All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 3, 2015 - The Ben Shapiro Show
34:47
Ep. 19 - The Feds Want Your Daughters to See Naked Boys

Ben explains why he won’t be backing Carly Fiorina, why the media continue to win, and why Barack Obama wants your daughters to shower with naked boys at school. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is a Tuesday.
We have a lot to get to here today on The Ben Shapiro Show.
Apparently, the federal government has gone stark raving insane over the issue of transgenderism.
We will get to that.
We will also be getting to the fact that you should not vote for Chris Christie or John Kasich or Carly Fiorina, believe it or not, and we'll tell you why.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
You tend to demonize people who don't care about your feelings.
So yesterday, President Obama was over on Broadway doing a fundraiser.
And while he was doing this fundraiser, the President of the United States decided he was going to rip on all the Republican candidates.
Now, as we discussed yesterday, many of the Republican candidates were getting together to put together a letter of demand.
Saying what they wanted in a debate, what they didn't want in a debate, who could be a moderator, what some of the settings would be like.
For example, they wanted to make sure that the temperature in the auditorium was always 67 degrees, which makes a lot of sense, actually.
This is not stupid, because as somebody who's actually been under the giant lights of a TV studio, You start to sweat.
If you're on stage and there's a lot of lights, you will start to sweat.
And if you look sweaty on national TV, it doesn't redound to your benefit.
It didn't help Scott Walker when he looked very sweaty in the very first debate, and so the other candidates don't want to be hit with that.
They also wanted to ask for the bathroom to be placed close enough to the stage where they could get off and on the stage during the commercial breaks.
Which, of course, makes sense.
The media is mocking this endlessly, and President Obama is mocking this.
He's mocking the fact that the Republican candidates want to know who the moderators ought to be.
Here's the President of the United States bashing Republicans, saying that if they can't handle moderators, how are they going to handle the real problems in the world?
Have you noticed that every one of these candidates say, you know, Obama's weak, Putin's kicking sand in his face.
When I talk to Putin, he's gonna straighten out.
Just looking at him, he's gonna be... And then, it turns out, they can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators.
Big claps, big cheering.
This president apparently doesn't own a mirror because under the word irony in the dictionary is now a picture of Barack Obama.
There's Barack Obama whining about everybody being mean to him in the media.
Oh, they're being mean to me.
They're all being so mean to me.
Okay, so clearly he can't even handle the criticism of members of the media.
Remember, he starts off this little rip by saying that Republicans are upset with him, that he's getting sand kicked in his face by Putin.
And that actually wasn't another Republican candidate who said that.
That was a member of the media who used the kicking sand in his face line, if I recall correctly.
And then he moves on to, if they can't handle the CNBC moderators, well, that means that they can't handle Putin.
First of all, Mr. President, let's get real for just a second.
You have been the president, not George W. Bush, for the last seven years.
Interminable years.
Endless, terrible years.
And in that time, Vladimir Putin has taken over Ukraine, and Vladimir Putin has taken over Syria, and Vladimir Putin is expanding his power to the South.
He's trying to start making moves into Kazakhstan.
He's scaring everybody in NATO.
And meanwhile, you mentioned China there.
China is making moves in the South China Sea.
They're eating your lunch when it comes to environmental deals and economic deals.
So maybe the only thing Obama can do is speak to CNBC commentators.
One thing he certainly can't do is deal with the actual media, because here's the truth.
Obama has spent a huge percentage of his time as President of the United States bashing the media, bashing the press, as in over and over and over again.
I can list you example after example where he did this.
It starts all the way back in 2006.
Barack Obama in 2006, Maureen Dowd, the non-funny columnist for the New York Times, she made fun of Barack Obama's ears and he actually said this.
He said, quote, he said, talk about my ears.
I just want to put you on notice.
I'm very sensitive about what I told them.
I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.
He complained to Maureen Dowd about her criticizing his big ears.
And he's saying that Republicans are too sensitive to criticism.
Presidents of the United States, if you recall, before the 2014 Super Bowl with the Seattle Seahawks, you remember the President was on with Bill O'Reilly, and there he said that Bill O'Reilly was unfair to him for asking him difficult questions.
