You don't have to. There's not a template. That's not the only version a woman can be.

There's other versions of how a woman can be and look, but that's the version that she wanted. So what I'm trying to understand is why create a permanent wound for the purpose of a man to have sex with in order to affirm the identity of someone who can't feel any of that? Well, first off, I have no idea about the actual sensations that people experience after these kind of surgeries, but that's not my business. And the second thing would be I don't believe it's a wound. I believe it's an operation to have a general change. That's it. To describe it as a wound is just very crude.

But it's factually a wound, right? I'm trying to avoid the right, the right calls it a mutilation or an abomination. I'm not saying that. It's still crude to just call it a wound. After it's healed, I'm sure there's no more wounds or scars or anything. No, no, they have to dilate for the rest of their lives because it is a wound. Like I'm being academic. I'm not trying to be insulting to anybody.

The right calls it mutilation and abomination. The reason they have to use dilators for the rest of their lives is because it is factually a wound. But you're asking me a question that I can't answer because I'm not this individual. I don't know why someone would want to get that surgery because I don't, I'm cis

and I don't experience these kinds of things. But if someone wants to, but Tim, if someone wants to and it makes them feel better and improves their quality of life, then why do we have to get in the way of that okay my position is for adults i agree and i had the argument with tom fit and he said it should be banned outright i disagree but overwhelmingly when you look at the data when it happens to children it improves their psychological distress it removes and lowers suicidal ideation it shows in the data that it helps them that's not true man

so the studies you have here, the study you have here, the largest one. So first of all, as I mentioned, there have been no controlled randomized trial, but the largest study you cited there, the largest study that you cited there does not say what you think it says. The Stanford University one,

it was 27,000 people who were surveyed in 2015. And then there were two analyses done of these studies by Jack Turbin. And he lumped data together and did a few manipulative things to get the results he wanted. But there's two very important things to mention, which is firstly, this study was based on convenience sampling. So they were speaking with people who were sent to them by LGBTQ advocacy groups and groups that they reached out to. So you're already not getting an unbiased population sample there. And then they were determining whether that person received puberty blockers and other such treatments or hadn't, but they didn't go over the reasons.

In fact, the people who hadn't received puberty blockers or those kinds of treatments didn't receive them because they weren't allowed to. And one of the requirements for being able to receive that kind of treatment is some level of psychological stability, which means the people who weren't on puberty blockers in that study were more likely to be psychologically unstable, which we would expect to produce a higher suicide rate, but that wasn't controlled for. On top of that, the data actually shows that the men who are on estrogen were more likely to become suicidal. But what he ended up doing, that's true, what he ended up doing was lumping them together. So he said,

people on cross-sex hormones are less likely to commit suicide because according to the sample he had of women, that was true enough to overcompensate for the increased likelihood of suicidality in the men.

And he just threw them all together as if a man taking estrogen is the same thing as a woman taking testosterone and we could expect the same medical outcomes. And I'm saying that's bullshit so so to respond to you i do have a number of peer-reviewed studies related to this and if they're as good as that one i'm telling you they're trash mental health outcomes and transgender non-binary youth receiving gender

affirming care february 25th 2022 this one shows kids who receive puberty blockers and hormone therapy had 60 percent lower odds of moderate or severe depression 73 percent lower odds of of suicidality. Gender identity five years after social transition. This one is in the American Academy of Pediatrics, peer-reviewed July 13th, 2022. Between 317 youth, they found 94% binary transgender stayed the same, only 2.5% reverted to reverting as cisgender, 3.5% as non-binary trans. A UK 2019 study of 3,398 people who had gender affirming care found that only 0.47% regretted it.

Another one, the impacts of strong parental support for trans youth found that parents who support trans youth, this was 433 participants, double blind study, 93% reduction in reported suicides. So why... Hold on, and I think we can all have the good faith that you did as much work fact checking those studies as you did the one i just tore

apart but i didn't have time to go into every single bit of statistical information you would bring here this is this is the problem with like like you mentioned going to studies back and forth or whatever so that's why i'm fine with i'm not here to change your morals right and that's fine so my question would just be why do you think it is that in europe they've abandoned these practices a lot of it was political if you after you look at the history of it especially when it came to puberty blockers and how that was handled um it was in large part of political decision that both um medical groups advocates as well as pro-lgbtq organizations outwardly um uh protested and especially like i know you're going to bring up finland i believe was one of the countries that did it sweden as well uh and uk yeah and in a number of cases

