The Left Still Doesn't Know What a Woman Is with Matt Walsh
Matt Walsh’s ‘What is a Woman?’ took the culture by storm this year, attracting millions of views and enraging countless liberals who couldn't answer the title question. Charlie and Matt Walsh sit down to discuss the massive reaction to the film, how many minds it changed, and more. Plus, they discuss the other events of 2022, and how the conservative movement can come back from some of its recent cultural setbacks. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Changing The Word's Meaning00:13:31
Hey everybody, today in the Charlie Kirk Show, my conversation with Matt Walsh.
Email us your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com, and support the Charlie Kirk Show at CharlieKirk.com slash support.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
Everybody, welcome to this episode.
Matt Walsh is with us.
So, Matt, why should we push back against using people's preferred pronouns?
Well, because it's not, it is the left trying to force us to participate in a lie.
And that's really what it comes down to.
It's become, the pronoun thing has become this kind of symbolic ritual.
You know, they say it's, well, it's about being inclusive, but it's actually, it's more of a, it's like a forced conversion, especially when, you know, people in schools are forced to get to do it.
When you start seeing it in the workplace and all that sort of thing, it's like it's as if it's sort of the unholy satanic version of a secular workplace that requires everyone to do the sign of the cross.
It's like this symbolic religious ritual, which is what the pronoun exchange has become.
But what you're actually doing, even if it's just symbolic, is that you are participating in a falsehood and you just can't do that.
You got to draw the line somewhere.
And I think that's got to be the line.
Where did the pronoun thing come from?
Like, was there an academic paper?
Was there a philosopher that all of a sudden said, hey, no one ever asked, no one ever cared, but now we have to put pronouns in email signatures?
I mean this completely curiously.
I have no idea where this came from.
It disappeared out of nowhere.
Like, oh, like manna from heaven, like here's the pronoun thing.
It feels like it appeared out of nowhere, but I think it's an outcropping of gender ideology, which came into its, you know, you could trace it back kind of as far as you want to.
Yeah, of course.
And you've done a fabulous job of that in your film.
Yeah.
And Carl Truman wrote a book called The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, which if anyone hasn't read that book, have you read that book?
I have not.
You got to read that book.
It's an incredible book.
And he takes this idea, he sort of says, like, we live in a society now where a man can say, I'm a woman trapped in a man's body, and that makes sense to people.
People think it makes sense.
And how did we get to a point where that statement seems to make sense to people intuitively?
And he traces it all the way back, you know, to its philosophical origins 200, 300 years ago.
But I think if you could choose the middle of the 20th century as the time when gender ideology in its current form took shape.
And then the pronoun stuff, that was part of this move, I don't know, seven or eight years ago when all these things that already existed in academic circles exploded onto the mainstream.
And I think it was all kind of part of that.
It's so obviously a manifestation of a societal sickness.
I'm just curious of, was there a concerted effort or was just one of those things where they just started to do it at Oberlin and it just kind of caught on.
They're like, oh, yeah, that's a cool idea.
Let's do that.
It's kind of an attachment onto how tyrannical and radical we've been.
I think it's that.
I think it's, I think in that sense, it is sort of caught on in a way organically, I suppose.
Although I hesitate to say that because if we say that, then it makes it sound like.
There's popularity behind it or something.
Well, it also makes it sound like we're buying into the left's claim that the pronoun stuff, it's just, it's an evolution of language and language evolved.
Of course.
But this is not the evolution of language.
I mean, language can evolve and words can change and that sort of thing.
But what we're seeing now is a kind of top-down proscriptive change where the elites are imposing it on us and saying, you have to start speaking this way.
And if you don't, there's going to be consequences.
That's not language evolution.
That's language engineering.
And that's propaganda.
That's a perfect example is pronouns is one thing, but take something like something absurd, like this Latinx Latinx, however you're supposed to call it.
Totally.
Yeah.
And this is it.
You can see where the Hispanic community doesn't want it.
They have no interest in this.