It was unfair.
The President has complained about Fox News.
The President, just four days ago, complained about the decentralization of media because it means we're all watching different outlets and he can't get his propaganda out there.
And here he is complaining that Republicans are doing this routine with regard to the media.
And this just shows you what my friend Bill Whittle likes to call... This is what Democrats do.
This is gaslighting at its purest.
Gaslighting.
Gaslighting comes from an old movie with Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman.
It's this movie in which Ingrid Bergman is married to Charles Boyer, and Charles Boyer is trying to drive her insane.
And the way that he does this is he turns down all of the lights in their apartment, and he moves things around.
And when she says, you know, I thought that I turned the lights all the way, he says, no, no, that was never the case.
That's exactly what Democrats are doing now.
So you get all these moderators.
making ridiculous statements, going after Republicans in ridiculous ways.
Then when Republicans complain, the moderators go, oh, this is just because you're too weak.
It's because you can't handle it.
Okay, no, it's because you're biased and ridiculous.
It's because you're terrible at your job.
And I said something along these lines yesterday, but I do want to reiterate.
One of the things that frustrates me so much about all of this, and this is why I mentioned Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina and John Kasich up front, One of the things that annoys me about the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general is there are people who are free riders.
There are people who sort of take advantage of the fact that there is a left media and they go and cater to the left media on a regular basis in order to make a buck.
And I didn't think it was true of Carly Fiorina, but apparently it is.
A lot of these Republicans were talking about sending a letter to the networks, and three candidates in particular.
Donald Trump said he wouldn't sign the letter because Donald Trump has his own list of demands.
Because as we've mentioned on the show, Donald Trump is a fat lion, and if you poke the fat lion, Donald Trump will eat your face.
Well, Donald Trump has his own list of demands because he's the alpha male in the room.
But Chris Christie, Actually came out and said yesterday exactly, almost in Obama's exact words, what Obama said.
If you can't handle CNBC moderators, how are you supposed to handle Putin?
And then he said he wouldn't join any letter pushing demands to the networks.
And John Kasich, who is the most obnoxious human outside of Hillary Clinton, of all humans.
He came out yesterday and he said he wouldn't sign the letter either because he thought the moderators at the debate did a great job.
Carly Fiorina said that she would debate anybody anywhere.
She doesn't need any restrictions, which is just her way of saying I'm super duper tough.
Although bottom line is that it ends up putting these moderators in the driver's seat.
Whenever the left looks for a guest, this is something you should know when you watch TV, folks, because it really is important.
Whenever the left, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC News, when they look for a Republican guest, when they have the Republican roundtable, more often than not, not always, but more often than not, the people who are regulars on these panels are are people who are not hardcore conservatives, specifically because they allow the networks—this is the tacit deal—they allow the networks to get away with the false perception of neutrality.
They allow the networks to get away with it.
So you see George Will, right?
George Will's on ABC News pretty much every week.
And George Will on ABC News.
You never, ever hear him turn to Martha Raddatz or to any of the other ABC News anchors and say to them, you know, I don't even know what you're talking about.
Of course you're a leftist.
That's why you're asking this question.
Which would be the first thing I would ask any of these people.
I've been calling literally for years.
You can find speeches of me online talking about this five, ten years ago, saying, why is it that Republicans, when they're sitting across from George Stephanopoulos, don't say to him, George, you're a Clinton hack, you were in the Bill Clinton war room, and now you're portraying yourself as an objective news reporter.
Let's at least get this straight before we start.
I'm a conservative, you're a leftist, and now we can have an honest conversation.
Republicans didn't do that.
It took this report about Stephanopoulos giving money to the Clinton Global Initiative, and then everybody feigns shock.
We're all supposed to be super surprised that George Stephanopoulos, who was in the Clinton war room, making plans with the Clintons, that he was on the side of the Clintons.
This is supposed to be a big surprise to anybody, and now he's been banned from moderating debates.
Well, we knew all this back in 2012, when he completely threw up—destroyed the entire narrative.
He destroyed the entire election narrative by asking Mitt Romney about whether he was going to ban condoms or some such nonsense.