this is something in which experts experts in the fields of endocrinology uh pediatrics they were very opposed to it it was politicians who were pushing for this and so this was a political decision this is why i don't like when politics get directly involved in medical decisions because i mean like you were saying if you want to look up the actual organizations that support this it's every major medical association in the united states everyone without like without fail but they're all they're for profit a lot of times if you don't get politically involved in the medical industry they'll experiment on humans for money you know also some of them are some of them are not if i listed them to you right now because i have of them are some of them are not if i listed them to

you right now because i have the list you some of these are not for-profit institutions just looking to make a fucking buck some of these are just genuinely concerned about child health care and some of them have various i mean ideological biases this isn't always about money all the time but if you're going to reject what's what tim is saying about medical institutions no longer performing these operations in nordic europe because you're claiming those institutions have become political i don't know how you could give any credibility to the american ones so it's not the do you think the american model of practicing medicine is better than the model in nordic let me answer your

question okay it's it's not the organizations themselves that have done it distinctly it was politicians and political organizations as well as think tanks that were pushing for it and it was a lot of experts in the field that directly wanted it not to happen that were fighting but then why is it the case that so the the nation that started doing this earlier than any of the others was the netherlands they started around 1990 administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children who purported to be struggling with feelings of dysphoria. And so they have some of the longest term data available on this. And what they found is that transitioning has no effect on suicidality. That's part of the studies that I'm interested in is the suicide stuff.

Like in 2022, they measured a bunch of people that transitioned. They were suicidal. They transitioned. Now they're not. But it's like, hey, that was eight months ago. Like, how are you going to feel in four years from now? So it's hard to say like now they're no longer no longer suicidal just because like yeah i'm not suicidal now but like we gotta we need long-term studies we do need to go to super chats because we're we're

way past but i do want to ask another just question like do you think the earth is overpopulated no i don't you don't think so no i want more people i people. I love people. I want more birth. I want more humans. I love everybody, man. I want more people on this planet. But what about climate change? Climate change is coming. It's real. It's happening right now.

But you're not an Althusian then? No, I'm not. Yeah, but more people means more climate change. You've got more miles to feed. You've got more fuels to burn. But more orgasms. It also means more scientists figuring out how to cure the carbon problem. That was kind of weird, right?

More humans doesn't necessarily mean more climate change because more humans might figure out better ways to balance out the climate i'll just i'll just say one last thing and we'll go to super chats and then um i guess i want to try and get to the members only port actually man i feel bad for going long we should go to the members portion so we can do uh audience q a and stuff there's some big super chats in here i'll just i'll try and grab as many as i can and then we'll try to just we'll go straight to q a for the members only portion but my attitude is very i'm not a conservative uh i'm pro-choice i think you know i've got my morality but in the long term i really don't care that leftists are sterilizing and aborting their children i thought you did care from a moral position but like i'm not a conservative like like shamus where shamus is very much like

we have to end this because you know it's wrong i'm uh i'm i'm not a conservative i if if a woman is going to get an abortion at a certain uh certain age i'm like i disagree with it but i'm more libertarian in the respect of like people can choose to do what they want to do i think it's certainly wrong to sterilize kids, but the end result is the future is going to be a bunch of Christian conservatives and Muslims. And Jews. So like it's a self- And Mormonism.

Yes, but the Jewish population diaspora is like 12 million, and Christians and Muslims are billions. But that's happened in Israel, right, where the more religious Jews have more children, so they're dominating elections. Right, exactly. And so we're dominating elections. Right, exactly. And so we saw this since the year 2000. Liberals have been effectively shrinking. Gen Z is the first generation in 100 years to slightly move towards conservative in some areas, likely not because Gen Z is becoming conservative, but because there's less liberal

Gen Zers than there are conservative ones. So the end result of all of this is just like, look, man man i'm not going to convince you to vote the way i would vote i'm not going to convince jamis to vote that way i would vote but doesn't matter anyway because in 100 years you guys are sterilizing and aborting your kids end of story wait a minute not you well i'm saying i think he's he's saying i represent the left to him do you do you feel like you represent yourself i i i don't i don't feel i represent the left to him. Do you? Do you feel like you represent the left? You call yourself a leftist. I don't feel I represent the left, no. Well, you call yourself a leftist. But I am a proud leftist.