And yet the left keeps shoving it down their throats.
Maybe 10 years from now, we'll do a poll and a majority of Hispanics, especially younger Hispanics, will say, oh, yeah, I identify as Latin, Latinx.
And then what the left will claim is, you see, language evolved.
No, it didn't evolve.
You forced this.
Through this campaign of propaganda for decades, you finally got people to the point where they accept it.
But that's not language evolution.
That's manipulation.
That's engineering.
Yeah, I mean, that was the word I was coming to.
It's like generational engineering.
It's like feeding an entire generation kale and like, well, do you want cheeseburgers?
No, we only want.
Actually, you've never even tasted it.
You have no idea how good it could be.
So that's just so interesting because we've lived in a society that has changed so gradually than suddenly, to use a Hemingway quote.
And the pronoun thing, what bothers me the most about it is how good people seem to feel when they put it on either their email signature or their social media profile.
There is a virtue signal part of this that is that's almost religious.
It is religious, and it's what's the whole point of a virtue signal is that it's something that takes requires no effort on your part, but it's sending it's kind of a bat signal out to the woke authorities that you're on their side.
So it's a low effort.
It's just like posting the, you know, when they did the black square or whatever, the Ukraine flag.
It's the current thing meme.
It's just a version of that.
And the whole point of virtue signal is that it's something that doesn't require really anything of you.
In a certain sense, in another sense, it actually requires quite a lot of you because it requires you to basically give up your soul, to surrender your soul to them and to say that I'm going to go along with a lie because you tell me to.
So that actually is something quite significant.
But in terms of effort, there's not a lot of effort there.
And that's what people like.
It's a low effort.
You said something interesting.
You said the left argues that language evolves.
Can you just make their argument for me?
Because I find that interesting.
I haven't really thought that too much.
Well, they would, you know, they would point out that if you listen to the way people speak today, it's going to be different from the way people spoke.
Old English versus.
Yeah.
Or even in the 1940s.
People use different words and words change.
But and then even the rules of grammar can change slightly gradually over time.
But it's obviously not what this is.
And also, that's also a descriptive thing.
So maybe people start using words a little bit differently, naturally, and then descriptively it will end up in the language textbooks and the grammar textbooks to reflect what people are doing.
But this is, again, it's a top-down thing.
And the other thing, too, is that it's one thing to change a word.
You know, you could change a word.
Words are meant to do their symbols that describe that stand for something, right?
So it's a verbal symbol.
And so you can use a different symbol to describe something.
That's fine.
But they're not just changing the word.
They're trying to change our perception of what the word describes.
So they're not just saying, let's use the word she to describe men now.
They're saying, we want you to perceive that man as a woman.
That's a fundamentally different thing.
But they're doing it through the process of language.
So they're using an excuse of natural evolving language to actually do something completely different, entirely different.
And the problem is that many people on the right, I think, are very certainly slow to pick up on this.
And it could be difficult too.
There are the obvious examples of language manipulation, but then the left has such a cultural monopoly now, especially on all of our institutions, academic institutions, that there are subtle examples of language manipulation that a lot of us never pick up on.
And so we end up sort of surrendering the argument before it even begins, just by the words we're talking about.
Well, on this topic, the prime example would be the word gender itself, like the fact that we're using, I even use the word gender.
I fall for this all the time.
Yeah.
I use the word gender because it's just, it's being imprecise or you're just sort of being kind of lazy and people know what you mean.
And so you use it.
And I understand that.
But when we use the word gender, we are, whether we mean to or not, we are giving our assent to this idea that gender is another word apart from sex.
And so we need the word gender because for whatever reason, the word sex doesn't suffice.
But in reality, that's not true.
People have a sex.
People don't have a gender.
The idea that people have a gender is that's gender ideology.
That's what it is.
That's what the gender ideologues came up with in the mid-20th century.
So that's what I want to kind of zero in on.
I found this to be amazing.
Your film was terrific.
And I mean that.