So there's this tacit deal that Republicans make.
In order for me to get time on your network, I will pretend, for purposes of me making money and getting time, I will pretend that you're objective.
And this is why I frequently get emails and tweets from people, why aren't you on TV more?
This is the reason I'm not on TV more, gang, is because every time I'm on TV, my first task is to object to the person who's questioning me presenting themselves as a neutral arbiter.
I'm not neutral, I'm conservative, and I'm open about it.
I was once at the RNC, actually.
I was at the Republican National Convention in 2012 in Tampa, and I was walking around Radio Row, and this is where all the radio hosts sit, and this is true for all of the mainstream media, not just talk radio.
And I'm walking around, and there, I could spot him by his eyebrows a mile away.
There is Sam Donaldson.
And it's rare for me to attack somebody for their eyebrows, but Sam Donaldson's got me dead to rights.
And Sam Donaldson is standing there and he's questioning people.
He now has Sam Donaldson, who used to be, if you recall, if you're old enough to recall this, this is actually before my time, but Sam Donaldson was the objective reporter.
He was the objective reporter, I believe it was for NBC News.
And Sam Donaldson, maybe it was ABC, I think it was ABC actually.
And Sam Donaldson, he now has an opinion show.
He has an opinion show, and he is always to the left.
And so I went up to Sam Donaldson—we had it on tape, but the tape quality was really poor.
I went up to Sam Donaldson, and I said, you know, Mr. Donaldson, I just want to ask you one question, which is, now you have an opinion show on the left.
Did you hold these same views when you were a reporter?
He said, yeah, I've always held these views.
I said, so why did you lie to everybody?
Why did you pretend that you were objective?
And he said, what?
He got very angry at me.
He said, what, you think you're better at me?
Better than me?
And he started kind of moving his eyebrows all around like Groucho Marx.
He said, what, you think you're better than I am?
And I said, well, yeah, you're a liar, and I'm not.
I do think I'm better than you.
I don't lie.
I'm conservative.
You're a leftist.
I don't pretend to be objective.
I'm not.
I have a perspective.
I have principles upon which I stand, a value system upon which I'm based.
Here's the point.
Without the right granting to the left that patina of objectivity, they can't have it.
If no Republican went on these programs without first pointing out, by the way, you guys are leftists, there would be no patina of objectivity.
Everybody would see the truth.
This is why I'm angry at Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie and John Kasich, because the longer this patina of objectivity goes on, the more damaging it is for Republicans.
And you can see that the media are actually kind of scared of what the other candidates are doing.
Chris Matthews.
Oh, an MSNBC steak!
A hardball!
Chris Matthews.
He was fighting mad over this.
This is the guy who said he had a tingle in his leg over Barack Obama at one point in his career.
This guy is very upset that Republicans are objecting to media bias.
This guy, by the way, yesterday the Huffington Post announced that the Democrats will be holding a town hall style debate.
Who will be moderating this town hall style debate?
Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.
Rachel Maddow, an open leftist.
And then they wonder why Republicans object to the choice of moderators from places like CNBC?
Anyway, here is Chris Matthews saying, Kathleen!
Kathleen!
If GOP loses now, what are we going to do?
Who are they going to blame?
Chris Matthews, who apparently stumbled out of bed and onto a TV set.
But what happens when you have only the voters you want voting, white, middle-aged, and minimally well-off, when you have debates run only by the party itself, all topics safely predictable, and even have the questions all coming from people guaranteed to have opinions on the outside rail of Republican thinking?
Who do you blame defeat on then?
And then he proceeded to fall asleep and keel over in his chair.
But this is what's amazing.
So the left is portraying the right As extreme in the same election where Bernie Sanders is driving Hillary Clinton to the left.
They have an open Democratic Socialist who is now gaining upwards of 30% of the vote in primaries and a closeted Democratic Socialist in Hillary Clinton.
But it's the right wing that's extreme because they refuse to accept the premise that people like Chris Matthews ought to decide the debates and who the moderators ought to be.
And here's what's amazing.
We're even getting this routine from some folks on the right.
I'm a fan of Megyn Kelly's.