I wear that. I don't have to hide that. I don't hide my power levels. I don't wear, you know, some kind of like hidden power. My point is just this, right? I'm just saying I'm not, like there's no single voice for the left. I'm not the voice of the left. No, sure, sure.

I'm just saying the left will cease to exist and the middle and the right will supplant it and then the middle will become the left and the right will stay the right here's what i'll say is that lgbtq plus people were heavily persecuted by a lot of different groups including the nazis at one point or another in history and you just can't get rid of the communists if you if you and and the communists and if you were to get rid of every single queer if you got rid of every single gay every single lesbian every single bisexual every single trans person if you got rid of all of them in a generation or two they would reappear because they're a part of us they're

a part of humanity they're a part of all of us they just exist they are they are part of the human experience yeah but i think that chart you show with the left-handed thing yeah if christians and muslims start dominating they're going to be repressed right so the the idea is it's like basic math we saw this in 2000 liberals were having 1.45 kids and conservatives having 2.01 kids so conservatives were at replacement levels and liberals weren't 20 years later we see slightly more for the first time ever conservative gen z-ers in some areas gen z is about according to pew as progressive asers in some areas. Gen Z is about, according to Pew, as progressive as millennials. In some areas, a little bit more progressive. In some areas, a little bit more conservative, which is shocking because every generation was skewing more

progressive. This is likely due to the fact, like I said, not that children were like, I'm conservative now, but conservatives had more kids. So it really doesn't matter what your position is if your position is less kids for the left and more kids for the right. So you think transgender people should have more kids? I would love it if trans people and LGBT people had children and families. That's my personal morality. But the end result is there is one faction that is pro-abortion, unrestricted, and in favor of practices which result in a substantial rate of sterilization for children. Conservatives, be it Muslim orian or jewish don't do these things and so the future is very obviously going

to be an abrahamic conservative country yeah but we need a more scientific religion in the future this is another two-hour conversation maybe let's let's read some super chats and then we'll uh we'll try to get the members only q a straight to the q a and uh i'll try and find some good uh good super chat questions just to make sure carly says as a woman who's had an abortion and given birth later in life this man needs to do some research but he sure has some balls for having this conversation on tim kist well i respect it absolutely i thought it was a good conversation the surfs tv lance yeah what is it youtube.com slash the surfs tv yeah uh everywhere social media is sold at the surfs tv if you want to hear my musings and uh i i will add that while uh i do distinctly

disagree with uh most of the takes of the people on this panel they've been very friendly and very nice to me and they put me in a nice hotel and uh ian is uh is just as friendly in real life as everyone uh let him to believe i'm going to the moon with you, dude. Here's one from Marby Dog. He says, please ask your guest if he feels the same about bodily autonomy with regards to the vaccines. Yeah, I think you should have the right

whether or not you want to take the vaccine. So you would disagree with the vaccine mandate? A forcible vaccine mandate? I mean, for the purposes of freedom, yes, but it sucks. that's one of those like it sucks but of course i don't think people should be forced to have to take a job against their will like if if the government said in order to go to government mandate well no like a government mandated vaccine program i disagree with and that like every single human being is

like strapped down and like oh i don't want to take it but you have to kind of thing but you would be okay with like every facet of society saying we require vaccines? Oh, when there was a vaccination, like, what was the word for it? Like a segregation of people who were vaccinated and unvaccinated. Well, like you oppose the government holding you down and vaccinating you. Yes, I think you'd have a choice whether you should do that. But other people should have a choice whether or not they get sick from you because you didn't vaccinate yourself. Do you think the government should be allowed to mandate vaccines for public accommodation? Yeah, for certain things, of course.

Like we already do that for hospitals. You have to be vaccinated if you're a nurse or a doctor against a host of different things for obvious medical reasons. And I think that serves an important purpose. So same thing with the military. The military is mandatory vaccination for the same reasons. But so your line is bodily autonomy, but not participation in society. Well, you can choose whether or not to be a doctor.