I'm a tough grader.
It was one of the most powerful things I've seen in a while on any topic.
And it was so persuasively done because it was so simple where you just go around and ask a question that should be, it really should have been a five-minute film in a healthy society, right?
You go find a bunch of people.
What is a woman?
Get an answer.
Thanks, everybody, for watching and have a nice day.
Instead, it was this huge melodrama.
And you go to Africa and talk to that freak for a few minutes.
And it could have been a three and a half hour film.
We had to cut it down.
The editing room was really tough because there was.
I told Jeremy you guys should still release some of the edited clips because, and I'm sure they would go viral because I can imagine that there was just so much when you went to Women's March and all that.
But one of the things I really appreciated about the film, which could be its own like eight-minute YouTube video, is how you go from Kinsey and you go to all these different people of what they thought, what they believed.
And so I want to zero in on what you just said, and then we'll go to Kinsey and we'll go to the guy with the twins.
I forgot his name.
Money?
Yeah, money.
That's right.
Which I found to be just breathtaking.
Mid-20th century, they came up with this idea of gender.
Who did?
And what was their philosophical justification for that?
Well, it wasn't just one guy, but the guy that I would consider, not just me, but the most would consider the sort of the godfather of gender ideology is John Money.
Okay.
And he did coin some of these phrases, like gender identity as a phrase comes from him.
The idea of people having a gender distinct from sex is, he was one of the pioneers of that idea.
And he was a mid-20th century sexologist in the, you know, kind of the same school of thought of Alfred Kinsey, but he had more of a focus on gender.
And he believed that gender is entirely a social phenomenon.
And so it's something that we kind of give to people.
And so he thought that boys are boys because that's what we have decided as society that they are.
And so if you take a boy and just tell him he's a girl, if that's society, what society tells him, and that then it will reflect that.
And the case that we, the fame, the infamous case that we talk a little bit about in the film, although this could be its own movie.
Yeah, it could be.
And should be, you know, someone should make it.
But this was an infamous case where there was twin boys and one of the, they had a circumcision.
And for one of the boys, it was horribly botched and they essentially burned his penis off.
And parents didn't know what to do about this.
And so they were watching TV one day.
They see John Money saying all these things about how, well, you know, gender is a social construct.
You can make someone whatever gender you want.
And they go to him and he tells them, well, just, we'll do a seat surgery and you'll simply raise the boy as a girl.
And that's exactly what they tried to do.
But it didn't take.
It didn't hold because I wonder why.
Testosterone and, you know, somehow he's still a boy, even.
That's exactly right.
And then he committed suicide or something terrible.
Somebody did, right?
But both of the brothers ended up early deaths in adulthood.
Eventually, the brother that was transitioned decided to transition back when he was in adolescence, early teens.
And he tried to, he eventually got married and he tried to get his life together.
But just what had been done to him by John Money, who and he also brought the twins in and did these sexually abusive experiments.
The whole story is absolutely horrifying, but he ruined these two boys and they both ended up in adulthood killing themselves.
And he's still taken seriously, money.
Yeah, I think people aren't aware of this story.
There's no interest in like, who's going to tell the story?
We can tell it, but you're not going to learn about it in schools.
The public school system isn't going to sit the kids down.
Oprah is not going to do a special on John Money.
We tell everybody in our book club about John Money.
Actually, it's going to happen.
The interesting thing is that she actually did.
Did you back when she was a real journalist?
Right.
Back like 20 years ago.
Back 20 years ago, she had.
I mean, Fat Oprah, not at all.
Exactly.
Back when you could talk about these things, she actually had this Bruce Reimer on to talk about his experiences.
But I'm sure if you were to check back with her now about gender, she does a want to do it.
But so then that's another interesting point before we go deeper into the history.
Is you said, you just said we used to be able to talk about these things.
So Old Oprah had an interesting show.
You know, that used to be something you could talk about.
How is it that gender ideology has become this total thought crime?