I like Megyn Kelly's show.
Full disclosure, I'm on Megyn's show every so often.
And Megyn was going after the GOP over their debate tactics.
Here's Megyn Kelly on Fox News blasting away at the Republicans for this letter.
So now they're banding together to try to get the networks to make sure... You tell the audience, Chris, how hot do they want it in the debate hall?
67 degrees.
That needs to be in a contract.
They can't have... They want all the candidates to receive similarly substantive questions.
No so-called lightning rounds of questioning.
Approval of any on-screen graphics aired during the debate.
Oh, yeah, that's gonna happen.
The network should commit that they will not ask hand-raising questions, yes or no questions, allow candidate-to-candidate questions, and then maybe, like, a foot massage or, like, a little... I mean... No brown M&Ms.
No brown M&Ms.
Get all the brown M&Ms out of the bowl.
Okay.
The idea that the Republicans are asking for anything absurd or out of the ordinary is not true.
I mean, everything that she mentions there, again, is not absurd.
Having the debate hall at a certain temperature is not absurd.
Saying no yes or no questions is not absurd because in a political debate, it's very rare There is a question that can be answered simply with yes or no because then pretty much the entire basis of the answer is dependent on the phrasing of the question.
I can phrase the same question two different ways and get a yes or a no depending on how I phrase the question.
If I say to somebody, are you pro-choice?
It depends on what kind of choice I'm talking about.
The phrasing of the question becomes everything in yes or no questions, which is why when candidates are asked, they have to have the ability to disagree with the very premise of the question.
When you have people on the left asking questions like, why does your tax plan benefit the rich?
Or does your tax plan benefit the rich?
Yes or no?
That's not a yes or no question, right?
It could be yes, it benefits everyone.
But if they just say yes, Then that's technically true.
If they say no, it's not true.
But the question is to circum—it's to— It's too circumscribed, the question.
It's too contained.
And so there's no way to give a yes or no.
So nothing that they're demanding there, that Megyn Kelly is ripping on them for, is really out of bounds.
But here's the problem.
Media want to maintain control of the system.
They have to maintain control of the system.
This is how they make money.
After all, after the debates, you never hear members of the media talking about what an informative, rational, and decent debate it was.
You hear them bragging about how many tens of millions of people watched it.
That's always the key.
It's how many people watched it.
Because that's all the networks care about.
Which is not, of course, the priority.
And then it's funny to me that people like Carly Fiorina are saying that she doesn't want to sign a letter to the networks.
Meanwhile, Carly Fiorina, we talked about this earlier this week, On The View, they said that Carly Fiorina looked demented.
Her face looked demented.
Which, I mean, for the ladies of The View, I mean, today is the irony episode of The Ben Shapiro Show.
For the ladies of The View to accuse anyone's faces of looking demented is just beyond insane.
Carly Fiorina slapped back at The View and she said, you know, say it to my face, man up.
Whoopi Goldberg decided that it was time to slap Carly Fiorina.
And then the media wonder why we have questions about how they run their operations.
Here's Whoopi Goldberg attacking Carly Fiorina with her trademark wit and scintillating intelligence.
Here's the deal.
Carly will be here on Friday.
Now, I will not, but I do want to point out, Carly, that the last time you were here, and you'll see B-Roll running, we welcomed you to our table.
We helped raise your-- - Members profile? - Your profile so you would be included in the sea of men.
There were no, you weren't worried about, you know, any kind of Republican backlash.
Nobody was backlash.
We were respectful and gave you your due.
So, just so we're all clear, you have to know the difference between when somebody's coming for you and when somebody is paying you a compliment and when somebody is saying, here's my observation.
If you can get that together, maybe you can be president.
But how about this Republican candidate?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I THINK IT'S A BRILLIANT STRATEGY MOVE ON HER PART.
I THINK EVERY POLITICIAN WILL DO THE SAME.
YOU'LL BE HERE AGAIN.
WELCOME BACK TO THE VIEW CARD.
WHOOPEE GOLDBERG CONTINUES TO And Whoopi Goldberg, of course, neglects to mention the fact that she and her friends called Carly Fiorina's face demented two weeks after they ripped Donald Trump for making a joke over Carly Fiorina's face.