You can choose whether or not to be in the military well i mean like going to a cafe or a movie or something right well yeah but i'm saying that there are certain things where it makes sense from a scientific standpoint where like if you're a doctor a nurse yeah that probably is sure you should be vaccinated for it depends if that is directly going to have an impact on the broader society if people get sick so no but that means no bodily autonomy no bodily autonomy up to a point you can choose whether or not to go to the movies that's your choice you can choose whether or not to join the military so that's my point right you you don't agree with the government holding you down but you do agree with the government excising you from society we we already accept this the government

does that in a variety of ways already right so the limit is we already live in that square garden for instance had a vaccine requirement and i think joe rogan had to refund tickets because he sent the show before the requirement true and it was the government that imposed the requirement on all the businesses so the vaccine mandate there's there's two ways to look at it i think what they're asking is ostracizing or excising someone from society is a vaccine mandate right using restricting someone's ability you have an ability to you have a choice to do it whether you want to or not it's it's whether or not you can have convenience and and pleasure in society and it's it's obviously a big inconvenience if you don't get to go to see medicine square garden of course so but this is a this is a by

case basis as well government the government can pressure you to do it it can take away privileges and access until you do it as a matter of public safety we already allow this the government does this in a variety of ways for a ton of different things i get concerned concerned about that phrase, public safety, because if another, if they're like, this common cold is very, very contagious. Hey, we have a vaccine ready for it. And I'm like, you know, let's do some long-term studies. Vaccines can be very dangerous if they're not studied properly. So maybe that's another conversation to have.

I think it's very important not to let the medical industry govern us. That's why we have a government. Also, this isn't all axiomatic right so you could have the position that under no circumstances would you ever support the government mandating vaccines you could be of the position that you would be in favor of it but just not for a disease with the infection and mortality rate that covet has there's a lot of different approaches so uh admar says this guest looks like the kid of brendan frazier and justin lung did you get that brendan frazier not not oh my life my life i've been i've been called brendan frazier my entire life it's a it's a running meme um tim i gotta i gotta i gotta i gotta read this one i love how they call me a kid by the way hey

just so everyone knows i'm the oldest person in this room I'm 44 Okay nevermind I gotta read it I gotta read this one This is important 1776 As life says what is a woman Would you like me to answer that A woman is An adult human female

Easy enough I agree with that So trans women are not women Oh absolutely I would answer that A woman is hot trans women are not women oh absolutely i won't answer that what is a woman females a woman is hot trans women aren't female they're male no they're female so they have female gametes and whatnot oh this is actually very uh interesting do you want to talk about gametes so in in uh embryonic development uh when you have two gametes obviously the sperm of the egg they combine right usually it's the 23 chromosome the xx or the xy that is going to determine whether or not someone becomes a male or a female.

But that's not always the case. There are exceptions to this, known as people with differences of sexual development, DSDs, or intersex people. There could be other combinations. It's like 0.017 or something. It's, on a conservative estimate, 0.6% to 2% of the population. There is more intersex people in America than there are redheads. So there's a lot of intersex people.

That's if you go with the 2%. That's if you go with the 2%. Seamus is completely right, but I do want to add one really interesting thing about this. How does that mean a female is a male? So here's the neatest part. There are individuals who have XY chromosomes, which is normally what is going to be a male, right? You develop, it's not the only factor, by the way, it's a push and pull with hormones and other stuff like that. But there are people who have XY chromosomes. So if you looked at their bones years into the future and you analyze them they would be genetically male but they have a specific condition that suppresses testosterone which makes them develop 100 like

women we are all templates we are all templates and based on hormones uh the expression of gender and and different factors we turn in one direction or the other towards more male or more female certain drugs don't affect men and women the same way exactly and that's that's the interesting thing but we can hijack this entire process if we take hormones so if we take testosterone or estrogen we suddenly can have traits that are more feminine or masculine the redistribution but it doesn't change the growth the growth of breasts the length of hair all that kind of stuff so there are socialists wants to redistribute the fat so here's here's the here's what i'm

getting to is uh i think it was in 1993 they passed a law in the united states that required clinical testing to be done on men and women separately because women are affected by drugs differently and they found that painkillers for instance didn't work on women and so these male doctors were all like these women are sissies they can't take the pain when in reality it's like the painkillers weren't working yeah so uh and they also in these studies found that you know uh the the differences between males and females you can't change through hormones for instance fast twitch muscle fiber uh collagen in the skin prenatal testosterone the impact that won't change from later in life taking hormones so a male is not a female female is not a male gen sex is

bimodal i think if you ask it's it's genuinely not any any scientist totally is totally is we've we've gone we've gone from the left saying that sex is bimodal to not rejecting it or or are you just incorrect i think i'm incorrect hold on do you know what bimodal means i don't know it means that intersex people exist and that there's an overlap between the two bell curves. Oh, sorry. Yes, you're totally right. This is, I'll take a big L right there.