I think it's almost more prohibited to talk about than, I don't know, black crime.
Saving Babies With Ultrasound00:02:28
Yeah, I think it's the number one.
It's the ultimate third rail.
I mean, it's the number one thing you're not allowed to talk about.
Because I think it's so fundamental to the left's cultural project that they can't allow you to question it.
Because if you start to question it and you start to be skeptical about it, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, I think.
Because what lays at the root of gender ideology?
There's a reason why in the film, if you watch the film, every single conversation I had with someone on that side would eventually devolve into this kind of punches pilot, what is truth thing.
Yes.
That's what lies at the bottom of it.
It is this project of relativism.
We all get our own truth.
Planned parented VKC, man.
Right, exactly.
And so if they allow us to assert that, well, actually, there are some fundamental truths, like human biology is a fundamental truth, then, well, then they've just admitted that there is a fundamental truth and then lots of, and then the kind of dominoes fall from there.
What if I told you that you could save a baby's life for just $28?
Well, it's true.
Pre-born is a ministry doing just that with the help of you, with your help.
And look, by giving your help, you guys can get a free ultrasound session.
With your help, you can give a free ultrasound session to a woman or a girl who might otherwise choose to end their pregnancy.
We know that pregnant girls and women who can see their babies on ultrasound are far more likely to choose life.
Your gift today can save babies' lives for just $28, and it can give a mother who is abortion-minded the chance to see the truth of the baby that is growing inside her.
$140 can do this for five girls and women.
And $15,000 will provide an ultrasound machine that will save lives for years to come.
Go to charliekirk.com and click on the pre-born banner.
There's no better time than now to save a baby's life.
And right now, your gift is matched dollar for dollar, doubling your impact.
Go to charliekirk.com or call 833-850-2229.
That is charliekirk.com.
That's very insightful, and it's totally true.
So for those of you who don't know, Anthony Kennedy was the deciding vote at 91-92, right?
Plan Punter BKC, which very well could have struck a decisive vote against Roe.
Believing In Smart Children00:15:35
And he has this incoherent psycho babble where he's an otherwise pretty smart guy, where he basically says every person in the modern world can define what they know to be truth in your own existence.
It's something like that, right?
I mean, it was.
Yeah, words to that effect.
Yeah, like that meaning is what you make it in the modern world.
And that's who we are as the modern, right?
Versus the ancient post-enlightenment.
And he says, therefore, if you want to have an abortion, then it's right in your eyes.
And someone else, it might not be right in your eyes.
And so you're right that in your film, and this is the deeper philosophical part of this, is who are we to say that if there's anything that is true?
Essentially, they believe there is no absolute truth.
But then if you ask them if they believe that absolutely, they would say, of course.
Of course, their rejection of absolute truth actually is absolutely true in their own belief.
But if that come from?
Because that really is the underpinning of it.
That it must be, it's just deconstructionist.
It's Rousseauian.
I mean, it's...
Yeah, it comes.
In some ways, it's ancient.
I mean, you could trace it all the way back to the Lucifer.
Yeah, you can trace it back to the Garden of Eden if you want, you know, and before that.
In the film, we captured a few of these exchanges in the film, or we put it in the film, but we couldn't put it all in.
But I can remember maybe the most depressing experience I had doing the film, which says a lot because there's quite a few depressing.
I don't know how you didn't become a darker person because that's a separate issue.
What do you mean?
I did.
It doesn't show.
Yeah, that's not true.
But I can remember walking around the streets doing the Manistree thing in Los Angeles, San Francisco.
Yes, that woman that you talked to, sorry, I didn't mean to rupture.
Yeah, and there's a couple exchanges that are in the film that are just kind of mind-blowing.
One in particular where I asked the woman, she says, well, we all get our own truth.
And I said, well, what if it was my truth that you don't exist?
Does that mean you don't exist anymore?
And she said, yeah, that means I don't exist.
There was another exchange that I don't think it made an end when I'm talking to some women on the same stretch of road there, same kind of conversation.