But this is how the media views it.
What Whoopi Goldberg is saying is exactly how the media see it, which is, we are granting you the privilege of our audience.
We're granting you the privilege of you being here.
Right, we don't have to treat you fairly.
By a dint of us putting you in front of this camera, we have granted you something so magical, so special, that you may never have any complaints about us again.
Just by us putting you on here, with intellectual luminaries like Raven Simone and Joy Behar, you should be so flattered that you should never object to anything And after all, why shouldn't you object?
Why should you object when you have such geniuses like Joy Behar here?
Geniuses like this.
Here's Joy Behar, who apparently has developed a real sexual obsession with Bernie Sanders, which is just bizarre.
Again, the ugliest coupling in human history, if that happened.
But the sex, I'm sure, would be unbelievably hot.
Here's Joy Behar talking about Bernie Sanders and her desperate love for him.
It shows that you can connect on a human level.
I'm not going to kiss anybody.
It should be me.
Don't you think?
And Raven Simone is sitting there like, God, this is why I became a lesbian.
It's just...
Joy Behar is... I can't imagine why Carly Fiorina objects to this crowd.
And you watch.
She'll be on on Friday.
It's the only reason to ever watch The View.
And Carly Fiorina will hold her own, but again, the audience will be stacked against her.
I actually don't think that Carly Fiorina is gonna do A significant amount of damage to the view.
I think that she'll go on there and she'll be more polite than she needs to be.
I think she should go on there and start throwing punches immediately.
Like out the gate.
I think she should start off immediately by saying, y'all are hypocrites.
You pretend that you're feminists, but you aren't.
You attack women for their looks as long as you disagree with them politically.
You're disgusting.
And she should say it in pretty much those words, and then see what all these women have to say.
But she won't do that, because again, the game in all of this is to be polite to the media, even when the media are the ones stabbing you in the back.
This is why there was this constant, perpetual look of surprise on John McCain's face in the 2008 election cycle, because he was like, He was like the last person stabbed in a slasher flick.
He just couldn't believe that it had finally come to him, right?
Because he's always the guy who's friends with the media.
He couldn't believe that they'd finally come around to him.
And it ain't just the left-wing media, by the way.
I'll give you an example of a person who is constantly on TV.
I said earlier, if you're a conservative and you want to be on TV, you have to kiss the media's butt.
You have to grant them their patina of legitimacy.
The people they consider conservative on mainstream network television are not.
They're not.
Most of them are not.
I'll give you an example.
David Brooks.
Okay, David Brooks we've discussed on this program before.
David Brooks is on, I believe, it's NBC News pretty much every weekend.
And David Brooks is also the guy who once said about Barack Obama he would make a great president and he knew he'd make a great president because of the way he creased his pants.
Seriously, this is something David Brooks said back in 2006, which begs the question as to why he was staring at the creases in Barack Obama's pants.
But here is David Brooks talking about how, this is the conservative guy, the conservative guy on the panel, talking about what he's going to do if Donald Trump is the nominee.
But I just can't imagine.
A major American party does not nominate Donald Trump.
I just can't believe it.
I'll have to go to Canada.
A major American party doesn't nominate Donald Trump.
Excuse me, David, but major American parties are now about to nominate Hillary Clinton.
They've nominated, and he's been president twice, Barack Obama, the guy you endorsed based on the size of his pants.
Okay, and this is the guy who's the conservative.
And you wonder why conservatives continue to lose the media battle.
Well, meanwhile, I want to move off of the media for a while, because I could go on all day about them, as I have for two straight days, actually.
So, let's move off of that.
And I want to talk a little bit about how completely insane and off-the-rock the federal government is.
The federal government—this is an amazing story.
It's from the Chicago Tribune today.
Illinois' largest high school district violated federal law by barring a transgender student from using the girls' locker room, authorities concluded on Monday.
The U.S.
Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights spent nearly two years investigating Palatine-based Township High School District 211 and found, quote, a preponderance of evidence that school officials did not comply with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.
First of all, Title IX was specifically designed to prevent discrimination against women by men.