That means that 97% of females will have statistically average female traits. Yes, you're correct. The reason I wanted to jump on that though is because you're saying that just because you have XY chromosomes, that means by definition you're male. That's not true. The South, okay. Do you know about the South African beauty queen where she is, there's a documentary on her.

By all accounts, if you saw her, you'd be like, this is just a gorgeous, beautiful woman. She has all the parts of a woman. She has breasts. She has a vagina, all that stuff.

But she is intersex and her chromosomes are XY. So if you looked at her genetics, she's genetically male. But accepting that, you know, we want rights for all people, including intersex people, are x y so if you looked at her genetics she's genetically male and so this isn't but but but accepting that you know we want we want rights for all people including intersex people it doesn't change the fact that they make up a relatively small portion of society zero zero point six to two percent so can i can i make so a biological male cannot become a biological female uh no no

no no one is saying they can no no no no you just did no i didn't not whatsoever i asked you what a woman was yes an adult human female. And I said, is a trans woman a female? You said, yes. I said, a trans woman is a woman. And they absolutely are. This is not a gotcha. But a woman is a female.

Cis women and trans women are different. And trans women do not say that they're cis women. They don't. And that's what makes them trans. You said they're women. Yeah, of course. Because black women and white women are different. But they're both women.

But trans women and cis women are different but they're both women but trans women trans women and cis women are different but you said a woman is female women an adult human female trans woman is male that was that's what makes them trans they are not so i just want to make a point but a woman is female they are assigned assigned we we yeah you're assigned your gender at birth so we're only we're only one is observed we're two right we're two we're two super chats in i feel like a trans woman is a man and a trans man is a woman and they're both you're both a trans woman and a man together they don't they never stop becoming one you always are they don't see that i think the the point about like intersex or some people having chromosomes that don't exactly match up with their sex is not the problem for, or is not a problem for

what is termed the gender binary by the left. So I think the best way to define sex is based on a gametes, you know, the role a person plays in reproduction. And Tim mentioned gametes and not chromosomes. So I would define a female as someone whose reproductive anatomy is ordered towards gestation. And then a male is someone whose reproductive anatomy is ordered towards gestation and then a male is someone whose reproductive anatomy is ordered towards insemination. In the operating phrase there is ordered towards, right? Because someone can have an issue with their reproductive anatomy, but it's still ordered towards something. And recognizing the bimodal nature of human sex, meaning that overwhelmingly there's two big trees with a slight overlap in the middle.

Well, even that overlap in the middle, the vast majority of people who are intersex are basically clearly a member of one sex, but with some feature that appears differently. Yeah, yeah, but with one or two features that appear a bit differently. That's a huge problem. That's a massive problem. But people who you genuinely can't tell are extremely, extremely rare. I don't like the argument that we should reform society around, you know, very, very small minorities, other than just protect the rights of. So if we're talking about, you know, the issue of biological males going into women's bathrooms or something like that, you have an

issue of the civil rights of females versus the civil rights of trans women. And that's where the conflict comes into play. Yeah, but the conflict there is pretty easy. The majority of people who abuse women in bathrooms is cis men. Let's go after cis men for play. Yeah, but the conflict there is pretty easy. The majority of people who abuse women in bathrooms is cis men. Let's go after cis men for that. Well, I think the solution is easy. Just single stall bathrooms. Like, I don't know.

Also, can I ask? The bathrooms here aren't gendered by, I want to say everyone at home, if you didn't know that, they don't gender the bathrooms here. There's no signs. Because they're single rooms. Yeah.

That's just too much. And that's the way the world should be. My position has always been single. You don't have a right to be comfortable. That's not one of your rights. You could deal with it. You know, deal, life is weird and uncomfortable sometimes. That's, I don't.