And not because I took it there.
This is just where they took it.
So like the well, there is no truth.
And we were standing right next to a lamppost.
And I said, what if it's my truth that this lamppost doesn't exist?
Like I'm touching the lamppost.
Could I just walk through it?
And they were a little bit stumped by that.
I don't think that they exactly said yes, but they didn't say no either.
That's because they're agnostic on the question.
Agnostic about whether you could walk through the lamppost.
So if you really believe it, then you can.
It's like Peter Pan if you believe you can fly sort of thing.
And but it's not a fully formed idea.
It can't be because it's fundamentally incoherent, but they just can't allow themselves to confront the possibility that maybe there is a truth that is outside of them, that there are things in the world that are not subject to their own egotistical whims.
They can't allow themselves to consider that possibility because then, again, it's the domino's fault.
Yeah, and what I would say to those young ladies is preach what you practice.
Obviously, you believe it.
You wouldn't get in a car if you didn't believe.
You just run every red light.
Like, it's my belief.
I'm going to be fine.
Right.
Not only do they believe in physical truths, obviously, because they wouldn't be able to function, but they believe in moral truths.
They believe in natural law, whether they want to say they do.
It's just the shackles of reality, right?
Exactly.
If you were to ask them, you know, there's a violent rapist who's in court, like, did he do something wrong?
They would say, of course he did.
They would be offended that you even asked the question, even though the implications of their own belief system is that you cannot say that the rapist did anything wrong because that's his truth, that it's okay to rape.
But they cannot accept that, obviously, because that's a horrific thing.
So this is the tension.
This is the war that they're sort of waging within their own minds.
And it's why they're so confused.
We kind of laugh about it and there are funny moments in the film and everything, but it's also quite disturbing, especially when you think that there are, you know, kids are getting are succumbing to this every single day.
If you go on TikTok and see all the libs of TikTok, and again, it could be funny, but also at the same time, these are kids, tragic.
These are kids who are in the middle of a full-blown identity crisis.
It's a generational-wide identity crisis that's happening.
It's claiming an entire generation of kids to a degree that we've never seen before in human history.
And we can't even imagine where this goes.
I mean, this generation of kids, their trans identification, LGBT identification has risen like 20-fold over their grandparents' generation.
What does it look like 20 years from now?
What does that generation look like 20 years from now trying to live this way?
How does that translate?
I think we're going to see, for one thing, an epidemic of suicide in 10 to 15 years that is just breathtaking.
So not to focus too much on those two young ladies, but I think there is an element of this, and you touch on it perfectly in the film, of people that are really dumb that just want to sound smart.
And they think they're super smart.
Like, oh, yeah, you do whatever you want.
Like, cause I heard this in a college lecture and a TED Talk.
And I just think part of our job is just to kind of sober people and say, you actually don't sound very smart by saying that.
It's remarkably stupid.
Yeah, I think it's really important for us on the right to not get lost in the weeds.
Those girls were not very good.
I think they did want to sound smart.
They weren't very good at it.
But you know what I mean by that.
But you're exactly right.
This is that a lot of it is wanting to sound smart.
And I think sometimes even people on the right can fall for it, especially when it's coming from a more gifted speaker, someone who's more academic, like a professor or something, and they could throw a lot of jargon at you.
And then maybe even get you to walk away saying, well, maybe this is more complicated than I thought.
It's really not.
It's actually very simple.
This is where I think that I actually, in some ways, benefit from the fact that I didn't go to college.
Oh, you didn't?
No, no.
Same.
We have that in common.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, I went to, no, it's not true.
I went to community college for a semester and dropped out.
So I have, I don't even think I have any credits at all.
I took one community college course, but we're both dropouts.
Okay.
Did you complete the course, though?
I think I completely one of them.
Okay.
So you're like a PhD compared to me then.
Oh, is that right?
But this is the advantage that both of us have because it's like if you're, if you don't have all that stuff cluttering your mind, you just tend to think in more simple, common sense ways.