It was designed to prevent open discrimination or covert discrimination against women by men or against men by women.
In this particular case, here's what happened.
There's a high school student.
He is a he.
Well, a tip for happiness in life, folks.
If somebody ever tweets you a piece of audio about you, never listen to it.
And I made the mistake of listening to a piece of audio yesterday.
It was an old piece of audio from the Adam Carolla show.
And Adam's a friend, and more importantly, Adam is a good thinker.
And Adam was on with Dr. Drew.
This is from several months ago.
And this is about a week after the infamous Zoey Tur run-in on Dr. Drew's show, which, if you're unaware of this, go Google it.
Basically, there was a transgender dude who thinks he's a lady because he's mentally ill, who's on Dr. Drew's show with me, and I said, I don't understand why we're mainstreaming transgender delusion by pretending that men are women and women are men.
They aren't.
And this guy grabbed me by the back of the neck and threatened to send me home in an ambulance.
That's the short story.
Well, I'm listening to this show, and Dr. Drew, Who's a doctor, a medical doctor, is acting as though men who declare themselves women are actually women.
This is how far through the looking glass we are.
So, Title IX, which was designed to protect actual women, not men who think they're women, not men who... By the way, According to the federal government, this boy who thinks he's a girl, he's had no hormone therapy, he's had no surgery.
So even if you believe that this magically changes you into a woman, which it does not, okay?
There is no standard.
If a man is in a war and he loses his genitals in a war, he doesn't magically become a woman.
Okay, if a man has to have hormonal injections for some various reasons, for health reasons, he doesn't magically become a woman.
And guess what?
Your brain, there's no such thing as a female brain existing in a male body.
It just doesn't work that way.
That's not how biology works.
There's nothing more unscientific than this notion of magical transgender fluidity.
It just doesn't, it's absolute BS in every possible way.
Well, the federal government has now decided, in this particular case, that the high school violated the student's rights.
The student, who was identified as a girl for a number of years, filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights in late 2013 after she—I love the media—after she was denied unrestricted access to the girls' locker rooms.
First of all, full biological boy, complete with twig and berries, okay?
Everything's there.
District and federal officials negotiated for months, and a solution appeared imminent as recently as last week, when the district put up privacy curtains in the locker room.
So, the district complied, and they said, we'll allow this boy into the girl's locker room.
One thing, we're gonna, you get naked in the locker room, we're gonna put up curtains so these girls aren't forced to gaze upon the male anatomy.
The kid objected.
He said, no, all these girls should be forced to look at my genitals.
If I want to show my genitals, these girls should be forced to look at my genitals.
So here is the magical world the left has now created with all of this garbage.
Okay, there's the magical world.
If a boy were to, in his classroom, in his classroom, if a boy were to show a girl a picture of himself naked, or text a picture of himself naked to the girl, that violates two laws.
One, child pornography laws, you're not allowed to convey that over any sort of communicative device.
And two, it would be sexual harassment, right?
It would be sexual harassment if a boy were to just unsolicited show his junk to a girl.
However, if that boy pretends he's a girl or is mentally ill and thinks he's a girl and shows his junk, not only can he show his junk to the girl, the girl is obligated to be in a position to look at it.
Obligated to be in a position to look at it.
And it's discrimination if the girl says, I don't want to see that.
That just means that she's a sexist.
You see, it means she hates women.
It means the girl hates women if she doesn't want to look at a penis.
Got it?
You with me?
So this is the logic of the left now, okay?
And this is how far it's gone.
It seriously has gone so far.
This occurred to me the other day.
You realize that we live in a society now where if an adult, this is the correct standard, okay?
The correct standard.
If an adult were to touch a child sexually, I'm talking about like a 10, 11 year old child sexually, in a sexual manner, that would be pedophilia.
We'd put him in jail for life as we should.
And we should look to castration as a possible solution, because this is egregious stuff.
However, and why?
Even if the kid says they consent.
Why?
Because children are not capable of consent, right?
This is the basis of all pedophilia law.