But the bigger question is in general, when it comes to the transgender men in sports and women in sports and things like that is the rights of females versus the rights of trans people and who gets supplanted. Right. And so my answer to the bathroom problem would be the majority of women who are abused in bathrooms are abused by cis men, and so that we should be,

if we want to protect women and go after abusers, go after cis men who attack women in bathrooms. But how do you tell the difference between a cis man and a trans woman? I have to add one more part to that. Trans women are more often the victims of sexual and physical abuse than they are the perpetrators.

But that didn't actually address what I said, right? It's like, females and trans trans women who gets supplanted if females say we want a space free from males period then should they have their rights protected and having a safe space or should trans women say no we actually get access to this space do do trans men take away from your experience do they supplant you as a man me personally i don't care right me too in fact in fact trans men make my experience way more interesting but you haven't answered the question because you're saying supplanting their experience right you're taking away from where are women right now yes who are

saying they're biological females saying we do not want biological males in our space so should blair white be allowed to go in that bathroom i think blair white should go in the bathroom where blair white appears to to to fit in so why does she why does she get a pass because she's very passing is that why i i'm not talking about my my view is buck angel should go in the men's room and blair white should go in the women's room but they disagree with that she's technically a biological male i think blair white agrees with what i just said yes but you're taking my position and and good for you that's woke as fuck hell yeah that's based we made progress i don't know if you watch the show it's not progress i've always had it

it's based this fuck hell yeah but i've always had that opinion so even so trans women can go into women's bathrooms awesome right awesome i don't know we agree so my issue is hell yeah seamus doesn't agree yeah yeah and buck angel's biologically female but you think you think blair white should have to go into a man's bathroom? Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. But I think that just causes more problems. Because, well, I don't want to say anything that's going to get Tim's YouTube channel taken down. Let's go to the Members Only show. And Seamus can then say all of his nasty

Catholic things. Well, yeah. Alright, everybody. Here's what's going to happen. Sorry we didn't get to the Super Chats. I genuinely apologize. This is what happens. We go off, right? We're going to go to the members-only chat. We're going to do audience questions. Smash the like button if you'd like.

And head over to TimCast.com. Become a member. We're going to do the members-only so that Seamus can say naughty words or whatever. But before we go, you can follow the show at TimCastIRL. On Instagram, you can follow me personally at TimCastLance. Do you want to shout anything out? Thank you so much for watching me and listening to my radical leftist Marxist agenda.

If you want to see me anywhere else on the internet, go to everywhere social media is sold at at the surfs TV. That's at the surfs TV. And also shout out to the leftist mafia who's watching this right now. Love all of you. My name is Seamus Coughlin.

What I'm shouting out is the St. Joseph Novena that I'm praying right now. We're on day four. You can find that on that I'm praying right now. We're on day four. You can find that on my Twitter. I pinned it. We're praying for the working class in this country in this time of deep economic turmoil, for the unborn, and for our enemies, people we disliked, people who got fired from Vice, still in Mulvaney, and that our country will return to God. And I am Ian Crossland. I agree with you. The country will return to God. I think it is very important that we, although we will focus on the things we are saying, focus very much on the way

we are saying them and find a way to communicate with people that we may disagree with. That's the root of empathy and communication and the unification of humanity moving forward. Thank you very much for coming, Lance. That was really awesome. And Tim, you're a badass. So are you, Seamus?

Not Serge, though. No, Serge is like a wavelength. Yeah, that was quite sorry you Seamus not Serge though no Serge is no Serge is cool it's like a wavelength yeah that was quite intense well we still got more

we're gonna do this members only uncensored thing where Seamus is gonna go super saiyan yeah why are you putting this all on me cause you're the Catholic

isn't everyone going super saiyan I just get a word in edgewise on air and now you're telling me to find the paywall I gotta perform for ya alright

Serge yeah I'm Serge.com on Twitter this is gonna be interesting I just agree with him and I just charge him for you alright Serge yeah I'm Serge.com on Twitter this is gonna be interesting let's go and the last thing

I'll say is for those they're just you know they aren't gonna be at the members show Lance this is one of the

best episodes I think we've ever done I really do think these are the best conversations because we obviously clash and view the world

differently but this is where the conversation it needs to happen for anyone's views to evolve or to at least understand what the other person thinks we're gonna go to timcast.com go to the front page it'll be live in a few minutes we'll try to make it quick and then we'll be up and then shameless will say naughty words thanks for hanging out why are you putting this on me cheers you you