And so I think sometimes it's easier for us to just see through all of that.
Yeah, I just go to Yosemite.
I'm like, there's something in nature that I like.
Right, exactly.
There's a harmony here.
A lot of kids that go to college and it's like they're being conditioned to be impressed by jargon that doesn't mean anything.
Well, no, that's the incentive structure.
You have to write a piece of paper that panders to the intelligentsia, right?
You get an A or you get a C whether or not you regurgitate the idea of the super smart dumb person or the credentialed dumb person that tells you to believe this.
So, Kinsey, this is one of the most powerful parts of the film.
I'll be very honest.
I'd heard his name a couple times, didn't take it seriously.
I went on a total like Kinsey research spree after the film.
This guy is one of the most evil people, I think, in the modern world, if not in recorded human history.
Tell us about him.
Yeah, he's the, well, if John Money is the godfather of gender ideology, then I think that Kinsey is the godfather of the sexual revolution.
And he believed he was working around the same time as John Money, a little bit before him, I believe.
He started his career.
But he believed that, first of all, babies are sexual.
Everyone is sexual from birth.
The only unnatural sex act for a human being is that which they cannot perform.
Right.
And everything else is fine.
So we cannot judge, make any moral judgments at all about any kind of sexual act that anyone wants to participate in, according to Kinsey, including bestiality and pedophilia and all the rest of it.
That we are, you know, we are born from birth to be sexual creatures.
And not only that, but he believed that kind of what we consider to be traditional, normal sexuality and sexual relationships, men and women, making babies, that this was, you know, it's like an, he believed it was kind of a, it was, it was this false image that we've been given, that this is normal, that in reality, these more, these alternative lifestyles are much more common.
And I forget what his exact statistics were, but he, he, you know, did these studies and he would declare that, oh, you know, large percentage of the population is homosexual.
A large percentage of the population does this and that.
These crazy numbers.
Right.
Huge numbers.
And then you look into his research and you find, well, where do you get these numbers from?
Well, he wasn't interviewing normal cross-sections of the public.
He was like insane asylum.
Yeah, he was going to prisons.
He was talking to sex offenders.
That's what he was doing.
And he was extrapolating from that.
He was making extrapolations about the general population based on that.
But even more horrifying was this stuff about how babies are sexual from birth.
And he ran experiments to confirm that as well.
And he would bring in pedophiles and he would have them sexually abuse children and then document it.
And so there's the infamous Table 34, which is in his book, Sexual Behavior of the Human Male, which was his first book.
And it documents, claims to document the orgasms of children all the way down to, I think the youngest was five months old.
And so he would have these pedophile rapists raping these children and then taking notes.
And they would bring the notes into Kinsey and he would sit there and they would talk about it.
And then he would send them out to do more.
It's just, yes, I agree, one of the most evil people in human history, especially when you look at the effect that he's had on the culture.
And yet, I mean, the Kinsey Institute is still a thing.
At Indiana University.
Right.
And he's...
Got a statue to him, the whole thing.
They make movies about it.
They've made multiple recently, Hollywood's made multiple movies about him.
And they either just ignore this stuff or they kind of pepper it over.
They try to glance over it.
But this is also an important point because when we say that a lot of the sex ed in schools is grooming and the left gets very upset about that, well, comprehensive sex education, so-called, is based on Kinsey's ideas.
He's the inventor of comprehensive sex education.
And he was explicitly interested in grooming children for sexual behavior.
It's what he believed.
It's what he wanted to do.
And he came up with these, quote, resources and these educational strategies to do that.
So it's not just a conspiracy theory that they're grooming children with sex ed.
It's what it was invented to do and has been doing for decades.
This is a very difficult truth for a lot of normal people to process, that there is a philosophical tradition that's over 100 years old that is basically was clinically documented on child rape.
Yeah, it's and that's so much of what the left benefits from is that some of what's much of what's happened in our culture is so horrifying that people don't want to believe that it's true.