However, if that 10 or 11 year old says, I am a girl, and that 10 or 11 year old happens to be a biological boy, and you chop off that person's genitalia, Where you give that person hormone treatment to shrivel their genitalia and prevent hormonal development, then you're a hero.
So in other words, if you're a doctor and you touch a kid's privates without any sort of consent, in a sexual manner, you go to jail.
If you touch a kid's privates, give that kid a shot to prevent the development of the privates, and then prepare that kid to have the privates chopped off, you're a hero.
This is the logic that has now been created.
John Knight, who's the director of the LGBT and AIDS Project at the ACLU, which is a lot of letters in a row.
He says, quote, It's not voluntary.
It's mandatory for her.
It's one thing to say to all the girls, you can choose if you want some extra privacy.
It's another thing to say you and you alone must use them.
That sends a pretty strong signal to her she's not accepted and that the district does not see her as a girl.
Because she's not a girl.
Maybe the other girls don't see her as a girl because her ain't a her.
You know how they can tell that?
Because they're looking at her naked and it's a him.
What's incredible about all of this is that it completely breaks down.
This is the amazing thing about the human mind.
We're all capable of creating these kind of ambiguities in our own heads.
We're all capable of creating these sort of vague perspectives on what the world is.
When you hear stories like, it's a man, he thinks he's a woman, so let's call her she.
A lot of people go, okay, fine, doesn't hurt me, what's the big deal?
Right, what's the big deal?
Then you say, well, is that person a woman?
Yeah, sure, that person's a woman.
He says he's a woman?
First of all, this is so insulting to women.
It's so insulting to women.
I don't know how women buy into this.
Forget men.
I don't know how women buy into the idea that a man can magically become a woman.
Okay, every woman who's actually lived life as a woman and lived through the experience of having her first period, for example, or having development, or growing up as a young girl, which is different than growing up as a young boy, knows that you can't magically become a woman at age 25 because it went through your head to become a woman.
It's such unbelievable nonsense.
But beyond that, we all have these kind of vague perceptions.
Sure, go along to get along.
Ask any of your leftist friends, and again, you shouldn't have them, but if you have leftist acquaintances, any of your leftist acquaintances, if you have a leftist acquaintance who insists to you that Caitlyn Jenner, right, Bruce Jenner, who still has all of his male anatomy, Bruce Jenner is fully intact, right, all Bruce Jenner had was a boob job and some hormone treatment and an eight hour jaw surgery to look like a guy in drag.
That's all that Bruce Jenner did.
And I'll call him Caitlyn Jenner because I guess he legally changed his name, but you can't change your sex, okay?
He's a dude.
Ask your friends.
If they think that Bruce Jenner is a woman, that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman, ask them if they would ever date, ever date, a woman like that.
Seriously, it's a very simple question.
Any of your male friends who say this to you?
Any of your male acquaintances?
Ask them if they would ever date a man who had transformed into a woman.
Do they really consider that person a woman?
Of course not.
Of course not.
Because it's absolute nonsense.
And ask a woman the same thing.
If you believe that a woman can transform into a man, would you ever date a man like that?
Would you date Chaz Bono?
Would that be your ideal of a man?
Of course not, because it's nonsense.
But here's the point.
The goal—the federal government is now fully engaged in the idea of ripping down objective truth.
Objective truth has no meaning except what the federal government says.
The federal government has become God.
How do we know it's true?
Because the feds say it's true.
How do we know that it's—how do we know that something is real?
Because the feds say it real.
And if you don't believe it, you're crazy.
So the person who thinks he's a girl but is a guy is not crazy.
You're crazy for thinking he's a guy.
Right?
We've reached beyond the point of madness.
The entire society has become a gaslighting society.
And when you call it out, then you're called crazy.
Again, listening to the Corolla Dr. Drew interview was so fascinating because listening to Dr. Drew try to explain why it is that a man who is fully male in every possible way but calls himself a woman is actually a woman, him trying to explain this as a scientist, it's laugh-worthy.
It's cringeworthy.
This is why whenever the left says, you know, we were ripping yesterday on Ben Carson, because Ben Carson doesn't believe in the atheistic notion of evolution.
He believes in guided evolution.
He believes in a creator.