And so the left, they can do something.
And then if URI points out, hey, they're doing this thing, they can say, I would never do that.
Are you crazy?
That's disgusting.
And the average person who's not paying that close attention would say, oh, yeah, well, they definitely weren't doing that.
You know, castrating children.
He's not that bad.
Liam Neeson played him in a movie.
Come on.
Exactly.
Liam Neeson wouldn't play a bad guy.
Right.
And if someone did that, then they wouldn't have an institute named after them.
Yeah, that's exactly.
There's no way they're not bringing children into hospitals and doing genital, you know, mutilating them, chopping breasts off.
Nobody would do that.
That's crazy.
Well, they are doing it.
That's why so much of our job is like actually raising awareness and just letting people know that this stuff is happening.
I want to be respectful of your time, but Matt, I want to ask you, what did you learn by making the film?
Because you're an expert before you made the film.
You knew a lot of the facts.
You've been doing this for years.
You were ahead of the curve.
You were talking about social conservatism well before I was, and you deserve credit for that.
What did you learn?
What, I mean, behaviorally, factually, what was your big takeaway in the making of this project?
There's a lot that I knew already that was demonstrated to me, and there's a real value in that in demonstrating to people what they already know.
So for me, there was a lot of that.
The thing that I, if I learned something, it was just how pervasive these ideas are and how ubiquitous is this fundamental confusion.
Because what I was not expecting is that when we would travel around the country and go out on the street and talk to normal people, I thought that we would, you know, if we talked to some blue-haired, you know, 20-year-old girl, that we would get a lot of the gender ideology stuff.
But I thought, naively, it turns out that, you know, you stop some average guy, it looks like he's over 50, and you're going to get basic common sense from him.
You ask him, what's a woman?
He's like, hey, a woman's, you know, she has breasts.
And she says, you get an answer like that.
And that's not what happened.
What we found is that the vast majority of people we talked to, no matter their demographics, no matter how old they were, didn't matter race, anything like that, they would start regurgitating to us these basically the same things we hear from the college professors.
They didn't know that they're regurgitating that, but that's what they were doing.
And I found that shocking.
Just how difficult it was.
You know, in the film, we portrayed as though I'm traveling around the entire world and I can't get a straight answer.
I finally get it from my wife in the kitchen.
But that is which I found to be hilarious.
Of course, it's the kitchen.
It's very sexist, of course, because she's in the kitchen.
As I was told by the feminists, but that is actually what happened.
We were desperately looking for people that would give us a straight answer.
It was very difficult to find anyone.
And so we have a lot more work to do, I guess, is what I learned.
How do we defeat them?
I think the first thing is to bring these truths to light, to shed light on the darkness.
That's our first, that's the first job.
And the great thing is that if you do that, a lot of things start to happen on their own.
It's like what we did in Tennessee with Vanderbilt Jews.
This is amazing.
I know people on that board, and you scared the crap out of them.
Yeah, and all we did, all we did was just say, hey, look at what they're doing over here.
And Tunker also shined a big light on it, too.
He did.
And then the public kind of took it from there and spoke out.
So I think shining a light in the darkness is a big thing.
But then also we have to mobilize.
The left for too long, they've been the ones mobilizing.
They're very good at getting out into the street and being visible and being seen.
And I think oftentimes the right kind of has a cynical attitude about that.
They say, I don't want to go around holding a sign.
I have a job.
I don't have time for that.
And I understand that.
But people need to see you.
And also, other people who agree with us need to know that they're not alone.
Yes, that's exactly right.
Events like that you put on all the time are very good at that, like letting people know you're not alone.
Yes.
But we have to bring that also out onto the streets.
I totally agree.
I mean, we should have peaceful protests outside of every one of these gender reassignment clinics regularly.
Agreed.
Matt, I know you got to run.
Thanks so much.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thanks, man.
And check out Matt Walsh's podcast.
It's terrific.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always.
Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.
Thank you so much for listening, and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk dot com.