And they were saying, oh, that means he's scientifically illiterate.
It's hard to think of something more scientifically illiterate than men and women are exactly the same, except for their genitalia.
And even the genitalia can't stop you.
That a man who's fully, that if I say right now, right now, I'm a woman, you have to treat me as a woman for the rest of my life.
Right?
It's hard to get more scientifically illiterate than that.
But this is what the left does.
They've now destroyed science.
They've destroyed art.
Anything with any objective meaning has been destroyed.
Andrew Klavan likes to talk about kind of the destruction of art.
Well, the first step toward the destruction of art is defining art as everything.
Right?
Once art is everything, art is nothing.
Right?
Once art is Is this woman smearing chocolate and feces all over her body in public?
Once that's art, art has no meaning anymore.
Yes, there is such a thing as objective truth.
There's a great movie called Whiplash that everybody should see.
It's a really terrific movie.
It should have won Best Picture a couple of years ago.
Maybe it was last year.
It should have won Best Picture last year.
It's a very, very good picture.
And there's one scene that is truly great, where the kid, who's played by Miles Teller, he's a drummer, and he's trying to become the world's greatest drummer, basically.
And there's one point where he's at the dinner table with a bunch of other people, and he says, yeah, I'm playing in this music competition, and one of the people says, well, aren't those things judged really subjectively?
Isn't it subjective, as to who's better and who's worse?
And he just looks at them with scorn, and he says, no.
And that's right.
That is right.
It turns out that you may have a standard of what you like and what you don't like, but there is no standard.
There is no standard that is objective in any way by which Run DMC is the same as Beethoven.
There is no standard in any way by which a male and a female are exactly the same and you can magically switch by changing your mind.
There is no standard by which The media are objective.
There's no standard by which this exists.
So before you buy into the lies that are pushed by the left because it's convenient and it's comfortable, recognize something.
This is part of a broader agenda.
It's a broader agenda to destroy the very notion of objective truth.
And this is what happens when you have a country that has gotten away from the idea that there is such a thing as a God-given truth, that there is a nature from which we can derive anything.
I have a theory that I've been developing, and I'll close with this.
I have a theory have been developing, that basically all of Western society is in the throes of an Oedipal complex, but not in kind of the normal sense of, you want to kill your father so you can screw your mother.
Like, if you read the story of Oedipus, what happens is that Oedipus comes back to town, right, and he doesn't know that his father, that this is his father and his mother, and he kills his father, and he marries his mother, right, and then what happens, if you read through the entire play, what happens at the very end of the play, and there's no spoiler alerts because this thing's 2000 years old.
So no spoiler alerts here.
Sure.
At the very end of the play, Oedipus finds out that these are his parents, and he gouges out his own eyes.
Because his search for knowledge, and he's been told, don't look, don't dig too deep here, it's going to be a problem.
And you see this kind of paradigm played out in everything from Oedipus to Planet of the Apes, where Dr. Zaeus says, don't dig, you're Charlton Heston, you never know what you might find.
We've reached the point in Western civilization where we have dug so deep that we are now digging our own grave.
What I mean by that is that we have decided that meaning is completely subjective because there's no such thing as objective truth.
We killed God, so objective truth doesn't exist anymore, which of course means that anything that you claim, including claims of the left, are now non-objectively provable, so we can't have any sort of real conversation with each other.
It means that science itself, which is based on logical processes generated by the human brain, if you believe that the human brain is basically just a bunch of fire rings of neurons, the very basis of science is undermined now because there's no such thing even as scientific truth.
Scientific truth is bound to a narrative established by the left.
Subjectivity trumps objectivity.
We've destroyed the concept of free will.
Because after all, if we're all just a series of firing mechanisms, then you're not making a decision right now.
I'm not making a decision right now.
All of this was pre-programmed.
And once people realize that everything's pre-programmed, there's no such thing as personal responsibility, and society decays.
This is what happens when you destroy God.
This is what happens when you destroy objective truth.
And we've reached that point in American life, and it's visible everywhere from the arts, to the media, to boys now trying to share girls' locker rooms, and the federal government acting as the new God and telling us that what is false is true and what is true is false.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection